Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.
-
Upload
shanon-walsh -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.
![Page 1: Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032414/56649ee85503460f94bfa118/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Governance of Public Higher Education
Governance CommissionBaton Rouge
19 August 2011
![Page 2: Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032414/56649ee85503460f94bfa118/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Principles to Guide Deliberations About Governance
• Focus First on Ends, Not Means• Be Explicit about Specific Problems That Are
Catalysts for Reorganization Proposals • Undertake Reorganization Only if it is the Most
Effective Means for Addressing the Identified Problems
• Weigh the Costs Of Reorganization Against the Short- and Long-term Benefits.
![Page 3: Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032414/56649ee85503460f94bfa118/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Principles (Continued)
• Distinguish Between State Coordination and System or Institutional Governance/Management
• Examine the Total Policy Structure and Process, Including the roles of the Governor, Executive Branch Agencies and the Legislature, rather than only the Formal Postsecondary Education Structure
![Page 4: Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032414/56649ee85503460f94bfa118/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
No “Ideal” Model
• Each State’s Structure Evolved in Response to Unique State Issues/Conditions– Modes of Provision (Public vs. Private)– History/Culture– Role of Government• Governor• State Legislature
– Geo-Political Balance, Regional Disparities– Budgeting and Finance Policy and Process
![Page 5: Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032414/56649ee85503460f94bfa118/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
No “Ideal” Model (Continued)
• Not a Good Idea: Copying Another State’s Structure—Imposing on One State the Solutions to Another State’s Problems
• But: – Alignment of Governance (Decision-Making
Authority) with State Priorities Is Important– States Can Learn from the Experience of Other
States in Addressing Common Problems/Issues
![Page 6: Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032414/56649ee85503460f94bfa118/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Coordination Versus Governance/Management
• Authority and Functions of Coordinating Boards Are Distinctly Different From Governing Boards of Institutions and System
• Coordinating Boards:– Focus on Statewide Policy Leadership, Not on
Governing/Managing Systems or Individual Institutions– Do Not Govern Institutions (e.g. Make Decisions Regarding
Appointment of System and Institutional Presidents or Faculty and Other Personnel Issues)
• In Louisiana terminology:– Coordinating Board: Board of Regents– Governing Boards: Management Boards
![Page 7: Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032414/56649ee85503460f94bfa118/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Comparative Perspective
• About Half of States are Coordinating Board/Agency States– Statewide Coordinating Board/Agency (Regulatory or Advisory)– Two or More System or Institutional Governing Boards– Tradition of Decentralized Governance
• Other Half are Consolidated Governing Board States:– All Public Institutions Governed by One or More Statewide
Governing Boards– No Statewide Coordinating Board (with significant authority)
• 1 State (Pennsylvania) has State Agency with Limited Authority for Higher Education
• 1 State (Michigan has No Statewide Entity)
![Page 8: Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032414/56649ee85503460f94bfa118/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Governing Board Powers
• Governing Single Corporate Entity (Often With Multiple Subsidiary Units)
• Appointing, Setting The Compensation For, And Evaluating Both System And Institutional Chief Executives
![Page 9: Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032414/56649ee85503460f94bfa118/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Governing Boards
• Maintaining the Institution’s Assets (Human, Programmatic and Physical) and Ensuring Alignment of these Assets with Institutional Mission
• Developing and Implementing Policy on a Wide Range of Institutional Concerns (e.g., Academic and Student Affairs Policies) without Approval of External Agencies or Authorities
![Page 10: Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032414/56649ee85503460f94bfa118/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Governing Boards
• Advocating For Needs of the Institutions Under the Board’s Jurisdiction to the Legislature And Governor
• Establishing Faculty and Other Personnel Policies, including Approving Awarding Of Tenure and Serving as Final Point of Appeal on Personnel Grievances
• Awarding Academic Degrees
![Page 11: Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032414/56649ee85503460f94bfa118/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Coordinating Board Powers/Functions
• Statewide Planning/Policy Leadership• Maintaining Data/Information Systems• Policy Analysis and Problem Resolution• Budget Review and Recommendations• Academic Program Review/Approval• Accountability
Continued
![Page 12: Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032414/56649ee85503460f94bfa118/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12Nov 2-3, 2001
Common Functions (Continued)
• Program/Project Administration• Student Financial Assistance• Licensure/Authorization of Non-Public
Institutions
![Page 13: Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032414/56649ee85503460f94bfa118/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Effective Coordinating Boards
• Focus on Developing and Gaining Broad Commitment to Long-Term Goals for the State (A Public Agenda)
• Link Finance and Accountability to State Goals• Emphasize Use of Data to Inform Policy
Development and Public Accountability • Emphasize Mission Differentiation
Continued
![Page 14: Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032414/56649ee85503460f94bfa118/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Best Practice
• A State Entity that Provides Policy Leadership Focused on Public Agenda
• Increasing the Educational Attainment of the Population• Quality of Life• Economy
• Decentralized Institutional Governance and Deregulation Balanced by Accountability for Performance/Outcomes Linked to Public Agenda
• Financing Policies that:• Use Incentives for Performance and Response to Public
Agenda/Public Priorities• Align State Appropriations, Tuition Policy and Student Aid Policy
![Page 15: Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032414/56649ee85503460f94bfa118/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Challenge Facing States
• System Governing Boards Do Not Focus on Policy Leadership and Coordination Functions– Internal Governance and Management Issues
Dominate Agendas– Boards Advocate for Institutions and Not the
Broader Public Agenda• Many Coordinating Boards Lack the Authority
and Credibility to Provide Needed Policy Leadership
![Page 16: Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032414/56649ee85503460f94bfa118/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Exceptionally Complex Variation of Structures Across States
• As Many “Models” as There are States• Difficult to Attribute Difference in
Performance to Differences in Structure
![Page 17: Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032414/56649ee85503460f94bfa118/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Recent Governance Debates and Changes
• 2010/2011: – 14 States Debated Changes in Statewide
Coordination and Governance– 8 States Made Changes Either by Statute or
Governor’s Executive Order/Budget Action
![Page 18: Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032414/56649ee85503460f94bfa118/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Themes in Recent Debates(Issues Mostly State-Specific)
• Cutting State Budgets/Reducing State Bureaucracy– Eliminating Boards/Agencies Deemed Ineffective or Redundant– Consolidating Agencies– Consolidating Governance (Reducing Number of Boards)
• State-Specific Issues Related to Perceived Institutional or System Mismanagement
• Arguments for P-20 Seamless Policy as Rationale for:– Consolidating Agencies– Eliminating Elected Chief State School Officers
• Proposals for Deregulation– System-wide (e.g., Oregon)– On Specific Issues (e.g., Tuition Policy)
• Governors’ Interest in Increasing Executive Branch Control to Improve Efficiency and Responsiveness to State Priorities
![Page 19: Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032414/56649ee85503460f94bfa118/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Themes (Continued)
• Pushes by Flagship Universities for Special Status (Public Corporations) and Separation from Systems
![Page 20: Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032414/56649ee85503460f94bfa118/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Meaning of “Single Board” State?
