The Illinois system of higher education includes 185 degree-granting
institutions, 62 of which are publicly controlled. Higher education
became a system in Illinois with the establishment of the Illinois
Board of Higher Education (IBHE) in 1961. The board's initial
focus was on improving access. Its first master plan published
in July 1964 led to establishing the Illinois community college
system as well as providing the foundation for the state's overall
structure for higher education, which has been called the "system
of systems."
Until recently, the system of systems included four public university
governing boards with responsibility for 12 public universities.
The governing boards included the Board of Governors (responsible
for five universities); the Board of Regents (responsible for
three universities); the Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois
University (two campuses); and the Board of Trustees of the University
of Illinois (two campuses). During our study, two of the university
boards-the Board of Governors and the Board of Regents-were abolished
and replaced with seven new boards that govern individual institutions.
In addition, the 49 community college campuses in Illinois are
governed by 40 local boards of trustees who work with the Illinois
Community College Board (ICCB) in carrying out their missions.
Illinois is one of seven states where private institutions are
considered integral to the state higher education system. Private
institutions are involved extensively in planning. Illinois provides
direct funding to private nonprofit colleges and universities,
and special-purpose grants and contracts to private institutions
in health services education and engineering. Because of the close
integration of private institutions into the system of higher
education, some private institutions have become involved in the
reporting and accountability procedures IBHE has devised for the
public institutions.
Table 2 reports selected characteristics of the Illinois system
of higher education compared to other study states. Relative to
other study states, Illinois is about average in the number of
public two-year and private four-year institutions. While the
number of public four-year universities is below average, the
proportion of students they enroll is similar to other study states.
Among study states, Illinois trails only California in the proportion
of its population enrolled in two-year institutions. Significantly,
the Illinois system appears relatively low-cost. Illinois is below
the national average in terms of resources (appropriations plus
tuition) per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student.
System Characteristics for Illinois Compared to Selected States (Numbers in Parentheses Represent Rank among the Seven Study States) |
||||
(1-2) |
(3-5) |
(6-7) |
||
| Total Degree-Granting Institutions (1994-95) | ||||
| Public Four-Year Institutions (1994-95) | ||||
| Public Two-Year Institutions (1994-95) | ||||
| % of Enrollment in Public Institutions (1994) | ||||
| FTE per 1,000 Population (Public Institutions Only) (1995-96)* | ||||
| Participation Ratio: Public FTE Students per New High School Graduate (1995-96)* | ||||
| % of High School Graduates Going on to Higher Education Anywhere (1994)* | ||||
| State Appropriations Plus Tuition per FTE Student (1995-96)* | ||||
| Sources: Unless otherwise noted, data are drawn from Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac (September 1996), pp. 54-55. * Halstead, State Profiles: Trend Data (1996), pp. 25, 28. ? Halstead, Higher Education Report Card 1995 (Washington D.C.: Research Associates of Washington, 1996), p. 61. |
||||
Total enrollment in higher education (public and private) in Illinois
in fiscal year 1996 was 721,575, an increase of just one percent
since fiscal year 1990. Enrollment growth is expected to be moderate
over the next decade, with a projected 17 percent increase in
the number of high school graduates.
The Illinois system of systems was described by one IBHE member
as strong and decentralized. He argued that it is a great system
of public and private universities that is extremely strong in
every field, with enough diversity among universities to serve
the needs of a diverse state. He said that there is also a tremendous
community college system. IBHE has provided effective coordination,
he said, because the Governor generally accepts board recommendations,
and because of the trusting relationships that have developed
among members of the board, the staff of the board, and the more
influential institutional leaders.
Some of the individuals we interviewed said that the clear distinction
within the system between coordination and governance has helped
to buffer institutions from undue political intrusion. A former
legislative staff member praised the system for addressing problems
with regard to affirmative action, removing presidents who were
performing poorly, increasing access for minority students, and
balancing the geographic and regional mix of institutions in the
state. An aide to the Lieutenant Governor argued, however, that
legislative passivity in higher education policy-making was less
due to the performance of the structure than to the lack of public
concern about higher education issues.
There were also criticisms of the system of systems. It was described
by some as too interested in maintaining consensus and a united
front. One respondent said that institutional interests sometimes
take precedence over issues such as access and cost effectiveness.
Another said that institutional representatives on IBHE contribute
to ineffective decision-making because people sit "in judgment
of their own proposals." The system was also faulted because system
boards serve as buffers or filters that prevent the faculty message
from getting to the Legislature.
A president told us that until recently there were few expectations for institutional outcome measures because institutions and their governing boards did not want to be held accountable for specific outcomes. A board member said, "It's not easy to change directions in higher education; it takes a long time."
