Running Head: Higher Education
Name
Institution
Date
Outline
I. Introduction
II. Comparative Analysis of the Branches of Government engagement in the Higher Education policy
III. Consideration of Impacts on the policy.
IV. Summary Considerations.
V. Conclusion
VI. References
- Introduction
In the United States, higher education during the nineteenth and twentieth Century did not have any customary, statutory or even constitutional provisions that established a federal organizing board of education or even a state department of education for purposes of taking charge of polices regarding higher education. Following the absences of a particular authority to oversee higher education in the United States during the last two centuries, a number of initiatives were undertaken by the federal, state, and local government to establish universities and colleges through providing the necessary incentives as well as resources for that purpose (Meier, 2000). One of the defining traits of higher education in the United States is the fact that the states have authority to grant charters to both universities and colleges in that state. Until recently, in the twenty first century, a symmetrical empirical attention to the relationship between the structure of government and performance in regard to higher education had not been given the deserved priority.
After independence, there was a fundamental change in the political oversight of higher education in the United States. Under the colonial power, the education system in America adhered to the English custom which was very stringent particularly in award royal charter to institutions of higher education. The petitioners were subjected to comprehensive scrutiny in an effort to prevent an increase in the grant of academic degrees. Nonetheless, the petitioners who successfully underwent through the detailed scrutiny were given a charter by the crown and they were also assured of continuous financial support by the crown. The public policy regarding higher education in the United States has continued to reflect the historical aspects even in the twenty first century. There are countless and diverse institutions in the country, a clear indication of the commitment of government to ensure that higher education in the United States are anniversary accessible.
II. Comparative Analysis of the Branches of Government engagement in the Higher Education Policy
Higher education structural governance in the United States differs from one state to another. Generally, there are three types of board that constitute the structure of higher education in the United States (Knott and Payne, 2002). The key responsibility and objective of these boards is to govern or oversee institutions higher education in their respective jurisdiction. Most of the authority to coordinate higher education in the United States is assigned to the consolidated governing boards. The governance of single corporate entity is one of the responsibilities of consolidated governing boards in the United States. The system of consolidated governing board in North Carolina State is charged with the responsibility of taking all the decisions regarding higher education in the State, and therefore it does not come as a surprise that there are no separate governing bodies for individual institutions of higher learning. Important to note is the fact that the state law gives the consolidated governing boards all the corporation rights and responsibilities. Consequently, all the institutions of higher learning that are under the consolidated governing board system of the State do not have separate corporate standing. Other responsibilities of this board include: analysis of policy, setting a public agenda, resolving problems, as well as planning.
It should also be noted that the governing boards play a vital role in the review and approval of academic program, maintaining accountability, providing relevant information, and developing a budget. Further the boards take part in designing and executing policies as well as promoting to the governor and legislature the needs of different institutions of higher learning within their jurisdiction. The boards serve as the ultimate appeal point in relation to grievances emanating from the faculty and awarding tenure all of which are under the board responsibility of setting up faculty personnel policies. According to Lowry, (2001,) the boards institute policies regarding fees and tuition, as well as assign and move resources among institutions that fall under their jurisdiction.
Coordinating boards, on the other hand, are merely a link between the State’s governing boards and the State government. Important to note is the fact that these coordinating boards are more likely to be politically influenced, as they do not have the necessary autonomy as well as power to resist such influence. The responsibilities of some of the coordinating boards include approving academic programs. The responsibility of reviewing and giving recommendations regarding academic programs to institutional governing board is undertaken by the advisory coordinating board. Other responsibilities of coordinating boards are limited to the administration of financial aid to the students.
It is worth noting that coordinating boards do not have a separate corporate status, and the agency executive is usually appointed by the governor based on the coordinating board recommendation. Rather than advocating for interests, coordinating boards center their attention towards the system needs, state, and the main concerns (Bond and Fleisher 2000). These board have very little power and hence their limited extent of authority. The budget implementation policy by coordinating boards is limited to the funds allocated to that board.
Within different State, there are other political institutions apart from governing boards that are involved in higher education governance. What’s more, both the governor of the state and the lieutenant governor do have some power over the higher education in their respective jurisdictions. One of the ways through which they exercise their influence on higher education is through appointing, board executives, or members of educational boards, as well as using their authority to influence the legislature. The legislature also influences the governance of higher education in that the constitution allows some positions within the legislature to appoint board members. The powers given to boards through a statute may be increased or reduced depending on the legislature of a particular state. It should also be noted that the state legislatures do have committees that are empowered to oversee the formulation of policies regarding higher education in their respective states and therefore such committees have a lot of influence on the governance of higher education in the United States.
