Higher Education Administration - Policy And Accountability

Please write the TITLE for each to distinguish each. DISCUSSION 1: (1 page) Compare and contrast the federal and state influence on policymaking in American higher education, paying specific attention to the funding of higher education.Be sure to use examples from your readings, the video, or your experiences to support your ideas. (Video: Watch the video Funding Public Higher Education Post-Stimulus offered by the New America Foundation)DISCUSSION 2: (1 page) After reading the paper Top 10 Higher Education State Policy Issues for 2017, discuss how three of these policy issues affect the institution where you work, or National University. You can also access the file by clicking here: Top10Issues2017.pdf WRITING ASSIGNMENT: (1 page) After completing your assigned readings for this unit, write a short summary (two pages or less) of the major differences between New Mexico and New Jersey in respect to each states performance on three primary measures:preparationparticipationcompletionBe sure to support your summary with relevant examples.-------------------------------------------------------------READING for week 2:https://nu(dot)blackboard(dot)com/bbcswebdav/pid-4603842-dt-content-rid-2481322_1/xid-2481322_1 Week Two Lecture 2AFederal Influence on PolicymakingThe federal government impact on campuses and on students is substantial, diverse, and constantly changing. It is the product of deeply rooted traditions but also short term decisions (Gladieux, Hauptman, and Knapp, 2010). While the founders of this country never intended education to be a federal responsibility, national influence on higher education has been a constant for many years. What's more, the United States historically has not set educational policy at the national level, seeing this as state or local purview. But increasingly, Congress and executive agencies, namely the Department of Education, have imposed a variety of rules and regulations on both post-secondary institutions and the students that attend them. Indeed, many Americans have acquired a profound mistrust of federal involvement in education, at both the secondary and postsecondary levels as a result.
While the boundary between higher education and the federal government is somewhat vague, the influence of key participants on policymaking is clear. Elected official, staff from various executive and legislative branches of government, and representatives from non-governmental interest groups, advocacy organizations, and lobbyists all have a role in the dissemination of policy. The federal government's reach into higher education is so wide-ranging and decentralized among the various federal agencies that it is near impossible to determine the total investment of time and other resources. By some estimates, there are more than 400 programs influencing higher education scattered across federal agencies including the Departments of Defense, Transportation, and Agriculture to the Veteran's Administration, NASA, and the Smithsonian Institutes (Gladieux, Hauptman, and Knapp, 2010).
Federal government involvement in higher education was intended as a secondary role to that performed by state and local governments. But federal policy was instrumental in the growth of higher education in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries with the sponsorship of land-grant colleges to the underwriting of student loans and university-based research. Since that time, the federal government has actively and extensively supported higher education to serve a variety of national purposes(Gladieux, Hauptman, and Knapp, 2010). Today, the federal government provides approximately 15 percent of college and university revenues through direct aid to students and research grants. Higher education is a federal concern, but remains a state responsibility.
Direct Aid to Students
Aid to students had humble beginnings following World War 2 with funds appropriated to support those returning from service to attend college. It was not until after the enactment of the Higher Education Act that federal funds became available to the broader population albeit those with significant financial need. But as the politics of federal aid to students continued to take shape, it began to expand to students with less significant need and those whose academics warranted merit funding. But the recession of the early 1980s and amendments to the Higher Education Act saw a tightening of the eligibility requirements for federal aid and a reduction in appropriations. Today, student financial aid programs account for about one percent of the federal budget with appropriations of more than $30-billion.
Research Funding
Pre-dating student aid and beginning with agricultural research, federal support for campus-based research has a long and important history in the funding of higher education. With ties to World War 2 and the needs of the federal government to improve national research and development, this funding increased significantly in the early decades following the war. The federal investment in campus-based research continued into the 1980s and universities also saw significant increases in private and corporate contributions to research. However, as important as this funding is to both the government and the institution, the funds are limited in reach and scope as only a small percentage of higher education institutions compete for these dollars. Today, more than 22 percent of federally sponsored research and development is conducted on campus. This equates to more than $31-billion.
