INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page{s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. University Microfilms International 300 North Zee b Road Ann Arbor, M ichigan 48 10 6 USA St. John's Road, Tyler's Green High Wycombe. Bucks, England HP10 8H R I I 78-10,074 JOHNSTON, Thomas Earl, 1944AN ASSESSMENT OF ATTITUDES OF STATE AND INSTITUTIONAL AND ASSOCIATION POLICY MAKERS ON THE COORDINATION AND PLANNING OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1977 Education, higher University Microfilms International i A nn A rb o r, M ic h ig a n 4810 6 AN ASSESSMENT OF ATTITUDES OF STATE AND INSTITUTIONAL AND ASSOCIATION POLICY MAKERS ON THE COORDINATION AND PLANNING OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN By Thomas Earl Johnston A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1977 AN ASSESSMENT OF ATTITUDES OF STATE AND INSTITUTIONAL AND ASSOCIATION POLICY MAKERS ON THE COORDINATION AND PLANNING OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN By Thomas Earl Johnston AN ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1977 ABSTRACT AN ASSESSMENT OF ATTITUDES OF STATE AND INSTITUTIONAL AND ASSOCIATION POLICY MAKERS ON THE COORDINATION AND PLANNING OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN By Thomas Earl Johnston The study was directed at the identification of an operational definition of institutional autonomy and state wide coordination and planning of public higher education in Michigan through assessing the attitudes of policy makers from the institutions, state government, and educa­ tional associations regarding specific programmatic, fis­ cal, facilities, personnel and governance questions. The study was intended to address a research need recognized in the literature associated with statewide coordination and planning of higher education by focusing on the com­ bined interests of all those policy makers who participate both officially and unofficially, in the formulation of policy affecting public higher education in Michigan. The purposes of the study were (1) to collect detailed and factual information that describes the existing attitudes of institutional, state agency and Thomas Earl Johnston association decision makers on the coordination and p l a n ­ ning of higher education in Michigan; (2) to identify specific issues and operational areas wi t h i n public higher education in Michigan in which there are agreement and discrepancies among the survey populations; (3) to make comparisons and evaluations of attitudes among the insti­ tutions, state agencies and associations and within each of these survey groups; institutional, and (4) to provide information to state agency and association policy makers for consideration in their respective policy decisions concerning the planning and coordination of public higher education in Michigan. A survey questionnaire was developed to assess the attitudes of institution, state and association policy makers on the coordination and planning of higher ed u c a ­ tion in Michigan. The survey questionnaire was mailed to the study population which consisted of the chief finan­ cial and academic officers of each of the fifteen public baccalaureate colleges and universities in the state of Michigan (N = 30), the chief financial and academic policy makers in the executive, legislative, tion agencies of state government fiscal and edu c a ­ (N = 15), and to the chairman and executive directors of the graduate and higher education associations (N — 5). The response rate to the questionnaire was 76 percent and well within the Thomas Earl Johnston guidelines established in the literature of survey research as being a very good return rate for analysis and reporting purposes. Analysis of the survey data in the study was reported in descriptive and summary statistical formats with accompanying narrative. The analysis of the survey data did not employ inferential statistical analysis or techniques because the entire population of the study as identified was surveyed with the results and conclusions based upon the total population rather than a sample of it. A comparative analysis of the survey results are made in relation to questions which continually emerge in the literature dealing with statewide coordination and planning of higher education and which concern policy makers on a recurrent basis. The conclusions reached as a result of the comparative analysis were (1) the majority of policy makers in the survey population view the exist­ ing structure of coordination and planning of public higher education in Michigan as adequate and meeting the needs of the state’s citizens; (2) there is support to change the existing structure and to establish a single statewide body for the coordination and planning of public higher education in Michigan only among the majority of policy makers from the state government category of the Thomas Earl Johnston survey population; (3) the present method of communicat­ ing funding needs by institutions to the state and the role and posture of the executive office were found to be unsatisfactory by the majority of respondents in the survey population; and (4) the majority of the survey population viewed the existing structure of coordination and planning of public higher education as the appropriate structure for Michigan and would not support the establish ment of a single statewide body for coordination and planning. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of this study represents the encouragement and support of many persons who have pro­ vided professional direction and friendship during the course of the research. Special acknowledgment is accorded to Dr. Richard L. Featherstone, chairperson of the Guidance Committee and Director of the Dissertation. His involvement, commitment and positive concern were instrumental in the writer's growth and development throughout the doctoral program. Through Dr. Featherstone's assistance and friendship, the writer has come to understand the responsibilities of scholarship and the role of a scholar. Acknowledgments are given to Dr. Cole S. Brembeck, Dr. John E. Ivey, J r . , and Dr. J. Geoffrey Moore, members of the Guidance Committee, whose valuable suggestions and contributions enhanced the writer's doctoral program and graduate experience. Lastly, the writer acknowledges and extends his deep appreciation and gratitude to his wife and partner, Michelle, who encouraged and shared his faith and belief in higher education, and to Andrew Looby Johnston, our son, ii for w h o m our combined efforts are dedicated in the hope that his great promise will be fulfilled. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF T A B L E S .................................... vi LIST OF F I G U R E S .....................................viii Chapter I. II. INTRODUCTION .............................. 1 Statement of the Problem ; Focus of the P r o b l e m ........... 11 Significance of the S t u d y .... 11 Purposes of the S t u d y ....... 12 Definition of T e r m s ........... 13 Limitations and Delimitations . . . . L i m i t a t i o n s ................. 15 D e l i m i n a t i o n s .............. 15 D e s i g n ........................ 16 Organization of the Study and Overview of Subsequent Chapters ............ 7 REVIEW OF L I T E R A T U R E ........... IV. I N T R O D U C T I O N ..................... 60 Results of the S u r v e y ....... 63 A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE SURVEY R E S U L T S ........................... 21 22 48 54 151 Is the Existing Structure Adequate to meet the Needs of the State . . . . iv 18 21 Introduction .......................... The Development of Statewide Coordina­ tion and Planning of Higher Educa­ tion in the United States . . . . Research Related to the Study . . . . Advantages and Disadvantages of State­ wide Coordinating Boards ............ III. 15 155 Page Chapter Can a Single Statewide Agency for Higher Education be More Responsive in Areas of Accountability, Efficiency and in Decreasing Competition in the Michi­ gan Higher Education Community . . . What is an Appropriate Structure for the Coordination and Planning of Public Higher Education in Michigan . V. 170 177 SUMMARY OF THE S T U D Y ..................... 186 Summary of F i n d i n g s ..................... Respondents from the Public Colleges and U n i v e r s i t i e s .................... Respondents from State Government Offices and A g e n c i e s ............. Respondents from the Associations . C o n c l u s i o n s .............................. 189 A P P E N D I C E S ........................................ 198 189 192 194 195 A. Survey Questionnaire Recipients . . . . 199 B. Survey Instrument 206 C. Survey Cover Letters and Follow-Up Letter BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................ ..................................... v 215 219 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Mailed and Returned Questionnaires 2. Critical Issues Confronting Michigan Higher Ed u c a t i o n * : Percentages of Each Group of Response Category ........................... 65 Purposes of Public Higher Education in Michigan*: Percentages of Each Group by Response Category ........................... 68 Exercise of State Control*: Percentages of Each Group by Response Category . . . . 86 Potential Actions to Increase Facility Efficiently*: Percentages of Each Group by Response Category ........................ 96 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. . . . 19 Additional Funding Needs*: Percentages of Each Group by Response Category . . . . 101 College and University Salaries*: Per­ centages of Each Group by Response Cate­ gory ........................ 103 State's Needs for Professional Training*: Percentages of Each Group by Response C a t e g o r y ..................................... 115 Michigan Higher Education Compared with Other States*: Percentages of Each Group . by Response C a t e g o r y ................. ... 131 Standards for Evaluation of Resource Allo­ cation and Use*: Percentages of Each Group by Response C a t e g o r y ................. 139 Evaluation of Institutional Resource Use*: Percentages of Each Group by Response C a t e g o r y ..................................... 141 Table 12. 13. 14. Page Determination of Administrative and Faculty Salaries*: Percentages of Each Group by Response C a t e g o r y .............. 143 Capital Expenditures for Construction and Eq u i p m e n t * : Percentages of Each Group by ........................ Response Category 146 Role of a Coordinating Body in Academic Affairs*: Percentages of Each Group by Response Category ........................ 149 LIST OF FIGURES Role of public baccalaureate institu­ tions*: Percentages of each group by ....................... response category 70 Concentration of graduate and professional programs*: Percentages of each group by response category ....................... 72 General satisfaction with articulation of needs to state*: Percentages of each group by response category ............. 73 Coordination of institutional requests to state*: Percentages of each group by response category . . . . . . . . 75 Use of the State Plan for Higher Educa­ tion*: Percentages of each group by response category .................... 77 Closer adherence to statewide plan*: Per­ centages of each group by response category ................................. 78 General satisfaction with division of responsibilities*: Percentages of each group by response category ............. 80 Control of Legislature over higher educa­ tion*: Percentages of each group by response category ....................... 84 Legislative ability to oversee public higher education*: Percentages of each group by response category ............. 88 General satisfaction with executive branch direction*: Percentages of each group by response category ....................... 90 viii Economical and efficient use of facili­ ties*: Percentage of each group by response category ....................... 94 Institutional competition for state funds*: Percentage of each group by response category ....................... 98 Students share of higher education costs*: Percentages of each group by response category ................................. 