III. Consideration of Impacts on the policy.
It has been argued that within the arena of political parties, the Democratic Party as opposes to Republican Party is more likely to reduce the cost of student’s education in the higher learning institutions. The party may reduce this cost by either bringing down tuition fees or through increasing aid for the students (McClendon et al, 2002). Even though one can rightly contend that the Republican Party is not as liberal as the Democratic Party in a particular state, one should not forget that a political party is just an ideological stand-in. the ideology of the government or political party in power evaluate the officials’ political ideology for purposes of addressing the lacuna in the party preferences. The preferences of the mass are, on the other hand, the citizen ideology. The general public can therefore, influence the governance of higher education through influencing official in the government to act as their delegates on a particular issue (Bond and Fleisher 2000).
Since the federal government role in higher education legislation has been limited by the constitution, the federal government through the president and the congress passed legislations such as The 1862 Morrill Act which enabled institutions of higher education to get financial support from their respective states after selling land allotments from the western territories. The involvement of the federal government in higher education was also evident in congressional approval of financing development as well as research projects undertaken by institutions of higher learning. Even though this federal funding of research projects to higher institutions was meant to facilitate the institutions in resolving a problem that the federal government deemed vital. The secondary effect of federal involvement was that universities and colleges were able to build more programs.
Following the reduction in revenue collected by the state during the twentieth century, and increase in the demand for subsidies in other services offered by the state such as tax exemptions in industries, health care, the need for accountability arose. Consequently, the legislature and the judiciary were tasked with the responsibility of renegotiating and reviewing the privileges given to the executives and board members of state universities and colleges. Such executives and board members were now subjected to external scrutiny. This led to increased accountability of the executives in the academic affairs (McLendon et al, 2002). All the institutional affairs that were initially outside the scope of public inspection were no longer a secret.
The role of the state in regard to higher education and public policy cannot be underestimated. Individual states are responsible for financing public colleges and universities within their respective jurisdictions. In addition, the state grant tax exemptions to universities and colleges located within its boundaries. Without such exemptions by individual states, universities and colleges with huge chunks of land would bear a major tax burden. Different states also fund development and research projects of colleges and universities within their territory.
It is important to note that in the year 2007, the United States had over three thousand institutions of higher learning granting degrees. The total enrollment capacity of all these institutions exceeds fifteen million students per annum. It goes without saying that there has been a tremendous development in terms of higher education in most states of the United States.
IV. Summary Considerations.
In the higher education system of the United States, there is a notable tension between self-sufficiency and political control. According to Meier, (2000) autonomy of a certain level must exist for effective implementation of policy by a bureaucracy. The importance of such autonomy is to provide an insulation of such policies from political influence. The existence of a consolidated governing board in United State is a clear demonstration of an autonomous body charged with the responsibility of taking all the decisions regarding higher education in different states, and therefore it does not come as a surprise that there are no separate governing bodies for individual institutions of higher learning. Important to note, is the fact that the United States has over three thousand institutions of higher learning granting degrees. The total enrollment capacity of all these institutions exceeds fifteen million students per annum. In regard to efficiency, judiciary is tasked with the responsibility of renegotiating and reviewing the privileges given to the executives and board members of state universities and colleges. This has led to increased accountability of the executives in the academic affairs and the institutions of higher learning in general.
Even though the federal government and the congress are limited by the constitution in terms of their level of involvement in making legislations regarding higher education, the federal government has indirectly found viable means of alleviating higher education. One of the ways through which the federal government and congress have boosted institutions of higher learning is through approving financing support for purpose of development as well as research projects undertaken by institutions of higher learning in different states (Bond and Fleisher 2000).
V. Conclusion
One of the defining traits of higher education in the United States is the fact that each state has the authority to grant charters to both universities and colleges within its jurisdiction. There are three types of board that constitute the structure of higher education in the United States which include, the planning agencies the Coordinating boards, as well as the consolidated governing boards. Most of the authority to coordinate higher education in the United States is assigned to the consolidated governing boards. The governor of the state and the lieutenant governor do have some power over the higher education in their respective jurisdictions. Even though one can rightly contend that the Republican Party is not as liberal as the Democratic Party in a particular state, one should not forget that a political party is just an ideological stand-in.
VI. References
Bond, J.R. and R. Fleisher. (2000). Polarized politics: Congress and the president in a
Partisan era. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
Knott, J.H. and Payne, A.A. (2002). The impact of state governance structures on higher education resources and research activities. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 974-977.
Lowry, R.C. (2001). Governmental structure, trustee selection, and public university
Prices and spending: Multiple means to similar ends. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 845-61.
McLendon, M.K., et al. (2002). State postsecondary policy innovation: Politics, competition, and the interstate migration of policy ideas. Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association meetings, Chicago.
Meier, K.J. (2000). Politics and the bureaucracy: Policymaking in the fourth branch of
government. Fort Worth: Harcourt College Publishers.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]