The organization of the public sector and its subsequent growth
raised concerns among private institutions. In the late 1960s,
a commission headed by T. R. McConnell was asked to do an independent
study of the role of private institutions. Armed with the results
of the study, private institutions went to the Legislature and
asked for need-based financial aid programs and capitation grants
to subsidize Illinois students attending private institutions.
They also asked that the state use capacity in the private sector
instead of starting new programs in public institutions. In return
the institutions agreed they should be involved in IBHE master
planning. Despite occasional differences of opinion between public
and private institutions, the adversarial relationships that are
common in many states have never developed in Illinois.
The decisions made in the 1960s to use the capacity of private
colleges and universities rather than building new four-year institutions-and
to create a statewide system of community colleges to accommodate
most of the increases in new students at the lower-division level-are
important legacies that contribute to the shape of contemporary
Illinois higher education. From the perspective of current leaders,
both decisions have produced substantial benefits for the state.
In spring 1995, Senate Bill 614 abolished the Board of Regents
and the Board of Governors, replacing them with individual boards
for seven of the eight institutions that they governed. The eighth,
Sangamon State University, was redesignated as the third campus
of the University of Illinois. The bill also changed the composition
of the Board of Higher Education to remove most of the institutional
representatives. The new structure calls for one representative
on the board from the public institutions and one from the privates.
In short order, after passage of Senate Bill 614, three additional
bills were introduced. The first would have increased IBHE's power
by giving it authority to set tuition, to eliminate programs,
to supervise construction (including the use of non-public funds),
and to perform an audit function for institutional foundations.
The bill received little support from the Legislature partly because
it was opposed by the University of Illinois on the grounds that
it was unnecessary and would create a super-board. In addition,
IBHE was divided internally, with system representatives generally
in opposition. Those within the political structure see little
justification for additional change. As one example, a representative
from the Governor's Bureau of the Budget said there is really
no need for anyone to take control over tuition increases since
tuition funds are placed in a segregated fund (for each institution)
and require a legislative appropriation for use.
A second bill was aimed at removing the Illinois Community College
Board (ICCB) from the jurisdiction of IBHE. This bill passed both
legislative chambers by huge margins. Ultimately, it was vetoed
by the Governor. A third bill was designed to restore seats on
the Illinois Board of Higher Education for institutional representatives
of the University of Illinois and Southern Illinois University.
This bill did not make it out of committee.
Many long-term observers of Illinois higher education were shocked
by the swiftness with which a highly regarded system was changed
by the passage of Senate Bill 614. A reporter said he was "shaking
his head that a system that appeared to be working was now being
completely shaken up." He added that the recent proposals for
governance changes, particularly the move for increased power
by IBHE, "took people by surprise." While people knew that changes
might be proposed, he said, no one knew how quickly things were
going to happen and no one really thought through some of the
consequences.
The process that led to these changes began when representatives
of institutions within the Regents' and Governors' systems (for
the most part, former teachers' colleges that had broadened their
missions and become state universities) grew restive and thought
that their system governing boards-along with IBHE-were limiting
their hopes and aspirations too greatly. Community members felt
that their institutions had not developed the comprehensive programs
they needed. So they pushed for more autonomy. A legislator who
described himself as the first to have visited every college campus
in the state (speaking separately to faculty, students and administrators)
told us his support for Senate Bill 614 was predicated in part
on his private conversations with presidents who unanimously favored
elimination of the systems.
During his first term in the Illinois Legislature, Governor Edgar
chaired a study and introduced a bill to reorganize higher education.
The bill did not pass. As a result of this experience, however,
the Governor knew how the system worked and was convinced it needed
to change. According to one respondent, both the Governor and
the Lieutenant Governor thought the systems were overly complex
and had doubts about how well they were working. The Lieutenant
Governor in particular believed that the Regents' and Governors'
boards were too distant from what happened on campus and that
boards needed to be held more accountable. Institutional boards,
from their perspective, would be more effective and would strengthen
presidential leadership as well as faculty leadership.
There were less exalted motives ascribed as well. We were told,
for example, that the Lieutenant Governor was a graduate of Sangamon
State and wanted to increase the institution's status by designating
it as a campus of the University of Illinois. The Governor, an
alumnus of Eastern Illinois University, was described as "a close
friend of a president who was fired by one of the discontinued
systems' boards." Others see changes to the structure as a backlash
against stronger IBHE leadership under a new chair who emphasized
programs like PQP and made a lot of speeches about the need to
"tighten up" in higher education.
In the final analysis, the most important reason for the change
may well be that there was widespread support from the affected
institutions and very little effective opposition. The chair of
IBHE was the co-chair of the Governor's committee that advanced
the restructuring proposal. The official position of IBHE during
legislative consideration of the proposal was "to stay above the
fray." The principal opposition came from people in systems not
perceived as politically influential and unions who under the
restructuring would have to negotiate with each institutional
board rather than at the system level. The last time the proposal
for a similar reorganization had been advanced, it was defeated
by a single vote in a Democratically controlled House, largely
due to union opposition.
