Search

This occasional paper describes the development of the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education and the current statewide challenges that make the plan ineffective today in preventing the erosion of college opportunity. (Contains 29 endnotes and 8 tables.)

This case study is part of a broader research project examining state policies and governance structures that span K-12 and postsecondary education. Georgia was the first state to have state and regional P-16 councils, and its regents' office in the University System of Georgia oversees a variety of projects that focus on connecting K-12 and postsecondary education. The Georgia field research was conducted in September 2003. Two central questions that this report seeks to answer are: (1) What types of governance structures and related policies enable, or create difficulties for, P-16 reforms? (2) How necessary is a P-16 governance framework in order to create and institutionalize P-16 reform? To examine these questions and issues, this report describes the history of and context for P-16 reform and governance in Georgia. It then presents a summary of major P-16 projects and policies, and an analysis of the state's major P-16 accomplishments and challenges. The report concludes with thoughts about the present and future of P-16 reform in the state. The Georgia Interview Protocol is appended. (Contains 23 endnotes.) [For "The Governance Divide: A Report on a Four-State Study on Improving College Readiness and Success. National Center Report #05-3," see ED508097. For the Florida case study, see ED508098. For the New York case study, see ED508100. For the Oregon case study, see ED508101.]

Major demographic shifts in the population of the United States, combined with persistent gaps in educational achievement by ethnic group, could decrease the portion of the workforce with college-level skills over the next 15 years, with a consequent decline in per capita personal income in the United States. Meanwhile, the competitive edge of the U.S. workforce is slipping; several other developed countries now surpass the United States in the percentage of their young working-age population enrolling in college and attaining a bachelor's degree. At a time when the knowledge-based, global economy requires more Americans with education and training beyond high school, the nation confronts the prospect of a sustained drop in the average educational levels of the U.S. workforce. This report identifies four state policy dimensions for improving college readiness and success: (1) the alignment of coursework and assessments; (2) state finance; (3) statewide data systems; and (4) accountability. Sample Unified Performance-Based Budget for Preschool to Grade 20 is appended. (Contains 1 figure and 49 endnotes.) Appended is: (1) A Sample Unified Performance-Based Budget for Preschool to Grade 20.

This report, supported by case studies in Florida (ED508098), Georgia (ED508099), New York (ED508100), and Oregon (ED508101), identifies and examines policy options available to states that are interested in creating sustained K-16 reform. The findings move the K-16 agenda forward by proposing a set of state policy levers that can be used to create meaningful changes for students. In addition, this report identifies the role of other factors-- such as leadership and state culture and history--in implementing and sustaining K-16 reforms within states. The findings of this research demonstrate the real challenges--and opportunities--that states face as they seek to improve transitions between high school and college. This report provides state leaders with real-world policy choices, showing the kinds of steps several states have taken, and the implications of these policy decisions over time. The report also offers recommendations to help states transform ad hoc approaches into sustained action and institutionalized, long-term K-16 reforms. Every state needs to increase the percentage of students who complete high school and finish some form of postsecondary education; existing governance structures and policies cannot meet this overwhelming need. For most states, these structures and policies must be revised in significant ways. As the findings reveal, the responsibility for reform cannot be carried by one sector, but rather must be shared across systems to reach common ground, focusing on improving K-12 and postsecondary education for all students. "Education Performance in Four States" is appended. (Contains 54 endnotes and 1 figure.)

This paper focuses on collaboration and cooperation as aspects of higher education in California, considering the three public systems and the independent sector. The context is the 40-year experience of growth and change in these 4 segments of higher education since the enactment of California's 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education. The first section of this report describes the Master Plan and how it limited competition in California. The second section examines two Master Plan provisions written to encourage collaboration: student transfers across segments and joint doctorates. The third section describes additional types of collaboration, including voluntary associations at the state and regional levels, joint facilities, and the California Virtual University. The fourth section discusses the past and future of enrollment growth and fiscal constraints on collaboration. The final section explores the requirements of California higher education for collaboration in the future as the state faces greater and more diverse student demand and problematic state fiscal support. An appendix contains a table of associate and baccalaureate degree production for 1992, 1996, and 1999. (Contains 81 references.) (SLD)

