governance structures in other states and louisiana’s governance structure louisiana postsecondary...
TRANSCRIPT
Governance Structures in Other States and
Louisiana’s Governance Structure
Louisiana Postsecondary Education Review Commission
Aims McGuinnessNCHEMS
January 11, 2010
Outline• Understanding Different Governance Structures– Description of Differences– Illustration of Different State Structures– Common Issues Faced by States
• Louisiana’s Structure– LA Structure– Key Dimensions of Louisiana Context
• Principles to Guide Deliberations About Governance
3
State Coordination and Governance of Higher Education
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
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
Coordination Versus Governance• 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
6
Comparative Perspective• 24 States are Consolidated Governing Board States:
– All Public Institutions Governed by One or More Statewide Governing Boards
– No Statewide Coordinating Board (with significant authority) • 23 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
• 1 State (Pennsylvania) has State Agency with Limited Authority
• 2 States (Michigan and Vermont) have No Statewide Entity
7
Illustrations of Differences and Complexity of State Higher
Education StructuresOf Necessity, the Following
Illustrations Do Not Reflect the Nuances of Each State’s Structure
Governing Board
Coordinating Board
UniversityCC or
Tech College
2-yr
Campus
Planning orRegulatory
Agency
Governing Board States
CommunityColleges
Two or More Universities (Research
Universities and
Comprehensive Universities)
State-Level Governing Board
State-Level Agency or Governing Board
Explanation: Two separate state-level boards/agencies are responsible for all public institutions, one for universities and other for community or technical colleges. No state-level higher education planning or regulatory agency between boards and Governor and Legislature. Board for community or technical colleges may be either a state-level governing board (North Carolina) or a coordinating/regulatory board for locally governed colleges (Iowa and Oregon).
Iowa, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Oregon
2-year
Campuses/
Community Colleges
Two or More Universities
State-Level Governing Board
Explanation: All public institutions are governed by a single statewide board. Two-year campuses may include two-year primarily transfer campuses and/or community or technical colleges.
Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, DC, and Puerto Rico
2-Year
Colleges Technical Colleges
State-Level Governing Board
Explanation: Two separate boards govern public institutions, one board for the research university and other university campuses as well as 2-year (primarily transfer) colleges, and the other board for technical colleges.
State-Level Governing Board
Universities
Georgia and Wisconsin
Coordinating Board States
CommunityColleges
Institution-Level Governing Boards for
Each University
Several Universities (Research Universities and Comprehensive Universities)
State-level Coordinating or Governing Board
State-Level Coordinating Board
Explanation: Each public university has a governing board. State board for community colleges either governs the colleges or coordinates locally governed community colleges. Coordinating boards plan and coordinate the whole system.Note: Kentucky and Virginia community college boards are a statewide governing boards whereas the Washington State community college board is a coordinating board for locally governed colleges.
Kentucky, Virginia and Washington State
State-Level Governing Board
State-Level Governing Board
Coordinating Board
ResearchUniversity (Multi-
Campus)
Universities
CommunityColleges
Explanation: Public institutions are organized under three state-level boards, one for research universities, one for comprehensive state universities, and the third a state-level governing board or a coordinating board for locally governed community colleges. Coordinating board has responsibility for planning and coordinating the system.
State-LevelCoordinating or Governing
Board
California and Connecticut
Community Collegesor
TechColleges
Two or More Universities
One or More Multi-Campus Governing Boards
State-Level Coordinating or Governing Board
Explanation: Complex system of institutional governance including some multi-campus systems and some institutions with individual governing boards. State-Level board is responsible for coordinating the whole system. Note: In Texas, there is no state-level coordinating entity for locally governed community colleges
Institution-Level Governing Boards forSeveral Universities
Several Universities
State-Level CoordinatingBoard
Alabama, Colorado, Illinois, South Carolina (Texas)
CCand
TechnologyCenters
State-Level Governing Board
State-Level Governing Board
Explanation: State-Level Coordinating Board and two separate state-level governing boards, one for universities, and the other for universities, community colleges and technical institutions.
UniversitiesMulti-CampusUniversity
Coordinating Board
Tennessee
Community and Tech
Colleges
State-Level Governing Board
State-Level Governing Board
Minnesota
Explanation: Two separate state-level boards are responsible for all public institutions.. Planning/service agency has no coordinating authority related to governing boards.
UniversitiesMulti-Campus
University
Service Agency Linked to
Governor’s Office
Community
Colleges
Multi-Campus University
System
State-Level Governing/Coordinating Board
Massachusetts
Explanation: Two separate boards govern public institutions, one board for the research university and other university campuses, and the other board for the state colleges and community colleges. This second board also has responsibility for planning and coordinating all public higher education.
