Ó£»¨ÊÓƵ

1.  The Act eliminated excessive regulatory oversight and provided greater institutional autonomy and increased institutional creativity to implement diverse missions within a coordinated system.

2.  It provided institutional flexibility in establishment of new programs and enhanced responsiveness of institutions to student, business community, and state needs.

3.  It increased the level of collaboration among the institutions.

4.  It increased involvement and responsibility of trustee boards at public institutions.

5.  The Act instituted a regularly updated long-range plan for higher education and coordinated efforts to achieve state goals. 

1.  There is no clear, central voice for higher education on behalf of state needs and public policy.

Higher education is a critical aspect of the state’s infrastructure and economic prosperity, but it does not have a central voice with a consistent place at the state budget development or policy tables within the Administration, while every other major area of state government has that central voice. 

The Governor (and his senior staff) and the Legislature would benefit from turning to a state-level higher education point person for advice and assistance as needed, as they do for every area.  And it should be clear that this person represents the public policy voice for higher education at the state level, avoiding the current situation where all of  the sectors, and sometimes all of the presidents, feel they should be at the table, and as a result, most often no one is.

A central state-level presence and voice could be achieved by reestablishing a cabinet-level position.  Or it could be achieved by simply bringing the state higher education agency leader to the table – whether that be an executive director or some other title – to establish that ongoing communication and relationship to keep higher education at the state policy table.  

At the same time, it is critical for the Administration and Legislature to keep communications open with institutional presidents.  The very able and talented presidents of the colleges and universities provide valuable perspectives and advice – and they can best speak for the institutions.

Optimally, the structure will benefit from the strong, entrepreneurial and ambitious voice of the institutional presidents – balanced by a strong voice on behalf of the state and public policy.

The other essential element, of course, is the ear of policy makers; there has been no forum for regular conversations like this one, which leads to the second weakness.

2.  The state lacks clear policy for higher education to guide the “coordinated autonomy” and work toward achieving state goals.

While the Commission and the Presidents’ Council each carry out their statutory responsibilities, there has not been a forum for public policy and decision making.  State policy has long been absent in critical areas.  The long-range plan for higher education, A Blueprint for Excellence, recognizes this and has initiated a process for the development of sound public policy for the future.

Two task forces are underway to develop policy recommendations for consideration.  Key leaders from state government, higher education, and the private sector have come together to:

• recommend a long-term state plan to support capital needs at colleges and universities, and
• recommend a methodology/policy for operating support of the public research universities and the state colleges and universities to fill the void that has existed since the mid 1980s. 

These recommendations will be presented to the Commission on Higher Education, and the Commission will seek input from stakeholders before submitting formal policy recommendations to the Administration and Legislature for consideration.

The ultimate desired outcome is the development of state policy in these and other critical areas to guide institutional and state planning and decision-making. 

A state policy framework is an essential component of coordinated autonomy; it should provide general guidance for the Commission as it carries out its responsibilities for licensure and academic program decisions, funding and policy recommendations, program implementation, and general coordination on behalf of the state.

The state policy framework should also provide general guidance for institutional decisions regarding academic programs, enrollment growth, tuition and fees, and other areas.  For example, general, long-term funding and tuition policy to guide institutional decisions could avoid periodic de facto limitations that inhibit effective planning and operations.

And there is one final weakness that is worthy of mention.

3.  The system would benefit from a better articulated framework for accountability.

Public expectations of accountability for higher education outcomes have increased over the past decade, as have expectations for fiscal accountability, which have spilled over to the nonprofit sector from the new federal requirements placed on the corporate world.  

The framework for accountability in the governance structure is not as clear as it should be, but we are making strides in that direction with the new long-range plan and its annual progress updates, which track improvements over time and include peer comparisons to provide a national context in which to view outcomes.  The draft update of the plan will be released today, and I will provide copies through staff to the committee members.

The Commission does not have responsibility for fiscal accountability of the institutions, and rightfully so.  Fiscal accountability belongs at the institutional level, and the trustees of the institutions must be equipped with the skills and knowledge to appropriately exercise that accountability.  While individual sectors have various trustee development programs, it may be beneficial to have annual or biennial trustee conferences at the state level to further prepare trustees in this critical area. 

Ideally, a clearly articulated accountability framework will meet public expectations for higher education accountability.