Private higher education policy in Ohio, 1980--2006: A case study demonstrating the usefulness of Zumeta's public policy posture model

This study describes the case of private higher education in Ohio between 1980 and 2006 using Zumeta's (1996) model of state policy and private higher education. More specifically, this study used case study methodology and multiple sources to demonstrate the usefulness of Zumeta's model and illustrate its limitations. Ohio served as the subject state and data for 67 private, 4-year, degree-granting, Higher Learning Commission-accredited institutions were collected. Data sources for this study included the National Center for Education Statistics Integrated Postsecondary Data System as well as database information and documents from various state agencies in Ohio, including the Ohio Board of Regents. ^ The findings of this study indicated that the general state context for higher education in Ohio during the study time period was shaped by deteriorating economic factors, stagnating population growth coupled with a rapidly aging society, fluctuating state income and increasing expenditures in areas such as corrections, transportation and social services. However, private higher education experienced consistent enrollment growth, an increase in the number of institutions, widening involvement in state-wide planning for higher education, and greater fiscal support from the state in a variety of forms such as the Ohio Choice Grant. This study also demonstrated that private higher education in Ohio benefited because of its inclusion in state-wide planning and the state's decision to grant state aid directly to students. ^ Taken together, this study supported Zumeta's (1996) classification of Ohio as having a hybrid market-competitive/central-planning policy posture toward private higher education. Furthermore, this study demonstrated that Zumeta's model is a useful tool for both policy makers and researchers for understanding a state's relationship to its private higher education sector. However, this study also demonstrated that Zumeta's model is less useful when applied over an extended time period. Additionally, this study identifies a further limitation of Zumeta's model resulting from his failure to define "state mandate" and the "level of state mandates" that allows for inconsistent analysis of this component. ^

Influence, policy formation, and higher education in Florida: 1989--1994

This study examined the perceptions of state governmental officials and administrators from the state university system, community college system, and independent institutions concerning the ability of various groups to influence state-level higher education policy formation. The study was conducted in Florida for the period 1989-94. Florida has a history of legislative involvement in higher education, a unique system of state universities and community colleges, and a limited number of private institutions of higher education. This study was grounded in the works of Mortimer and McConnell (1978), Millett (1987), Marshall, Mitchell, and Wirt (1989) and Finitfer, Baldwin, and Thelin (1991).^ The study represented the application of an embedded, single-case design. A survey was the primary collection instrument. Respondents were asked questions concerning: (a) personal involvement in higher education, (b) perceptions of the ability of various groups to influence higher education policy, (c) the names of particular individuals considered key players in higher education policy formation, (d) important state-level documents, (e) personal knowledge of key areas of policy formation, and (f) emerging higher education issues in Florida. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to analyze the different sections of the survey.^ The findings indicated that a power and influence hierarchy exists among the various groups that attempt to influence higher education policy and that this hierarchy is recognized by state government officials and higher education administrators. While an analysis of variance of the various groups revealed a few differences between state government officials and higher education personnel, the high overall agreement was an important finding. Leading members of the legislature, especially the Chair of the Senate Higher Education Committee, and key staff members, especially from the Senate Ways & Means Committee, were considered the most influential. Representatives from higher education institutions and research organizations were considered among the least influential. Emerging issues identified by the respondents included: (a) the political nature of state-level policy formation, (b) the role of legislative staff, (c) the competition for state moneys, (d) legislative concern for state-wide budgetary efficiency, and (e) legislative attempts to define quality and supervise academic program development for higher education. ^

The Corporatization of Higher Education

This essay reviews recent books and articles that examine the politics and economics of the restructuring of public universities in the United States. The author weaves the arguments together to point to several prominent trends: increased corporatization of university governance and increased dependence on the market for resources previously provided by the state, reduction of full-time faculty in favor of instructors and adjuncts, dramatic growth of administrative personnel, and mounting student debt. The history of these developments is explored by examining the roots of the political attacks on the public university.

Influence, policy formation, and higher education in Florida : 1989-94

This study examined the perceptions of state governmental officials and administrators from the state university system, community college system, and independent institutions concerning the ability of various groups to influence state-level higher education policy formation. The study was conducted in Florida for the period 1989-94. Florida has a history of legislative involvement in higher education, an unique system of state universities and community colleges, and a limited number of private institutions of higher education. This study was grounded in the works of Mortimer and McConnell (1978), Millett (1987), Marshall, Mitchell, and Wirt (1989) and Finitfer, Baldwin, and Thelin (1991). The study represented the application of an embedded, single-case design. A survey was the primary collection instrument. Respondents were asked questions concerning: (a) personal involvement in higher education, (b) perceptions of the ability of various groups to influence higher education policy, (c) the names of particular individuals considered key players in higher education policy formation, (d) important state-level documents, (e) personal knowledge of key areas of policy formation, and (f) emerging higher education issues in Florida. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to analyze the different sections of the survey. The findings indicated that a power and influence hierarchy exists among the various groups that attempt to influence higher education policy and that this hierarchy is recognized by state government officials and higher education administrators. While an analysis of variance of the various groups revealed a few differences between state government officials and higher education personnel, the high overall agreement was an important finding. Leading members of the legislature, especially the Chair of the Senate Higher Education Committee, and key staff members, especially from the Senate Ways & Means Committee, were considered the most influential. Representatives from higher education institutions and research organizations were considered among the least influential. Emerging issues identified by the respondents included: (a) the political nature of state-level policy formation, (b) the role of legislative staff, (c) the competition for state moneys, (d) legislative concern for state-wide budgetary efficiency, and (e) legislative attempts to define quality and supervise academic program development for higher education.

Examining the needs for student services of adult learners in continuing higher education

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the availability and quality of student services offered to adult learners in selected continuing education programs in Dade County, Florida. The two basic research questions addressed in this study were: 1) What are the student services being provided to adult learners by the selected colleges and universities? 2) What is the quality of these services being provided as perceived by administrators and adult learners at their institutions? Two groups comprised the population for this study. One group sample of adult learners enrolled in credit courses being offered by the continuing education unit. The second group sample was comprised of administrators in the areas of Admissions, Financial Aid, Registration, Student Services and Continuing Education at each of the five colleges and universities in Dade County, Florida. Data were collected from 107 students and 25 administrators using the Continuing Education Student Services Questionnaire (CESSQ) developed by the researcher in a pilot study. The questionnaire, one for administrators and a similar one for adult learners, consisted of two parts. One consisted of eight demographic items and the second one of twenty items describing student services. An overview of responses by institutions showed that only the following services received a 100% response as available at one or more institutions: 1) Admissions Information, 2) Convenient Hours for Registration, 3) Assistance in Class Registration, 4) Assistance in Planning a Class Schedule, 5) Access to the Library in Evening and Weekends, 6) Parking and Security, 7) Food Services, 8) Bookstore and 9) Access to Computers.