This article introduces a collection of empirical work that examines the role of state policy in promoting students’ progression into and through higher education. We provide an overview of U.S. state policy innovations that have occurred in recent years and we identify both the challenges and opportunities associated with studying public policy and higher education attainment in the states. The article concludes by outlining the perspectives of the articles included in this collection and provides a synopsis of each.
CarnevaleAnthonySmithNicoleStrohlJeffrey. 2010. Help wanted: Projections of jobs and education requirements through 2018. Washington, DC: Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce. Available from http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/FullReport.pdf.
DynarskiSusan. 2002. Race, income, and the impact of merit aid. In Who should we help? The negative social consequences of merit scholarships, eds. HellerDonald E.MarinPatricia, 77–92. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
5.
HearnJ. C.McLendonMichael K.MokherChristine. 2008. Accounting for student success: An empirical analysis of the origins and spread of state student unit-record systems. Research in Higher Education49 (8): 665–83.
6.
HillmanNicholasOriansErica. 2013. The role of financial aid in meeting state college completion goals. Education Finance and Policy8 (3): 249–363.
7.
JonesDennis. 2009. A public agenda for higher education: What is it? Do we have one?Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.
8.
LedermanDouglas. 18November2013. Performance funding underperforms. Inside Higher Ed. Available from http://www.insidehighered.com.
9.
McLendonMichael K.Cohen-VogelLoraWachenJohn. 2014. Understanding education policymaking and policy change in the American states: Learning from contemporary policy theory. In Handbook of educational politics and policy, 2d ed., eds. CooperBruceCibulkaJames G.FusarelliLance D.New York, NY: Routledge.
10.
McLendonMichael K.HearnJames C.DeatonRuss. 2006. Called to account: Analyzing the origins and spread of state performance-accountability policies for higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis28 (1): 1–24.
11.
McLendonMichael K.HellerDonaldLeeStephanie. 2009. High school to college transition policy in the American states. Educational Policy23:385–418.
12.
McLendonMichael K.MokherChristineFloresStella M.2011. Legislative agenda-setting for in-state resident tuition policies: Immigration, representation, and educational access. American Journal of Education117 (4): 563–602.
13.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2013. Education at a glance 2013: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.
14.
PernaLaura W.2006. Studying college choice: A proposed conceptual model. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, vol. 21, ed. SmartJohn C., 99–157. New York, NY: Springer.
15.
PernaLaura W.FinneyJoni E.2014. The attainment agenda: State policy leadership in higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
16.
StiglitzJoseph E.2012. The price of inequality: How today’s divided society endangers our future. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.
17.
ZumetaWilliamKinneAndrea. 2011. Accountability policies: Directions old and new. In The states and public higher education policy: Affordability, access, and accountability, 2d ed., ed. HellerDonald E., 173–99. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
