This report takes a look at how government officials have pressed college accreditors to focus more on "student outcomes" -- quantifiable indicators of knowledge acquired, skills learned, degrees attained, and so on. It then argues that it is not these enumerated outcomes that are the best way to hold colleges accountable, but rather the evidence of student engagement in the curriculum -- their papers, written examinations, projects, and presentations -- that holds the most promise for spurring improvement in higher education. Furthermore, this engagement is also a key factor in keeping students in school all the way to graduation. The report concludes that reformers seeking to enhance college performance and accountability should focus not on fabricated outcome measures but instead on the actual outputs from students' academic engagement, the best indicators of whether a college is providing the quality teaching, financial aid, and supportive environment that make higher learning possible, especially for the disadvantaged.

This report is the first of a series from The Century Foundation, sponsored by Pearson. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or position of Pearson. The series grew out of an August 2014 conference at which researchers and several university presidents were exploring new paths to diversity in higher education in light of emerging legal constraints on race-based affirmative action. As participants discussed ideas to ensure access for low-income and minority students, university leaders were equally concerned about how to improve rates of college graduation by disadvantaged students.

The high price of college is the subject of media headlines, policy debates, and dinner table conversations because of its implications for educational opportunities, student and family pocketbooks, and the economy. Some people caution against giving too much weight to the advertised price of a college education, pointing out that the availability of financial aid means that college is not as expensive as people think it is. But they overlook a substantial problem: for many students, the real price of college is much higher than what recruitment literature, conventional wisdom, and even official statistics convey. Our research indicates that the current approach to higher education financing too often leaves low-income students facing unexpected, and sometimes untenable, expenses.

Financial challenges are a consistent predictor of non-completion in higher education, and they are becoming more severe over time. Unexpected costs, even those that might appear modest in size, can derail students from families lacking financial cushions, and even those with greater family resources. Improving college completion rates requires both lowering the real price of attending college -- the student's remaining total costs, including tuition, books, and living expenses, after financial aid -- to better align with students' and families' ability to pay, and providing accurate information to help them plan to cover the real price of college.

Many policymakers argue that bringing the personal and public benefits of higher education to an expanded population of Americans is important for the economy and to address inequality. Financial aid policies, they assume, help those with scarce resources to earn their degrees. But these policies often fall short, and when students have difficulty paying for college, they are more likely to focus their energies on working and raising funds rather than studying and attending classes, and are less likely to complete their degrees.

As scholarship has become increasingly narrow and disconnected from public life, Kettering research has documented an intense sense of malaise in higher education, what Harry Boyte has called a loss of civic agency. Surprisingly, however, faculty at a few campuses have begun to self-organize to integrate civic work into their teaching and research. This study, by Blase Scarnati and Romand Coles, documents such efforts at Northern Arizona University. Rather than making civic engagement a specific project of one or two faculty, what makes this campus special is that civic engagement has taken hold across the university. Building on research by KerryAnn O'Meara, this working paper shows that civic engagement is not only fulfilling to faculty at an individual level but is starting to impact the civic culture of their institutions.

In higher education today, most institutions reward faculty for such things as research productivity, course enrollment, and academic completion. There is little incentive for them to focus on educating students in their civic development. In spite of this, civic engagement programs are popping up across higher education, and faculty have played a critical role in initiating these programs on their campuses. Building on research by Harry Boyte and KerryAnn O'Meara. The Kettering Foundation seeks to make visible the motivations of these faculty. In this study for Kettering, based on faculty interviews, Claire Snyder-Hall explains this movement using Hannah Arendt's concept of "public happiness," a sense of fulfillment from engaging with others. Beyond higher education, this study has relevance across fields to practitioners struggling to integrate their civic aspirations into their professional work.

Almost everyone is familiar with the African saying, "It takes a village to raise a child." However, there are very few "villages" that actually engage in this practice. The educational assets of the village include the knowledge of neighborhood residents, the clubs, groups, and associations that are citizen-based learning environments and the local institutions (businesses, not-for-profits, and government bodies). They all provide incredible learning opportunities. It is these neighborhood educational assets that are activated in a village that raises its children.

In most communities, however, these invaluable resources are unused and disconnected from the lives of young people. It appears that in one to two generations, villages have lost their power to raise children. Their functions have largely been transferred to schools. This transfer is reflected by the fact that in the last generation, schools have been asked to take responsibility for the health, safety, food, recreation, behavior, moral values, and entrepreneurial development of young people.

This Kettering Foundation working paper by John McKnight, codirector of the Asset-Based Community Development Institute, Northwestern University, presents some of ABCD's research in assisting people in local neighborhoods to identify the local teaching knowledge.

Almost everyone is familiar with the African saying, "It takes a village to raise a child." However, there are very few "villages" that actually engage in this practice. The educational assets of the village include the knowledge of neighborhood residents, the clubs, groups, and associations that are citizen-based learning environments and the local institutions (businesses, not-for-profits, and government bodies). They all provide incredible learning opportunities. It is these neighborhood educational assets that are activated in a village that raises its children.

In most communities, however, these invaluable resources are unused and disconnected from the lives of young people. It appears that in one to two generations, villages have lost their power to raise children. Their functions have largely been transferred to schools. This transfer is reflected by the fact that in the last generation, schools have been asked to take responsibility for the health, safety, food, recreation, behavior, moral values, and entrepreneurial development of young people.

This Kettering Foundation working paper by John McKnight, codirector of the Asset-Based Community Development Institute, Northwestern University, presents some of ABCD's research in assisting people in local neighborhoods to identify the local teaching knowledge.

Almost everyone is familiar with the African saying, "It takes a village to raise a child." However, there are very few "villages" that actually engage in this practice. The educational assets of the village include the knowledge of neighborhood residents, the clubs, groups, and associations that are citizen-based learning environments and the local institutions (businesses, not-for-profits, and government bodies). They all provide incredible learning opportunities. It is these neighborhood educational assets that are activated in a village that raises its children.

In most communities, however, these invaluable resources are unused and disconnected from the lives of young people. It appears that in one to two generations, villages have lost their power to raise children. Their functions have largely been transferred to schools. This transfer is reflected by the fact that in the last generation, schools have been asked to take responsibility for the health, safety, food, recreation, behavior, moral values, and entrepreneurial development of young people.

This Kettering Foundation working paper by John McKnight, codirector of the Asset-Based Community Development Institute, Northwestern University, presents some of ABCD's research in assisting people in local neighborhoods to identify the local teaching knowledge.