Perspectives on the impact of the governance change vary by responsibilities.
One interviewee suggested that it might make presidents of institutions
with new boards more likely to "make a mistake and gather a lot
of publicity that will be bad for higher education." A representative
from the Bureau of the Budget suggested, "The governance change
will probably create problems because expectations of the institutions
are up but there are still no dollars to fund them." A former
legislative staff member does not think that the governance change
would shift resources, but said that it might set up institutions
for potential legislative intrusion into higher education policy-making.
An assistant to the Lieutenant Governor (who co-chaired the study
committee that made the recommendations for change) described
the arrangements as, "probably what policy leaders see as an appropriate
balance between state and institutional influences."
A former IBHE staff member predicted that the current change in
structure would not last long because of the instability that
will be created. A member of IBHE is concerned about the need
for program elimination and the difficulties of addressing this
issue under the new structure without increased IBHE powers. A
second IBHE member is worried about the balance of accountability,
responsibility and advocacy, as well as the capacity for incorporating
a statewide perspective under the new structure. The executive
director of IBHE said that creating institutional governing boards
would require increased state oversight that could only be satisfied
in one of three ways: "a super-board, increased powers for the
IBHE, or increased interference on the part of the Governor and
Legislature." Many of the institutions with new governing boards
have already hired contract lobbyists. A reporter suggested that
the restructuring, if nothing else, could be described as "a full-employment
act for the lobbying community in the state capital."
Presidents and faculty members see the changes as altering the
balance of influence among institutions, but they disagree about
who would be favored. The president of one institution receiving
a new board said that the success of the changes in governance
would depend on presidents, boards and legislators, but he does
not think that anyone will be worse off. A second president said
he has seen an increase in lobbying and thinks that "things might
get a little nasty in Springfield." He sees an opportunity for
his institution if the Governor appoints a strong board. The majority
position of presidents with new boards is summarized by one president
who said, "There is a potential for 49 strong advocates for higher
education with this new system. With the right people relating
higher education to the state's economy, people will understand
in greater detail how important public higher education is to
the state." In contrast, a University of Illinois representative
said bluntly, "The traditional Illinois system of systems is over.
. . . There will be fewer incentives to reach difficult decisions
in the future."
Offsetting the potential political influence of the new boards
is legislative support for private colleges and universities.
A legislative staff member identified the interest of legislators
in giving state dollars to proprietary institutions as one example
of the growing trend to rely on the private sector to achieve
public purposes. In contrast, an influential state representative
suggested that a major shift toward support for the privates may
not be good public policy since many public institutions are significantly
underfunded. A senior senator, however, gave considerable credit
to the Board of Higher Education for increasing state aid as tuition
increased. The senator, a trustee of a private college, believes
that funding students that attend private colleges and universities
saves the state a great deal of money and that the practice should
continue.
Faculty members were frankly skeptical of the capacity of the
new boards for achieving additional resources for their institutions.
One said, "You have a Goliath in the University of Illinois and
another strong university in Southern Illinois. What kind of roles
will the others be able to play?" A second argued that the previous
structure had created for the most part a level playing field
among colleges and universities. Now he is concerned that the
University of Illinois will get the lion's share of state resources
and have the most political influence. Their perspectives are
shared by a senior administrator from the University of Illinois
(U of I), who suggested that the biggest problem of the new boards
would be gaining political clout: "We ought to be smiling, but
that is not our goal. We would rather have a workable higher education
system than be more powerful ourselves."
Most of those we interviewed see the changes as the forerunner
of additional reforms aimed at restoring the balance upset by
the restructuring. One president argued that the changes made
the system more volatile and less predictable and that these changes
were threatening and ambiguous for many. He said that the system
would be more difficult to manage in the future. While working
relationships between the university and IBHE would continue,
he said, it will be more difficult to work with seven separate
institutions rather than the two system boards. Others think legislators
will become disenchanted with the need to be directly involved
with the system and will see the need for greater coordination.
A senior IBHE official said that it will be difficult for a campus-based
board to deal with accountability issues, although he admitted
that the system boards had not done an effective job with this
issue either. An official from one of the two discontinued boards
predicted that the Legislature would now rely more heavily on
IBHE to preserve the necessary balance between institutional advocacy
and the public interest, giving them de facto power even if their statutory powers were not increased. A senator
made the same point when he suggested that each institution would
seek increased support from the legislators in its district, with
none of the institutions or their legislators concerned with serving
higher education in Illinois as a whole.
