governance structures in other states and louisiana s governance structure n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Governance Structures in Other States and Louisiana’s Governance Structure PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Governance Structures in Other States and Louisiana’s Governance Structure

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 39

Governance Structures in Other States and Louisiana’s Governance Structure - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 179 Views
  • Uploaded on

Governance Structures in Other States and Louisiana’s Governance Structure. Louisiana Postsecondary Education Review Commission Aims McGuinness NCHEMS January 11, 2010. Outline. Understanding Different Governance Structures Description of Differences

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Governance Structures in Other States and Louisiana’s Governance Structure' - gallagher


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
governance structures in other states and louisiana s governance structure

Governance Structures in Other States and Louisiana’s Governance Structure

Louisiana Postsecondary Education Review Commission

Aims McGuinness

NCHEMS

January 11, 2010

outline
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
no ideal model
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
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
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
comparative perspective
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 (including Louisiana) 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
illustrations of differences and complexity of state higher education structures

Illustrations of Differences and Complexity of State Higher Education Structures

Of Necessity, the Following Illustrations Do Not Reflect the Nuances of Each State’s Structure

key to symbols
Key to Symbols

Governing Board

Planning or

Regulatory

Agency

Coordinating

Board

2-yr

Campus

University

CC or

Tech College

iowa mississippi north carolina and oregon
Iowa, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Oregon

State-Level Agency

or Governing Board

State-Level

Governing Board

Two or More Universities (Research Universities and Comprehensive Universities)

Community

Colleges

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).

alaska hawaii idaho nevada north dakota rhode island utah dc and puerto rico
Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, DC, and Puerto Rico

State-Level

Governing Board

2-year

Campuses/

Community Colleges

Two or More Universities

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.

georgia and wisconsin
Georgia and Wisconsin

State-Level

Governing Board

State-Level

Governing Board

2-Year

Colleges

Universities

Technical Colleges

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.

kentucky virginia and washington state
Kentucky, Virginia and Washington State

State-Level

Coordinating Board

Institution-Level

Governing Boards for

Each University

State-level Coordinating

or Governing Board

Community

Colleges

Several

Universities (Research Universities

and Comprehensive Universities)

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.

california and connecticut
California and Connecticut

Coordinating

Board

State-Level

Coordinating or Governing

Board

State-Level

Governing Board

State-Level

Governing Board

Research

University (Multi-

Campus)

Community

Colleges

Universities

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.

alabama colorado illinois south carolina texas
Alabama, Colorado, Illinois, South Carolina (Texas)

State-Level Coordinating

Board

State-Level Coordinating

or Governing Board

One or More Multi-Campus

Governing Boards

Institution-Level

Governing Boards for

Several Universities

Community Colleges

or

Tech

Colleges

Two or More Universities

Several

Universities

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

tennessee
Tennessee

Coordinating

Board

State-Level

Governing Board

State-Level

Governing Board

CC

and

Technology

Centers

Multi-Campus

University

Universities

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.

slide19

Minnesota

State-Level

Governing Board

State-Level

Governing Board

Service Agency

Linked to

Governor’s Office

Community and

Tech

Colleges

Multi-Campus

University

Universities

Explanation: Two separate state-level boards are responsible for all public institutions.. Planning/service agency has no coordinating authority related to governing boards.

slide20

Massachusetts

State-Level

Governing/Coordinating Board

State-Level

Governing Board

Community

Colleges

Multi-Campus University System

Colleges

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.

formal versus informal authority
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

formal versus informal authority continued
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
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
Trends (Continued)
  • Only a Few States Have Centralized or Consolidated Public Higher Education Systems in Past 35 Years (when systems in North Carolina and Wisconsin were established). Exceptions:
    • Florida: Massive Decentralization and Recentralization
    • Establishment of Community/Technical College Systems (e.g., Kentucky and Louisiana)
    • Reorganizing Sub-Systems (e.g., Maryland, Minnesota and Texas)
trends continued1
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
Common Governance Issues
  • Lack of “Venue” (an Agency or Other Entity) 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
  • Lack of Capacity to Counter Mission Creep:
    • 2 Year Campuses Moving to 4 Year Baccalaureate Institutions
    • Comprehensive Universities to Research Universities
common governance issues continued
Common Governance Issues (Continued)
  • Inability of State to Make and Sustain Strategic Decisions (especially decisions that shift resources among institutions)
  • “Vertical” Organization of Systems That Lack Authority to Pursue “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: Institutional, System and Statewide
challenges for governing board states
Challenges for Governing Board States
  • Most Do Not Have a “Venue” to Lead and Shape Policy Alternatives for a Public Agenda Cutting Across All of the State’s Higher Education Sectors
  • 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
louisiana structure
Louisiana Structure
  • One of 23 States with Statewide Coordinating Board and Governance by System Boards (Management Boards)
  • Louisiana Board of Regents:
    • One of Three Coordinating Boards Established by State Constitution (the others are Oklahoma and Nebraska)
    • Formal Authority is Stronger Than Most Coordinating Boards (Funding Policy, Program Approval, etc.)
louisiana structure continued
Louisiana Structure (Continued)
  • LA Board of Regents
    • Board Influence Depends Significantly on Support from 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 continued1
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
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 to guide deliberations about governance
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
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 realities

Exec. & LegislativeBranches of Govt.

System

Goal Setting

Accountability

President

Vice Presidents

Deans

Department Heads

Faculty

Implementation

The Hierarchical Realities
slide38

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
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?