Policy and Performance in American Higher Education This page intentionally left blank Policy and Performance in American Higher Education An Examination of Cases across State Systems (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) richard richardson, jr. and mario martinez Th e Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore © 2009 Th e Johns Hopkins University Press All rights reserved. Published 2009 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper 2 4 6 8 9 7 5 3 1 Th e Johns Hopkins University Press 2715 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218-4363 www.press.jhu.edu Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Richardson, Richard C. Policy and performance in American higher education : an examination of cases across state systems / Richard Richardson, Jr., and Mario Martinez. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-0-8018-9161-8 (hardcover : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 0-8018-9161-2 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Education, Higher—United States. 2. Higher education and state— United States—States—Case studies. 3. Education, Higher—United States—States—Case studies. I. Martinez, Mario, 1967– II. Title. LC173.R53 2009 378.73—dc22 2008037852 A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library. Special discounts are available for bulk purchases of this book. For more information, please contact Special Sales at 410-516-6936 or [email protected]. Th e Johns Hopkins University Press uses environmentally friendly book materials, including recycled text paper that is composed of at least 30 percent post-consumer waste, whenever possible. All of our book papers are acid-free, and our jackets and covers are printed on paper with recycled content. Contents Foreword, by Patrick M. Callan vii Preface xi  Strengthening the Policy–Performance Connection 1  Rules in Use and Performance 21  New Mexico 39 with contributions by Maria Emilia Martinez  California 70 with contributions by Nancy Shulock  South Dakota 119  New York 145  New Jersey 187 with contributions by Michael W. Klein  New Ways of Th inking about Policy and Performance 223 Appendix: Rules Observed, Including Th ose Not Associated with Diff erences in Performance 243 References 249 Index 257 This page intentionally left blank Foreword Th e knowledge-based global economy, demographic shifts, and intensifi ed economic and educational competition have converged over the past decade to raise the salience of higher education performance as a public policy con- cern for state and national governments. Th e “fl at” world economy rewards individuals, communities, states, and nations that succeed in developing hu- man talent—particularly college-level knowledge and skills—and it relent- lessly penalizes the undereducated. Postsecondary education and training are necessary for both individual opportunity and national economic competi- tiveness. As governments have come to understand the advantages of higher levels of educational attainment for larger proportions of their populations, college access and completion rates have increased dramatically in most mar- ket-economy countries. For the United States, although higher education accountability is a pe- rennial public policy issue, the emphasis on performance is relatively recent. Th e aftermath of World War II saw two critically important changes in state and federal higher education. Th e fi rst was the continuation of federally sup- ported research and development at major universities. Largely justifi ed by the public priority of national defense, federal support broadened to cover ad- vanced education in almost all disciplines. Th e second was the unprecedented growth of enrollments as returning veterans benefi ted from the GI Bill. For many years, public and institutional priorities were closely aligned within a consensus that the priorities for higher education policy were growth, ex- pansion, capacity building, and, for the states, institutional support. In this context, accountability focused, appropriately I believe, on inputs and re- sources—dollars, students, faculty, and the like. Th is alignment of goals, or consensus, through much of the second half of the twentieth century contributed to an approach to public accountability that was highly deferential to the academic community. Examples include the acceptance of input measures to act as proxies for quality, and governmen- viii foreword tal reliance on institutionally controlled accreditation instead of more direct measures of eff ectiveness. Most of the current state structures for higher edu- cation governance and decision making were established in the last half of the twentieth century, and many have not yet been adapted to the present one. Th e principal contemporary public policy concern is infl uencing the perfor- mance of colleges and universities, not building new capacity. Although standard of living and economic competitiveness rely on post- secondary education participation and degree attainment, this vital depen- dence is less visible than university research and development. While pub- lic support for higher education access is consistently high, the most direct benefi ciaries of increased opportunity—students and their families—are not an identifi able pressure group. However, many state and federal leaders, well aware of the challenges of the global marketplace, have focused energetically, if not always eff ectively, on higher education performance. Th is is refl ected in the development, revision, and restructuring of many state accountability systems and in the recent National Commission on Higher Education that made performance and public accountability the centerpiece of its policy rec- ommendations. In developing performance-based approaches to public accountability, policy leaders have come to recognize that colleges and universities can per- form at a high level in ways that compete with, or at least fail to eff ectively address, public priorities. In fact, there is a growing mismatch between insti- tutional aspirations and public needs. Institutions often seek higher prestige rankings, enlarged levels of expenditures, and enhancement of their institu- tional missions (mission creep); the nation and the states need more Ameri- cans with greater levels of postsecondary knowledge and competence—the public agenda for increased rates of access and attainment. As this gap be- tween institutional and public agendas has widened, it has led to divergent concepts of quality and institutional eff ectiveness that are sometimes masked as diff erences over performance indicators, measurement, and assessment. Th ere is less consensus now among public policy leaders and the professional academic community than in the past on the outcomes and performance gov- ernment expects of colleges and universities. In this book, Richard Richardson, Mario Martinez, and their colleagues have addressed the central contemporary higher education policy issue: the infl uence of public policy on higher education performance. Th eir state case studies are a rich and rigorous basis for their analysis of the linkages and the disconnections between policy and performance. Th e comparative focus on foreword ix the rules in use and the infl uence of these on key actors and on state higher education performance off ers a powerful framework for interpreting the case studies. Th eir fi ndings and conclusions will challenge practitioners seeking to improve state policy. Th is is a bold, innovative, and groundbreaking contribu- tion to higher education policy, one that is certain to shape future research in this fi eld. Patrick M. Callan President National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education San Jose, California