This paper discusses recession and the major policy considerations that states and institutions must face in the current economic downturn. It explores the public policy implications of three major variables: (1) each of the 50 states has a unique higher education system; (2) each state also has a unique revenue and budgetary process; and (3) each recession is a unique, unpredictable event. The focus is on state higher education policy. The politics of scarcity are very different from the politics of prosperity in ways that often pose problems for the financial support of higher education. The present decline in higher education's share of state expenditures does not represent any deliberate policy decision to curtail state funding substantially; it is simply an outcome of economic currents. The principal question for higher education will be how to accommodate additional students without commensurate additional state support. Tuition increases are likely to remain an important tool in the repertoire of state and institutional response to recession, but there are political limits to this tool and considerable backlash if the public believes that increases have been excessive. The current recession coincides with the third great wave of college enrollments. Even if the economy avoids a major or prolonged recession, it will require extraordinary effort on the part of states and colleges to meet the needs of these students. (Contains 35 references.) (SLD)

This report presents the results of a multi-state study of state governing structures for higher education, focusing on the complexity of general patterns of higher education governance. The study focused on higher education governance in seven states--California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New York, and Texas--and was based on a review of relevant documents and interviews with over 200 administrators, faculty, staff, and policymakers. The report presents a conceptual framework that suggests that statewide governance of higher education is best understood as the result of interaction between a policy environment shaped by government strategies to achieve balance among academic and market forces and a system design that determines provider responsibilities, capacities, and linkages to each other and to elected leaders. It stresses the need to align educational policy across the macro, system, and operational levels to meet impending challenges, along with the importance of public policy and policy leadership in achieving balance among institutional and market forces in the context of continuity and change. (Contains 23 references.) (MDM)

This comparative study synthesizes data from a national study which examined differences among states in their governance structures, and asked if differences in performance were related to governing structures and whether governance structure affected strategies of state policymakers. The seven states examined were grouped into four governance categories: (1) federal systems, those with institutional- and multicampus-system governing boards and a coordinating board (Illinois and Texas); (2) unified systems, those with a single governing board responsible for all public institutions (Georgia); (3) confederated systems, those with a planning/coordinating agency but also governing boards of multicampus subsystems (California, Florida, and New York); and (4) confederated institutions, those that have institutional governing boards but lack a centralized agency with substantial responsibility (Michigan). The report concludes that there is a strong link between governance structures and affordability for families; there is no evidence that any one system has a lower cost per student; there is no evidence that some structures attract stronger leaders; and that state boards which are part of higher education and also part of state government do best at balancing public interests and professional/institutional concerns. Appendices list individuals involved and describe quantitative measures used. (Contains approximately 350 references.) (DB)

This case study part of the State Structures for the Governance of Higher Education study, focuses on governance and related issues in New York's higher education system. The study's overall purpose was to examine differences among states in their governance structures, and to determine if differences in performance were related to governing structures and whether structure affects strategies of state policymakers. The study is based on analysis of documents and on interviews conducted in 1995 and 1996 with state officials, education administrators, faculty, and staff. The first section provides information on state governance, including demography and the political context. Section 2 examines the structures of the state's higher education system, including the role of the State Coordinating Agency, public higher education in New York, private higher education, the role of the State Higher Education Services Corporation, and collective bargaining within the state system. Section 3 examines the processes of governance and coordination, including planning, budgeting, the program review process, and information on system performance. Concluding observations identify 19 specific findings about the system and a final section briefly describes five continuing issues. Appended is a list of national advisory committee members. (Contains 15 references).

An examination of public policy issues and accountability in education focuses on the current situation in California's system of higher education. It looks first at how the consensus about public financing embodied in the state's 1960 master plan for higher education has come apart since about 1990, and reports on two studies, one on recent developments in the community colleges and the other on the funding of higher education over 35 years, that show that the basic principle of public funding is no longer operational in the state. The paper notes that the public appears unconcerned about this situation. Enrollment projections for the next decade suggest that the state and its higher education institutions must choose between maintaining the system at current cost and serving a much smaller proportion of the population, or reducing overall cost per student; there is no scenario under which the status quo model can continue at current cost levels. It is concluded that the re-invention of higher education in California is likely to be a traumatic process, with a substantial need for public policy leadership at the state level, but that the opportunity for major social good to be accomplished is also substantial. (MSE)

Since World War II, US higher education has enjoyed a broad public consensus about its basic goals, values, and methods. That consensus is breaking down; and to preserve the best of higher education's heritage, the central tenet of the old consensus, that college opportunity should be as widely available as possible to those who could benefit, must be revisited. (MSE)

Higher education and public policy leaders need to reconsider how and whether the multicampus form of organization can continue to be useful. Issues include whether multicampus systems respond effectively to social, economic, demographic, and technological change; real costs; vulnerability to political influence; how leadership functions; and the role of lay governance. (MSE)