Search

This paper is the third in a series of yearly efforts to identify the top public-policy issues facing higher education. Each of the 10 issues is discussed in terms of likely developments in 1996 and the near future, the issue's various aspects, and sources of further information on the issue. Issues identified and discussed are: (1) cost containment and productivity (Congressional hearings on college costs and tuition increases are likely in 1996); (2) affirmative action (how this controversial issue is resolved could have a major impact on hiring, promotion, and admission policies); (3) student financial aid (focus will be on funding levels of federal and state aid); (4) governance and privatization (the role of governing boards and privatization is a major issue in several states); (5) federal tax debate (proposals concerning a flat-tax, consumption-tax, and discontinuation of private institutions' tax exemptions will impact institutions); (6) economic development (more debate at the state level on higher education's role in stimulating economic development is likely); (7) federal research issues (Congress will debate federal research funding and indirect-cost recovery policies); (8) distance learning and technology (the federal telecommunications bill could have important effects in this area); (9) campus climate (deterioration in campus climate could have public policy implications; and (10) regulation and accountability (regulatory relief will continue on the federal and state levels). (DB)

A group of higher education policy experts identified the most pressing federal and state public policy developments likely to be debated in 1995. This report discusses the 10 issues identified: (1) student loan changes; (2) restricted taxpayer support; (3) tax policies; (4) federal support for research and other programs; (5) State Postsecondary Review Entities and other regulatory requirements; (6) accreditation reform; (7) access and diversity; (8) work force preparation; (9) productivity and restructuring; and (10) cost and availability of technology. Discussion of each issue is limited to two pages and includes recommendations for further reading. To make the document convenient to use, an "at a glance" box contains a synopsis of each issue. An introduction compares the 1995 issues to the issues that appeared in the 1994 version of the report. (Contains 24 references.) (JDD)

This publication addresses 10 "front-burner" public policy issues in higher education for 1994 which were identified and discussed by higher education policy experts in two meetings during the fall of 1993. A single page at the beginning of the document presents all 10 issues in a format designed for easy photocopying or overhead projector presentation. This is followed by a series of two-page sections that treat each issue individually with a box presenting the issue "at a glance," a summary of significant points for discussion, and recommendations for further reading. The following issues are addressed: (1) the budget squeeze over competition for public funds; (2) continued growth in demand for oversight and accountability of institutions; (3) pressures to increase access, productivity and cost containment; (4) student-aid reforms brought on by new legislation; (5) changing research priorities with slowed federal funding; (6) race and diversity issues; (7) the national health care debate and its effect on institutions of higher education; (8) continued public scrutiny of and pressure to reform intercollegiate athletics; (9) involvement by institutions of higher education in public school reform; and (10) elimination of mandatory faculty retirement ages in 1994. (JB)

The president has just announced her plans to leave the college within the next year. What is the board going to do? At Wilmington College in Delaware, the board relaxed and continued with its business without missing a beat. That's because a succession plan had been in place for several years, and it was just a matter of deciding the details of the transition in naming Jack P. Varsalona, executive vice president, to the presidency. At the College of New Rochelle in New York, by contrast, the board considered for several months whether a national search was necessary. It then decided to elevate Stephen J. Sweeny, the chief academic officer, without a search. At most colleges, news of a president's resignation or retirement prompts the board to revisit its standing process of choosing a successor. Some boards immediately will begin the process of choosing a search consultant or assembling a search committee, either to conduct the search itself or to choose a search firm. Others first will discuss whether to consider suitable internal candidates before leaping into a search for an external candidate. But at most colleges and universities today, succession planning is nonexistent--especially for presidents or chancellors. To be sure, many institutions are concerned about staff development and upward mobility, and elaborate programs to accomplish them commonly exist. But they always stop short of the most senior position. Is succession planning rare in higher education because of our bias toward external searches to fill the position of president? Or are there other reasons that keep us from orderly succession planning?

America is home to a diverse set of institutions that range from the fabulously well endowed to those that are very poorly funded. Yet many of our poorer institutions provide educations that are just as good as--and in some cases even better than--their richer counter-parts. In this article, the author argues that wealthy institutions of higher learning have become investment banks with educational facades, and should instead focus on building a public space in which both the aesthetic dimensions of life and the exercise of free and open debate and speech can proceed without fear. He offers the example of Bard College to show how less well endowed schools emphasize teaching, learning, and civic ideals by making a habit of raising resources and spending them on current programs that benefit students and faculty immediately.