105 Geographic location of colleges and uni­ versities*: Percentages of each group by response category ....................... 109 Future needs**: Percentages of each group by response category .................... 110 Role of the urban university*: Percentage of each group by response category . 112 Federal responsibility for professional training*: Percentages of each group by response category ....................... 117 Federal aid disbursement*: Percentages of each group by response category . . . . 119 Impact of federal aid upon higher educa­ tion*: Percentages of each group by response category ....................... 123 Impact of federal aid upon the state**: Percentages of each group by response category ................................. 124 Support for private institutions*: Per­ centages of each group by response cate­ gory ....................................... 126 State control over private institutions*: Percentages of each group by response ................................. category 128 State control of budget and audit**: Per­ centages of each group by response ................................. category 130 ix Figure 21. 22. 23. Page Constitutional recognition of institu­ tions*: Percentages of each group by response category ........................ 133 Establishment of a coordinating body*: Percentages of each group by response c a t e g o r y .................................. 135 Impairment of long-range planning*: Per­ centages of each group by response c a t e g o r y .................................. 137 x CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Clark Kerr wrote that public authority is a "mixed entity" of religious and political leaders, mi n i s ­ ters of state, commissions, boards.^- committees and governing Public authority, he states, has come to be 2 regardless of the origin of the system. Kerr believes that in relation to the British and European counterparts the American university system is "particularly sensitive to the influences of its many publics. 3 American uni­ versities are more involved with their immediate environ­ ment and society than are their inward-focused Western predecessors. He concludes that, as the boundaries of the campus have extended to parallel those of the state, it has become difficult to distinguish what is internal from what is external, and observes that "taking the campus to the state brings the state to the campus." 4 Clark Kerr, The Uses of the University with a Postscript 1972 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972), p. 24. ^Ibid., p. 24. ^Ibid., p. 26. 4Ibid., p. 27. 2 State colleges and universities have many "publics" as constituted by federal and state agencies, alumni, donors, foundations, professional and business communities, organized labor, agriculture and media. The interests represented by these several "publics" incorporate both 5 legitimate and superficial aims. External imperatives, Kerr believes, are responsible for initiating the major changes in university life. 6 As examples, he cites such outside forces as Napoleon in France, German ministers of education, royal commissions in Great Britain, the Communist Party in Russia and, in the United States, lay university governing boards, foundations and the federal Congress. Likely changes, Kerr asserts, can be determined, in some degree, by the concerns of the external initiators such as state agencies, trustees, foundations and the federal govern7 ment. Among current concerns identified by Kerr are problems relating to: (1) costs (faculty-student ratios, fuller use of the academic year, excessive courses, mechanized instruction); (2) public service (advice to state and federal legislators and agencies); (3) the supply of trained personnel for industry and the public; 5Ibid., p. 27. ^Ibid., p. 105. ^Ibid., pp. 105-106. 3 (4) and questions about the quality, availability, and use of research (particularly in the biological, health, Q and agricultural sciences). For the university, Kerr says that changes emanat­ ing from external interests present serious institutional problems. The challenge is to determine which changes will be positive and to accommodate them, while resisting those perceived not to be in the best interest of the university. Change must be integrated at a pace which preserves the "essential forms" of the university, while g permitting content to be altered. By role and function, the tasks and responsibilities embodied in the challenge accrue primarily to the university administrator. environment marked by accelerating change, In an increasing inter-institutional competition, and the recognition that institutions are not solely directing the nature of their own development, rapid decisions and adjustments must be made. The quality of these "essential adjustments," made by universities, will significantly influence their future effectiveness. The Carnegie Commission recognized that the states assumed and have retained the primary responsibility 8 I b i d ., p. 107. 9Ibid. 10I b i d ., 108. for the development of higher education.11 State govern­ ments have provided initiative and funds for the estab­ lishment and continuous operation of public postsecondary education. Accompanying state government initiative and appropriated support have been varying degrees of planning and coordination depending upon the historical, political, economic, states. 12 and other conditions unique to the individual The fundamental goal of each state, asserts the Commission, has remained unaltered: secondary needs of its citizens.13 to meet the post­ Regarding the primary role of state governments in the provision of higher edu­ cation, the Commission urged that states continue to ful­ fill their acknowledged responsibilities. Successful discharge of these public obligations will require expand­ ing appropriation efforts as well as adopting an enlarged definition of postsecondary education. However, while the Carnegie Commission encourages an increase in the tax support allocated to postsecondary institutions, it rec­ ommends that statewide efforts to coordinate and plan be restricted from (1) investing coordinating agencies with adminis­ trative authority, particularly over budget Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, The Capitol and the Campus (New York: McCraw-Hill Book Company, 1971), p. 16. 1 2 Ibid. 13Ibid. 5 matters, or (2) establishing single, governing boards, except in those states in w h i c h a special combination of historical factors and present circumstances make such agencies more feasible than other types of coordinating a g e n c i e s . 14 The Commission recommends that the responsibilities and duties assigned to a coordinating and planning body be of a n advisory and informational capacity and, further, that authority for program and budget review be consistent with its planning fuctions. 15 Among those authors found in the literature of higher education who support state coordination is Robert 0. B e r d a h l . ^ He advocates state coordination of higher education for administrative purposes and as a method to preclude state control. Berdahl believes that both state g overnment and colleges and universities are attempting to secure interests and prerogatives which exceed their public trusts. Dressel and Faricy indicate similar con- 17 cerns regarding the need for c o o r d i n a t i o n . They con­ clude that the most significant problem coordination m u s t deal with is the need to achieve a balance w h i c h permits 1 4 I b i d . , pp. 28-29. 1 5 Ibid. 16 Robert 0. Berdahl, Statewide Coordination of Higher Education (Washington, D.C.: American Council of Education, 19 71). 17 Paul L. Dressel and William H. Faricy, Return to Responsibility (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1972) . 6 internal and external control for assuring that institu­ tions use tneir funds properly and which allays "exces­ sive" autonomy fears raised by the universities. In a study of the coordinating process conducted in four states, Palola, Lehmann and Blischke catalogued the strengths and weaknesses of these coordinating mechanisms. 18 Their findings suggest that in the short run the operation of coordinating agencies has not reduced the autonomy of public institutions because incentives for universities to expand have mitigated against losses of autonomy in the formal and legal sense. They believe that, in the future, autonomy will be decreased to the degree that enrollment decline reduces expansion needs and as contemporary management philosophy replaces the common credo that universities always operate in the public interest. There is little discussion in the literature that deals with the institutional interests which are the fun­ damental element of the politics of higher education coordination. 19 Glenny has devoted some attention to the 18 Ernest Palola, Timothy Lehmann, and William R. Blischke, Higher Education by Design: The Sociology of Planning (Berkeley: Center for Research and Development in Higher Education, University of California, 19 70). 19 Leonard E. Goodall, ed., State Politics and Higher Education (Dearborn: LMG Associations, 1976) . 7 issue by trying to ascertain: versity autonomy serve? 20 Whose interests does uni- He asserts that some features of autonomy benefit the university rather than the public. Glenny's assessment tends to be supported by the insis­ tence of a major state university for autonomy for itself, but not for the other public colleges. Glenny's work does not address the question of who benefits from the different limitations on college and university autonomy? 21 Research attention, to date, has been directed primarily at state governments and agencies and to some extent at the affected institutions. Further scholarly effort, as is being proposed in the current paper, needs to be focused on the combined interest of all those who participate, both officially and unofficially, in formu­ lating policy for the coordination and planning of higher education. Statement of the Problem According to recent Higher Education General Information Survey Data (HEGIS), public and private post­ secondary institutions of higher education in Michigan 20 Lyman A. Glenny, "In Institutional Autonomy for Whom?" in The Troubled Campus: Current Issues in Higher Education, 1970, ed: G. Kerry Smith (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, IT70), pp. 153-160. account for $1.4 billion of expenditures. 22 Enrollment in 95 separate colleges and universities and in almost 200 postsecondary occupational schools currently exceeds 550,000 students, or one out of every nine adults in Michigan is enrolled in some form of postsecondary or higher education program. Statewide planning and coordination of postsecon­ dary and higher education resources is limited and restricted by the autonomy granted to public colleges and universities in the 196 3 Constitution of the State of Michigan. 23 However, the 196 3 Constitution does designate the State Board of Education "as the general planning and coordinating body for all public education, including higher education, and shall advise the Legislature as to the financial requirements in connection therewith." 24 The role of the State Board of Education as the general planning and coordinating body with respect to public higher education has been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan. 25 22 Michigan Department of Education, Higher Educa­ tion Management Services, HEGIS Records for 1975-1976 and 1976-1977. 23 Michigan, Constitution, art. VIII, Education, 1963. 24 25 Michigan, Constitution, sec. 3. University of Michigan, et al., V. State of Michigan and State Board of Education, 47 Mich. App. 43; 208 N W 2d 871 (1973). 