The Governor and the State Higher Education Executive Officer: How the Relationship Shapes State Financial Support for Higher Education

In this chapter, we explore the economic justifications for the role of government in supporting postsecondary education. Although many refer to education (particularly public education) as a public good, the teaching function of colleges and universities does not meet the economists’ definition of a public good. Perhaps the only product from postsecondary education that may be thought of as a public good is basic research. Instead, the economic rationale for governmental financial support of postsecondary education rests on the argument that students produce positive externalities when they go to college. We will outline the main economic concepts behind public goods and externalities, and show how they relate to governmental support for higher education. We also provide an extension of the model of public choice, and consider two higher education policy issues with regard to the appropriate level of state support for higher education and the debate between need-based and merit-based financial aid.

State governments and public colleges and universities have a symbiotic relationship. Public higher education institutions play an important role in creating an educated citizenry and improving state and local economies, while states bear the primary responsibility of funding postsecondary education. Still, there is widespread evidence that the state-university relationship is eroding, as seen by the drastic cuts in appropriations for higher education during the past two and a half decades. Adjusted to account for inflation, state appropriations for higher education have declined 40% since 1978, and current state investment effort per personal income dropped $32.1 billion below that of 1980 (Mortenson, 2004). There are many factors that explain the nationwide decline in state support for public colleges and universities, but the majority of the blame rests on painful economic recessions that have occurred in the last 25 years. Recessions in FY1980-83 and FY1990-94 contributed heavily to the slide in support for higher education. The cuts during FY1990-91 were especially formidable, marking the first time in 33 years that state budgets allotted less money to higher education than the previous year (Schuh, 1993). The freefall in support for higher education only intensified as state appropriations were slashed $650 per student between FY2001 and FY2004, a period marked by widespread fiscal crisis among states (Jenny & Arbak, 2004). In addition to these economic hardships, drops in state support for discretionary programs such as higher education have also been attributed to a conservative shift in the federal government's role. During the last 25 years, the federal government transferred partial or full responsibility for many programs to the state and local level. This shift in philosophy, known as new federalism, resulted in steep cuts in federal and state aid for municipal and county governments (Peterson, 1995). Not surprisingly, this shift resulted in a significant squeeze in higher education appropriations for most states. The funding pinch occurred because public universities are forced to compete more intensely for dollars with other state programs such as Medicaid, K-12 schools, social services, and corrections (Schuh, 1993). Medicaid is forecasted to put an especially intense squeeze on higher education funding in the next decade as a larger share of public funds will be required to support the aging population of Baby Boomers (Kane, Orszag, & Gunter, 2003). Due to these economic and political factors, the relationship between states and public higher education is fundamentally changing across the country. This change is especially noticeable at major public research universities that are increasingly becoming quasi-private institutions. For example, state support accounted for approximately 35% of the budget at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1988, as opposed to 21% of its budget in 2004 (University of Wisconsin-Madison Office of Budget, Planning, and Analysis, 2004). As at many other research universities, rising tuition and support have picked up the budget shortfall at the Madison campus. Fundraising especially is emerging as a high priority for colleges and universities, including UW-Madison, which is en route to completing a $1.5 billion campaign (University of Wisconsin Foundation, 2003). This shift toward an increasingly private public research university been accompanied by an increasing tension between higher education administrators and state legislators. Mark Yudof, President of the University of Texas System, bemoaned the fact that the compact that once governed states and public research universities has withered, leaving public research universities in a purgatory of insufficient resources and declining competitiveness (Yudof, 2002, p. B24). Other public research university presidents have echoed Yudof's concerns, saying that further state cuts will radically change the character of their institutions (Gose, 2002). …

In attempting to explain state support of public higher education, this study develops a theory-driven, comprehensive conceptualization of the state political system within a larger theoretical framework that consists of state economic and demographic factors and higher education system attributes. Furthermore, although the higher education policy and finance literature has largely ignored the impact of interest groups on state policy and state support of higher education, they play a central role in the model presented here. The inclusion of politics in the explanatory model results in a more robust and pragmatically useful model.