In this article, the author argues that American higher education is allowing itself to be held hostage by the rankings industry, which can lead institutions to consider actions harmful to the public interest and encourage the public's infatuation with celebrity at the expense of substance. Instead of sitting quietly by during the upcoming ratings season, presidents and trustees are asked to have a thoughtful discussion about the purpose, values, and ethics around institutional participation in commercial rankings and then take direct action to produce better information for consumers, taxpayers, and regulators. Some points for discussion are suggested.

Colleges and universities, like corporations and other nonprofit organizations, are subject to periodic fluctuations in the economy and public support. Thus, the question is not whether they will confront financial problems but rather when and how. This article describes how institutions and boards can detect budgets in crisis, provides principles for addressing the crisis through a process called "retrenchment," and outlines retrenchment stages--from minor budget shortfalls that require only a modest response to a full-blown emergency that requires significant actions to guarantee the institution's survival.

Advocates of corporate governance reform hailed passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002 as a long-overdue raising of the accountability bar for corporate directors. Although SOX, as the law is widely known, does not legally apply to nonprofit boards, it has profoundly influenced the way many trustees, especially current and former corporate executives serving on college boards, envision their governance roles. At its best, this new orientation leads governing boards to engage more purposefully in the critical issues facing their institutions. At its worst, it leads trustees to jump the line between policy setting and management--to the detriment of both. The author offers some examples of this "new managerialism," defines it in greater detail, and suggests some ways in which presidents can protect themselves and their institutions from its worst features.

This article encourages college presidents and trustees to prepare for public relations challenges by tracking issues through four distinct stages: fringe, emerging, getting hot, and white hot/too late. "Fringe" refers to, for example, people discussing an issue at conferences, in professional publications, or among a few concerned members of the community. The issue does not yet appear on the mainstream radar screen. "Emerging" means that there is now far greater media interest in the issue, and the issue persists at a slow, steady simmer. "Getting Hot" means that there is much public discussion about the issue and considerable criticism that nothing is happening. "White Hot/Too Late" means that when an issue has reached this stage, there is widespread perception that the institution has neither the will nor the ability to deal with it adequately. The author uses the example of the current accountability debate in higher education to explore the most frequent responses to each of the four issue-maturity stages. Finally, the author suggests what trustees and chief executives should be doing to avoid the escalation of issues that end up out of control in the public arena.

Recent public controversies over the pay and perquisites of college and university presidents have prompted soul searching among boards of trustees across the country. With the Senate Finance Committee now considering tax reforms that could affect nonprofit executive pay as well as college and university governance in general, "Trusteeship" convened a panel of experts with wide-ranging experience to suggest how boards and chief executives can avoid missteps. The discussion, which took place by conference call on December 1, was moderated by "Trusteeship" "Legal Standpoint" columnist Dorothy Robinson. This paper provides a transcript of the panel's discussion exploring how to improve oversight relating to controversies over presidential pay and expenditures.

American higher education has never been more in need of good governance than it is right now. Yet much of the structure many boards have inherited or created tends to stall or impede timely, well-informed, and broadly supported decision making. At many institutions (ours included), layers of governance have been added with each passing year, slowly but surely strangling the university's ability to move forward in a coherent and strategic manner. When Brown University President Ruth J. Simmons took office in 2001, the time seemed right to undertake a review of our governance structures. Back then, the reasons for making good governance a high priority were not widely understood, and the idea was met with some skepticism by members of the Brown community. Simmons, however, argued that a good governance system could accomplish a great deal. As she put it: "First and foremost, it identifies groups of participants best able to make particular contributions and frees them to accomplish that task with a minimum of drag and inefficiency. A good governance system will not make up for participants with insufficient knowledge to make appropriate judgments; however, a flawed governance system that leads to uneven judgments or circumvents the capacity of experts to apply their knowledge can dramatically reduce the effectiveness of an institution. Every organization--be it Brown or a multinational corporation--must seek a system that has broad and relevant participation, clear expectations and lines of accountability, transparency of structure and process, and constant assessment to eliminate the barnacles that necessarily appear as governance mechanisms age."

One of the particular gifts in history for the present generation, is the increasingly large opportunity afforded to universities and corporations to be mutually supportive, not exploitative, of one another. As the federal Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has imposed new challenges on management of all stripes, this anti-corporate-fraud law also has created and encouraged a model of best practices, of financial responsibility, and of the proper duty of authority that pertains both to paid corporate boards and to volunteer higher education boards. Although the law actually applies only to corporate boards, over time the governance practices of corporations and higher education institutions are likely to become more closely aligned, mostly through voluntary efforts of governing boards to conform to the model presented by Sarbanes-Oxley. This already is occurring. By the same token, this law also has made it mainstream in corporate culture to adopt a model of transparent governance more commonly found in colleges or universities. These developments have fostered an increasingly close partnership between business and higher education.