9 Shortly before and since the adoption of the 1963 Constitution, a number of important events have taken place regarding public higher education in Michigan: The 1958 John Dale Russell Study, Control and Coordination of Higher Education in M i c h i g a n , recommended "that the Legislature take immediate steps to create and establish a Board for the coordination of the state-controlled 2g program of higher education in Michigan." In 1969 the State Board of Education approved a State Plan for Higher Education in Michigan. Governor Milliken designated the State Board of Education as the agency responsible for postsecondary education planning under Sec­ tion 120 2 of the Federal Higher Education Act, as amended in 1972. In 1974, the Governor's Commission on Higher Education issued its final report in which it recommended that "the Michigan Constitution be revised to provide for the creation by statute of a separate State Board of Post­ secondary Edu cation."27 The Supreme Court of the State of Michigan affirmed (1973) and reaffirmed and clarified (1975) university autonomy and the advisory role of the State Board of Education with respect to coordination and planning of public higher education. In 19 76, the Michigan Efficiency Task Force in its report of findings and recommendations concerning state government operations 26 John Dale Russell, Control and Coordination of Higher Education in M i c h i g a n , Staff Study No. T2 (Lansing: Michigan Legislative Study on Higher Education, 1958, Final Report), p. 68. ^Ibid., p. 10. 10 recommended the establishment of "a planning authority for higher education."28 In the 1976 and 1977 Michigan State of the State Messages, Governor Milliken proposed a constitutional amendment for the creation of a separate State Board of Higher E d u c a t i o n . 2 9 In 1976 the legislative and executive branches of state government began operational study and initial implementation of a formula funding and informational mechanism for the determination of state appropriated support to public higher education in Michigan. The significance of these past and ongoing events regard­ ing the nature of institutional autonomy, statewide coordination and planning, and budgetary support of higher education in Michigan is that they indicate the presence of different views and interpretations of the legal or constitutional status and, hence, different policy-making and operational conceptions of state col­ leges and universities. A state official recently summarized the present situation in the following manner: The issues of governance and coordination need to be further examined. It has been effectively argued that central state control of internal institutional operations is neither efficient nor effective, but total university autonomy, estab­ lished 150 years ago, may no longer be appropriate with over 100 college campuses, a half-million college students, and $700 million state dollars 28Ibid., p. 39. 29 Michigan State of the State Messages, 1976, p. 36 and 1977, p. 37. ’ 11 going into a higher education non-system, in 1976. The problems of competition between colleges for students and dollars, proliferation of degree programs, expansion of off-campus pro­ grams, and so forth, all will be accentuated by the pressures of declining enrollments in the years ahead. The development of a definition of state-level coordination, respecting institutional autonomy, and support of a mechanism for providing such coordination, are perhaps the most essential tasks to be undertaken in the next year or two.30 Focus of the Problem The study is directed toward identifying an operational definition of institutional autonomy and it >* statewide coordination and planning of higher education in Michigan through assessing the attitudes of policy makers from the institutions, state government, and edu­ cational associations regarding specific programmatic, fiscal, facilities, personnel and governance questions. Significance of the Study The significance of the study is related to the following points: (1) it addresses a recognized research need as identified in the literature associated with statewide coordination and planning of higher education; (2) it will provide specific information to the respec­ tive policy makers concerning the operational issues on which they are in agreement and on issues where 30 Michigan Department of Education, Internal Communication. 12 disagreement exist; (3) such information will permit policy makers to appraise their own positions with regard to the issues of institutional autonomy, ning and coordination, statewide plan­ and to understand more completely the views of the other major interests within the field of study; and (4) a more sensitive and fuller understand­ ing of the issues examined in the study will assist policy makers and subsequently improve the outcomes of public higher education in Michigan. Purposes of the Study The purposes of the study are as follows: (1) to collect detailed and factual information that describes the existing attitudes of institutional, state agency, and association decision makers on the coordination and planning of higher education in Michigan; (2) to identify specific issues and operational areas within public higher education in Michigan in which there are agreement and discrepancies among the survey population; (3) to make comparisons and evaluations of attitudes among the insti­ tutions, state agencies and associations and within each of these survey groups; institutional, and (4) to provide information to state agency and association policy makers for consideration in their respective policy decisions concerning the planning and coordination of public higher education in Michigan. 13 Definition of Terms The following major terms will be used throughout the study and are defined to insure clarity and continuity for the reader. Appropriation— A term used to designate an author­ ization granted by a state legislative body to make expen­ ditures and to incur obligations for specific purposes. The appropriation is usually limited in amount and time when it may be expended. Budget For m u l a — A set of statements which detail a procedure for manipulating variable (quantitative) applicable to an institution of higher education factors) by pre-established fixed data (base (formula factors) data to produce the estimated future funding requirements of the institution. A budget formula may consist of several subsections or components (i.e., each functional budget area) separate formulas for and may be expressed alge­ braically . Budget Request— A request for a legislative appro­ priation of funds that is initiated by an institution and transmitted to the Governor through a state budget office (or through a coordinating or governing agency on the institution's b e h a l f ) . Coordination— Is the securing of concerted action through effective interrelationships and recognition of 14 common goals. Coordination is operational: it inter­ relates and unifies action to achieve predetermined g o a l s .31 Higher E d u c a t i o n — Study pursued in a four-year public institution leading to a baccalaureate, graduate, advanced graduate or professional d e g r e e . I n s t i t u t i o n .— A public baccalareaute college or university considered to have sufficient independence for classification as a separate institution under the Board and its central administrative staff. P l a n n i n g — The prearrangement of policy and methods to guide work toward g i v e n objectives. tional: Planning is direc- it establishes goals and guides action. 32 Postsecondary Educa t i o n — Any instruction, public service, research, or other learning opportunity offered to persons who have completed their secondary education or w h o are beyond the compulsory secondary school attendance age (age 16) and who are participating in an organized ecuational program of learning experience administered by o ther than schools whose primary role is elementary and secondary education. 31 33 E d u c ation D. Kent Halstead, Statewide Planning in Higher (Washington: Superintendent of Documents, 1974), 3. pT 32I b i d ., p. 3. 33 Report of the Governors' Commission on Higher Education, Building for the Future of Postsecondary E d u ­ c a t i on in M i c h i g a n (Lansing, 1974), p. Tl 15 Limitations and Delimitations Limitations The study is limited to the extent that the sur­ vey respondents are not the actual formulators and makers of policy for their respective institutions, agencies, and bodies. Further, the study is limited to the degree to which the survey has identified and framed the signifi­ cant issues raised in the literature on this subject. Lastly, the study is limited by the reliability of the survey instrument and the method of question scaling and coding employed for purposes of descriptive statistical analysis. Delimitations The study was delimited to library research to include ERIC, DATRIX, and DISSERTATION ABSTRACTS informa­ tion searches, State of Michigan documents, public com­ mission reports, books, periodicals on file at the Michigan State University Library, State of Michigan Library, University Microfilms Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, and books and materials personally owned or borrowed by the writer. The study was also delimited to the State of Michigan, to public four-year institutions of higher edu­ cation and to the indicated state agencies and private associations. Finally, the study was delimited to the 16 responses of the fifty designated policy makers concern­ ing public higher education in Michigan. Design To assess the attitudes of state, institutional, and association policy makers on the coordination and planning of higher education in Michigan, a survey ques­ tionnaire was mailed to the study population. The study population consists of the chief financial and academic officers of each of the fifteen public baccalaureate colleges and universities in the State of Michigan (N = 30), the chief financial and academic policy makers in the executive, legislative, fiscal and education agencies of state government (N = 15), and to the chair­ man and executive directors of the graduate and higher education associations (N = 5). The survey instrument, with a cover letter of introduction, was mailed to the study population (N = 50) requesting the participation of the officials and officers in the study. Their individual responses will remain confidential and were so indicated in the cover letter and on the survey instrument. Numerical coding of each envelop containing the survey instrument mailed to the study population permitted identification for follow-up requests of those who had failed to respond within three weeks from the date of mailing. Telephone calls were 17 used as a final measure to those recipients of the survey instrument who had not responded to the original request or to the written follow-up request to personally ask for their assistance in complying with the survey request. To determine an acceptable response rate for the survey instrument, the study adopted the response rates recommended for survey research as identified in a review of survey literature. 34 Babbie and other authorities in the field of survey research conclude that the body of inferential statistics used in connection with survey analysis assumes that all members of the initial sample complete and return their questionnaires. 35 However, since a 100 percent response rate is rarely achieved, Babbie suggests the following response rates, which were used as guidelines for data collection and analysis in the study: reporting; 50 percent is adequate for analysis and a response rate of at least 60 percent is good; and a response rate of 70 percent or more is very good. *3 A Earl R. Babbie, Survey Research Methods (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1973), pp. 165-169; Gene F. Summers, ed., Attitude Measurement (Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1971); Marjorie N. Donald, "Implications of Nonresponse for the Interpreta­ tion of Mail Questionnaire D a t a , " Public Opinion Quarterly 24:1 (1960): 99-114. 35 Babbie, Survey Research, pp. 165-169. See also K. A. Brownlee, "A Note on the Effects of Nonresponse on Surveys," Journal of the American Statistical Assocation 52:227 (19577! 29-32. 