Observations

Interviews for this New York Case Study Summary were conducted in 1995, with limited follow-up in 1996. Since 1995 was the first year of Governor Pataki's administration, the implications of proposed budget reductions tended to dominate responses to questions about the structure and organization of the state's higher education system. Nevertheless, and despite sometimes conflicting opinions, 19 findings about that system can be drawn from these responses.
  1. State Priorities. Access to and the quality of higher education have been established as important priorities for the State of New York, but there is little agreement on the methods of achieving them.
  2. Regional Structure. New York is unique among the study states not only in the regional structure of public higher education but also in that structure's reflection of the political divisions of the state.
  3. The State Budget and Education Policy. The annual state appropriations process is the only process in New York in which the roles, responsibilities and support of public and private higher education are deliberated. In the appropriations process, the primary problems and priorities are fiscal ones and the focus is on short-term solutions. The state's capacity to develop explicit public policy goals, build consensus around them and assess progress in meeting them is very limited.
  4. Coordination: The Regents. The role of the Regents as a statewide coordinating board appears to be declining. The Regents lack budget authority in a time when policy decisions in New York have been dominated by financial considerations, and they are preoccupied with issues of elementary and secondary education. Their master planning role has been reduced. Currently, the Regents' political influence is further reduced with a Republican Governor because the method of election permits selection of Regents by Democrats in the Legislature, even though Democrats control only one house. Some within government and higher education said that the Regents are too close to the independent sector of higher education. Yet the Regents remain the only policy body with a scope that includes both public systems of higher education and private higher education.
  5. Coordination: The Regents and Program Review. The Regents' primary authority lies in their ability to approve programs. Several individuals we interviewed said that they consider the apolitical nature of the Regents and its focus on quality-particularly at the doctoral level-as strengths.
  6. Coordination: Public School Responsibilities. Evidence was lacking to show that the Regents' broad responsibilities for elementary and secondary, as well as higher, education has strengthened coordination or collaboration between schools and colleges.
  7. Coordination: General Satisfaction. Although the Regents received mixed reviews regarding their influence and effectiveness, and the Governor recommended their elimination, most New Yorkers interviewed appear generally satisfied with the statewide organization of higher education.
  8. Coordination: Master Planning. The Regents' master planning process, widely considered as not particularly effective and further diminished by recent legislation, remains the only process that seeks to articulate statewide goals and aspirations, and to assess the state's overall progress.
  9. Articulation Within Systems. The perception of interviewees was that articulation works well because each regional New York system encompasses both two- and four-year institutions.
  10. SUNY: A Time of Uncertainty. SUNY was studied at a time of major changes: almost half of the system's governing board had been in place for less than a year; a new chancellor, whose tenure was ultimately very brief, had assumed office just prior to the appointment of the new board; budget cuts had been imposed in the first year of the Pataki administration; and further budget cuts were anticipated in the next budget year. One consequence: among state policy makers and campus and system administrators and governing board members, major issues were very much "in play," including the appropriate roles of campus administrations and the system office, the size and scope of the system staff, the cohesiveness of SUNY as a system, the role of the governing board, and its relationship to system and campus administrators
  11. SUNY and Politics. The size and geographical dispersion of SUNY and the heterogeneous missions of its campuses represent strength and weakness. Politically, SUNY mirrors the recent shifts in New York State politics toward greater upstate and Republican control, even dominance. The dilemma is that the survival and well-being of each SUNY institution is a matter of concern to the local legislators who may support budget cuts and resist tuition increases while seeking to protect particular institutions.
  12. SUNY: The Board and the Campuses. The linkage of the SUNY Board of Trustees with the SUNY campuses is weak. Some regard this as a strength of SUNY: campus autonomy is relatively strong, the board is not familiar with individual campuses, and campus presidents have little contact with it.
  13. CUNY as a System. CUNY was perceived as more cohesive, more focused and more responsive to changing financial circumstances than SUNY. Fewer campuses, geographic proximity, and a tradition that includes consortial arrangements were perceived as advantages that SUNY does not have.
  14. CUNY: Leadership. The primary issues that were raised regarding CUNY tended not to be structural in character. In contrast to SUNY, issues of tactics and leadership style were mentioned more frequently regarding CUNY, with both praise for and criticism of current leadership.
  15. CUNY: Restructuring. Differences around specific actions and policies notwithstanding, CUNY is credited with having taken major steps toward restructuring and rethinking campus programs and missions, and with being considerably in advance of SUNY in this respect.
  16. CUNY: The State Budget. The view-in Albany as well as in New York City-that CUNY has made major progress on restructuring has not spared the system from cuts.
  17. Private Higher Education: A Major Factor. Independent colleges and universities play a larger role in New York than in the other six states that were studied, as evidenced by the fact that independent institutions enroll approximately 40 percent of the state's students, and award approximately 58 percent of the bachelor's degrees, 69 percent of the graduate degrees, and 83 percent of the first professional degrees.
  18. Private Higher Education: State Support. Public policies regarding state appropriations for public institutional support, for the Bundy Aid program and for student financial assistance significantly influence the distribution of students among public and private institutions.
  19. Private Higher Education: State Support. There is a long history of contentiousness between public and private higher education in the State of New York. Independent institutions were hit hard by the reduction of Bundy Aid (by approximately 60 percent) in the first half of the 1990s. And privates have lost "market share" of the Tuition Assistance Program to publics in the 1990s, even though their actual support has increased. Advocates of public higher education argue that state generosity to students has been at the expense of institutional funding of public campuses.
 

[ DOWNLOAD | CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT ]

[ HOME | REPORTS | CROSSTALK | RESOURCES | ORDER ]