| The purpose for this study was to expand on a previous investigation that attempted to link state higher education performance measures with variables outside the control of higher education. Such variables---called state contextual variables---may be controlled at the state level while others are controlled neither by the state nor by higher education. This study's purpose was to explore possible linkages between the state contextual variables from the Martinez, Farias, & Arellano 2002 article, "State higher education report cards: What's in a grade?" (Review of Higher Education), with the various data sets (subcategories) that comprised the state higher education performance measures, as given by Measuring up 2002 (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2002), a national report card for state higher education performance.;The study was guided by the following two questions: (a) For the population of 50 states, are there any relationships (that exist) between the Measuring up 2002 report card subcategories and the Martinez, Farias, and Arellano (2002) contextual ratios? (b) Are the Measuring up 2002 report card subcategories functions of the various elements of the states' higher education environment as determined by the Martinez, Farias, and Arellano (2002) contextual ratios? This study set out to explore but not establish a cause and effect relationship between the contextual variables and the report card subcategories.;This investigation tested the strength of the relationships between the grades' subcategories and the Martinez et al. (2002) contextual variables. The researcher used correlations and multiple linear regression analysis to test the relationship and predictability of the Martinez et al. variables for each of the report card subcategory variables.;The study found that spending in K--12 and higher education had positive correlations to the various subcategories. High tuition rates do not deter participation and in fact improve it. Preparation and completion are largely functions of income, but K--12 investment might well balance out the negative effect of low income. Negative correlations for poverty and the minority ratios were consistently found throughout the study. The community college contribution was not readily apparent. This determination provides direction for future study. |