The Impact of Federal Regulation
Federal regulation of higher education comes in many forms, some of which we have just discussed. Such regulation evolves from two primary concepts: the requirements of accountability that accompany the receipt of federal funds; and the dictates of social legislation and the resulting executive orders and judicial decisions(Gladieux, Hauptman, and Knapp, 2010). Sometimes seen as a conflict with the idea of academic freedom, federal regulation extends well beyond the classroom. Numerous laws have been enacted that affect higher education and other types of organizations equally, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, some laws and regulations, such as those stemming from Title IX, are specific to higher education.
Some would argue that the increase in federal oversight and regulation has contributed to the rising cost of higher education. While this may be the case, these regulations on whole have made the academy a better learning environment for all students consistent with the traditional mission and role of higher education. But the full impact of federal regulation is still being determined as colleges and universities consider how to subsist in a heavily regulated macro-environment. Increasing federal quality and performance standards continue to impact the policy environment while funding for these standards remains stagnant.
The Future of Federal Regulation
It is clear that the federal government will continue to make important contributions to enhancing the academic enterprise and to ensuring broad access for all students. Federal funds and their complementary regulations will continue to be available, but not without some concern for institutions, students and states. Student aid reform will continue to be topic of discussion in Washington as will the funds available for research and development. Social legislation affecting access and success will continue to be enacted with accountability tied to continued receipt of federal funds. Finally, the trend toward unfunded mandates will continue causing higher education institutions and state boards of higher education to consider how to meet the requirements.
References and Optional Readings
Gladieux, L. E., Hauptman, A. M., & Knapp, L. G. (2010). The federal government and higher education. In C. D. Lovell, T. E. Larson, D. R. Dean, & D. L. Longanecker (Eds.), Public Policy and Higher Education (pp. 67-86). Boston: Pearson Learning Solutions.
Richardson, R., and Martinez, M. (2009). Policy and performance in American higher education: An examination of cases across state systems. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Item
Week Two Lecture 2B
State Influence on Policymaking
In Unit 1, we briefly explored how state governments and higher education are linked. In this unit, we will dig deeper into this relationship with a specific emphasis on the policymaking role. It is well documented in the national media as well as in the research literature that the relationship between state governments and higher education is in turmoil. Not so much from a perspective of instability in the structure or chaos in the management of higher education, but more of a confusion as to the changing role of state boards of higher education. With states facing economic, political, technological, and demographic changes, the role of the state board is evolving to meet some of these new challenges (Bracco, Richardson, Callan, & Finney, 2010). In doing so, the traditional roles of coordinating and managing growth are lessened and the new role of defending the enormous price tag of higher education is now at the forefront.
Economic Influence
Demand for access to higher education from an increasingly diverse student population continues to increase as changes in the economy force retraining and demand greater skills. However, at this time of greatest need, states appropriations for higher education continue to decline. Despite improving economic conditions, 42 states saw appropriations decline from fiscal year 2011 to 2012 due in large part to the end of the federal stimulus dollars that had propped up higher education spending in recent years (Kelderman, 2012). With this reduction in appropriations, students enrolling in higher education are forced to absorb more of the cost through higher tuition and fees.
Political Influence
Elected leaders have begun to show a renewed interest in the performance of higher education in light of student consumer criticism and the shrinking availability of funds. Undoubtedly, higher education must exist in a political environment and its leaders must understand how to navigate this environment to shape institutional policy. As the public begins to hold elected officials accountable for outcomes in public higher education, these politicians seek more involvement in the operation and oversight of higher education. Maintaining the needs of the institution within the demands of the policymakers can be a tightrope on which many institutional leaders struggle to maintain balance.
Technological Influence
Technological developments have created entirely new platforms for the delivery of higher education instruction leading to new providers in the market. These new providers exist in the for-profit sector of higher education, but they are not alone in leading the technological revolution. Many public and non-profit institutions such as Western Governors University and National University have created models that utilize technology to improve access to a diverse population of students.