Higher Education Plays a critical role in supporting macroeconomic growth and, for individual students, represents a gateway to future economic success. Higher education also exerts significant influence on a regional and local basis, in terms of both economic and civic development. For example, the quality of a region's higher education institutions and the proportion of college graduates in the population appear to be important determinants of per capita income growth.1 Research spillovers from universities are also somewhat geographically localized.2 The status of the nation's overall higher education system and local higher education institutions is thus of crucial importance to major urban areas. In the United States, state governments historically have taken the lead in financing higher education. But over the past twenty years, state government support for higher education has gradually waned, and the share of higher education expenditures subsidized by state appropriations has declined. One result of declining state support has been the widely publicized rise in tuition at public [End Page 99] institutions.3 However, there is a second result, which is less well recognized, namely a widening gap in expenditures per student and in average faculty salaries between public and private institutions. The relative decline in spending per student at public universities appears to be exerting an adverse effect on the quality of faculty, students, and education delivered at such institutions. Since roughly three-quarters of college students are enrolled at public institutions, any decline in the relative quality of the nation's public universities could have significant implications. In this paper, we examine interactions between state appropriations for higher education and other state budget items (especially Medicaid) and the business cycle. We document the substantial decline in state support for higher education over the past two decades, explore the business cycle's effects on higher education subsidies, and compare the cyclical patterns in higher education spending with the cyclical patterns in other types of spending. We also examine the relationship between the Medicaid program and state higher education spending. In addition, we look at how declining state appropriations for higher education affect the relative quality of public higher education institutions. State Support for Higher Education The decline in state support for higher education over the past several decades manifests itself in several common measures.4 Figure 1, which shows state appropriations for higher education relative to personal income,5 demonstrates state appropriations have fallen from an average of roughly $8.50 per $1,000 in personal income in 1977, to an average of $6.80 in 2003. Since personal income amounted to $9 trillion in 2003, state appropriations would have been about $15 billion higher in 2003 if appropriations had been maintained at the ratio to personal income that existed in 1977.6 [End Page 100] Click for larger view Figure 1 State Appropriations for Higher Education per $1,000 of Personal Income, 1977–03 On a real per capita basis, state appropriations rose rapidly in the mid- to late 1980s and then fell sharply in the early 1990s.7 Beginning in the mid-1990s, higher education appropriations rebounded, but only sluggishly. In the late 1990s the rise in state appropriations accelerated, so that by 2001 state appropriations returned to approximately their level in the late 1980s. Note, however, that the 1990s recovery appears quite different from the 1980s [End Page 101] recovery. Appropriations were slower to recover during the 1990s and never exceeded their previous peak. Since 2001, appropriations have declined sharply again, repeating the earlier business-cycle patterns. The same basic pattern holds with regard to appropriations per full-time equivalent student (see figure 2). Click for larger view Figure 2 State Appropriations for Higher Education per Capita and Student, 1977–03 State appropriations also declined... collapse You are not currently authenticated. If you would like to authenticate using a different subscribed institution or have your own login and password to Project MUSE Authenticate

Although universities have undergone changes since the dawn of their existence, the speed of change started to accelerate remarkably in the 1960s. Spectacular growth in the number of students and faculty was immediately followed by administrative reforms aimed at managing this growth and managing the demands of students for democratic reform and societal relevance. Since the 1980s, however, an entirely different wind has been blowing along the academic corridors. The fiscal crisis of the welfare states and the neoliberal course of the Reagan and Thatcher governments made the battle against budget deficits and against government spending into a political priority. Education, together with social security and health care, were targeted directly. As the eighties went on, the neoliberal agenda became more radical—smaller state and bigger market—attacking the public sector itself through efforts to systematically reduce public expenditure by privatizing public services and introducing market incentives. At the

The relations between access, diversity and participation - searching for the weakest link?, J. Huisman, et al access to university in Australia - who misses out?, I. Dobson higher education in a divided society - Northern Ireland, B. Osborne, T. Gallagher educational exclusion and inclusion in higher education in South Africa - creating a new national framework/consensus, Y. Sayed managing to exclude? manager-academic and staff communities in contemporary UK universities, R. Deem student financial support in higher education - access and exclusion, C. Callender the prejudicial papers? press treatment of UK higher education performance indicators, 1999-2001, M. Yorke qualitative difference in university teaching, K. Trigwell, M. Prosser a disciplinary perspective on university teaching and learning, R. Neumann naming academic knowledge - what is included within the university?, M. Tight.

The purpose of this study is to estimate the appropriate financial resources to secure the competitiveness of higher education and attempt educational innovation, and to seek specific measures to expand it. Based on the review of previous studies related to higher education finance, first, the necessity of expanding public resources for higher education, the basis of higher education support, and the main contents of each government's higher education support policy were examined, and second, the scale of domestic higher education financial support and overseas higher education financial support were compared and analyzed, and the financial status of domestic higher education institutions was analyzed. Finally, the direction of fiscal investment was confirmed at the government level, and the fiscal scale and expansion plans to realize this were comprehensively reviewed. The analysis results showed that, first, investment in higher education institutions is necessary, but there is not enough legal basis to support higher education finance. Second, it was found that the level of financial support to support innovation of higher education institutions was insufficient compared to both international and domestic standards. Third, plans to cultivate human resources at the national level are being announced, but the budget for higher education to support this has been stagnant. As a result of calculating the appropriate size of higher education finances based on the OECD average, about 10 trillion won was required. As a way to finance higher education, it proposed a method of easing tuition regulations and preparing a legal basis for financial support for higher education. In addition, to improve the financial conditions of universities, it was proposed to secure the effectiveness of the financial support plan and to expand the scope of the university's current expenses support.

