Governance of Public Higher Education

1. Governance of Public Higher Education Governance Commission Baton Rouge 19 August 2011

2. Principles to Guide Deliberations AboutGovernance • 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.

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

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

7. 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)

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

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

12. Common Functions (Continued) • Program/Project Administration • Student Financial Assistance • Licensure/Authorization of Non-PublicInstitutions

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

14. 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

15. 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

16. Exceptionally Complex Variation of Structures Across States • As Many “Models” as There are States • Difficult to Attribute Difference in Performance to Differences in Structure

17. 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

18. 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

19. Themes (Continued) • Pushes by Flagship Universities for Special Status (Public Corporations) and Separation from Systems

20. 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)

21. Single Board (Continued) • Two States Have a Single Board which Governs Universities and Coordinates Locally Controlled Community Colleges • Kansas • Montana

22. 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

23. 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.)

24. 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

25. 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)

26. 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?

27. 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

28. 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

29. The Hierarchical Realities

30. 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