Introduction
 
Context
 
The Research
 
Policy Implications
 
Conclusion
 
Endnotes
 
About the National Center
 

home   about us   news   reports   crosstalk   search   links  


Higher Education Governance
Page 6 of 7

Endnotes

1 The study was conducted by the California Higher Education Policy Center from 1994 to 1997, and was funded by The James Irvine Foundation and The Pew Charitable Trusts.
2 See Executive Office of the President of the United States, The Economic Report of the President (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1997); and U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1997 Digest of Education Statistics (Washington, D.C.: 1997), pp. 421÷422.
3 Knocking at the College Door: Projections of High School Graduates by State, Race/Ethnicity 1996÷2012 (Boulder, CO: WICHE Publications), as cited in L. Reisberg, ãSize of High School Graduating Class Will Hit 3.2 Million,ä Chronicle of Higher Education (March 27, 1998), p. A48.
4 See California Higher Education Policy Center, Shared Responsibility: Strategies for Quality and Opportunity in California Higher Education (San Jose, CA: 1996); and Commission on National Investment in Higher Education, Breaking the Social Contract: The Fiscal Crisis in Higher Education (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1997).
5 See J. Immerwahr, The Price of Admission: The Growing Importance of Higher Education (San Jose, CA: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 1998).
6 See Wingspread Group on Higher Education, An American Imperative: Higher Expectations for Higher Education (Racine, WI: Johnson Foundation, 1993); J. Immerwahr with J. Boese, Preserving the Higher Education Legacy: A Conversation with California Leaders (San Jose, CA: California Higher Education Policy Center, 1995); U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey (Washington D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics, 1992); and J. Harvey and J. Immerwahr, The Fragile Coalition: Public Support for Higher Education in the 1990s (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1995).
7 Commission on National Investment in Higher Education, Breaking the Social Contract, p. 2.
8 H. D. Graham, ãStructure and Governance in American Higher Education: Historical and Comparative Analysis in State Policy,ä Journal of Policy History 1 (1989), pp. 80÷107; L. Glenny, Autonomy of Public Colleges: The Challenge of Coordination (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959); R. O. Berdahl, Statewide Coordination of Higher Education (Washington, D.C.: ACE, 1971); and C. Kerr and M. Gade, The Guardians: Boards of Trustees of American Colleges and Universities, What They Do and How Well They Do It? (Washington, D.C.: AGB, 1989).
9 See in particular R. O. Berdahl, ãStatewide Coordination of Higher Education and Education Commission of the States,ä 1997 State Postsecondary Education Structures Sourcebook (Denver: Education Commission of the States, 1997).
10 R. Novak ãStatewide Governance: Autonomy or Accountability Revisited,ä Trusteeship (March÷April 1993), pp. 10÷14.
11 1997 State Postsecondary Education Structures Sourcebook.
12 J. M. Burns, J. W. Peltason, T. E. Cronin, State and Local Politics: Government by the People (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990).
13 G. L. Williams, ãThe ÎMarketizationâ of Higher Education: Reforms and Potential Reforms in Higher Education Finance,ä Emerging Patterns of Social Demand and University Reform: Through a Glass Darkly, edited by D. D. Dill and B. Sporn (Tarrytown, N.Y.: Elsevier Science, Inc., 1995), pp. 170÷193.
14 See D. Osborne, and T. Gaebler, Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1992).
15 We draw here upon a modified version of concepts used by C. Handy, ãBalancing Corporate Power: A New Federalist Paper,ä Harvard Business Review (November÷December, 1992), pp. 59÷72, to describe the integrated system and to distinguish federal from unified systems.
16 The State of Washingtonâs 2020 Commission, established by the governor in 1998, is a notable exception. In this case a commission was appointed to probe the future of a state system that is generally believed to be successful.
17 C. Kerr, ãA Critical Age in the University World: Accumulated Heritage Versus Modern Imperatives,ä European Journal of Education 22 (1987), p. 186.
18 D. Bok, Universities and the Future of America (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1990), p. 111.
19 The exception here is the former teachers colleges, which were typically governed by the state board of education.
20 See B. R. Clark, The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-National Perspective (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), pp. 136÷181.
21 P. M. Callan and J. E. Finney, editors, Public and Private Financing of Higher Education: Shaping Public Policy for the Future (Phoenix: American Council on Education and Oryx Press, 1997), pp. 30÷55.
22 R. T. Garrett, ãPattonâs Reforms: Kentucky Governor Brings Change to Postsecondary Education,ä National CrossTalk 5, no. 3 (Fall 1997), p. 1+; W. Trombley, ãMega Merger in Minnesota: Anticipated Gains in Savings and Efficiency Prove to be Elusive,ä National CrossTalk 5 (Fall 1997), p. 3; and A. C. McGuinness, ãThe Functions and Evolution of State Coordination and Governance in Postsecondary Education,ä 1997 State Postsecondary Education Structures Sourcebook, pp. 1÷48.
23 See W. Trombley, ãPerformance-Based Budgeting: South Carolinaâs New Plan Mired in Detail and Confusion,ä National CrossTalk 6 (Winter 1998), p. 1; and A. Serban and J. Burke, Meeting the Performance Funding Challenge: A Nine State Comparative Analysis (Albany: Nelson Rockefeller Institute, 1997).

DOWNLOAD | PREVIOUS | NEXT

National Center logo
© 1998 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