Foreword
 
Introduction
 
State Context
 
Higher Education in South Dakota
 
Two New Processes for Policy-Driven Change
 
Changes Initiated in Higher Education
 
Conclusions
 
Endnotes
 
About the Author
 
About the National Center

home   about us   news   reports   crosstalk   search   links  


South Dakota
Page 7 of 10

Conclusions

As in many other states throughout the last decade, policymakers in South Dakota are looking for efficiency and savings in all areas of public service, including higher education. The conscious choice by the state's leadership to decrease tax-based revenue over the last five years has certainly contributed to the need for higher education to formulate new and better ways of delivering education. Although every state is unique, "we all seem to face similar problems or challenges in higher education," as one legislator put it.

What is exceptional is how the state has approached its problems. As in any state, many factors prompted policymakers in South Dakota to recognize the need for change. Foremost among these factors were the roundtable meetings (and diligent follow-up after each session), which have enhanced statewide dialogue concerning higher education policy. This, in turn, has helped policymakers and higher education leaders to plan for and implement change. Traditionally, the Legislature has relied on information that the Board of Regents provides or that gubernatorial staff make available. The roundtables have changed that, providing a communication and information forum for legislators, the governor, business constituents, and higher education administrators outside the frenetic 30-day legislative sessions.

Secondly, the process of adopting a more unified higher education system -- which occurred simultaneously with the roundtable discussions -- helped the state to plan and implement change more effectively. Examples can be found in the state emphasis on reinvestment through efficiencies, and in the shift away from formula-driven budgeting. The essence of the state policy agenda for higher education now resides in nine state policy goals, each of which is tied to the amount of base funding, the performance portion, or both.

Several issues, of course, remain largely unresolved. Though an articulation agreement has been legislatively mandated, issues between higher education and technical education may make implementation less than smooth. Many university and technical administrators say they work together on certain issues, but it is clear that there are still differences. Whether or not the technical institutes should remain separate from the universities also is a question that has polarized stakeholders. Given the state's political trends towards increasing efficiency and eliminating duplication -- and a governor who is powerful and in his last term -- conditions in the coming years may be ripe to resolve some of these divisive issues between the technical institutes and the universities.

It is too early, of course, to suggest that South Dakota's policy-driven changes in higher education have been -- or will be -- successful across the board. The full effects of the new processes for implementing state higher education policy are not yet clear; nor will they be for some time. What is clear, however, is that over the past five years, policymakers, higher education leaders, and business leaders in South Dakota have responded to changing state needs through developing a wide range of proactive, policy-driven processes. As a result, South Dakota is in a better position to assess its needs regarding higher education, engage policymakers in long-term discussions to plan for meeting those needs, and implement changes based on those policy discussions.

DOWNLOAD | PREVIOUS | NEXT

National Center logo
© 1999 The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education

HOME | about us | center news | reports & papers | national crosstalk | search | links | contact

site managed by NETView Communications