States often publish data dictionaries or manuals that showcase which data elements their systems collect. This resource links to every public education-to-workforce data dictionary, data manual, or related document our team identified in early care and education, K-12, postsecondary and workforce data systems across all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Explore the following data points in our 50-State Comparison:
This directory is part of our toolkit designed to support states in creating more effective data systems by using the Education-to-Workforce Indicators Framework created by the Gates Foundation and Mathematica.
This resource is a part of a toolkit designed to help states create more effective data systems.
This dashboard is aligned with the Education-to-Workforce Indicators Framework, which outlines 99 indicators spanning early care and education, K-12, postsecondary, workforce and related systems. Developed by the Gates Foundation and Mathematica, it helps states use data to advance educational opportunity and economic mobility.
You'll find links to thousands of public dashboards and reports that provide information on education and workforce across every state and the District of Columbia. This resource aims to help state education and workforce leaders gauge how fully they can answer essential questions about student progress from early education into the workforce.
Public postsecondary institutions rely on state funding serving as one of the primary sources of funding for public two- and four-year institutions. States vary considerably in how they structure their budget processes and which metrics they prioritize in determining funding levels. This 50-State Comparison summarizes the key policy decisions state leaders make in funding higher education in their state, including: the state’s budget process; funding model; and which factors drive funding allocations, based on enrollment, staffing and facilities, and/or student performance.
The information has been collected from state statutes, state rules and regulations, state budget bills, and state postsecondary education board or agency policies. This resource does not include information related to setting tuition rates or student financial aid.
The 50-State Comparison was created in partnership with the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS). For more information on funding levels in states, please see the State Higher Education Finance Report prepared annually by the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association.
50-State Comparisons
Click the items below to see data for all states:
View a specific state’s approach by going to the state profiles page.
Key Takeaways
Budget Process: In many states, the postsecondary coordinating or governing board submits the budgetary request to the governor and state legislature rather than individual institutions submitting the request. This is the budget process in 44 states and the District of Columbia for 2-year institutions and 42 states and the District of Columbia for 4-year institutions.
Funding Model: States often use multiple approaches to determine funding levels for postsecondary institutions. These approaches may be based on historical funding levels (base plus), funding formulas, institutional requests or a combination of these methods. See the data point for definitions for each of the funding models.
Enrollment Factors: Most states factor in a measure of student enrollment, such as full-time equivalence, in the funding allocation to 2-year institutions (37 states) and 4-year institutions (29 states). States also factor in counts of specific student populations, such as students who are eligible to receive a Pell Grant.
Staffing and Facility Factors: States factor in a measure of staffing or facility needs, such as number of faculty or average compensation, in the funding allocation to 2-year institutions (21 states) and 4-year institutions (19 states).
Performance Factors: Most states factor in a performance measure, such as student completion, credential attainment or job placement, in the funding allocation to 2-year institutions (31 states) and 4-year institutions (29 states).
Related Resources
View individual state profiles on postsecondary education funding policies by selecting a state below or view 50-State Comparisons on each data point.
Schools continue to face specific and persistent teacher shortages in certain subjects, such as upper-level math and special education, and in certain schools, including historically under-resourced schools and rural schools. These shortages are more likely to impact schools that serve students in rural and urban areas, linguistically diverse students, students identified for special education and students of color. Shortages contribute to students being taught by inexperienced or out-of-field teachers, and they can be financially costly for schools and districts. Declining participation in teacher preparation programs, coupled with high turnover in the profession, suggests that a comprehensive approach that accounts for each stage of the teacher pipeline is necessary to recruit and retain effective teachers.
View individual state profiles on teacher recruitment and retention policies by selecting a state below or view 50-State Comparisons on each data point.
This 50-State Comparison examines state and systemwide developmental education policies. Developmental education, sometimes referred to as remedial education, is designed to develop foundational knowledge in reading, writing and mathematics for students whom the institution deems underprepared for college-level course work based on placement policies and readiness assessments.
Traditional developmental education practices have frequently acted as barriers to student success, most notably for racially minoritized students, adult learners and low-income students who are overrepresented in these courses. These non-credit courses extend time to graduation, increase dropout rates and leave students with debt but no credentials. Over the past three decades, colleges and universities have implemented reforms to create more equitable outcomes in first-year English and courses, also known as gateway courses.
The Strong Start to Finish framework builds on these developmental education reform efforts by emphasizing four key evidence-based areas of reform:
These approaches focus on diversifying placement criteria with multiple measures beyond standardized assessments, replacing traditional remedial courses with corequisite models for accelerated credit earning, aligning first credit-bearing mathematics courses with degree pathways and prioritizing momentum metrics alongside localized and disaggregated data. Evidence shows that these strategies improve student outcomes by helping students earn more credits and progress toward credential completion.
Note: Depending on the higher education governance structure in each state, a state may have several policies included in this resource. System-level initiatives, collaborations and programs are excluded. Consequently, while the Strong Start to Finish framework informs this scan, Alignment — which focuses on aligning first-year credit-bearing mathematics courses with degree pathways — is excluded, as these reforms typically occur through system initiatives or transfer agreements, which are not uniformly tracked as state policy.
Click on the questions below for a 50-State Comparison showing how states and postsecondary systems approach these policies. Or view a specific state’s approach by going to the individual state profiles page.
Placement reform policies use multiple measures beyond standardized test scores to predict student success in gateway courses regarded as credit-bearing English and mathematics classes more accurately.
Key Terms
Cut Score: The lowest scores a student can receive on an assessment to be considered college ready.
Multiple Measures: Evidence beyond an assessment score that a student may present that can be used to determine if they are ready to be placed into a college-level course. High school GPA is recognized as the best predictor and can be used in conjunction with other methods. In this resource, the following categories are used:
Acceleration reform policies aim to replace long sequences of developmental education courses with accelerated corequisite models. These models are known to increase the chances of students completing gateways courses in their first year, thus accelerating their progression towards graduation. Instructional methods and corequisite support are essential data points for acceleration reforms because they demonstrate how states ensure students succeed in credit-bearing gateway courses while receiving targeted academic assistance.
Key Terms
Corequisite Support: Sometimes referred to as corequisite remediation, corequisite support is a model that provides students with immediate access to credit-bearing, college-level courses, while concurrently offering targeted academic support. State and system policies were examined to determine whether corequisite support is proposed and, if so, whether it is allowed or required.
Instructional Methods: The strategies used to design and implement corequisite support models. If corequisites are allowed or required, the instructional formats were reviewed. They include, but are not limited to:
Data reform policies involve collecting, reporting and using disaggregated student data to support successful completion of credit-bearing English and mathematics courses within the students’ first year of enrollment.
Key Terms
Reporting Requirements: Effective data practices emphasize reporting momentum metrics, localized information and disaggregated data to address gaps among racially minoritized students, adult learners and low-income students. In this resource, the following reporting requirements were reviewed:
View individual state profiles on developmental education policies by selecting a state below or view 50-State Comparisons on each data point.
Copyright 2026 / Education Commission of the States. All rights reserved.