To date, IBHE leadership has reacted to the changes in a number
of ways. The abortive legislative attempt to increase IBHE powers
has already been described. IBHE fought and appears to have survived
the challenge by community colleges to be taken from their jurisdiction.
In turn, the board has promised increased responsiveness to community
college concerns. The executive director has convened presidents
from the public, private and community colleges, whereas previously
it was the system heads, not the presidents, who were brought
together. While the executive director has no power to convene
presidents by sector, we were told this is an effective way of
bringing the community together and more of these kinds of meetings
will be needed (especially with the public sector) if the new
governance arrangements are to remain effective. And IBHE leadership
has not given up the search for a buffer that will either strengthen
IBHE or develop some new form of system to keep campuses at arm's
length from the Legislature.
There are also more tensions between the public and private sectors than in the past. (One example is the relationship between private and public institutions in the rapidly growing western suburbs of Chicago. At the time of this study, no public institution served this area, but there had been several squabbles about whether the U of I should extend its reach there.) A representative from the Governor's office suggested that the ground is shifting under IBHE, with four-year colleges viewed as not very innovative and perhaps losing importance while community colleges are gaining in significance. Given all of these tensions, a legislative staff member said that the shake-out might do some good, adding, "Every institution needs a lot of action and drama to get one ounce of good."
The president of a comprehensive public university described IBHE
as a "steward" and evaluated IBHE performance on three aspects
of this role: "defining the important policy issues facing education
(the board still has a ways to go on this one); causing universities
to think seriously about what they are doing and why they are
doing it (getting the system to act like a system . . . ); [and
being] at the same time both advocates and critics of higher education
in the policy arena." A community college president described
the board as "controlling," primarily focused on funding, capital
matters, and policy development but with more power over universities
than community colleges.
A university president suggested that the board derives its power
from a strong Governor who always turns to IBHE to allocate resources.
In his mind the board has enhanced its authority through focusing
on rational, responsible budget recommendations and reducing conflicts
among institutions and sectors. A representative of independent
colleges described the board as the focal point of political power
for Illinois higher education. The degree to which problems are
thrashed out at the IBHE level allows the Governor and Legislature
to be free from hands-on operations of the colleges and universities.
The work of IBHE was said by others to be "first-rate and respected
across the state."
The board's authority also derives from "quality board members"
and a reputation for hiring people on merit that has prevented
it from becoming a political dumping ground. The executive director
was characterized as "a creature of the Board of Higher Education
who works at nothing but its benefit," and "a seismograph, anticipating
issues before they arise." He was also described as "very slow
to anger," "very unflappable." According to one observer, his
ability to keep the focus on issues rather than personalities
has "a calming effect on the staff."
As well as producing high-quality work, IBHE keeps a low profile.
The IBHE offices are modest, to say the least, and cannot be seen
from the street. Unlike other offices of state government, there
are no signs on the exterior of the building. Offices and the
main conference room are small, with standard, state-issue furniture.
In addition to very ordinary offices, the board has maintained
an office car known as "the Beast." This ancient Ford reached
125,000 miles before collapsing. The executive director took delight
in driving this relic to IBHE meetings or meetings with campus
presidents to contrast their living styles with that of IBHE.
Over the past 15 years, IBHE authority has grown, not so much
through statute as through its success in promoting a united front
among higher education leaders. Board stature has also been enhanced
through acceptance of its recommendations by the Legislature and
governors. A board staff member described this evolutionary development:
"The Legislature probably doesn't want an IBHE that is too strong.
The first time IBHE tried to exercise influence by recommending
a higher level of admission requirements, they were reversed,
partly because of resistance from the K-12 sector concerned about
cost. Maitland [a senior state senator] put the board's requirements
into statute with a delayed implementation date. The statute also
added more flexibility in meeting the requirements than IBHE wanted.
This led to sort of a rule of thumb-if you can get there by building
consensus, IBHE will do it; if the issue produces conflict, the
Legislature will probably provide resolution." A representative
from the community college sector made the same point somewhat
differently: "In Illinois there has been a great emphasis on harmony
and unanimity among the higher education community. IBHE is the
big daddy of this process."
A senior staff member for IBHE described the difference between
consensus-building and negotiation. From his perspective, negotiation
means "the compromise of opposing points of view," while consensus-building
involves "finding areas of agreement about which ends are worth
achieving and how to go about achieving them." Other respondents
suggested that consensus-building involves discussions and papers
and perhaps not a great deal of change. A staff member for the
Lieutenant Governor said, "IBHE basically studied the issues it
dealt with for a god-awful number of years." A representative
from the private sector suggested that conventional governance
structures "militate against raising issues that get people upset
with you. The incentives for staff at IBHE are on the side of
keeping things the way they are and following the status quo. This approach creates a comfort zone for the staff." We were
told that ordinarily there is consensus among the segments before
issues reach the board.
