The University System of Georgia is coordinated by the chancellor's office and Board of Regents through a series of processes that evolve from the board's responsibilities for planning and budgetary activities. The current administration has been particularly active and is using the coordinating processes to set new priorities and to redirect the system toward those priorities.
The vision statement, entitled "Access to Academic Excellence
for the New Millennium," was developed by consulting the board
and the presidents. In separate groups, board members and presidents
were asked to identify system issues and priorities, and to provide
a vision for the direction which the system should move in the
next century. The results of the separate deliberations were said
to be similar, and the vision statement was developed from these
ideas.
The vision statement suggests that the University System be characterized
by "a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts"; "active
partnerships with business and industry, cultural and social organizations,
and government"; leadership in establishing higher state standards
for post-secondary education"; and "the continuing improvement
of every unit and of the System as a coordinated whole" through
a constitutional board that "requires full accountability from
all and that insures responsible stewardship."
Accompanying the vision statement is a set of "guiding principles
for strategic action" that are said to guide all policy decisions.
One university administrator suggested that the principles "provide
the foundation for launching policy directives." These principles
are broken down into such areas as: academic excellence and recognition,
development of human resources, efficient use of resources, system
strength through governance, and effective external partnerships.
The chancellor and Regents developed a set of policy directives
or initiatives that directly relate to these guiding principles.
The system established a three-phase process for implementing
its "change agenda," with each phase lasting about a year. The
first phase involved the development of the vision and guiding
principles, as well as the specific policy initiatives. The second
phase includes the charge to the campuses to develop implementation
plans for the different initiatives identified by the board. Task
forces on the campuses, composed of students, faculty and community
representatives, are responsible for implementation. Through this
process, the board sets its direction, and the institutions develop
plans in response to those directions. The third phase is the
institutionalization phase, where the new initiatives become part
of the institutional culture.
The initiatives put forward by the chancellor and the Board of
Regents have covered a wide range of issues in higher education.
These include: a mission development and review process with a
coordinated reformation of missions for all institutions; an admissions
initiative that calls for stronger coordinated admissions requirements
throughout the system; the creation of active partnerships between
the University System and K-12 schools, businesses, and other
organizations; a partnership with the Department of Technical
and Adult Education; a preschool-to-college (P-16) initiative
that aims for a systemic collaboration among all sectors of education;
movement toward a semester calendar; faculty and staff development
including a post-tenure review system; a new tuition policy; and
several other processes. Although campus presidents were consulted
on these initiatives, most of the consultation took place by fax;
presidents often had about a week to offer comments on initiatives
before they were brought to the board. Once developed, the initiatives
were issued as very concise statements that listed goals, tied
those goals to the strategic planning directives, and suggested
some general courses of action for the system and its institutions,
but left the implementation design up to the institutions.
The agenda was defined by one legislator as on-going, one that
looks to raise standards and to ensure more efficient use of resources.
Throughout the process, according to the legislator, there is
an effort to make decisions for the university as a whole rather
than to foster competition among the separate elements. In all
of these initiatives, then, there is a great deal of emphasis
on working and acting as a system. The initiatives that got the
most attention from the individuals we spoke with included the
partnership with the Department of Technical and Adult Education,
the P-16 initiative, and the attempt to raise academic standards.
Partnership with DTAE
The partnership between the University System and the Department
of Technical and Adult Education (DTAE) is seen as significant
because traditionally there has been a fair amount of animosity
between these two systems. DTAE includes 33 institutions and enrolls
close to 70,000 students in credit programs. There was competition
between the two-year colleges and the technical institutes over
whether the technical institutes should be able to offer associate
degrees and whether they should have courses that are transferable
to University System institutions. There are some in the state
who think that the technical institutes should come under the
Board of Regents, and others who believe the two-year colleges
should be under the Department of Technical and Adult Education.
The agreement between the chancellor of the University System
and the commissioner of DTAE suggests that students should be
able to move appropriately between systems but with a concentration
on general education in the University System and on job-entry
occupational instruction in DTAE.
The agreement between the two systems was a milestone in that
it addressed for the first time the conflicts between these two
systems, particularly as they relate to the two-year institutions.
A council of presidents and academic officers from both systems
was formed to help resolve issues of transfer and articulation
between systems. As part of this agreement, articulation agreements
were worked out where local recommendations are reported to this
central council, where decisions are made that bind both systems.
The main objective, according to the chancellor, is to get students
to start in the right system.