Demographic Influence
As the population of the United States changes, we are experiencing the beginnings of a gradual decline in high school graduations leading to a reduction in traditional-aged students seeking college enrollment. At the same time, with the economic issues of recent years, more non-traditional students have been enrolling in higher education including adults, minorities, and students from families with low socioeconomic status. This trend is moving higher education to a point where enrollments at colleges and universities begin to more closely match the demographics of the general population.
Models of State Governance
States vary widely in the approaches they take to organizing their higher education systems. As we explored in the summary PowerPoint presentation in Unit 1, there are many different models of state boards of higher education. The subject has typically been framed as one of institutional autonomy versus state authority, or centralization versus decentralization. In most cases, the argument has been made for more autonomy and less control on the state level to avoid political intrusion and to best represent the public interest. Generally accepted taxonomies distinguish three basic types of state structures, although there are many variations within these structures: consolidated governing boards, coordinating boards, and planning agencies (McGuinness, 2002).
Consolidating Governing Boards
Under this structure, states cluster higher education institutions under one consolidated governing board that has full management and control of all institutions. Colleges and universities in states with this structure may still have campus-level boards of directors, but full oversight is the responsibility of the state-level governing board. This structure ensures that all institutions are engaged in statewide strategic planning and responsive to state priorities while guarding against duplication of programs and services. However, this centralized structure is sometimes slow to respond to market needs, burdened by large bureaucracies, and under heavy political influence at the institution level.
Coordinating Boards
Under this structure, a single agency other than a governing board has responsibility for the statewide coordination of policy functions (e.g. planning and policy leadership, program review and approval, and budget development and resource allocation). This structure ensures that all institutions are engaged in statewide strategic planning and are quick to respond to market needs while being generally responsive to state priorities. However, this structure is sometimes perceived as powerless due to limited regulatory authority making it difficult to create policy change.
Planning Agencies
Under this structure, there is no association with oversight authority, only one that offers voluntary planning and organizing. Colleges and universities in states with this structure have campus-level boards of directors that maintain full authority and control and work directly with state legislative body's independent of other institutions. This structure allows for full autonomy and decentralization, but institutions are not engaged in statewide strategic planning and there is the potential for significant overlap in programs and services.
The Future Relationship between States and Higher Education
The future of the relationship between states and their higher education institutions is "best understood as a the result of interaction between a policy environment shaped by government strategies to achieve balance among professional values and the use of market forces; and a system design which determines provider responsibilities, capacities, and linkages to each other and to elected leaders" (Bracco, et al., 2010, p. 99). Central to the relationship between these two entities is the idea of trust and accountability. Colleges and universities must work to restore trust in our genuine commitment to serving in the best interest of our students and their overall success. This is best accomplished by higher education being a champion of accountability, not just accepting it grudgingly. This requires a renewed effort at developing an attitude of continuous improvement. In order to meet the new challenges facing higher education head-on, policymakers, state boards, and institutional
leaders must work together for the common good of all students.
References and Optional Readings
Bracco, K. R., Richardson, R. C., Callan, P. M., and Finney, J. E. (2010). Policy environments and system design: Understanding state governance structures. In C. D. Lovell, T. E. Larson, D. R. Dean, & D. L. Longanecker (Eds.), Public Policy and Higher Education (pp. 87-100). Boston: Pearson Learning Solutions.
Gladieux, L. E., Hauptman, A. M., & Knapp, L. G. (2010). The federal government and higher education. In C. D. Lovell, T. E. Larson, D. R. Dean, & D. L. Longanecker (Eds.), Public Policy and Higher Education (pp. 67-86). Boston: Pearson Learning Solutions.
Kelderman, E. (2012, January 23). State support for colleges falls 7.6% in 2012 fiscal year. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://chronicle(dot)com/article/article-content/130414/
McGuinness, A. C. (2002, November). The authority of state boards of education. Retrieved from The Education Commission of the States, State Notes, Governance website: 
http://www(dot)ecs(dot)org/clearinghouse/42/87/4287.htm
Richardson, R., and Martinez, M. (2009). Policy and performance in American higher education: An examination of cases across state systems. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.