Within the consultative, consensus-building process some sectors
are perceived as "more equal than others." A community college
representative suggested that IBHE provides directives "to community
colleges and universities of lesser status but [is] much more
conciliatory with the U of I and private institutions." A university
president told us the leadership styles of the president of the
U of I and the executive director of IBHE are highly compatible.
The executive director of IBHE works hard to keep recommendations
consistent with the agenda of the U of I, knowing that once "U
of I was in the barn," other segments are manageable. While IBHE
has not articulated its own vision for higher education, it has
embraced a vision promoted by the president of the U of I that
is broad enough and well enough informed to encompass the entire
higher education community.
IBHE is sensitive to the political culture. The board chair at
the time of our visit had high credibility with the Governor and
was particularly effective at articulating the public policy agenda.
The executive director is perceived as sensitive to issues and
forward-looking. IBHE provides high-quality information and coordinates
information services well. They provide quick responses with a
small staff and have done a masterful job of getting legislators
to use their services. While remaining visible and available,
the board is cautious about taking positions on new legislation.
In its informational role, IBHE provides a note on each bill that
is introduced, including a synthesis and relative information.
These notes go to House and Senate staff, to Appropriations Committee
members, and to the higher education community.
A House staff member told us that the committee he staffs works
"with IBHE in particular because IBHE is really the institutional
memory of higher education." A senator noted the comprehensive
data provided by the board, including assessments of Illinois
higher education affordability, the progress of minority students
in higher education, the implementation of work-force preparation
policies, and analyses of the Priorities, Quality, and Productivity
(PQP) initiative in higher education institutions. A community
college representative provided a somewhat back-handed compliment
when he noted, "IBHE is so inundated with paper, it turns out
more information than anyone else. They're good at collecting
information and putting it together. However, it is their format
and their interpretation." The president of a comprehensive university
described IBHE as very good at keeping political representatives
happy by targeting resources on favored institutions.
IBHE's basic mode of operation involves working through the administrative
structure, particularly by seeking the participation of presidents.
While the board receives input from four advisory committees,
including ones representing faculty, students and independent
institutions, the real action takes place in consultations between
IBHE and institutional governing boards and presidents. An official
in state government went so far as to state, "The president of
the University of Illinois and the executive director of the Board
of Higher Education make deals behind closed doors because the
director is aware that the president can go around the Board of
Higher Education." A senior U of I official described the process
somewhat differently: "The board [executive director] informs
the president of what the board is planning to do. This does not
necessarily mean they will always agree but it is a courtesy that
each affords to the other." It was clearly the absence of such
consultation about the legislation to increase IBHE powers that
provoked much of the reaction from the U of I.
Many of the strategic directions established by the board appear
to arise from actions of the chair and the executive director.
The board does not, for example, have standing committees on areas
such as legislation. Nor do lobbyists generally go to individual
members of the board. Moreover, board members disagree as to the
extent of their involvement in real policy discussions. During
an IBHE meeting, for instance, one member said, "We as a board
spend very little time talking about policy. We react only to
papers that are generated by . . . staff who pile minutes upon
minutes." Another board member contradicted him, noting, "We discuss
a lot of policy here and in committee meetings." Later in the
same meeting, board members clarified the primary roles of the
chair and executive director concerning the legislative initiative
to increase board powers. The absence of standing committees both
allows and compels the chair and the executive director to develop
and articulate board positions and priorities.
The board does appoint topical committees in such areas as technology,
affordability, the PQP initiative, and undergraduate education.
A representative of the private sector cited the work of the Committee
on Affordability as an example of "balanced incrementalism." The
committee, we were told, had a very difficult time getting the
right issues on the table and did not go as far as they should
have in raising issues regarding students' ability to pay. A second
interviewee also criticized this committee, suggesting it had
only a small number of people who tried to focus on what the public
needed and came up with a set of soft recommendations that did
not amount to much.
Institutional budgets and IBHE use of information have clearly
been the incentives that have driven past IBHE decisions, although
they were seldom perceived as tools for strategic planning or
governance. That situation may be changing. Under the new chair,
IBHE began to play a more visible, activist role. A university
president told us while the chair was in office, IBHE was dominated
by him, with other members simply falling into line. The president
noted that the staff was directed as much by the chair as by the
executive director.
The emerging strategy of IBHE has been to focus attention on the
expenditure of base funding rather than on competition for whatever
incremental increases may be available. Through this strategy,
IBHE has attempted to emphasize the accountability of governing
boards rather than focusing on incremental increases. Supporting
IBHE's fiscal strategies is the experience of the executive director,
who worked previously in the Bureau of the Budget and then was
fiscal director for IBHE. The executive director has retained
primary responsibility for the budget process.
