Policy and Performance in American Higher Education
A Higher Education Colloquium
Richard C. Richardson Jr.
Professor of Higher Education
New York University
Book Coauthor, Mario Martinez, UNLV
March 25, 2010
Funding Support Provided by the Ford Foundation
Purpose of the Study I
To train a small number of policy scholars:
Completed PhDs at NYU Related to Study
• Alycia Hurley
• Tom Carton
• Christina Shakespeare
• Tara Parker
• Tom Smalling
• Shaila Mulholland
NYU
New Jersey
Pace University
UMass Boston
Texas
San Diego State U
Finishing PhDs and Contributed to Study
• Anely Ramirez
• Michael Klein
• Maria Martinez
NYU
NYU
New Mexico State
Purpose of the Study II
How do you promote better alignment
between public interests as these are
defined by those elected to leadership
positions in state government and the
priorities pursued by the higher education
institutions they fund?
The classic principal/agent problem:
“implementation of … laws and executive
directives is subject to bureaucratic
interpretation … this creates opportunities
and incentives for the bureaucrat-as-agent
to deviate from the intentions or
preferences of legislators.”
Conceptual Framework
Incorporates concepts of new institutional economics and
bounded rationality.
Actors “are intentionally rational but only limitedly so …
Information search is costly, and the information-processing
capabilities of human beings limited.”
Actors make mistakes in choosing strategies, but over time
acquire greater understanding and make choices that
improve returns, which reflect a concern for the public wellbeing in addition to self-interest (Ostrom 1999, p. 46).
Policy decisions are defined as efforts to alter “the
written or unwritten rules of the game or, more
formally … the humanly devised constraints that
shape human interaction.” (North 1990, p. 73)
Rules of the game or rules in use are the principal
means governments use to influence processes and
outcomes in higher education.
The effect of any particular rule depends upon the
configuration of other rules operating at the time it
is adopted. (Ostrom 1999)
Rules determine the behaviors of actors,
(either individuals or groups). Professionals
adopt the behaviors they believe most likely to
achieve organizational goals under the
prevailing rules of the game.
Policy makers and associated administrative
agencies establish, alter, or reinforce explicit or
implicit priorities and the "rules of the game"
through which they are to be pursued. Colleges
and universities try to maximize preferred goals
within these rules.
No two states have exactly the same rules.
METHODOLOGY
Case studies of a purposeful sample of five states (CA,
NJ, NM, NY, SD). Data included interviews with key
state actors, use of web sites and analysis of
documents. The study produced three sets of
variables.
The independent or outcome variable was
performance.
State fiscal effort was understood as a control variable.
Rules in use were conceived as predictor variables
Measuring Performance
Preparation - high school completion and K-12 student
achievement;
Participation - chance for college by age 19, college
participation rate for dependent undergraduates from
low-income families, percent of 18-24 year-olds
enrolled in college, and percent of 25 -49 year-olds
enrolled part-time in some type of postsecondary
education in 1999-2000;
Completion - freshmen to sophomore retention rates
for first time college freshman for four-and two-year
colleges, 3yr associate degree graduation rate for twoyear colleges and 6 yr bachelor’s degree graduation
rate for students entering four-year colleges, the ratio
of bachelor’s degrees per 100 undergraduates and all
credentials awarded at two-year colleges per 100
undergraduates;
Fiscal Effort Defined
Operating expenses for two- and four-year
colleges and universities and for vocationaltechnical two-year colleges or institutes
predominantly for high school graduates and
adult students;
Funding for statewide coordinating boards or
governing boards, either for board expenses or
for allocation by the board to other institutions
or both;
State scholarships or other student financial
aid;
Sums destined for higher education but
appropriated initially to another state agency.
(Palmer 2005)
Identification of Rules in Use
Analysis of the case studies produced 65
rules in use organized into six categories.
1) Design and Governance: how the
relationship between state government
and higher education is organized and
how authority is exercised or influenced;
2)Planning and Strategies: influencing
actors to pursue goals defined as “in the
public interest.”
3) Information: how data is collected, analyzed
and reported;
4) Access and Achievement: preparation,
participation, and financial assistance;
5) Fiscal Policies: financial support, eligible
institutions, and tax policy;
6) Research and Development: state initiatives
focused on workforce training as well as
initiatives to improve the research
infrastructure.