Traditionally, new board members have taken up roles that were established and well-defined long ago. But globalization swiftly and utterly changed that mindset. Institutions now are directly affected by events occurring thousands of miles away, and it is no longer possible to rely solely on long-standing, accepted board practices to provide good governance. In a new era of unexpected issues and challenges, how should board members adapt the traditional tasks of university governance to handle them? In this article, the author offers six guidelines for dealing with difficult and ever-changing situations: (1) Recognize the importance of a comprehensive board orientation; (2) Maintain continuing education as a board priority; (3) Establish board and committee work plans and streamlined meeting agendas; (4) Monitor and evaluate the strategic plan; (5) Use ad hoc committees as appropriate, and enlist outside experts to assist standing board committees; and (6) Perform board self-evaluations on an annual basis. These elements have long been a part of effective institutional governance, but now these same areas have to be revisited, redefined, and refocused in light of today's uncertain environment. Boards and chief executives that place higher priority on these matters have a much better chance of successfully navigating these difficult times.

In this article, the author observes that while university officials believe that strategic planning will help them look past the day-to-day housekeeping and meet the challenges of a volatile environment, much of such planning appears mired in competitive self-replication and is vulnerable to distrust from the public and government. Too often, the strategic planning process on university campuses is an overly mechanical, stupefying celebration of cliches and the status quo. Mission statements have become so packed with values, visions, strategies, and college histories that it is hard to discern an inspiring purpose. The author alerts planners to the various uninspiring code words that are found in mission, values, and strategy statements that "celebrate" the status quo and instead encourages honesty, courage, and imagination.

One of the big fears digital technology provokes in people, perhaps those on college campuses more than anywhere else, is that its use will cause everyone to lose something unique to themselves. Assuming for a moment that this is true, it is a particularly dire vision for colleges and universities, where the institution's identity goes a long way toward attracting new students and strengthening the connection with alumni. However, it does not have to be that way. The deployment of enterprise-wide technology does not automatically damn an institution to a soulless future divorced from a rich past. What is needed is better use of the existing technology and a more systematic approach to the acquisition and deployment of new technology, along with a clear directive from those at the top, the president and the board.

In recent years, colleges and universities have begun efforts to reduce their energy costs, an initiative that can not only save an institution money, but also strengthen relationships across campus. Board leadership has been central to this endeavor in setting goals, prioritizing projects, and financing those projects. Using her experiences with reducing energy consumption at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa, the author lays out a set of practical steps that colleges and universities can take to lower energy costs and enhance environmental stewardship and suggests some questions about long-term energy strategies for trustees on finances and facilities committees to consider when addressing energy concerns.

This article addresses the problem of inept, ineffective, and mediocre governing boards at America's colleges and universities. It maintains that substandard governance can almost always be traced to one of two culprits, or both: (1) most boards are orchestras of soloists; and (2) many boards tend to either lionize or trivialize the president. Undue deference anesthetizes some trustees, while undue arrogance emboldens others, and both are recipes for disaster. To avoid the pitfalls of misgovernance, the author suggests that a board need only adhere to a concept that trustees regularly commend to management: benchmarking. The best practices of properly and effectively functioning boards are discussed.

Demands for public accountability have built to a crescendo over the past several decades, driving home the fact that governing boards have premier responsibility as guardians of a college or university's performance. But to what extent do higher education's many stakeholders hold common perspectives on the definition and purpose of accountability, the evidence required to ensure it, and the effectiveness of accountability policy and practice? This article discusses the evolving definitions of and some shared perceptions about accountability, and suggests some ways in which trustees can advance the strength of their accountability policies while simultaneously satisfying their responsibility to evaluate institutional performance.

The trustees of colleges and universities are charged not only with keeping their institution solvent, choosing its leaders, and defending it from intrusive outside forces, but are also supposed to convey to the faculty and administration the legitimate needs and concerns of important constituencies, such as students, alumni, and the public at large. Unfortunately, the latter responsibility has been somewhat neglected in favor of the former--in particular, most boards have done very little to represent the learning needs of society or to ensure that faculties achieve the highest attainable quality of education. While there are some legitimate fears about the potential results of greater trustee involvement in an institution's educational functions, a lack of board oversight can create an environment in which flawed pedagogy thrives. To avoid this situation, boards should take steps to ensure that they are well informed regarding how teaching performance is measured at their institutions and how this information is used once it is collected. This type of involvement on the board's part encourages administrators to seek change, rather than succumb to inertia.

