This report attempts to explain how state governance structures
influence the priorities for higher education and the means for
pursuing them in seven large and diverse states. We hope to encourage
elected state officers, senior system and subsystem officers,
college and university administrators, and the general public
to think in new ways about how to design educational systems to
increase the probability that institutions will be responsive
to the public interest as reflected in the priorities established
through democratic processes. The "product" of the study is a
way of understanding the variables we examined grounded in case
study data and informed by the efforts of others who have examined
similar issues. The explanations were built by comparing the ways
in which historical factors, system design, and governance structures
influence higher education performance in each of the seven states
beginning with the pilot state (Illinois), and testing that explanation
in each of the other six states. The explanations offered in this
paper best explained the influences of system design and governance
structures in all seven states.
We do not suggest that the explanations presented here are the
only ones possible. One major purpose of this study (and of qualitative
designs in general) is to challenge others to improve upon our
explanation, and thus contribute to the continuing advance of
understanding on governance issues. This report to our funding
agency will be distributed to others as an additional test of
the usefulness of the explanation. After we have had time to study
and respond to criticisms, the final version of our work will
be published by Oryx Press in cooperation with the American Council
on Education.
We begin by stating the concerns that led to our decision to conduct the study. This is followed by brief descriptions of the research questions that guided the inquiry and by an overview of the methodology. We next define the terms and constructs used in presenting our results and group the seven state systems we studied into four configurations. The "integrating questions" we used to organize this analysis are then listed, followed by answers to these questions that were derived from the case reports. (The individual case reports are published separately.) Finally, we provide answers to our original research questions.
These questions derive from issues under discussion in California
and elsewhere where the current debate centers on priorities,
mechanisms for their implementation, effective use of student
time, redistribution of state resources, and careful study of
new facilities. One focal point is the relationship between state
priorities and the services that institutions deliver. At least
one source has suggested that the gap is widening between state
priorities and the services provided by higher education.
The debate on governance issues embraces private as well as public
institutions. Per capita costs for public sector enrollments as
well as total public spending on higher education tend to be lower
in states where there is a large private sector and a favorable
attitude toward its utilization. Conversely, poorer states that
rely more heavily on the public sector also tend to have higher
per capita student costs.
States exhibit considerable variation in the approaches they take
to governing and coordinating their postsecondary education systems.
Even the most comprehensive efforts to classify differences in
structures fall short of capturing the full complexity present
in some of the more populous states. Perhaps the best known taxonomy
for classifying statewide structures distinguishes three basic
types of state structures. According to this taxonomy, ten consolidated governing board states(including Georgia) have a single board responsible for all postsecondary
education. Thirteen consolidated governing board states(including Florida) have a separate board for community colleges.
Coordinating board statesassign responsibility for some or all of nine functions (planning,
policy leadership, policy analysis, mission definition, academic
program review, budgetary processes, student financial assistance,
accountability systems, and institutional authorization) to a
single agency other than a governing board. Of the 26 coordinating
board states, 22 (including Illinois, Texas and New York) have
regulatory authority, while the remainder (including California)
have advisory authority. The five planning agency states(including Michigan) have no organization with authority that
extends much beyond voluntary planning and convening.
Beyond these distinctions, some states (including Florida, New
York and Michigan) have a state board or agency with some responsibilities
for all levels of education. Coordinating or governing boards
may oversee segmental subsystems of institutions with homogeneous
missions (as in California) or multicampus subsystems with heterogeneous
missions (as in New York and Florida). They may also coordinate
primarily small subsystem boards or single-institution boards
(as in Illinois) or mixed single-institution boards and multicampus
or segmental subsystems (as in Texas).
Regardless of how a state organizes its higher education enterprise,
it must find ways of: (1) identifying public priorities among
the interests articulated by groups inside and outside of government;
(2) organizing and administering a formal system out of fragmented
parts; (3) enhancing the quality and protecting the integrity
of the academic enterprise; and (4) providing reasonable freedom
of choice to promote system flexibility and adaptability.
Various criteria have been proposed for evaluating system success in balancing these sometimes conflicting expectations. McGuinness suggests buffering political intrusion, avoiding geopolitical problems, maintaining continuity in decision making, sustaining attention to system issues, supporting institutional presidents, articulating an understanding of system mission, facing up to change, and dealing with public policy issues. Based on their study of four states (Maine, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee), Schick et. al. concluded that effective structures are characterized by lay board members who understand their roles, by good working relationships and open communication among internal and external constituencies, by sensitive and honest educational leaders who respect and support each other while remaining faithful to institutional vision and needs, by accountability to state government, and by institutions freed from narrow governmental regulations. They add that effective systems have stable state structures that are perceived by participants as better than whatever they replaced.
2. How do historical factors influence the design and functioning
of higher education governance structures?
3. How does contextual change influence the priorities states
pursue through the resources they invest in their higher education
systems?
4. How does performance-as defined by the following criteria-differ among state systems of higher education in relation to their choice of governance structure:
b. capacity to identify and respond to change?
c. success in balancing institutional and statewide interests?
d. efficient use of available resources?
e. access?
f. equity?
g. affordability?
h. quality (undergraduate performance and economic development)?
i. choice?
j. institutional leadership?
5. How are the strategies used by elected leaders to influence
system performance affected by governance structures?
Illinois was selected as the pilot case because of the long-term
stability of its governance structure and because team members
believed that access to documents and interviews could be easily
arranged. While the study sought the cooperation of the higher
education governing/coordinating board in each state, selection
was not contingent upon agreement by the State Higher Education
Executive Officer (SHEEO) to participate. The research team chose
this approach to avoid biasing the study by limiting its purposeful
sample to states that wanted to participate.
Over 200 individuals were interviewed for this study (see Appendix
A). Case study teams interviewed: members of governors' staffs;
state legislators; members of higher education coordinating or
governing boards or commissions; current and former state higher
education agency officials; legislative budget analysts; campus-,
subsystem- and system-level trustees, presidents, and staff; and
representatives of faculty organizations. The research team also
reviewed articles in the public media on higher education and
talked with education writers for major newspapers in several
states. Finally, Kent Halstead of Research Associates of Washington
was commissioned to prepare a report that identified the principal
operating variables of state-level public higher education and
provided special commentary for the seven study states based on
data available in the National Center for Education Statistics'
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and his
own survey of state higher education financial officers.
A case report integrated all sources of data for each state in
a format that preserved the anonymity of individuals interviewed.
Case reports were reviewed for accuracy by knowledgeable insiders
from each participating state. Following the check on the accuracy
of individual case studies, an interpretive synthesis was written
as a first step in the cross-case analysis. A single case study
(Illinois) was used to develop a first draft to effectively explain
the relationships among the variables identified by the research
questions. Following a critique of the model by the National Advisory
Panel and the completion of additional case studies for other
states, a revised explanation was developed and once again shared
with the National Advisory Panel. Following this critique, the
current report was written to answer the research questions that
drove the study. Efforts to clarify and apply the model are ongoing.
Back to top
[ DOWNLOAD | CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT ]
[ HOME | REPORTS | CROSSTALK | RESOURCES | ORDER ]