2004 State Governance Action Report

The 2004 State Governance Action Annual certainly shows that when it comes to American higher education governance these days, there is much ado about something—at least in the public sector.

The financial distress that has rocked state governments over the past couple of years has touched off a series of discussions—on governance, finance, and accountability—across the country. But tough times aren’t the only thing behind the drive to revise the public compact between states and higher education. Indeed, both states and their higher education enterprises are asking whether their traditional relationship remains viable in an increasingly market-driven higher education environment, one in which the state agency model of governance may no longer make sense.

As the idea of “reducing” government gains traction, many states are taking a new view of this relationship. Instead of looking on institutions as publicly owned providers, they’re focusing on students as beneficiaries of a state service. Meanwhile, many institutions are begging for greater autonomy so they can operate more effectively and efficiently, arguing that traditional state government modes of operation force them to be less than they could be and should be.

Also helping to shape new ideas about how to best promote the public good are emerging quality assurance mechanisms that focus on outcomes such as student learning and research productivity measures. In addition, higher education’s perceived contribution to the public good has been brought into question, due to the increasing focus on the private rather than the public benefits of higher education.

All of which is contributing to a rapidly changing environment and an often-confusing cacophony of ideas. These are interesting times, to say the least, for college and university board members and chief executives.

In this annual report, AGB’s Center for Public Trusteeship and Governance provides an up-to-date and insightful description of current state-level policy discussions and actions, many of which could significantly alter the nature of higher education governance in America. Some to the ideas presented in this report may not, on the surface, appear to be governance issues, per se; they more directly address finance or accountability policies. But the way in which these finance and accountability issues end up being resolved might well affect college and university governance more profoundly than any of the specific proposals to reorganize.

The description of the balancing of interests between haves and have-nots in this report is extremely important. It speaks not only to the importance in public policy of assuring access to higher education for students from have and have-not backgrounds but also to the importance of assuring that have and have-not institutions can continue to serve their respective, and equally important, missions. Yes, we are proud of our elite institutions because, thanks to them, we are revered as having the greatest system of higher education in the world. Yet most higher education in this country is not provided by these have institutions to have students; it is offered to middle-class and poor students in institutions with a modest capacity to support themselves. America has been exceptionally well served by its highly valued system of public higher education—but will continue to be so only if we sustain and strengthen its diversity.

As interesting as these times are, they’re also potentially dangerous. If our publicness is now at risk, either because of a dwindling capacity or will to publicly support the enterprise or because of a new ethic of private—versus public—responsibilities, our concept of serving the public good may be in danger as well. Yet there remains an important distinction between public and private good. If we lose our understanding of this difference, we will lose much more than our public higher education system.

This report helps to illuminate not only what is happening today—and what is driving the critical discussions we’re having—but also what the consequences, both positive and negative, may be from the changes unfolding before us. In creating it, the Center for Public Trusteeship and Governance has made a substantial contribution to our ongoing discussions. But that’s no surprise: the Center, only four years old, has already become highly regarded for the quality and substance of its work.

David A. Longanecker
Executive Director
Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education
Boulder, Colorado
March 2004