This study estimates the extent that state financial support for higher education raises college attainment. Despite its manifest importance for policy, this is the first study to estimate this effect directly. Many studies have estimated the effect of college price on attendance, but state support for higher education and college price do not have a one-to-one correspondence. Moreover, state support for higher education can affect enrollment through college quality, not just price. A two-stage instrumental-variables approach is employed to account for the possibility that state funding for higher education may endogenously depend on anticipated college enrollment. Using 22 years of U.S. interstate data (1985-2006) and controlling for fixed state effects, the results of this study indicate that state funding for higher education has significant causal effects on both college enrollment and degree attainment. The estimated state-support elasticity of college enrollment and college degree attainment is about 0.35.

Higher Education in Pakistan - Problems and Prospects in Post 18th Amendment

Dominant explanations of state higher education policy tend to emphasize economic models that foreground the business cycle or political approaches that cast ideology as fairly fixed. We instead foreground changing social context to conceptualize state appropriations as predicted not only by these classic explanations, but also by the interplay of racial representation and political party control. Drawing on the racial backlash hypothesis and quantitative analyses, we show that party control of state government and racial representation in higher education jointly explain state appropriations. Unified Republican governments spent more than Democratic or divided governments when White students were overrepresented. Republicans spent less otherwise. These results suggest that partisan attitudes toward racial representation in higher education may shape state government support for colleges and universities.

The purpose of this chapter is to describe and analyse the current environment of governmental support and related policies for higher education in the United States in the context of patterns in other developed countries. The primary focus on the United States here is designed to illuminate in a contemporary, yet historically, conscious way the most salient features of — as well as challenges facing — the American model. Its key components are increasingly influential in animating governmental policies towards higher education in many OECD countries.

This article will examine Asian women’s experiences of financial support in higher education. The article is based on 30 in-depth interviews with Asian women who were studying at a ‘new’ (post-1992) university in the South East of England. Women identified themselves as Muslim, Hindu and Sikh. The findings reveal that women’s religious and cultural background affects their attitudes towards financial support whilst at university. Through their participation in higher education, women are able to use their social and ethnic capital to enable them to receive financial and other kinds of support necessary for their success in higher education.

Learner autonomy is particularly important in higher education, where students are fully responsible for their own learning. Despite this, there is a lack of research on aspects of autonomy support in higher education compared with that of primary and secondary education. To address this gap, this study explored autonomy support and learning preference in higher education, introducing a flexible and individualized learning environment with technology after the COVID-19 pandemic. A survey was conducted among 849 Japanese university students to gather their perceptions about autonomous support, learning preferences (face-to-face or distance), use of learning strategies, and academic performance (grade point average). Correlations were identified between certain variables: for example, perceived autonomy support, class format preference, and grade point average. The scores of different scales were compared among the subject groups. Autonomy support provided by instructors included explaining the lesson’s outline to students. A few teachers provided opportunities for students to select learning methods, teaching materials, and assignment content; yet, few instructors seemed to truly understand students’ learning needs. Although many participants took face-to-face courses, students’ learning preferences were evenly split between face-to-face and distance learning courses. Students who strongly preferred face-to-face learning performed well regardless of instructional format. Students with a little preference for distance education performed well, especially in distance education courses. Students with no preference performed the worst. This study suggests that a learning environment that provides students with options to suit their diverse learning preferences is beneficial and that introducing “hybrid-flexible” courses and feedback for students’ learning strategies has the potential to promote learner autonomy in higher education.