Data Analysis
The 65 rules in use were combined in a
survey instrument that asked key leaders in
each of the five states to indicate level of
agreement about the presence of the rule in
their state. Leaders were asked to bring
completed surveys to a meeting with
members of the research team in each state.
Responses to the survey were used for two
purposes: 1) To validate researcher’s
judgments about the rules operating in a
state; and 2) To ensure that the rules were
clear and meaningful to all participants.
We used a matrix to examine the fifty-seven
rules in relation to the fifteen indicators of
performance. A positive relationship was one
where the rule was present in the two states
ranking above the median on that indicator and
absent in the two states ranking below the
median. A negative relationship was one where
the rule was absent in the two states ranking
above the median and present in the two states
ranking below the median. All other
combinations were treated as the absence of a
relationship. In this way, a rule explains either
high or low performance, but never both.
Only twenty-three of the rules predicted
performance (either high or low) for the five
case study states. Some of the rules
impacted differentially on indicators within a
performance subcategory. For example,
rules that help to explain baccalaureate
completion rates for traditionally-aged
students did not influence completion rates
for community college students. And, states
which emphasized rules to increase the
participation and completion rates for
traditionally aged students actually
experienced lower performance with their
adult, part-time populations.
State Performance
New Jersey and New York generally performed at higher
levels on all three of the performance indicators.
California and South Dakota had more mixed outcomes
New Mexico, with rare exceptions, lagged the field.
New Mexico made the greatest tax effort.
California made the next greatest effort followed by South
Dakota and New Jersey.
New York exhibited the least effort.
Tax effort and performance were thus inversely related for
these five states for the indicators we studied.
Rules Associated with High Performance and
Lower Effort
• An agency of the state has regulatory authority for all public
higher education, including at least the authority to approve
new academic programs when change in institutional
mission could be a concern;
• There is a significant private sector with a defined role in
state planning for meeting higher education needs;
• Elected officials and educational leaders work together to
define a policy agenda for higher education in a process
where state goals are explicitly identified and periodically
reviewed;
The state uses market forces as an intentional
strategy to encourage responsiveness and
efficiency;
State grants based on need and designed to
cover most, if not all, tuition in the public sector
are awarded to students attending both public
and private institutions;
The state has a coordinated programs for
improving access to higher education for
residents who are facing economic or
educational disadvantages;
The state uses standardized methods for
measuring learning outcomes in at least some
subjects;
Private institutions receive both operating and
capital appropriations from the state.
In contrast, States that produce lower
performance despite higher effort have rules
where:
Each public institution has its own governing
board which operates without significant state
oversight;
Operating appropriations for four-year public
institutions are based primarily on
enrollments;
Two-year college tuition and/or fees are less
than half of the lowest-cost four-year
institution.
Changing Rules to Improve Performance
• State capacity to change rules in use to improve
performance depends upon three key areas:
– Their capacity for defining goals and priorities related to
the public interest and getting higher education actors to
pay attention to them.
– Holding higher education accountable for performance
on goals and priorities and making the results available to
the public.
– Fostering collaboration across sectors, segments, and
levels of education aimed at improving performance.
In Conclusion
• Perceptions of actors about rules-in-use do predict
performance. States that are dissatisfied with the
performance of their higher education systems should
change the rules that influence relevant behaviors;
• States that lack some type of an effective interface agency
operating between higher education and state government
are at a significant disadvantage in achieving high
performance on undergraduate indicators regardless of
effort;
States can improve performance by deciding
on a small number of public priorities for
higher education and pursuing them though
intentional steering strategies that use market
forces and accountability for learning
outcomes to encourage responsiveness and
efficiency;
Private institutions should be included in
strategies for attaining public priorities;
State need-based student assistance should
offset tuition charges in public institutions for
the neediest students;
Access and student success strategies
should be planned and coordinated by a
statewide agency to ensure that competition
for the best students does not overshadow
concern for those who have the potential to
become competent and productive citizens if
provided with adequate support;
Resource allocation strategies should target
desired performance outcomes and include
the private sector whenever possible;
Aspirations for research excellence should not
be funded through strategies that place most
undergraduates in low-cost institutions
without the resources to respond effectively.
Questions?