The previous chair believes that the fundamental role of IBHE
is to push change onto governing board agendas by identifying
priorities of a statewide nature. He told us:
Priorities emerge from political factors, discussions with constituencies and a host of other sources. It is the entire mix of activities and discussions occurring within a state at a given time that contributes to such priorities. Within the directions suggested by these priorities it is the board's objective to get individual institutions to set their own priorities. If a board can be trusted in terms of its credibility, identifying priorities makes these issues bigger than life. If you have priorities, you have to make decisions in connection with them and this is why IBHE has emphasized the importance of getting institutions to develop priorities. Once institutions have developed priorities, these can be used to evaluate mission. Are priorities in line with mission? Bad programs must be thrown out. Among good programs, institutions must make decisions about which are most important. Requiring that institutions do this has been a basic board strategy in the PQP program.
The board focus and activist approach generates concerns as well as endorsements. A university president-after acknowledging that it is reasonable for IBHE to raise questions about productivity and quality and to reward institutions that change-was apprehensive that the board might subsequently focus on such things as faculty workload, faculty roles, and faculty responsibilities. The possibility that the board might attempt to regulate these issues provoked the advice that IBHE should be careful about the battles it chooses to fight.
The community college districts are coordinated by Illinois Community
College Board (ICCB), a state board that itself operates under
the coordinating influence of the Illinois Board of Higher Education
(IBHE). ICCB was described by a member as "a coordinating board
that acts as a governing board in certain respects." The board
has statutory authority on tuition and can discontinue programs,
the most important two powers that IBHE sought in the unsuccessful
legislation to expand its powers.
ICCB sets standards (to ensure basic levels of quality) and prescribes
overall vision, directions, and policy. Local governing boards
determine how these directions should be applied within their
institutions. The ICCB chair described the board as focused on
local control but with authority to intervene if necessary. The
ICCB executive director emphasized the board's role as "coordinating,
not regulatory." ICCB exercises this role through massive leadership
projects and an emphasis on quality and visibility with the Legislature.
Although ICCB staff are responsible for interacting with the Legislature,
they lack the capacity to quickly provide comparative information
for community colleges and other sectors. As a result, most legislative
requests for information go to IBHE.
At the time of this study, ICCB was working on a standardized
accounting system to make it possible to compare costs across
institutions. In anticipation of problems with one of the districts
it coordinates, ICCB also introduced legislation to permit it
to take over a college in deficit and to contract with a neighboring
college to run programs and services. The governing board for
the City Colleges of Chicago was told by ICCB that 105 academic
programs for which the district lacked information on program
location and number of enrolled students should be eliminated.
The programs were discontinued. ICCB has also been active in building
consensus about funding capital improvement and student aid programs.
According to some ICCB staff members, the ICCB chair emphasizes
accountability to taxpayers, sometimes to the detriment of institutional
advocacy. Mentioned particularly was the chair's support of uniform
financial reporting procedures for community colleges, which was
characterized as "the first really oppressive move by the Community
College Board." In contrast, the IBHE chair perceived ICCB to
be achieving the type of balance between accountability and advocacy
that he would like to implement with his own board. ICCB was generally
described as effective and helpful by IBHE members and staff.
ICCB staff did not reciprocate in their descriptions of IBHE.
One ICCB staff member described IBHE as, "stuck in the 70s; community
colleges are treated with a benevolent and somewhat condescending
affection."
The relationship between community colleges and IBHE was generally
contentious during our study. An incident in which IBHE rearranged
the priorities recommended by ICCB for capital projects served
as a lightning rod for other frustrations. The president of a
community college summarized these frustrations in a letter to
the IBHE executive director when he charged that IBHE has: "no
understanding . . . , no influence . . . and no vision." An ICCB
staff member told us that community colleges are treated as "junior
members and poor cousins, so they have little to lose in coming
out from under IBHE." Community college representatives in general
charged IBHE with a lack of understanding of community colleges,
a failure to give them appropriate priorities, and a failure to
value their contributions in relation to those of four-year institutions.
Community college representatives have also been frustrated by
an IBHE cost-study analysis that concluded their costs were higher
than those in four-year institutions. We were told that IBHE staff
would not agree to sit down with community college board staff
to discuss the issue. These concerns contributed to the legislation
aimed at removing community colleges from coordination by IBHE.
A representative of private higher education said that even though
the bill was vetoed by the Governor, its passage by the Legislature
demonstrated more political clout than he had previously credited
community colleges with having. He added that removing community
colleges from IBHE jurisdiction might enhance opportunities for
cooperation with the private sector.