State-Level Governing Board
Colleges
21
Formal Versus InformalAuthority
State Board’s “Power” Depends Less on Formal Authority Than on:
• Support from Governor and State Legislature for Board Policy Decisions/Recommendations
• Budget/Resource Allocation– Changes in Institutional Mission– High-Cost Professional Programs– New Campuses– Merger/Consolidation /Closure of Programs or Campuses
Continued
22
Formal Versus InformalAuthority (Continued)
• Board and Executive Leadership:– Reputation for Objectivity, Fairness, and Timeliness of
Analysis and Advice to Legislative and Executive Branches– Capacity to Gain Trust and Respect (but Not Always
Agreement) of the State Political and Institutional Leaders• Institutional/System Leaders Who Recognize and
Support Effective Coordination To:– Support System/Institutional Governance– Address State and Regional Policy Issues that Cannot Be
Addressed within Systems/Institutions or Only Through Voluntary Coordination
Trends in Governance• State Policy Leadership Focused on Public Agenda
• the Needs 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
Trends (Continued)• Few States Have Centralized or Consolidated
Public Higher Education Systems in Past 35 Years. Exceptions:– Florida: Massive Decentralization and
Recentralization– Establishment of Community/Technical College
Systems (e.g., Kentucky and Louisiana)– Reorganizing Sub-Systems (e.g., Minnesota and
Texas)
Trends (Continued)
• A Few Examples of Consolidation or Integration of Research University and Health Science Campuses to:– Create Reality (or Perception through Branding)
of Scale for Research Competitiveness– Increase Global Ranking for Research
Competitiveness
Common Governance Issues• Lack of “Venue” to Focus on and Sustain Attention to Long-
Term Public Agenda• Disconnect Between State Funding Policies and Gubernatorial
or Legislative Action• Lack of Capacity to Address and Implement More Effective or
Efficient Programs or Delivery Methods that:– Fall Between the “Cracks” of Existing Systems– Threaten the Status-Quo and Run Counter to Institutional Interests
26
Issues (Continued)• Incapacity to Counter Mission Creep:
– 2 Year Campuses Moving to 4 Year Baccalaureate Institutions– Comprehensive Universities to Research Universities
• Incapacity to Make and Sustain Strategic Decisions (especially decisions that shift resources among institutions)
• “Vertical” Organization of Systems versus the “Horizontal” Collaboration Needed to Serve Regional/Metropolitan Needs
• Imbalance in Geo-Political Power -- Played Out through Higher Education
• Systems as Political Networks, Not Means to Achieve Effective System and Institutional Governance
• Board Performance
Challenge for Governing Board States
• Most Do Not Have a “Venue” to Lead and Shape Policy Alternatives for a Public Agenda
• System Governing Boards:– Focus on Internal Governance, Not System
Leadership– Have Difficulty Achieving Mission Differentiation
(e.g., between Major Research University Campuses and Comprehensive Universities)
– Must Be Advocates for the Institutions They Govern
Governance in Louisiana
Louisiana Structure
• One of 23 States with Statewide Coordinating Board and Governance by System Boards (Management Boards)
• Louisiana Board of Regents:– One of Two Coordinating Boards Established by
State Constitution (the other is Oklahoma)– Formal Authority is Stronger Than Most
Coordinating Boards (Funding Policy, Program Approval, etc.)
Louisiana Structure (Continued)
• LA Board of Regents– Board Influence Depends Significantly on Support
form Governor and Legislature• Budget and Finance Policy• Response and Support for Recommendations
– Limited Authority to Implement Initiatives that Cut Across or “Fall Between the Cracks” of Existing Systems
Louisiana Structure (Continued)
• Management Boards– Legislative Appropriations Directly to Campuses
Appears to Limit the Capacity of Systems to Lead and Govern
– As in Other States, the “Systems” and the Institutions Assigned to Each System Have Evolved More from History and Politics than Deliberate Policy Choice and Mission Differentiation
Key Dimensions of Louisiana Context
• Legacy of Historically Black Institutions and Major Priority to Increase Participation and Success of State’s African-American Population
• Regional Differences (and Competition) in Economy, Culture, and Education and Workforce Needs
• Disconnect Between Constitutional and Statutory Mandates and Political Realities in Decision-making and Resource Allocation
Principles
Principles to Guide Deliberations About Governance
• Focus First on Ends, Not Means• Be Explicit about Specific Problems That Are
Catalysts for Reorganization Proposals • Ask If Reorganization Is The Only Or The Most
Effective Means for Addressing The Identified Problems
• Weigh the Costs Of Reorganization Against the Short- and Long-term Benefits.
Principles (Continued)
• Distinguish Between State Coordination and System/Institutional Governance
• 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
The Hierarchical RealitiesExec. & LegislativeBranches of Govt.
System
President
Vice Presidents
Deans
Department Heads
Faculty
Goal Setting Accountability
Implementation
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
Conclusion
• Bottom Line: Is There Something About the Governing Structure That is a Major Barrier to Achieving a Significantly More Effective and Cost-Efficient Delivery System?– Are There Specific Problems in the Allocation of
Decision Authority That Can be Addressed without Major System Restructuring?
– Do the Problems Justify the Costs of a Major System Restructuring?