Epistemic governance and epistemic innovation policy formulate a critique against too-narrowly defined approaches to governance, where governance follows one-sidedly bureaucratic or technocratic considerations. Instead, epistemic governance (also quality management and quality enhancement) and epistemic innovation policy should be regarded as a plea for a more comprehensive understanding, where the explicit-making, comprehension and reflection of knowledge, knowledge production, and knowledge application are keys for a successful governing and governance. For the further progress of advanced knowledge society, advanced knowledge economy, and advanced knowledge democracy, universities and the higher education sectors are crucial for driving development. How should the governance of higher education, the quality enhancement of universities, and the careers of academic faculty (the academic profession) be organized? Epistemic governance introduces here a novel approach and understanding. Epistemic governance emphasizes that the underlying epistemic structure, the underlying epistemic base, or the underlying epistemic paradigms (knowledge paradigms) of those organizations, institutions, or systems (sectors), which should be governed, are being addressed. This defines a benchmark and set of criteria for internal and external governance in higher education that is interested in applying a good, effective, and sustainable governance. Quality assurance, quality enhancement, and quality management of higher education, from the perspective of epistemic governance, should also orient themselves to quality and quality dimensions that cross-refer to the underlying epistemic structure of higher education. In a traditional understanding, the academic career patterns of the academic core faculty at universities follow a tenure-track logic. Cross-employment (multi-employment), on the contrary, refers to academic faculty (the academic profession) with simultaneous employment contracts to more than one organization only within or both inside and outside of higher education. Epistemic governance, in combination with crossemployment, should add to the organizational flexibility and creativity of universities and other higher education institutions, supporting the integration of a pluralism and diversity of knowledge production (basic research in the context of knowledge application and innovation), the formation of nonlinear innovation networks, and providing a rationale for a new type of academic career model.

30 TEACHING IN THE FIELD OF HIGHER EDUCATION: POLITICS OF HIGHER EDUCATION COURSES David D. Dill Assistant Professor of Education University of North Carolina— Chapel Hill There has been a rich tradition in the literature of higher education addressing academic politics. F. M. Cornford's (1949) memorable exhortation Microcosmographia Académica: Being a Guide for the Young Academic Politician, and C. P. Snow's (1951) The Masters provided early insight into the vagaries of influence at Oxbridge. During the 1960's and 70's a substantial American literature emerged addressing academic governance, or the structure and pro­ cess of decision making in institutions of higher education. Courses and wri­ tings examining the organizational politics of academic institutions are rea­ dily visible in programs of higher education. A more recent development has been courses termed "the politics of higher education" which apply a political model to higher education policy­ making at the national or state level, and explore the implications of this process for institutions of higher education. These courses generally in­ quire into a range of topics well summarized by four questions posed by Graham Allison (1971): "Who plays? What determines each player's stand? What determines each player's relative influence? How does the game combine players' stands, influence, and moves to yield governmental decisions and ac­ tions?" As indicated by the course materials collected for this article, a poli­ tical perspective such as Allison's yields the following types of topics: 1) the evolution of federal involvement in higher education; 2) the "players" and the "game" at the federal level; 3) the implications of the game for the current and evolving missions of institutions of higher education; and 4) current public policy issues relating to higher education (e .g . , affirma­ tive action, etc.). Several courses included special emphasis on state-level politics (i.e . , legislation, planning, and control), or included organiza­ tional governance as a part of the overall presentation of politics in higher education. Representative resources for these courses include Bailey (1975), Carnegie Council (1975), Gladieux and Wolanin (1976), and Millett (1974). There is substantial variation among these courses in the organization of these resources and topics, and on modes of teaching. Therefore, individual courses will be reviewed briefly below. Van de Graaff (Calgary) approaches the politics of higher education as a comparative study with emphasis on North American and Western European na­ tions. Topics include alternative policies toward the role (mission) of higher education in society, the role of government and politics in the his­ torical development of national university systems, and a comparison of these systems. A substantial component of the course addresses the "government of higher education" from the academic department to the national level, as well as the way in which the influence of groups has varied from level to level and evolved over time. Van de Graaff (1978) is the principal resource for this section. Caldwell (N. C. State) offers a seminar on "The Politics and Organiza­ tion of Higher Education" which includes a heavy early emphasis on writings in political science. These include an understanding of the Constitution of the United States as well as basic political concepts sufficient to define the American polity, the nature of political behavior in America, the organi­ zation of political force and pressure groups— cf. Key (1964), and basic ide­ ological forces in American society. Following this introduction, an over­ view of the university, land grant institutions, and the American academic system is provided. Particular emphasis is then placed on state government and higher education, the politics of coordination, planning, and control, and the Federal involvement in higher education. Several policy issues are then addressed: costs/benefits and who should pay, black colleges, and the 31 women's movement. Members of the seminar are regularly assigned to report on a relevant current news item from The Chronicle of Higher Education. Mitau (Minnesota) offers "the Policy, Politics and Governance of Higher Education." The course opens with a presentation of the alternations in pub­ lic and governmental perceptions of educational roles and missions as illus­ trated by comparisons across selected periods (e .g ■ , 1955, 1965, 1975, 1985), followed by an analysis of the means by which the...