This representative might have been less surprised by community
college political strength if he had been present during some
of the interviews we conducted. Among policy officials, community
colleges were widely described as outperforming four-year institutions.
The Lieutenant Governor, described by an aide as "a numbers freak,"
has been impressed by the large number of students being served
by community colleges as well as their efficiency in using resources.
Even though he believes community colleges should spend more time
on job training and economic development, his attitude toward
these institutions was much more positive than his attitude toward
universities.
The fact that community colleges are "on a roll politically" will
not necessarily transfer into significant additional resources.
A House staff member said that community colleges are very well
regarded by the public in comparison with universities. He added,
"They come in a poor second on a lot of things in the legislative
process." A senior senator observed that money would be saved
by putting more students in community colleges only if there were
no spaces available in four-year institutions.
A representative of the state Board of Education (K-12) expressed a view of ICCB similar to the ICCB staff perceptions of IBHE. He told us that the Board of Education created a special task force to study technology. At their first meeting they discovered that ICCB had already completed a study and was in the process of implementing the results without consulting them. The issue of adult education has also been a source of conflict. The representative added, "Because community colleges think adult education is their responsibility, they assume the governance. The discussions about adult education and relationships with K-12 have been power ones."
A reporter described the change in the board structure as a significant
issue. From his perspective, the elected board had been very political
and rather weak. Until the mid-1980s the board was made up of
representatives who were supported by the university alumni association.
These typically were friends of the university and did what the
university wanted. In the mid-1980s political parties began to
put forth their own nominees for election.
The U of I board was clearly more effective as an advocate for
the university than as an instrument for accountability. Most
of those we interviewed see the change in method of selecting
board members as positive, so long as the quality of gubernatorial
appointments is maintained. Some suggested that a stronger governing
board might constrain the president in "leaning on the Governor
for more support for higher education."
There is little question about the importance of the resignation
of the president of the U of I to higher education in Illinois.
A senior U of I official said, "He called the shots." One example
is his single-handed defeat of an early retirement proposal supported
by all of the other presidents in Illinois.
A reporter told us that after several years of high tuition increases,
the U of I board agreed to link increases to inflation to make
tuition more predictable. This action established a pattern that
was subsequently followed by most of the other institutions.
The incoming U of I president served as the chief executive officer
of the Chicago campus for ten years and has a clear interest in
urban issues. At an IBHE meeting after his selection had been
announced, he described seven priorities for his administration:
an improved academic climate, including undergraduate instruction,
retention rates, and graduation rates; improved health-care operations;
greater responsiveness to the community; improved processes rather
than individual blame; improved communication; greater diversity;
and strengthened external linkages. An aide to the Governor present
at the board meeting later referred to these priorities in highly
positive terms.
The incoming president was not sure about whether he would have
the type of relationship with IBHE that his predecessor enjoyed.
He hoped, however, that IBHE and the University of Illinois would
continue to enjoy strong ties. A state representative noted that
the new president, while a good administrator, is not the politician
that his predecessor was. He said that the outgoing president
chose his battles carefully and took a low-key role in relation
to the statewide PQP initiative; but when it counted, he was there.
Another legislator noted that the outgoing president could settle
things and leave everyone happy. A former aide to a previous Governor
spoke of his political prowess: "Anytime the Governor went to
an Illinois game it was going to cost one or two million dollars.
He might just as well have taken it [the money] with him" to the
game.
The Chicago and Champaign-Urbana campuses have very similar missions
but very different approaches. In Chicago the focus is on health
care and urban issues. The focus at the Champaign-Urbana campus
is in the sciences and engineering. Because the Chicago campus
has seen a great deal of growth in size and reputation during
the past decade, a former IBHE staff member thinks that eventually
they will be split away from Champaign-Urbana with a separate
board of their own. He said he suspects that one reason the new
president was chosen was to cement the ties between the Chicago
and Champaign-Urbana campuses.
Most observers suggested to us that system governance changes
will not make much difference for the U of I, with the exception
of some anguish on the part of faculty and administrators with
regard to the addition of Sangamon State. Concerns are due primarily
to a perception that the faculty at Sangamon are not at the same
level of quality as the faculty at the two university campuses.
There is also the concern that Sangamon will drain resources from
the other two institutions. Additionally, a senior Democratic
senator has been upset because the U of I would break the collective
bargaining unit at Sangamon State. The incoming U of I president
sees a potential problem in the mismatch between Sangamon State
as an upper-division institution and two research universities.
In contrast, a president of a comprehensive university thinks
that broadening the scope of U of I board responsibilities might
have a beneficial impact on quality issues, "if Sangamon State
is not vacuumed in."