18 The response rate of the survey was 76 percent (see Table 1). The assessment of attitudes of institutional, state government, and association policy makers is based upon questions in the survey instrument which were devel­ oped from issues and criteria defined by the American College Testing Program and the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. Further information for developing the questionnaire was provided by research conducted in the study area by nationally recognized experts in the field of higher education, statewide coordination and planning as being central to understanding the significant con­ cerns treated in the study area. Analysis of survey data in the study is reported in descriptive and summary statistical formats with accompanying narrative. The analysis of the survey data did not employ inferential statistical analysis or tech­ niques because the entire population of the study as identified was surveyed with the results and conclusions b ased upon the total population, rather than a sample of it. Organization of the Study and Overview o£ S\absequent Chapters The study is reported in five chapters. ter I includes the introduction, Chap­ the statement of the TABLE 1.— Mailed and Returned Questionnaires State Government Respondents Department , of Education Academic Vice Presidents Financial Vice Presidents Associations and Lobby Groups TOTAL 30 5 5 12 23 5 5 79.9 76.6 100 100 Executive Office • , . Legislature Mailed Question­ naires to: 3 8 2 2 15 15 15 Question­ naires Returned by: 3 3 2 2 10 11 Percentage Responding: 100 37.5 100 100 66.6 73.2 Fiscal Agencies Association Respondents Institutional Respondents __ TOTAL Total Questionnaires Mailed: 50 Total Questionnaires Returned: 38 Total Percentage Responding: 76% TOTAL 20 problem, the importance of the study, the purposes of the study, definitions of terms, the limitations and delimi­ tations of the study, the sources of data and procedures, and a statement of the organization of the study. Chapter II includes a review of the literature related to the study and also includes a brief historical development of statewide coordination and planning of higher education in the United States and in Michigan, the results of previous studies performed, and the advan­ tages and disadvantages of statewide coordinating bodies. Chapter III contains the results of the survey of state and institutional and association policy makers including a brief description of every question item con­ tained in the survey instrument. Chapter IV includes a comparative analysis of the results of the survey assessing the attitudes of state, institutional, and association policy makers on the coordination and planning of higher education in Michigan and also includes an analysis, continuities and discontinuities of attitudes within state agencies, the institutions and the associations. Chapter V contains a summary of the entire study followed by conclusions and recommendations. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction John Millett wrote that "one of the major charac­ teristics of our time is the extent to which planning is now being undertaken external to individual colleges and universities.1,1 He concluded that federal and state agen­ cies "make studies, form commissions and inquire about government policy affecting higher education and that these activities may subsequently affect legislative or 2 administrative action." As examples of external plan­ ning at the state level, Millett cites State Departments of Education which have been designated as the agencies responsible for the preparation of master plans for public policy on higher education of Education, (California State Department 1960; Illinois Board of Higher Education, 1964; Michigan State Board of Education, 1969; Ohio Board of Regents, 1966; University of the State of New York, 1965). Among the concerns that he believes are the most i John D. Millett, "College and University Admin­ istration," Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Fourth Edition, ed: Robert Ebel (New York: The^MacMillan Company, 1969), p. 163. 2Ibid. 21 22 important subjects of higher education planning in recent years are "quality of instruction, access to higher educa­ tion, the scope of undergraduate and graduate programs of study, the extent of continuing education activity and the 3 extent of research activity." The development of exter­ nal planning for colleges and universities as a function of state government is continuing to evolve and is an area in which the role and responsibilities of the state and of the institutions are frequently matters of con­ tention. Therefore, it would be useful for understanding the present study to briefly review the nature and char­ acter of the development of statewide coordination and planning of higher education in the United States and in the State of Michigan. The Development of Statewide Coordination and Planning of Higher Education in the United States Several reasons are suggested in the literature to account for the ongoing interest in the development of statewide coordination and planning of higher education by public agencies. However, Glenny states that there are essentially two, the growth of state government and the increasing complexity of higher education. 4 Corson, 3Ibid. 4 Lyman A. Glenny, Autonomy of Public Colleges; The Challenges of Coordination (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959) . 23 in reference to the early development of American higher education, observes that institutions were "subjected" to the influence of external groups (church, alumni, donors, agricultural and business groups, government and others) in matters of program and policies during their first cen­ tury and a half of existence.5 In regard to the present situation of external pressure upon colleges and univers­ ities, Corson says the following: The reason is clear. The institution of Higher Education has become more central to the interests of more groups in the society than ever before. As the volume of new knowledge has increased, knowledge has become essential to a larger and larger proportion of the population. A n d the uni ­ versity, being in the business of discovering, accumulating, and transmitting knowledge, has been moved from the sidelines where it educated a few to the center of the social scene where it educates many, and where many other institutions within the society— the farm, the elementary and secondary schools, government and business, and the profes­ sions— come for workers trained in the professions and paraprofessions, and for aid in applying k n o w l ­ edge to the problems of society.6 Moos and Rourke note that the concept of coordination and unification can be traced back to 17 85 with the establish­ ment of the State Board of Regents in New York and 7 with the chartering of the University of Georgia. Their 5John J. Corson, The Governance of Colleges and Universities (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975), p. 22. 6Ibid., pp. 22-23. 7 Malcolm Moos and Francis Rourke, The Campus and the State (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press'^ 1959) . 24 study indicates that the movement of state centralization o f higher education was initiated in 1896 with the c r e ­ ation of a single board of control over the public colQ leges and universities in South Dakota. Centralized control or supervision of public higher education by state government has increased from Q twelve states in 1932, according to Jamrich, to every state currently having a board or commission and staff w h i c h is by constitution, statue or executive order responsible in some degree for higher education in the s 4t. a4t. e .10 The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, in its r eport The Capitol and The C a m p u s , provided some understanding as to w h y state government control and supervision of public higher education has increased w h e n it reported: A m o n g governmental units, the states have had the primary responsibility for the development of higher education throughout the history of the United States; before independence, this r e s p o n s i ­ b ility was carried by the colonies beginning with O Ibid.; also see John X. Jamrich, "Cooperation, Coordination, and Control in Higher E d u c a t i o n , " E n c y c l o ­ pedia of Educational Research, Fourth Edition (New York: The M a c M i l l a n Company, 1969), p. 206. g Jamrich, "Cooperation, Coordination, and Control in Higher Education," p. 206. Richard M. Millard, State Boards of Higher E d u ­ c ation (Washington, D.C.: A m e r i c a n Association for Higher Education, 1976), p. 4. 25 the support given to Harvard in 1636 by the Massa­ chusetts Bay Colony.li The Carnegie Commission Report acknowledged the effective­ ness of state sponsorship of higher education when it stated: That this responsibility generally has been well discharged is demonstrated by the quantitative and qualitative growth that has given this coun­ try a position of world leadership in higher education. The state, in the 1960's in particular gave spectacular support to higher education in the face of a "tidal wave" of students. Their greatest previous contribution came about a cen­ tury ago when the land-grant universities were being b o r n . 12 From another portion of the report: They (the states) have done well with it. Their guardianship has led to substantial diversity, to adaptation to regional needs, and to competitive efforts at improvement.13 Lastly, with respect to the matter of institutional auton­ omy, the Carnegie Commission observed that state involve­ ment and supervision of public colleges and universities is a legitimate, but sensitive, responsibility by conclud­ ing that: Autonomy of institutions of higher education nei­ ther can be nor should be complete. The public has clear interests in their conduct. However, too often and too increasingly, autonomy is being infringed upon beyond the requirements of protect­ ing the essential interests of the public. We The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, The Capitol and the Campus (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971), p. 1. 12I b i d . 13 Ibid. 26 suggest the limits which should be placed on external governmental interference in the internal life of the campus. As private col­ leges become increasingly public assisted, the establishment of such limits becomes of even greater importance. At the same time, we recog­ nize that autonomy is to be earned by conduct, as well as claimed by right. The campus earns its autonomy as it preserves its intellectual inde­ pendence from attack from within, as well as from without? as it provides high-quality instruction, research, and services; as it prevents use of its resources for electoral political purposes and commercial activities unrelated to its educational functions; as it maintains vitality and flexibil­ ity; and as it respects the democratic processes of society, as much as it demands respect for its own academic f r e e d o m . 14 Aside from the historical role of state responsi­ bility for public higher education and the accompanying rationale for institutional supervison, the impetus for the growth of state planning and coordination may be the result of pressures more related to pragmatic features and logistical needs arising from social change than from the precedents and contexts of the past. number of colleges and universities For example, has the increased more than one hundred percent since 1900, institu­ tional income has risen to more than three hundred times the amount it was at the beginning of the twentieth century, enrollment has more than doubled in every decade of this century, state expenditures in support of public higher education since 1900 have risen from slightly over $.02 billion to exceed $2.1 billion, and federal aid to institu­ tions, programs and students, both directly and 14I b i d . , p. 5. 27 through state agencies has grown extensively ^ during the past three decades of this century. Thus the magnitude of current governmental support to public higher education and the complexity of the institu­ tions and their operating missions and needs have given rise to state level concerns for accountability, equality of opportunity and access. The states responded to public pressure for closer supervision of colleges and universities through the establishment of several forms of control and mechanisms for exercising state authority. Coordination of the separate elements which comprise public higher education w i t h i n a state requires a mechanism or technique by w h i c h the participants can work "together toward some purpose that cannot be achieved by isolated, actions." 