Search

This two-way, fixed effects analysis examines the relationship between local appropriations and community college state governance structures while examining governance's moderating impact on state-level factors. We find that any type of state-level organization for community colleges does not impact local appropriations, and that in states with no formal coordinating authority, local appropriations are likely to be higher. Further, the absence of a state-level board, even one that includes four-year, primary, or secondary education, moderates the relationship between unemployment and appropriations. This relationship suggests that in states without a state-level board for community colleges, local governments invest in and leverage their community colleges in times of economic decline. Based on our findings, resisting centralization efforts might be to the benefit of community colleges in terms of finances and autonomy; however, this does not consider the impacts varying degrees of centralization might have on stakeholders outside of the local appropriations process.

Intermediary organizations play an increasingly important role in public policy related to higher education, particularly related to the completion agenda. This study addresses strategies employed by intermediary organizations to communicate to policymakers regarding college completion. Using rhetorical analysis, we examine 72 documents to deconstruct their arguments. Findings show that intermediaries employ the rhetorical elements of ethos, pathos, delivery, and idiom to present information and advocate preferred policy solutions. Importantly, organizations communicate messages differently based on their orientation toward the researcher or policymaker communities. Intermediary organizations aligned more closely with researchers rely more on empirical evidence and neutral tones, whereas organizations aligned more closely with policymakers utilize more idiomatic language, visually engaging document design, and nonempirical sources of evidence. Rhetorical analysis can enable researchers, intermediaries, and policymakers all to work more clearly and carefully in the higher education policy arena and, in so doing, strengthen the bridge between the two communities.

Established in 2009, Complete College America (CCA) has emerged as one of the leading single-issue intermediary organizations advocating policy solutions to improve college completion in the USA. Although other entities that influenced the policy conversation at that time have ceased operation, CCA has maintained and, in fact, expanded its role in US higher education policy. Through a collective case study developed from archival data and interviews with CCA officials and respondents from three member states (Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas), this study examines the evolution of CCA as an organization and investigates how it has been able to challenge other actors within the higher education field. Findings suggest that CCA created and strengthened its influence through strategic identification of members, pointed communication, and intentionally aligning themselves with power brokers in both the completion sphere and targeted states. This study highlights the growing role and influence of intermediary organizations in higher education policy conversations and offers insights into how these types of organizations influence decision-making in state and national strategic action fields.

Prior studies have documented the pattern of decreased state funding for higher education in periods of economic contraction (i.e., the balance wheel phenomenon). This qualitative case study examines how policymakers in California and Texas made decisions about funding higher education at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, when policymakers faced an economic downturn. Data comprise 28 interviews with key state actors and 69 documents. The analysis expands prior understandings of how state policymakers make budgeting decisions that affect higher education by exploring how they perceive certain target populations as deserving or undeserving of state support. The study also sheds light on the tenuous relationship between policymakers' views of higher education and their funding decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Building on research examining state financing for higher education, our qualitative comparative case study investigates state policymakers' decisions for funding public higher education during the COVID-19 crisis in California and Texas. These states were purposively selected based on the size of their postsecondary sector, state partisanship, and higher education funding responses during the pandemic. Moreover, these states represent two of the largest public postsecondary enrollments nationally and serve a racially and ethnically diverse student population. Guiding our study is the Hearn and Ness (2018) framework investigating the ecology of state higher education policymaking, which offers four contextual categories that influence state policy decisions: socioeconomic context, organizational and policy context, politico-institutional context, and external context. This framework suggests underlying factors influencing the state funding process, while also providing an opportunity to expand on this theory through the unique COVID-19 context. We used deductive and inductive techniques to analyze 28 interviews with a range of actors, including state elected officials, state government staff, and higher education officials. We also examined 69 documents (state budgets, news articles, and state executive orders) to triangulate and verify our interview data. Two areas served as key events that ultimately influenced higher education funding decisions in California and Texas: (1) the preference of certain higher education institutions and (2) the availability and application of federal dollars. Furthermore, the organizational and policy context and the politico-institutional context, as defined by the Hearn and Ness framework, provided additional state-level factors that resulted in distinct responses. This study offers practical and theoretical contributions to higher education policy and practice, including highlighting the decision-making and prioritization processes of state policymakers when facing an unprecedented pandemic and crisis, and discussing common and unique factors influencing higher education policymaking in two different state contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]