There were two primary reasons for establishing this agreement,
according to one respondent. First, it was pragmatic and good
for the state, particularly since some technical institutions
are across the street from two- or four-year institutions. Secondly,
if the system had not addressed this themselves, the Assembly
likely would have done so for them because there was concern with
excessive program duplication.
Preschool-to-College (P-16) Policy Directive
This initiative attempts to link the entire educational system
toward a set of common goals. The Governor is said to be one of
the biggest supporters of the P-16 initiative because he is interested
in moving toward a seamless educational system. The chancellor
has set up P-16 councils in local communities in an attempt to
raise the level of educational achievement in the state. The councils
are developing plans for collaborative arrangements between elementary,
secondary and higher education to address local educational needs.
In addition, a statewide P-16 council was appointed by the Governor
to provide policy recommendations and leadership dealing with
two specific goals: reforming teacher education and raising curricular
standards at all levels, with specific emphasis on students who
are considered to be "at-risk" in academic situations.
New Admissions Standards
The recent shift in philosophy for standards, said one campus
administrator, "has caused the most heartburn." According to a
1995 initiative, the University System had been operating (since
the 1980s) under a dual set of minimum standards that were "little
different from totally open admissions."
In 1984, the University System adopted a set of requirements for
admission to its institutions. Beginning in 1988, students were
"required" to complete a college preparatory curriculum for admission
to any institution within the University System. The course requirements
were approved by the Board of Regents and endorsed by the state
Board of Education. The curriculum required: four units of English;
three units each of science, mathematics and social sciences;
and two units of foreign languages. Specific instructional emphases
in each of these areas were outlined by the board. Individual
institutions could set higher standards than those listed, but
all were supposed to use these minimum standards.
Institutions were allowed, however, to maintain a second, "provisional"
admissions category, and most did so. In fall 1994, some 19 percent
of freshmen in the University System had not met the appropriate
college preparatory curriculum in at least one area. The percentages
of students without these requirements were very small in the
research institutions (less than one percent), and then progressively
higher in the regional universities, senior colleges, and two-year
colleges.
The 1995 initiative criticized the previous board policy as allowing
"institutions to accept any number of [college preparatory curriculum]
deficiencies even though it defines the college preparatory curriculum
as 'essential' for college level work." The initiative goes on
to call the system's current requirements "a high school counselor's
nightmare" and argues for the need to "raise the bar of expectations"
for incoming students and raise requirements for students taking
the pre-college curriculum.
Under the new initiative, all institutions, including the two-year
institutions, are expected to decrease the percentage of students
who come into college without the pre-college curriculum. In addition,
the initiative calls for different levels of standards by sector
"rather than the lowest common denominator minimum." That is,
it suggests that admission standards should be more relaxed at
the two-year colleges, with progressively more stringent standards
at the senior colleges and research universities. Essentially,
the only true "open door" institutions under this new initiative
would be the technical and adult institutions.
The language of the initiative also stresses the need for this
to be a "companion piece" to the P-16 initiative, particularly
as the P-16 efforts are aimed at pre-college programs to improve
student preparation.
Assessment of Initiative Efforts
Many respondents agreed that the chancellor has used a top-down
approach in developing these initiatives; but they also agreed
that this is primarily because his "window of opportunity" is
small. Partly because most people think that the initiatives and
the direction of the system make sense, the top-down approach
has not been questioned. A president said that the initiatives
have been well received on campuses, particularly because there
were many tangible benefits from the budget initiatives the previous
year. Most people are "numb" from all of the activity, says one
administrator, and it is difficult to keep up with all of it.
Faculty have been "stunned" by the speed with which the changes
are taking place, particularly since they have had little involvement
in the development of the policy directions, he argues. They have,
however, been involved in the development of the implementation
plans.
There is not complete agreement in the state on the value of these
initiatives, however. For example, a faculty member said that
the initiatives are not dealing with the right issues and that
the system is distracted by minor issues (like post-tenure review
and conversion to a semester system) without addressing more important
statewide concerns. The initiatives are a "poor guideline to the
future," this individual argued. The greatest resistance to these
initiatives, according to one observer, comes from those who have
been in the system for a long time and who are more wary of dramatic
change.
In general, however, people were very positive about the initiatives
and other actions of the chancellor's office. A college administrator
said the chancellor has tried to bring some logic to the policy-
and decision-making process. "He [the chancellor] earned a mandate
to be an agent for change from the Legislature, the Governor,
and the college presidents," said one representative from private
higher education. Many feel that this mandate has come about because
of the strong communication between the chancellor's office and
the Governor and Assembly. One political staff member suggested
that the chancellor is the impetus for most of the priorities,
but that the Governor is clearly supportive and that most of the
priorities are probably taken to the Governor before they are
finalized to get his support.
