What will it take to improve the quality of instruction in higher education? An important first step is the ability to measure quality. A variety of measurement systems exist, but how informative are they, and how can we bring greater coherence to instructional measurement in higher education?
On November 17 -- 18, 2014, the William T. Grant Foundation, the Spencer Foundation, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation sponsored a convening of experts on education and the learning sciences to address these questions and to guide possible future initiatives by the foundations.

The report examines incentive structures in colleges and universities, looks at the goals toward which instructional measurement can be directed, describes past and current research on instructional measurement, and summarizes potential future initiatives.

This Kettering Foundation report examines a burgeoning network of organizations that is inventing new forms of community renewal and citizenship education. Their names vary -- some call themselves public policy institutes, others centers for civic life -- yet they share a common methodology, one aimed at tackling tough public issues, strengthening communities, and nurturing people's capacities to participate and make common cause.

Today, there are more than 50 of these centers operating in almost every state in the union, most of them affiliated with institutions of higher learning. Except for a handful that are freestanding, the centers combine the best of what colleges and universities provide -- civics courses, leadership development, service-learning programs, community-based research -- with the kinds of hands-on, collaborative problem solving traditionally done by nongovernmental organizations. Because they operate at the intersection of the campus and the community, their impact extends to both: they nurture and sustain public life while at the same time enriching higher education.

This Kettering Foundation report examines a burgeoning network of organizations that is inventing new forms of community renewal and citizenship education. Their names vary -- some call themselves public policy institutes, others centers for civic life -- yet they share a common methodology, one aimed at tackling tough public issues, strengthening communities, and nurturing people's capacities to participate and make common cause.

Today, there are more than 50 of these centers operating in almost every state in the union, most of them affiliated with institutions of higher learning. Except for a handful that are freestanding, the centers combine the best of what colleges and universities provide -- civics courses, leadership development, service-learning programs, community-based research -- with the kinds of hands-on, collaborative problem solving traditionally done by nongovernmental organizations. Because they operate at the intersection of the campus and the community, their impact extends to both: they nurture and sustain public life while at the same time enriching higher education.

Numerous studies examine public journalism efforts through the practitioner's lens, but scholars, for the most part, have ignored an important aspect of the journalism reform movement -- how journalism educators teach public journalism. David Kurpius, an associate professor of journalism at Louisiana State University, helps bridge this gap in his study of journalism education. In this Kettering Foundation report, Kurpius interviews journalism professors deemed most likely to include public journalism instruction in their syllabi and classroom teaching. He argues that public journalism poses a serious challenge to journalism educators, with many professors missing the democratic connections that are necessary building blocks for students to understand and practice public journalism.

Numerous studies examine public journalism efforts through the practitioner's lens, but scholars, for the most part, have ignored an important aspect of the journalism reform movement -- how journalism educators teach public journalism. David Kurpius, an associate professor of journalism at Louisiana State University, helps bridge this gap in his study of journalism education. In this Kettering Foundation report, Kurpius interviews journalism professors deemed most likely to include public journalism instruction in their syllabi and classroom teaching. He argues that public journalism poses a serious challenge to journalism educators, with many professors missing the democratic connections that are necessary building blocks for students to understand and practice public journalism.

Numerous studies examine public journalism efforts through the practitioner's lens, but scholars, for the most part, have ignored an important aspect of the journalism reform movement -- how journalism educators teach public journalism. David Kurpius, an associate professor of journalism at Louisiana State University, helps bridge this gap in his study of journalism education. In this Kettering Foundation report, Kurpius interviews journalism professors deemed most likely to include public journalism instruction in their syllabi and classroom teaching. He argues that public journalism poses a serious challenge to journalism educators, with many professors missing the democratic connections that are necessary building blocks for students to understand and practice public journalism.

At state and institutional levels, leaders are discussing and enacting policy changes that could shape the future of higher education for decades -- especially public higher education. But when citizens talk about the mission of higher education today, their conversations are different from those of policymakers. How do their values and concerns intersect with the arguments and ideas leaders are putting forward? What are their hopes for -- and concerns about -- higher education? What do they value? What changes do they need to think about and deliberate?

This report to the Kettering Foundation, prepared by Public Agenda, describes the thinking of college students, parents, professors, employers, retirees, and others who gathered in more than 115 public forums, titled "Shaping Our Future," around the country in 2012 -- 2013 to deliberate on the future of higher education. Using a short issue guide, they considered three alternative options for higher education:

• Emphasizing science and technology education to help the economy;
• Offering students a rich, broad education and emphasizing principles such as responsibility, integrity, and working together;
• Expanding opportunity by helping more students attend college and graduate.

The aspirations, observations, and sometimes-conflicted feelings voiced by forum participants are summarized in this report, along with some further questions that arose: What does it mean to be well educated? What does it mean to be prepared for a world of work that changes continually? How do we make higher education affordable -- for governments and for students? What do we mean by "equal opportunity" in higher education? The country needs and could benefit from more public deliberation on the future of higher education, bringing leaders together with students, faculty, and citizens in the broader community to engage these questions.

In 2012 -- 2013, NIF forums held around the country have brought college students, high school students, parents, faculty, employers, retirees, and others together to deliberate about the mission of higher education and the role it should play in the nation's social, political, and economic progress. This interim report finds that Americans outside the policymaking arena want to think and talk about the mission of higher education and its role in shaping our collective future. How does their vision compare with that of leaders now proposing and adopting reforms? The challenge highlighted here is that the country is now having two very different, largely separate, conversations about the future of higher education.