16 In his 1971 book, individual Statewide Coordinatio n of Higher E d u c a t i o n , Robert 0. Berdahl set forth the f ollow­ ing typology for classifying the types of state co o r d i ­ nating agencies currently in use: I. States wh i c h have neither a single co o r ­ dinating agency created by statute nor a voluntary association performing a s i g ­ nificant statewide coordinating function. II. States in which voluntary statewide c o o r ­ dination is performed by the institutions themselves operating with some degree of formality. 15Ibid., p. 5. 1 6 I b i d . , p. 24. 28 III. IV. States which have a statewide coordinating board created by statute but not super­ seding institutional or segmental governing boards. This category is divided into the following subtypes: A. A board composed in the majority of institutional representatives and having essentially advisory powers. B. A board composed entirely or in the majority of public members and having essentially advisory powers. C. A board composed entirely or in the majority of public members and hav­ ing regulatory powers in certain areas without, however, having governing responsibility for the institutions under its jurisdiction. States which have a single governing board, whether functioning as the governing body for the only public senior institution in the state or as a consolidated governing board for multiple institutions, with no local or segmental bodies.I? Millard states that the reasons for the differences among such bodies are readily apparent. 18 Indivi­ dual college and university boards of trustees originate with the founding of these institutions, he notes, but state level boards for the planning and coordination of higher education are, with the few exceptions previously identified, are comparatively new agencies. 19 The growth 17 Robert 0. Berdahl, Statewide Coordination of Higher Education (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1971), pp. 18-23. 18 19 Millard, Ibid. State Boards of Higher Education, p. 5. 29 of education during the nineteenth and up to the begin­ ning of the twentieth century with the advent of compul­ sory school laws was primarily at the elementary and secondary levels. State level interest in public educa­ tion was reflected through state departments of education which were charged with insuring that standards fo" instruction and other purposes were being met by the local school districts. As Millard observed, state response to higher education was different because up to the middle of the present century private institutions provided the majority of higher education instruction and services in the United States. 20 Early efforts in public higher edu­ cation were directed at the development of normal schools or colleges to train and prepare teachers for elementary and secondary schools. Berdahl also points out that the traditional college-age population up to 1900 was small as compared to the same age group of t o d a y 's population and only 4 percent of the college-age population attended college prior to 1900. 21 Another factor which affected the nature of state government involvement in public higher education is that postsecondary or higher education has never been compulsory as had elementary and to a 20Ibid., p. 6. 21 Berdahl, Statewide Coordination, p. 28. 30 limited extent secondary education. 22 Questions and con­ cerns which arose during the 1950's regarding equality of educational opportunity and access to public higher educa­ tion stimulated state and federal government involvement to address the educational needs and interests of all citizens who desired education beyond high school. Most sources in the literature of higher education agree that first major state role in public higher educa­ tion was the support and development in the 1830's and 1840's of the normal school movement for teacher prepara­ tion. These institutions differed substantially in terms of curriculum, student bodies, and instructional objec­ tives from the traditional classically oriented colleges of that time. One of the significant outcomes of state development of teacher training schools was the expansion of educational opportunity for higher learning to a broader spectrum of s o c i e t y . In respect to later state activities to plan and coordinate public higher education, the development of the normal schools provided the founda­ tion from which state college and university systems would be erected, as these schools became teachers' state colleges and regional universities. 22 colleges, 23 Millard, State Boards of Higher E d u c a t i o n , p. 6. 31 The next significant governmental action in public higher education was taken by Congress in 1862 when it passed the Morrill Land Grant Act. The Morrill Land Grant Act (amended in 1890 and extended in 1935) provided or made public land available to the states for the estab­ lishment of colleges which taught the mechanical and agricultural arts as well as the liberal arts. Many of the present state universities and state univeristy sys­ tems are the institutions which began as state colleges of agriculture. The Morrill Act, as did the normal school movement, increased access to higher education for citi­ zens as a direct result of federal and state government initiatives. The enactment of the "G. I. Bill" by Congress following World War II resulted in enrollment expansion in public colleges and universities as well as in private and other institutions of postsecondary education. The G. I. Bill contributed to the growth of public institu­ tions and to the social pressures exerted upon state government to make higher education available to more citizens. As Millard and others have pointed out, after the second world war, higher education became the perceived vehicle for upward mobility in American society. 24 24 During the late 1940's and into the 1950's Millard, State Boards of Higher Education, p. 7. 32 and 1960's more citizens were attending institutions of higher education than ever before in the history of the United States. The desire for higher education for one­ self and for ones children became an important social concern in the postwar period and continued to intensify to the present day. During the 1950's enrollments in public colleges and universities began to exceed enrollments in private institutions of higher education. Prior to 1950, sixteen states had taken action to centralize the governance of their public institutions and several other states had created boards or agencies to coordinate the growth of public higher education. 25 Before 1900 three states had established consolidated governing boards for the control and supervision of public institutions of higher educa­ tion (Montana 1889, Nevada 1846, and South Dakota 1897) and by 19 70 the number of states with consolidated govern­ ing boards had increased to nineteen with five such boards being created during the 1960's (Maine 1968, New Hampshire 1963, Rhode Island 1969, Utah 1969, and West Virginia 1969). 26 The majority of the states which established centralized governing bodies for public higher education were, according to Berdahl, states with limited financial 25 Berdahl, Statewide Coordination, pp. 18-23 (Table I ) . 33 resources and small numbers of institutions, public and private, and whose intent was to control such premature expansion and prolif­ eration by creating one single consolidated board for higher education and, at the same time, abolishing any existing local governing boards where necessary. Some of these consolidated boards particularly in Georgia (1931), Iowa (1909), and Oregon (1929)— moved aggressively to reduce program duplication; in Georgia, the agency founded in the depression year of 1931 eliminated 10 institutions.27 Interest in statewide coordination and planning of higher education which surfaced in the years imme­ diately following World War II increased during the 1950's and 1960's as evidenced by the establishment of several coordinating boards and the development of numer­ ous voluntary coordinating structures. The upsurge in enrollments continued as veterans were replaced by stu­ dents from the so-called "baby-boom" and later by citi­ zens not usually associated with the traditional college attending segment of the population. Halstead noted that the most "preferred agency" adopted by states to coordi­ nate higher education during the post-World War II period was the statewide coordinating board. 28 Prior to 1950 only two states had established statewide coordinating 27Ibid., p. 27. 29 Kent D. Halstead, Statewide Planning in Higher Education (Washington, D . C . : U. S. Government Printing O f f i c e , T974), p. 8. 34 boards (Kentudy in 19 34 and Oklahoma in 1941). However, twenty-five states created such agencies during the two decades following 1950. Seven states had voluntary coordinating bodies or associations during the 1950's, but because of struc­ tural problems and lack of member cooperation, it has declined in number to presently only two states— Nebraska and Delaware— which maintain this form of a g e n c y . ^ Millard concluded that voluntary coordinating mechanisms were developed and supported primarily by public college and university presidents who recognized the pressure for coordination was increasing from the states and sought some form of arrangement which would serve both the state and the institution. 31 The effectiveness of voluntary coordinating associations was seriously eroded by their dependency upon institutions to cooperate and, in turn, abide by positions and views supported by a majority of the membership. When interests of individual members were in competition, the voluntary arrangements of these bodies were not sufficient to resolve the conflict nor impose a solution. 32 Most authors in the literature ^ B e r d a h l , Statewide Coo r d i n a t i o n , Table I, and Halstead, Statewide P l a n n i n g , p. 8^ 31 32 Millard, State Boards of Higher Education, p. 10. Ibid., and Halstead, Statewide Planning, p. 9. 35 concurred that the major outcome of voluntary coordinat­ ing associations was the preservation of the status« 33 quo. The response of state governments to the pres­ sures exerted upon them during the 1950's and 1 9 6 0 ’s for additional facilities, programs and institutions to meet the demands of enrollment growth was favorable to higher education. Now state officials must respond to the need for a balance between public concerns regarding accounta­ bility, existing and additional institutional requests for support and other social priorities for resource allocation. A more frequent response to the problem by states has been, as Millard observes: in the direction of increasing the role or power of such boards (coordinating and consolidated governing agencies) and in some cases substituting for a coordinating structure a consolidated govern­ ing board structure.34 The literature dealing with statewide coordinating and planning supports the existence of the trend toward the development of state systems of coordination and central­ ized governing of public higher education. Further, of the states which have adopted such coordinating and gov­ erning boards none have reduced the responsibilities or 33 Ibid., also see John W. Minter, e d . , Capitol and Campus (Boulder: Western Interstate Commission for Hxgher Education, 1966), p. 38. "^Millard, State Boards of Higher E d u c a t i o n , p. 12. 36 powers of these agencies but in three states the advisory role of the coordinating board has been changed to the regulatory authority of a governing board (Maine, Utah, and West Virginia). Because states do change and alter mechanisms for the coordination and planning of public higher education, indicates that policy makers within state government and the institutions reach different conclusions regarding the nature and role of statewide boards and that those conclusions regarding the nature and role of statewide boards are subject to modification over time. Millard posed the following four considera­ tions which policy makers must address on a recurrent basis: 1. 2. 3. 