Many said they had believed there would be a short "honeymoon" period during which the chancellor would make a big splash and then begin to lose steam, but after a year and a half no one has seen much slowing down. There is some concern, however, that while the ideas are all positive, something tangible needs to come from them. The chancellor has done the right thing by raising the issues, said one state official, and he has made just enough decisions to reassure people, but most things are "being studied." The details on many of the initiatives were still to be worked out at the time of our visit, and some people said that the implementation phase would be the real test for the chancellor. Since that time, detailed implementation plans have been approved by the board for each new policy direction. These implementation plans were developed by task forces of faculty, staff and students. According to one administrator, there is a sense of urgency to the implementation plans, because "Portch has to deliver; he cannot just be seen as a person with ideas."
The state budget for the University System of Georgia is divided
into two main components. The A budget, which includes 90 to 95
percent of the state appropriations to the University System,
includes the instructional budget and is formula driven. This
money goes to the Board of Regents for allocation to the institutions.
The formulas, developed in 1982 and first implemented in 1984,
are used to request funds from the state and to appropriate funds
in a lump sum back to the Board of Regents; the formulas are not
used to allocate money to individual institutions. The B budget
is the non-formula piece and includes funding for special initiatives
that goes directly to the institutions. The budget battles and
negotiations that take place usually are over the B budget.
The formulas are based on credit hours per quarter and have a
differential for instructional level (lower, upper, graduate/professional)
and program area. The formulas also include provisions for operation
and maintenance of the physical plant and for quality improvement
programs. The formulas are "enrollment driven and square footage
driven," according to one legislative staff member. The total
state appropriations request is the total generated by the formulas
less the revenue from student tuition and fees and other institutional
revenues. Tuition and fees are set at 25 percent of the formulas
for instructional, academic services and student services support.
Faculty salaries are also part of the formula budget, but only
once a rate increase is agreed upon. Faculty salaries have been
a top priority in the budget process for the past few years. The
Governor, the University System and the Assembly have committed
to raising faculty salaries in Georgia to get them to the top
of the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) states. The Governor
has committed to increase faculty salaries six percent per year
for four consecutive years; to date, two six-percent increases
have been granted.
The Regents submit a unified budget to the Governor. The Regents'
request comes in several pieces: first, the formula budget, where
they must provide justifications for rate increases; second, the
general obligation bond request, where they have regular priority
projects, pay-back projects, and minor capital outlay projects;
third, the salary request, which is inserted into the formal budget
once a rate increase is agreed upon; and fourth, special initiatives
for improvement.
The Office of Planning and Budget, which is the Governor's budget
office, receives the Regents' request and develops the Governor's
budget request. Individuals in the Education Development Division
at the Office of Planning and Budget, as they consider the Regents'
request, communicate primarily with policy and budget officials
from the University System office, not with staff from the individual
institutions. Once developed, the Governor's budget is submitted
to the Assembly, which, according to one state official, typically
makes additions to (rather than subtractions from) the Governor's
budget. There is typically not much negotiation or argument over
the formula request; most of the legislative battles are over
the special requests in the B budget. The Governor has line-item
veto power in Georgia, and can veto special initiatives. He must
veto an entire item, however, and cannot just reduce funding amounts.
Once the Assembly and Governor have approved a budget, the Board
of Regents makes allocations to individual institutions. These
allocations, according to most of the individuals we spoke with,
are primarily based on the previous year's budget. The Regents
do, however, take into account possible changes in income. For
example, when two-year college tuition was lowered by five percent
in fiscal year 1996, the system made sure that the institutions'
overall budgets were not hurt by the reduction in tuition income.
The allocation responsibilities of the board are a key ingredient
to the influence of that body, according to one university official.
While the Governor and Assembly can state some priorities that
they have for the allocation of dollars, the Regents are free
to allocate as they see fit. The Regents' budget allocation process
is very political in its own right, said one legislative staff
member, but the politics occur between institutions and the board
rather than with the Assembly or Governor. Because of this, it
is difficult for the Governor or Assembly to institute real policy
changes, said one official.
To address the Governor's requirement for redirection of funds
in the 1995-96 budget, the Board of Regents said that they would
use the increase in new formula money (which amounted to a 1.7
percent increase) for incentive purposes. The Regents asked for
proposals for collaborative activities or for programs that would
establish patterns of national excellence. Approximately 21 collaborative
activities and 3 "patterns of national excellence" were funded
in the fiscal year 1996 budget.