Southern Illinois University (SIU), the other major public research university in the state, may be more affected by the governance changes than the U of I. SIU's influence in Springfield was diluted through reapportionment, which caused their support in the state Senate to drop from 19 or 20 senators who came from south of Springfield to 7. Among the 19 or 20 were many powerful politicians who helped build Southern Illinois University to its current status.
One senator told us about the history of the two defunct boards.
Each began with an executive director whose title was later changed
to chancellor. This change angered political leaders, as did the
chancellors' high salaries. Many respondents agreed with another
state representative who described the former systems' boards
as weak, with poor leaders and ineffective staffs.
Several presidents of comprehensive universities told us that
institutions within a particular system tended to be treated by
the defunct system boards as similar when they really are not.
Perhaps the leading example involved the friction between Chicago
State University and Northeastern as big-city, commuter institutions
in contrast with residential institutions in smaller communities
that were also part of their system. A reporter characterized
the inclusion of dissimilar institutions in the same system as
"not a good cultural fit." A president of an urban college pointed
to the problems of an Illinois cost-study model when applied to
developmental programs, academic support programs, and financial
aid requirements of institutions serving high minority populations.
While institutional presidents were generally positive about receiving
their own boards, their perspectives differed regarding the implications
of this change. One looked forward to the additional time that
would be freed because he would no longer have to attend so many
meetings. A second was somewhat apprehensive about the need to
spend a day and a half working with his own board, thus taking
away from time spent with faculty and on campus. Both agreed that
the governance change will cause presidents to spend more time
on external issues, reducing the amount of time on campus. According
to one president, they will need to confront the view within the
policy community that "universities serve the full-time student
with full-time faculty well, but this is a dwindling part of the
market. Universities need to do more with technology and the emerging
needs of the population."
Private colleges play a critical function in helping Illinois
achieve state goals. Among the privates, those in the Chicago
area are the most influential. IBHE most commonly works with the
smaller, more vulnerable private universities. Although private
institutions have been losing ground recently to the publics,
the student aid program, which is focused on choice, access and
retention, still provides the second largest state allocation
in the nation ($256 million in fiscal year 1996). Privates also
get more than $100 million in categorical grants annually. They
provide approximately 40 percent of all bachelor degrees, 50 percent
of the master's degrees, and 75 percent of the professional degrees
awarded to first-time professional students in Illinois.
Independent colleges and universities have voluntarily participated
in the PQP initiative, although outcomes are unclear. In addition,
private colleges and universities have aggressively pursued the
telecommunications agenda and received state money to support
their efforts. They also participate in state issues through the
Higher Education Cooperation Act, which provides funds that IBHE
uses for discretionary multi-institutional grants focused on economic
development, minority student achievement, teacher education,
and the improvement of undergraduate education.
One IBHE member told us that the private sector provides a healthy
contribution to the overall climate for dealing with governance
issues, thus enhancing values and recognition of the public sector.
A second member, after describing the positive relationship between
the state and its private colleges and universities, pointed to
their use by the state in addressing underserved areas. A private
college president confirmed this access role, and added that there
is still unused capacity in private colleges and universities
in specific programs. He argued that public universities should
not be allowed to develop such programs as long as the privates
can offer them.
The recent governance changes appear to have few implications for the private sector. A former legislative staff member suggested, however, that without the new authority sought by some members of IBHE, private colleges and universities might be used less effectively to achieve public purposes due to competition from the new public boards. Representatives from comprehensive four-year colleges and universities and the community college sector generally resent what they see as favored treatment for the privates. In contrast, the U of I is generally perceived to be supportive of private sector concerns.
The chair of IBHE acknowledged the importance of leaders, but
then told us:
In our society we work through institutions. Individuals make their contribution through some kind of structure, so structure is essential. A structure can facilitate the efforts of strong leaders. It can also help an institution in the ebb and flow of talent. That is, it facilitates continuity and helps institutions deal with a different mix. For example, at a given point in time, the institution may be strong in financial talent but weak in those who understand academics. A good structure will require those who are strong in financial issues learn enough about academic areas to make an effective contribution. . . . Structure fosters accountability, it encourages focus, and it provides the ability to deal with change. Over the past 10 to 15 years, Illinois has had a better balance between institutional autonomy and state coordination than the new recommendations will produce.
A senior IBHE staff member told us two questions were particularly important in discussions of state governance structures: "How do you maintain the necessary balance of powers within the system . . . to be certain that the state perspective is maintained? What values are driving the system; that is, are the values of institutions determining or is there a process through which public concerns are surfaced and considered against institutional interests in ways that achieve an appropriate balance?" To consider these questions, we turn now to the processes through which public policy interacts with coordinating and governance structures to shape institutional programs and services.
[ DOWNLOAD | CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT ]
[ HOME | REPORTS | CROSSTALK | RESOURCES | ORDER ]