4. What is the appropriate structure? Is the existing structure adequate to meet the needs of the state as perceived by legis­ lators, governors, institutions, and the gen­ eral public? Can a single governing agency be more respon­ sive in areas of accountability, efficiency, and in decreasing duplication, competition, and in-fighting in the postsecondary or higher education community? Could a single board for all higher educa­ tion be even more e f f e c t i v e ? 3 5 The Development of Statewide Coordination and Planning of Higher Education in Michigan Moos and Rourke commented in their book, The Campus and the State, that "finding the proper position 35 Millard, State Boards of Higher Education, p. 13. 37 for public institutions of higher education within the over-all scheme of state government is an old problem.” 36 They note that in the nineteenth century state governments and institutions were involved in disputes concerning the legitimacy of certain controls over the colleges and uni­ versities which the states had established. As examples of early state and campus disagreement, they cite nine­ teenth century litigation involving Michigan courts and dealing with issues which would appear to have merit for all those policy makers currently engaged in the decision­ making process of public higher education in Michigan. They report early litigation dealt with issues such as how far a legislature may legally attach conditions to funds appropriated for support of a state university. 37 Other cases of the time focused upon the appropriateness of attempts by state fiscal officers to manage institu­ tional expenditures from the appropriations authorized by the legislature. Consensus regarding the proper balance between the controls of higher education by the state and the fears of institutional leadership for the loss of authority have been raised throughout the history of the state. 36Malcolm Moos and Francis E. Rourke, The Campus and the State (Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1959), Chapter III. 37Ibid. 38 In recent years, as Moos and Rourke have reported in relation to other states, state government in Michigan has been moving gradually toward centralized administra­ tion of public colleges and universities as a result of the appropriations process, capital outlay needs, informa­ tion requirements, academic program review and approval, and other state level operational procedures. The basis for the gradual movement of state government toward centralized administrative control was described by John Dale Russell in a survey of higher education in Michigan which he directed in 1958 for a committee of the legislature. 38 In recommending "that the Legislature take immediate steps to create and establish a board for the coordination of the state-controlled program of higher education in Michigan," 39 the Russell study presented several reasons why, in 1958, the necessity existed for higher education to be coordinated by a state agency. Among the general needs cited in the study which were offered in support of the establishment of a coordinating body for Michigan were the following statements: The sum of the pressures from the individual insti­ tutions and from the citizens of the communities in which they are located does not necessarily add up 38 John Dale Russell, Director, Control and Coor­ dination of Higher Education in Michigan, Staff Study No. 12 (Lansing: Michigan Legislative Study Commission on Higher Education, 1958). ^ I b i d . , pp. 68 and 89. 39 to the best possible program of service for the entire state, within the limits of the funds that can be made available. Almost invariably some institutions are more aggressive than others in urging their needs for support and development. Some institutions may be overly modest or even negligent in presenting their cases. Areas of the state in which no institution is presently located usually have no spokesman to make effec­ tive pleas for needed services. Thus, the p r o ­ gram of the state is likely to be spotty, highly developed or even over-developed in some centers, while meagerly supported or even non-existent in others.40 In respect to specific justifications for the establishment of a statewide coordinating board in Mi c h i ­ gan, the Russell study made several observations about the nature and conduct of public higher education as it then functioned in Michigan. 41 The study stated that the public colleges and universities were no longer small and simple in their organization nor few in number that would permit the Legislature to do the necessary coordination through its actions on appropriations requests. Addit i o n ­ ally, other support needs and responsibilities of state government had also evolved into large and complex agen­ cies, organizations and problems, such as highways, cor­ rections, social services, health, agriculture and others. Because of the complexity of state government and intense demand for allocated support, it had become, 40I b i d . , p. 28. 4^Ibid., Chapter II, pp. 27-40. according to 40 the study, impossible for the Legislature to give “detailed attention and consideration" to the requests submitted by the institutions for operating appropria­ tions. The problem is emphasized further because of the short periods of legislative session, changing member s h i p of the House and Senate, and the shifts of committee assignment all of which mitigate against the membership of the Legislature becoming "reasonably familiar" wi t h the detailed needs and requests of each institution. Aside from the increase in state government c o m ­ plexity and responsibilities, the institutions themselves were of concern to Russell and his staff, and also p r o ­ vided a basis for supporting the contention that a coordinating body was needed in Michigan. government, the study reported, 42 As had state the institutions of public higher education had also grown in size and complexity. Multiple programs of instruction, research, and public service were being maintained and adequate methods for evaluating, particularly the research and public service functions for support purposes, w e r e not yet available. Simply put, the Russell study stated that "the resources of the state are usually not sufficiently elastic to meet all the growing needs for support, 42I b i d . , p. 29. as 41 presented by the various operational units." 43 In order for the state to make the decisions for allocation of support so that the distribution will result in "greatest benefit" for the state in the maintenance of its higher education programs, a high degree of professional knowl­ edge and skill is required. At the time the study was issued, noted Russell, it was a "difficult" and "compli­ cated" task to make accurate projections of the funds needed by each institution to operate on "comparable level of effectiveness." 44 The next most recent event affecting the develop­ ment of statewide coordination and planning of higher education in Michigan was the framing and adoption of the present State of Michigan Constitution in 1963. cle VIII Arti­ (Education) of the 1963 Michigan Constitution restricts and limits statewide coordination and planning of allocated resources for higher education by granting 45 autonomy to public colleges and universities. The State Board of Education was charged by the Constitution to serve "as the general planning and coordinating body for all public education, including higher education, and 43Ibid. 44Ibid. 45 Michigan, Constitution, art. VIII, Education. 42 shall advise the legislature as to the financial requirements in connection therewith." 46 The role of both the autonomous public colleges and universities and of the State Board of Education as the general planning and coor­ dinating body for all public education was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan. 47 However, the seemingly contradictory nature of these two constitu­ tionally designated roles was not clarified by the Court's decision and hence, different interpretations have emerged as to the implementation of these two roles with regard to specific issues in public higher education in Michigan. In 1969, the State Plan for Higher Education in Michigan was approved by the State Board of Education. In terms of the development of statewide coordination and planning of higher education in Michigan, the significance of the State Plan, and other such plans according to Halstead, was that it paralleled more recent activities in the development of state coordinating systems and that the document resulted from centralized planning efforts and state studies such as the John Dale Russell study previously discussed. 48 Halstead makes the distinction ^ I b i d . , sec. 3. 47 Leonard E. Goodall, e d . , State Politics and Higher Education (Dearborn: LMB Associates, 1976), pp. 139. 48 Halstead, Statewide Planning, p. 9. 43 between a survey (as in the John Dale Russell study) and a statewide or "master" plan with regard to their scope and focus. He states that the survey is essentially directed at "inspection and fact gathering," while the State Plan includes those features, makes recommendations, and presents a plan for action. 49 Further, the survey is generally descriptive and limited in scope as compared to the state or master plan which is usually interpretative and gives direction for future policy as well as being comprehensive in scope. 50 The State Plan for Higher Edu­ cation in Michigan conforms to all the distinctions that Halstead and others have associated with master plans. 51 In a concluding statement to Chapter III of the State Plan, the State Board of Education provides some indica­ tion as to how it interprets and views its role as the coordinating and planning body for Michigan higher educa­ tion when it stated: Michigan's total system of higher education, as described in Chapter I, is large, complex, and diverse. The need for a rational program of plan­ ning and coordination is clear. Such planning, of course, is based on the collection and analysis of adequate information on the existing programs of all institutions, public and private, two- and 49 I bid., p. 11. See Lyman A. Glenny and George B. Weathersby, eds., Statewide Planning for Postsecondary Education: Issues' and Design (Boulder: N.C.H.E.M.S., 1971). 44 four-year. In addition, the coordinating agency m ust be involved in the decisions to provide addi­ tional educational s e r v i c e s . The State Board of E ducation is the agency designated to perform this role. In fulfilling its important function of planning and coordination, the State Board of Education considers its role to be a supportive one w h i c h can contribute to strengthening the total commit ­ m ent to higher educat i o n . 52 In 1972, as a result of the passage of the amend­ ments that year to the Federal Higher Education A c t of 1966, Governor Milliken designated the State Board of E d u c a tion as the agency responsible for postsecondary education planning in accordance with Section 1202 of the Amendments. The 1972 Education Amendments mand a t e d that states establish postsecondary education commissions through designation of existing agencies, expanding the scope of existing agencies, or by creating new agencies. As the designated "1202" commission for Michigan, 53 the State Board of Education established a State Council on P o s t secondary Education, of the Amendments, as provided for in Section 1203 to advise the State Board on issued p e r t a ining to the entire specturra of postsecondary e d u ­ cation. The membership of the Council on Postsecondary Educa tion includes representatives of the general public, 52 Michigan, Department of Education, The State Plan for Higher Education in Michigan (Lansing! Mic h i g a n Department of Education, 1969), p. 41. 5 ^Millard, State Boards of Higher E d u c a t i o n , p. 13. 45 public and private institutions, proprietary schools, state government. Since its inception as the 1202 Com­ mission for Michigan, officially met once and the State Board of Education has (in 1977) under the designation of a 1202 body. Governor William G. Milliken established the Commission on Higher Education in December, 1972, and charged the Commission with the following three responsi­ bilities : 1. 