Prospective board members of the caliber sought by institutions of higher learning have many options, many worthwhile causes in which they can engage, and many places to do so, including other colleges and universities. The time they can devote to volunteer activity is carefully apportioned and usually directed to groups defined by common interest--sometimes professional and, more often than not, personal. But despite the alternatives available to potential trustees, published guidelines always seem to emphasize what is expected from trustees, rather than the environment trustee recruits will encounter or how they stand to benefit from their involvement with the institution. In an era when the challenge of recruiting meritorious trustees is more difficult than ever, the author suggests that colleges and universities present the benefits of trusteeship to recruits along with its responsibilities. In this article, he lists the benefits of trusteeship at his institution and explains why they are so attractive to prospective board members.

An interim president often plays a crucial role in leading a college or university. In some instances, the interim can address and resolve troublesome issues and thus clear the way for the new president to generate progress. In others, the interim stays the course so that the institution maintains its momentum and seizes strategic opportunities to advance. In still other situations, an interim may bring a fresh perspective and energize an institution that has been marking time with little to show in the way of advancements. Whatever the role asked of an interim president, a vital task is to create a climate for leadership for the incoming president. In this article, the author presents some advice for boards considering hiring an interim president from outside the institution.

Given the public's demand for better teaching (and its indifference to scholarship), one might think there would be a vigorous demand for high quality instructors at all levels of higher education. Instead, the healthiest market remains that for scholars. In this article, the author discusses the differences in the markets for scholars and teachers, particularly the lack of incentives for teaching as opposed to research, and the adverse effects this may have on the undergraduate and even graduate curricula. As this lack of incentive is propagated by an absence of information regarding teaching productivity, the author suggests that governing boards begin to ensure that their institutions establish at least a local market for superior teaching by being serious about measuring teaching productivity both objectively and subjectively.

For all of the attention rising college costs continue to receive, it is striking how poorly informed many decision makers are when it comes to setting tuition and fees. And it's equally astounding that so many institutions are learning the consequences of pricing decisions undertaken solely by trial and error when a wrong judgment can affect everything from the size, quality, and diversity of the entering class to the institution's relationships with its financial supporters and the public. In order to help college and university administrators "do it right," this article discusses six key principles that they can follow when when considering significant changes in pricing levels or strategies: (1) Treat pricing as a long-term strategic question, not a short-term cost issue; (2) Don't assume what works for your competitors will work for you; (3) Don't buy the Chivas Regal argument without proof; (4) Use the right analytic tools for the right questions; (5) Over the long run, work to enhance the value proposition of the institution; and (6) To defuse political and other resistance to price changes, pay attention to the process.

Why do so many newly minted trustees experience difficulty finding their voice on the board? Nearly all come from successful and distinguished backgrounds in business and the professions. Over a lifetime they have carefully honed their personal leadership styles. They have found easy comfort in a variety of governing responsibilities and are accustomed to offering well-articulated, forceful opinions. All new entries onto the boards of independent colleges and universities have been carefully orchestrated. The committee on trustees has avidly courted them. They have dined with and been wooed by the president. They arrive for their first board meeting filled with confidence that once again they will easily slip into a productive role. Then they sit mute as successive meetings unfold, watching as the affairs of the board and the ebb and flow of the institution play out. Why does this occur? For one thing, the issues are unfamiliar. A small coterie seems to employ opaque logic in unfamiliar language. Sometimes just a few of those personalities dominate the dialogue, blocking the introduction of fresh perspective. It is not surprising, therefore, that new trustees find it tough to gain traction, to discover ways to speak and act with influence, or to find a constructive role in the mainstream of the board's governance responsibilities. In this paper, the author offers some suggestions for shortening the learning curve that for many new board members becomes needlessly steep. Integrating new trustees is a reciprocal burden. The board must adopt and develop policies and practices that invite and encourage active and influential behavior by newcomers. The new trustee, for his or her part, must dedicate time and effort and keep an open mind to learning the cultural themes and human nuances of the academy to become productive in that culture. When both parties mesh, the institution is well served, the board prospers, and a home is found for the new trustee's constructive commitment of voluntary time and talent.