Conceptual Framework

Definitions
Integrating Questions for the Cross-Case Analysis

Definitions

The unit of analysis in this study is a state system of higher education. A system by definition is a collection of subsystemsthat takes one or more kinds of inputs and creates an output that has value to the larger system of which it is in turn a part. For purposes of the study, we defined a higher education systemto include the public and private postsecondary institutions within a state as well as the arrangements for regulating, coordinating and funding them. We considered any institution or collection of institutions overseen by a governing board as a subsystem. States design systems by reserving certain powers and delegating others. Over time, the interplay of reserved and delegated powers shape the key inter-relationships among such forces and pressures as physical structure, reward systems, values and beliefs, work processes, unwritten rules, written rules, and information flows.

Higher education systems operate within a contextual environmentthat includes historical factors, state government, a political culture, an economy, a geography, and population demographics. These elements reflect or contribute to individual needs and expectations, a labor market, and patterns of resource allocation. Higher education subsystems are linked to each other and to state government through a transactional environmentor interfacethat both the state and the higher education subsystems influence, but neither controls. This transactional environment is dominated by work processesthat involve some actors representing state government and others representing higher education. Our study identified four work processesthat differentiate transactional environments among the seven study states:

Information management

Budgeting enables state governments to negotiate with institutions to achieve state priorities. Budget language often calls attention to priorities without changing system arrangements for financing.

Program planning determines the availability, quality, and location of educational programs and services. Planning that is done for the entire system can produce very different results from planning done by each subsystem.

Articulation and collaboration refer to the extent to which higher education institutions see themselves as a system and work together in such tasks as student transfer. These terms also refer to the extent to which postsecondary institutions work closely with the schools that furnish their incoming students.

Some states have established coordinating boards or planning agencies to work with state government. In others, subsystem governing boards for single or multiple institutions work directly with elected leaders or their representatives. While actors from both the contextual and institutional environments move into the interface as circumstances dictate, system governing boards, coordinating boards and planning agencies rarely stray from this arena. The default structure for interface work processes is voluntary coordination. We refer to the sum of a state's decisions about structure and work processes for higher education as its governance structure.

The governance structures of the seven case study states provided examples of four distinct arrangements for structuring the transactional environment. Each is described briefly below.

Federal Systems

Illinois and Texas each have a mixture of institutional and subsystem governing boards for public two- and four-year institutions. Each state also has a coordinating board with responsibilities for all higher education and the authority to play a significant role for all four of the work processes through which institutions and subsystems interact with each other and with elected state officials. In Illinois, the coordinating board implements the priorities of a constitutionally strong Governor, while in Texas the coordinating board must respond to the priorities of a constitutionally strong Legislature. In Illinois, where private higher education plays a major role, the coordinating board also has significant responsibilities for work processes in which this sector participates. We identify the Illinois and Texas systems as federal.

A Unified System

Georgia has a single governing board responsible for all degree-granting public institutions of higher education. The single board and its chancellor manage the interface between state government and institutions. We characterize the Georgia system as unified.

Confederated Systems

Florida, California, and New York have two or more governing boards with responsibility for groupings of higher education institutions. Each state also has some type of planning agency with responsibility for all higher education and the authority to play some role in relation to one or more of the four work processes. In each of these states, however, subsystem governing boards and their appointed executives work directly with elected state leaders to negotiate budgets. California and Florida also each have a coordinating board responsible for community colleges. New York groups its community colleges within subsystems that include four-year institutions. We refer to these states as having confederated systems.

Confederated Institutions

Michigan has multiple governing boards, each responsible for one or more institutions. There is no agency with meaningful responsibility for all higher education. Each governing board with its appointed executive represents the interests of the institution(s) it governs directly to state government through the budgeting process. Four-year institutions and community colleges each have their separate arrangements for voluntary coordination to identify issues on which they are willing to cooperate in dealing with state government and with each other. We refer to Michigan as having confederated institutions.

Integrating Questions for the Cross-Case Analysis

We began the cross-case analysis by writing "integrating questions" designed to organize data from the case reports around the elements of the conceptual framework and our original research questions. The case reports for each state were then used to answer the questions and to develop an interpretive synthesis to serve as the source of data for answering the research questions. The integrating questions are listed below:

System Design

2. Does the higher education system make available to state government and to the general public useful and credible information about characteristics, costs, and performance? Who collects this information? Who disseminates it?

3. How are institutional missions defined and modified? What arrangements exist for monitoring program quality and productivity and for limiting unnecessary program duplication?

4. Who is responsible for allocating resources appropriated by state government to higher education institutions? Are resources allocated in ways that contribute to the attainment of state priorities? Do system participants believe that the process is fair?

5. How does the system encourage collaboration across institutional types and groupings? Who is responsible for reducing barriers to student transfer across institutional types and groupings?

6. To what extent does the interface facilitate or require the active participation of private higher education in the discussion of state policy issues?

Context

2. How have other historical factors (e.g., constitutional status, court orders, voter initiatives, master plans) influenced the relationship between state government and higher education?

3. Have there been recent changes in the contextual environment-such as those stated below-that suggest to the research team the need for more than incremental responses from the higher education system:

a. competition for available resources?

b. fluctuations in the state economy?

c. changing demand for higher education?

d. increasing diversity among the student population?

4. Do elected state leaders identify and actively support priorities for higher education?

System Performance

2. How effective has the system been in identifying and responding to contextual change?

3. How effective has the system been in balancing institutional and systemwide priorities when these priorities conflict?

4. How efficient is the system in terms of operating costs per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student?

5. What level of access does the system provide in terms of the proportions of high school graduates starting college anywhere?

6. How successful is the public system in enrolling and graduating students from minority backgrounds in comparison with their white counterparts?

7. How affordable is the system when tuition and student aid are taken into consideration?

8. How successful is the system in achieving high retention and graduation rates among undergraduates?

9. What range of institutional choices does the system provide to undergraduate students?

10. How effective is the system in attracting and supporting strong institutional leaders?

[ DOWNLOAD | CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT ]

[ HOME | REPORTS | CROSSTALK | RESOURCES | ORDER ]