2. 3. To assess and, when necessary, redefine the goals, purposes and the functions of post­ secondary education in Michigan as well as the instructional delivery systems required to carry out such purposes; To determine and make appropriate recommenda­ tions concerning needed procedures and struc­ tures for the proper governance, planning and coordination of postsecondary education in Michigan; To determine and make needed recommendations on the means required to provide most equit­ ably for the financial education in Michigan In 1974, the Governor's Commission on Higher Education issued its final report in which it recommended that "the Michigan Constitution be revised to provide for the crea­ tion by statute of a separate State Board of Postsecondary Education." 55 In terms of the responsibxlities of the ^ R e p o r t of Governor's Commission on Higher Education. Building for the Future of Postsecondary Education in Michigan (Lansing: 1974), pp. 1 and 2. 55Ibid., p. 10. 46 new state board, the Commission proposed that it be charged with "the general planning and coordination of all education beyond the secondary level, with advisory and recommendatory, The Governor, rather than mandatory, authority." 56 in his 1976 and 1977 Michigan State of the State Messages, proposed legislation as a result of the commission report which would put on the ballot for citi­ zen approval a proposal for a Constitutional Amendment creating a separate State Board of Higher Education. The Legislature, 57 to date, has not enacted the Governor's proposals. Another recent event which has had an influence on the development of statewide coordination and planning of higher education in Michigan was the establishment of the Michigan Efficiency Task Force in 1976 by Governor Milliken. The Task Force was formed as a result of a recommendation made to the Governor's office by a commit­ tee of the legislature (Budget Efficiency and Savings to Taxpayers Committee, under the leadership of Senators John C. Hertel and Patrick H. McCollough). In making its recommendation to the Governor, the legislative 56Ibid., p. 11. 57 Governor William G. Milliken, Michigan State of the State Message (Lansing: January, 19 76), p. 36; also Governor William G. Milliken, Michigan State of the State Message (Lansing, January, 1977), p. 37. 47 committee reported that it felt that a complete "analy­ sis of state budgets and programs, with emphasis on a d m i n ­ istrative efficiency by eliminating duplications and terminating marginal activities, could lead to savings which, in turn, could minimize tax increases which would otherwise be necessary." 58 In its report of findings and recommendations, the Task Force after evaluating public higher eduction in Michigan, observed that the colleges and universities are autonomous with respect to both academic affairs and operational activities. The evaluation stated further that "optimum utilization of state educational funds requires a long-range plan of coordination." quently, 59 Subs e ­ the first recommendation made by the task force in the section addressing public institutions and their o peration recommends the establishment of a planning authority for higher education. 60 The recommendation of the Task Force was based on its view that optimum ut iliza­ tion of the state's financial resources requires cen t r a l ­ ized planning to identify long-range requirements and p r o g r a m needs while maintaining the high quality of the 58 Michigan Efficiency Task Force, Summary Findings and Recommendations (Lansing: 1976), p. 1. ^ I b i d . , p. 39. 48 institutions. The recommendation was accompanied by alternatives for implementation which, as yet, have not been acted upon. The final point in relation to the development of statewide coordination and planning of higher education in Michigan is the continuing effort of state government to develop and implement a formula funding mechanism for the determination of appropriated support to colleges and universities. For the past three years the legislature, primarily through the Senate and House Fiscal Agencies, has committed staff and resources to the generation and refinement of a criterion based formula funding model. The import of the state funding project with respect to coordination and planning of higher education is that such a model, if implemented for appropriation purposes, prioritizes institutions, service functions, and programs which inadvertently achieves a form of state-level admin­ istrative coordination and planning of operations not directly possible under the provisions of the Constitu­ tion. Research Related to the Study Heinz Eulau and Harold Quinley prepared a report for the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education in 1970, in which they surveyed legislators and state executive officials in nine states concerning their perceptions and 49 views of higher education, its related issues, and problems. 61 Eulau and Quinley conducted 102 interviews with state legislators, legislative staff, governors, budget directors, superintendents of education and other key policy makers on behalf of the Carnegie Commission to survey "how legislators and certain state executive offi­ cials perceived the problems and issues of higher educa­ tion, their attitudes toward various aspects of higher education, and their expectations of future development." 62 The survey team believed that the interviews would yield information valuable to college and university officials and to governing boards of institutions. Eulau and Quinley stressed that their work was a report not a study because they did not interview state officials using questions developed out of theoretical considerations, nor did they seek a representative sample of respondents or subject their information to systematic analysis. 63 The authors stated that resource limitations "precluded a systematic and scientific study," and further, their purpose was to assess the "quality" of perceptions and 61Heinz Eulau and Harold Quinley, State Officials and Higher Education; A Survey of the Opinions and Expec­ tations of Policy Makers in Nine States, Carnegie Commis­ sion on Higher Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book C o . , 1970) . ^ I b i d . , p. vii. 50 attitudes of a select group of respondents in a few states rather than learning about the distribution of officials' perceptions and attitudes. 64 In their report, Eulau and Quinley provide the edited views of state officials on nine topics dealing with higher education (Prospects and Problems, Information Pressures, Control and Oversight of Higher Education, Financing Higher Education, Legislators and Academicians, The Junior College Phenomenon, Student Unrest: Causes and Cures, the University and Society, and Planning for the Future) and supplement the comments with only occas­ ional evaluation and comment of their own. David D. Henry, in an analysis and commentary of the report, observed that the interviews underscored a "fundamental issue" between the focus of institutions of higher educa­ tion and the orientation of state government and its officials. 65 Specifically, colleges and universities are concerned about the future— "of students, the outcomes of research, and the future conditions for university work in service to society." according to Henry, 66 In contrast, state government, is committed to the "urgencies of the ^ I b i d . , p. viii. 65Ibid., pp. 187-193. 66Ibid., p. 193. 51 pr e sent.” Henry concludes that the difference in emphasis between the two groups will probably always remain, but that public higher education must meet the challenge of reconciliation in order to justify its priorities and gain state support rather than be simply placed among the other competing items on the agenda of public policy making. 67 In a 1974 study of institutional autonomy for public colleges and universities, Marco J. Silverstri used a survey questionnaire to gather data from state government and institutional officials from twenty-four states. The purpose of Silvestri's study was to "inves­ tigate the implications of institutional-state government relations on the concept of institutional autonomy for public colleges and universities in coordinating Board states." 68 Silvestri developed the study on the premise that: Present definitions of institutional autonomy, when related to public colleges and universities, appeared inadequate to the task of specifying the operational meaning of this concept in terms of both kinds of decisions which are essential to institutional autonomy and the patterns of decision making which are necessary in order to protect this concept in the institutions' relations with the state government and the coordinating agency. 6 7 Ibid. 68 Marco Joseph Silvestri, "Towards A Redefinition of Institutional Autonomy for Public Colleges and Uni­ versities" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of New York at Buffalo, 1974). 69I b i d . , p. 137. 52 An ordinal scale of institutional autonomy was developed for data analysis in an attempt to construct an operational framework from the views of policy makers on questions affecting public higher education. study Silvestri concluded that From his (1) decisions w h i c h are narrow in scope and are primarily local in nature have the strongest institutional claim to autonomy and the strongest state government support for exclusive institu­ tional decision making authority; (2) decisions w h i c h have implications for the state system of higher edu c a ­ tion as well as the specific institution involved are the types of decisions which require a division of respo n s i ­ bilities between the interests and functions of the institutions and of the state government; (3) that state government support for exclusive institutional control over decisions involving resource use is not strong; and (4) that planning decisions relating to physical and academic growth and which affect institutional ambitions for such development are of great importance to state government and its concern for the development and c o o r ­ dination of an efficient, comprehensive, system of public higher education. and differential 70 The last study to be reviewed in this section was conducted in a participant-observer mode by James D. 70Ibid., pp. 138-154. 53 Nowlan and published xn 1976. 71 Nowlan, currently a uni­ versity professor, was a member of the Illinois House of Representatives from 1969 to 1972, the years on which the study is focused. The author states that the purpose was to analyze "the roles of the legislature and its constitu­ ent parts in the process by which decisions affecting higher education are initiated, deliberated, and coneluded." 72 In addition to the Legislature, the study also included the Governor's Office, Bureau of the Budget, the Illinois Board of Higher Education, the public university systems, and higher education interest groups. The study was directed at producing insight and understanding with respect to the following questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. What kind of role should a state legislature assume in relation to public higher education? What is the responsibility of the legislature toward higher education? What kinds of decisions does the Illinois General Assembly make in the area of higher education, and why? How does the legislature affect the outputs of higher education with regard to the policies it takes? How much influence do legislators weild in the process of converting demands into outputs? Is the legislature (in Illinois) a crucial decisional structure?73 71 James Dunlap Nowlan, The Politics of Higher Edu­ cation: Lawmakers and the Academy xn Illinois (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1976). ^2Ibid., p. x. 73 Ibid. pp. x-xi. 54 Nowlan found that the Illinois legislators gen­ erally agreed with those state officials surveyed by Eulau and Quinley that the legislative function in rela­ tion to higher education should be limited to budgetary considerations and broad policy guidelines. major conclusions reported by Nowlan were 74 Among the (1) the Illinois legislature was "content" to permit major higher education policy decisions to be proposed and agreed upon by other political participants, whereupon the Legislature would perform an official ratifying role; (2) when non­ legislative political participants are unified on an issue, it is almost impossible for the Legislature to successfully oppose the unified position; from at least one outside (3) support (the Legislature) political participant was necessary in order to gain legislative approval of "controversial" higher education policy pro­ posal; and (4) that legislative partisanship on issues of higher education tends to increase as the political salience of the subject matter increases. 