• Only Four (4) States Have a Single Governing Board for All Public Higher Education Institutions– Alaska (Board of Regents, University of Alaska) (1917)
(One community college has its own board within the system)
– Hawaii (Board of Regents, University of Hawaii) (1917)– Nevada (Nevada System of Higher Education)(1864)– North Dakota (Board of Higher Education) (1939)
![Page 21: Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032414/56649ee85503460f94bfa118/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Single Board (Continued)
• Two States Have a Single Board which Governs Universities and Coordinates Locally Controlled Community Colleges– Kansas– Montana
![Page 22: Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032414/56649ee85503460f94bfa118/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Single Board
• Nine States Have a Single Governing Board for All Universities (Not Including Many of State’s Two-Year Campuses and Community or Technical Colleges): AZ, FL, GA, IA, MS, NC, NH, UT and WI
• NC and FL have Campus Boards that Operate Within the Consolidated System
![Page 23: Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032414/56649ee85503460f94bfa118/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Key Criteria
• Is Structure Framed by State Goals and Priorities for Serving the State’s Population and Economy?
• Does the Structure Provide for a Single Statewide Entity with Responsibility and Authority to – Shape and Lead a Public Agenda for Higher Education – Use Finance Policy to Steer the System and Ensure
Institutional Responsiveness and Accountability – Define and Maintain Missions and Mission Differentiation– Lead Statewide and Regional “Cross-Sector” Strategies– Resolve Outstanding Issues (Mission, High Cost-Program
Development, etc.)
![Page 24: Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032414/56649ee85503460f94bfa118/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Key Criteria
• Is Governance Aligned with Different Missions?– Community and Technical Colleges (locate most
associate degree programs at CCs and TC)– Research Universities and Health Science
Institutions– Metropolitan and Regional Universities with
Focused Graduate and Research Missions
![Page 25: Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032414/56649ee85503460f94bfa118/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Key Criteria
• Does Structure Provide for Reasonable and Manageable “Span of Control” for Board (s) – Policy Leadership and System Coordination vs.
Institutional Management/Governance– Diversity of Missions Within Management
Responsibility– Manageable Number of Institutions– Complexity of Responsibility (e.g., Health Sciences
and Major Research University)
![Page 26: Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032414/56649ee85503460f94bfa118/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Key Criteria
• Does Structure Provide for Constructive Relationship Between the State and Higher Education: Decentralization within Framework of State Goals and Coordination? – Procedural Autonomy from State Agencies– Legislative Involvement in Detailed Coordination and
Institutional Governance Issues• Does Structure Provide for a Statewide Board With
Authority to Use the Budget Process and Resource Allocation as the Principal Policy Tools to Influence System Behavior Toward State Goals?
![Page 27: Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032414/56649ee85503460f94bfa118/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Key Criteria
• Does Structure Provide for Reasonable Political Balance Among Sectors and Boards?– Reasonable Balance Provides Natural Incentives
for Collaboration– Imbalance Leads to Political End-Runs and
Constant Tension and Turf Battles
![Page 28: Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032414/56649ee85503460f94bfa118/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Key Criteria
• Does Structure Provide an Environment for Louisiana to Develop and Sustain a Globally Competitive Higher Education System?– Retaining and Attracting Outstanding Faculty – Sustaining Multi-Year Improvement– Resolving Issues within the System without
Constant Pressures for Legislative Intervention and Governance Change
![Page 29: Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032414/56649ee85503460f94bfa118/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
The Hierarchical Realities
![Page 30: Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032414/56649ee85503460f94bfa118/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
The system [education] is bottom heavy and loosely coupled.
It is bottom heavy because the closer we get to the bottom
of the pyramid, the closer we get to the factors that have the
greatest effect on the program’s success or failure. The
system is loosely coupled because the ability of one level to
control the behavior of another is weak and largely
negative…
The skillful use of delegated control is central to making
implementation work in bottom-heavy, loosely controlled
systems. When it becomes necessary to rely mainly on
hierarchical control, regulation, and compliance to achieve
results, the game is essentially lost.Richard F. Elmore, Complexity and Control: What Legislators and Administrators Can Do About Implementing Public Policy