Also in the 1995-96 budget session, the Governor recommended funding
for eight special initiatives for the University System. These
initiatives were "student centered (and) technology driven" and
amounted to $43.8 million. These initiatives included activities
such as "connecting teachers and technology" and advanced technological
equipment for classrooms and laboratories at two-year institutions.
In addition, a provision for "one statewide library" was funded
to establish a systemwide-and ultimately a statewide-electronic
library.
The shift toward special funding initiatives continued with the
fiscal year 1997 request, which called for special funding in
areas such as the P-16 reform effort, facilities master planning,
renovation and rehabilitation of facilities, and model classrooms
for the regional universities and the two- and four-year colleges.
According to the chancellor, the adoption of special funding initiatives
is an important change in the budget process. Instead of distributing
the increases based on enrollment growth, the new budget uses
incentives to reflect state priorities. The intent is to develop
a culture of collaboration among the institutions. The system
is "trying to get away from an enrollment-driven formula and focus
more on quality," said one state official. Another suggested that
it is "somewhat unprecedented" for the system to get such large
amounts of money for special initiatives, and that the state is
"grappling" with what to do about this, particularly in terms
of continuation of funding for these special programs. "The chances
for funding for this year's [fiscal year 1997] new initiatives
are going to be slim," said one state official, because of the
tight budget year and the call for a major redirection of funds.
Despite this prediction, the initiatives were all funded-though
not at the level requested by the Regents. The Regents' request
called for $65 million for special initiative funding; the Governor's
budget request was for $19 million in special initiatives and
the final budget provided $16.5 million for these initiatives.
A significant part of the difference between the Regents' request
and the final funding was in the area of support for renovation
and rehabilitation: the Regents had asked for a significant increase
in funding for major repair and rehabilitation projects, but the
policy-makers saw the increase as too much too fast. Rather than
the $30 million initially requested for the initiative, the University
System received $6 million in additional funds in this area.
The emphasis on these initiatives and incentives is problematic
for some administrators in the system. According to a state official,
many presidents are concerned that money is being taken away from
enrollment. He said that while presidents all support the "party
line" on these initiatives, there is some grumbling beneath the
surface. An administrator said that there are advantages to the
initiatives, but the "concern we have is the extent to which special-targeted,
earmarked initiatives are beginning to dominate flexible formula
funding." Earmarks go for good things, she argued, but they end
up costing resources as well because the earmark never quite provides
for all of the program. "And then what happens," she said, "is
you're short on formula money" and you have difficulty meeting
some of your core objectives.
With the new strategic planning initiatives from the Board of Regents, said one state official, every budget request refers back to a set of strategic planning goals. This is appreciated in the political process, he argued, because it clarifies how everything ties into the overall strategic plan.
The program review process is also currently in transition. The
process has been changed to add a probationary period for new
programs; that is, programs may be approved on a probationary
basis and then allowed to develop over four or five years before
receiving final approval.
The mission review process currently underway may also trigger some changes in program review. An external committee is studying the mission of the entire system and then trying to establish specific identities or missions for each institution.
There are few reporting requirements within the system, said one
official, and faculty and presidents like this because they do
not have to produce many reports. One president argued that information
is collected and that while it is not used to a significant extent
in the decision-making process it is available if anyone wants
it.
There is currently no accountability legislation in the state, though many of those we interviewed said that legislators are interested in accountability and assurances about the use of their money. "Accountability is really hands-off," said one legislative staff member. "The issue of accountability is one that we . . . feel strongly about and have tried to address before the Legislature comes to us with specific mandates," said one University System official.
Approximately 5,000 students transferred from two- to four-year
institutions in fiscal year 1994. Over one-quarter of these students
came from DeKalb College, which is more than three times the size
of the next largest two-year institution. Forty-four percent of
all transfers from two-year institutions transferred to one of
the four research universities, with the majority going to either
Georgia State or the University of Georgia.
Transfer between DTAE and University System institutions has not worked as well, partly because these systems do not share the same core curriculum. The new arrangement between the University System and DTAE is designed to increase the emphasis on program articulation between these two systems. Agreements can be made at the local level, but must be approved by both the DTAE board and the Board of Regents.
[ DOWNLOAD | CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT ]
[ HOME | REPORTS | CROSSTALK | RESOURCES | ORDER ]