Assessing Structure

The State University System
The Community Colleges
The Statewide Perspective on Higher Education

In recommending changes for the future of higher education in Florida, the Business Higher Education Partnership strongly believes that the state should not make any structural changes in higher education. In fact, the report released by this body stated:

The first conclusion of the Business/Higher Education Partnership is that Florida has an excellent structure for higher education. In our judgment, the form of governance and organization for Florida's 10 state universities, 28 community colleges, and 23 accredited private universities and colleges has provided Florida with a superb system.

In spite of the partnership's strong sentiment on this matter, few people interviewed for this study expressed satisfaction with the structure of the higher education system. Major concerns cited include: (1) the limited capacity to address issues that the various sectors of higher education have in common (for example, vocational education and general education for students seeking baccalaureate degrees); (2) lack of a statewide data base for effective policy decision-making; (3) legislative interference in higher education operational issues; (4) lack of a statewide agenda for higher education; and (5) too much centralization in the SUS and too much decentralization in the community college system.

The State University System

It is difficult to distinguish the influence of the structure of the University System and the influence of its current chancellor. Charles Reed's powerful leadership of the system appears to be undisputed. When speaking about the advantages of the present system, campus administrators mentioned such things as: shared resources in times of crisis (for instance, Hurricane Andrew); the effective management of competition (reducing program duplication); institutional flexibility to pursue institutional missions; the advantage of having a national flagship institution within the system; and cost effectiveness in various services (legal staff, costs of individual governing boards, etc.).

Others, mostly from outside the higher education system, cite the bureaucracy of the University System and the costs of centralization as a weakness of the present structure. Some believe that the strength of the chancellor's office has reduced the role of presidential leadership to "cheer leading and fundraising." A number of state officials see the systemwide office as an impediment to addressing statewide priorities and solving problems. Some of those interviewed called the system "reactive" to state priorities, instead of assisting the state in developing an agenda for higher education.

With equal vigor, many university officials discussed what they perceive as undue legislative interference and inappropriate levels of decision making. These people believe that the chief role of the chancellor and the Board of Regents in this regard is to protect the institutions from too much interference, or, as one respondent stated, "to deal head-on with the Legislature." Another state official noted, "Once you've decided to have a system, you need a strong one with strong leadership."

Some state officials agreed that the institutions need more authority. In fact, some want to eliminate the systemwide office altogether and give campus presidents more authority for setting the directions for their institutions, with some accountability to the Legislature. The "deregulation" proposal from Charles Reed in the midst of dire budget predictions stopped far short of eliminating the system office, but stressed the need for increased management flexibility. The recent proposal on deregulation by UF President John Lombardi also fell short of recommending the elimination of the central office, but argued for campus autonomy in setting tuition levels.

A number of people believe that the structural deficiencies of the University System go beyond the organization of higher education in Florida and have more to do with sunshine laws and revenue limitations the state has imposed upon itself.

The Community Colleges

Roughly the same number of people that expressed frustration over the centralization of the University System expressed frustration about the decentralized nature of the community colleges. Some people believe that the trustee appointment process, made by the Governor, allows for little accountability to local communities. Others talked about the lack of a systemwide data base that could provide better information on which to base policy decisions. Many said that they perceive the State Board for Community Colleges as a weak effort to coordinate the entire system.

Another concern mentioned frequently in reference to community colleges is the duplication of vocational programs with the technical centers under school district supervision. Virtually no statewide planning occurs that pulls together the various institutions responsible for vocational and occupational education in the state.

The recent study of credit hours in the state called attention, once more, to the problems of articulation between educational sectors in Florida. Many students transfer to four-year institutions prior to completing the associate's degree. Some students transfer with 60 credits, but do not complete the general education course credits. Many transfer students may get credit for their course work, but that credit does not meet the specific requirements of individual institutions.

Problems not only exist in the transfer of credit from two- to four-year institutions, but also within the program requirements of different community colleges. One state official told us about several nursing programs in the community colleges with major differences in their course requirements to earn an associate's degree. Some members of the Legislature and their staff are currently trying to convene community college faculty to work through some of the confusion about various degree requirements.

The Statewide Perspective on Higher Education

There is one point of general consensus about the structure of higher education in Florida: no one group or organization is charged with the responsibility and authority to set a statewide policy agenda and get the cooperation from all other entities to implement it. Because the Board of Education is made up of an elected cabinet whose members focus primarily on their own agencies or on K-12 education, virtually no attention is given to higher education policy issues. PEPC was created to serve as an advisory body to the Board of Education, but the appointments to the commission are generally viewed as weak and the opportunity to influence higher education policy as very limited. The Legislature by default is the chief policy-making body for higher education. Many people in Florida have concerns about this approach because the Legislature tends to focus on immediate issues, not long-term problems and solutions. To many, this approach also places too much power in the hands of legislative staff, who are perceived by university officials to be unprepared for the task.

Furthermore, many of those interviewed stated that this is exactly the way the Legislature prefers to operate its higher education system. They have not pursued attempts to strengthen the authority of PEPC or of the Board of Regents. Proposals occasionally surface to "decentralize" the State University System and eliminate or reduce the powers of the Board of Regents and the systemwide office, but few believe there will be action on fundamental structural change.

[ DOWNLOAD | CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT ]

[ HOME | REPORTS | CROSSTALK | RESOURCES | ORDER ]