75 Advantages and Disadvantages of Statewide Coordinating Boards In the literature of statewide coordination and planning of higher education, several general points are mentioned and discussed in support of the establishment ^5Ibid., pp. 94-95. 55 or continuance of coordinating boards. Typical of the many general statements is the following view put forth by a task force of the Education Commission of the States: The most effective way to avoid direct political interference in an institution is by developing, through planning and cooperation, the rationale and structure to ensure that it is meeting basic social and educational needs. . . . From this stand­ point, mature and effective planning and coordina­ tion are the best defenses of reasonable institu­ tional independence, rather than a threat to it.76 Glenny and others have suggested that statewide coordin­ ating boards are more effective structures for integrating and dealing with the large numbers of decisions, profes­ sional staffs and levels of hierarchies necessary for contemporary long-range and operational planning. 77 The "one great paramount advantage" of the coordinating board over a statewide governing board, observes Glenny, is its ability to perform as an "umbrella" under which the vari­ ous commissions, agencies, institutions, and advisory groups involving higher education may be located for state coordination and planning purposes. 78 76 Education Commission of the States, Coordination or C h a o s ? , Report of the Task Force on Coordination, Governance and Structure of Postsecondary Education (Denver: Education Commission of the States, 1973), p. 75. 77 Lyman A. Glenny, et a l . , Coordinating Higher Education for the '701s (Berkeley: C . R . D . H . E . , University of California, 1971), p. 3. 78I b i d . , p. 4. 56 In regard to more specific and politically p r a g ­ matic reasons for supporting the statewide coordinating structure, Millard asserts that there are four areas of recurring concern to policy makers in institutions and in state government. 79 According to Millard, "tension" areas standout these four (1) control versus autonomy, (2) centralization versus decentralization, (3) fear of u niformity of instruction and services, (4) the lack and of clarity between different levels of administrative responsibility. 80 In the context of retrenchment, Millard believes that the central issue related to autonomy is w h e t h e r decisions to consolidate, curtail, or discontinue programs should be made by a state coordinating board in cooperation with colleges and universities or should be directed by legislative or executive degree. 8X He con­ cludes that the cooperative decision-making structure p r e ­ sented by the coordinating board is more in concert with the preservation of institutional independence and aca­ demic integrity than is the alternative of legislative or executive degree. After noting the trend toward centralization d u r ­ ing the past sixteen years and the dangers inherent in 79 Millard, State Boards of Higher E d u c a t i o n , p. 80Ibid. 8^ I b i d . , p. 52. 50. 57 over-centralization, he offers the following list of "countervailing factors" to over-centralization: — The need in planning and coordination for the development of more effective management informa­ tion systems tends to reinforce centralization; — Neither planning nor coordination can be effec­ tive for long if the process does not include the integral involvement of the institutions and agencies planned for; — Centralization in relation to overview is also frequently accompanied by the recognition of the importance of decentralization, both for segmen­ tal development in the planning process and for implementation; — The third alternative would be take plan­ ning and coordination away from the levels of a board or agency primarily responsible for and usually representative of postsecondary educa­ tion and lodge it either directly in the legis­ lative or executive branch of government or in a planning agency for all state affairs, where education would be viewed as only another com­ peting priority; — State Boards should be given powers commensurate with the functions they are required to perform; without such powers, institutions will engage in circumventive activities.82 In regard to the concern that statewide coordin­ ating boards tend to encourage uniformity among programs and instructional services, Millard states that the oppo­ site of homogenization is more aptly to be the outcome from the actions of coordinating agencies. He argues that the "major thrust" of coordinating boards has been in the 82Ibid., pp. 52-54. 58 area of assisting in the definition of institutional role and mission and helping to preserve and foster "institu­ tional uniqueness and interinstitutional complementar­ ity."83 According to Millard, lack of clarity involving levels of decision making between state boards and col­ leges and universities constitutes the most difficult and serious area of tension. 84 Uncertainty as to who has the responsibility for making decisions in terms of the vari­ ous issues and problems has contributed to the operating problems and undermined the working relationship of sev­ eral coordinating boards and institutions. All the parties involved, Millard believes, should clearly under­ stand the structure of the decision making process in whatever form it exists. 8 5 The significance of the statewide coordinating board, in respect to the authors' views which were dis­ cussed in this section, is that it represents a structure which can address the issues presently confronting post­ secondary education while reasonably accommodating the historical role of public higher education and providing state government with sufficient assurance of 83Ibid., p. 55, 84Ibid. 85Ibid. 59 accountability. The alternatives to such an agency, cited by Millard, Glenny, Berdahl, and others, would be a con­ tinuance of interinstitutional competition or direct legislative or executive involvement in response to political and public pressures. In the following chapter of the study, the results of the survey of state, institutional, and association policy makers including a brief description of every ques­ tion item contained in the survey instrument Appendix B) are presented. (see The results of the survey are reported in summary and descriptive statistical format with accompanying figures and tables contained in Chap­ ter III. CHAPTER III INTRODUCTION Miller states that the decision-making process in state government involves two primary groups of partici­ pants "(1) those who have an interest in the outcome of the decision, and (2) those who are required to be involved in the process."^ He defines the first group of participants as including any person who may be affected positively or in a negative manner by the decision and 2 also those persons who are "civic-minded citizens." The second group includes the actual decision-makers and those 3 individuals who advise them. In regard to the higher education decision-making process, Miller identifies the "multiple" and "well known" participants as being institutions, agency, offices, (1) (2) the state postsecondary education (3) the governor and related executive and budget and (4) the houses, committees and staff of the ^James I. Miller, Jr., "Evaluation and Political Reality," in Evaluating Statewide Boards, New Directions for Institutional Rese a r c h , ed.: Robert 0. Berdahl (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, Number 5, 1975), p. 49. ^Ib i d . , pp. 49-50. 3 Ibid., p. 50. 60 61 legislature. 4 Miller's list of participants in the state government higher education decision-making process has been expanded in the present study to include associations which influence the process directly through lobbying or indirectly through professional activities. The involvement of these various participant groups in the state level higher education decision-making process differs according to the issues and types of deci­ sions required. Each issue, such as a capital outlay request or approval of an academic program application, requires the action of specific public decision makers and, in turn, may involve nonpublic participants at some point in the process. The decision-making process for state planning and coordination of higher education is continuous and frequently moves between the formal delib­ erations of a public body and the informal activities of the participant groups. Miller characterizes the literature on state planning and coordination as "parochial" and observes that it has been devoted almost entirely to the postsecon5 dary education agency, its role and functions. All other groups such as the institutions, budget offices, 4Ibid. ^Ibid. 62 legislatures and Governors have tended to be represented as participants with which the planning and coordinating agency must deal, rather than as regular and important members of the continuous decision-making p r o c e s s / Because the literature has not examined the complete role of all the participants in the decision-making process, he concludes . . . But the time has now come for a fuller recog­ nition of the total context within which state agencies work and'of them as but one part of the process. The shift is a subtle one, for the role of institutions, budget offices, governors, legis­ lative committees, and their respective staffs never have been altogether ignored. The total picture has been presented, but the state agency is the only part of the picture clearly in focus. Now the other parts must come into equally sharp focus.7 The following discussion presents the results of the survey of state, institutional, and association policy makers and includes brief descriptions of every question item contained in the survey instrument. The results of the survey and the analysis which follows in Chapter IV are intended to access the views of participants to the decision-making processes in a context that accounts for the varied level and nature of their involvement. 6Ibid. ^Ibid., p. 51. 63 Results of the Survey In question one the respondents were asked to identify the issue confronting public higher education in Michigan which they deemed to be the most critical for the next two, three to five, and ten year periods. The issue most frequently identified as being the most criti­ cal for the next two years was the level of state funding support for public higher education which received 22 of 38 responses or accounted for 57.8 percent of the total responses for the category (see Table 2). Of the remain­ ing 16 responses to the two year segment of question one, five responses or 13.1 percent of the policy makers indi­ cated that capital equipment and facilities and needs) (maintenance constituted the most critical issue; four respondents or 10.5 percent felt that declining enroll­ ments projected for traditional college attending age groups represented the critical issue; three respondents or 7.9 percent stated that the critical issue was quality of instruction, research and service; 5.3 percent or two of the respondents reported that academic program change and expansion was the issue of most concern; the two issues of increased state centralization and public accountability each received one response (2.7 percent) as being the most critical issue; and the issue of infor­ mation gathering, processing, reporting and storage was 64 not designated as the most critical issue by any of the respondents. As Table 2 reveals, the level of state fund­ ing support was selected by a majority of policy makers in all three respondent groups. Regarding the most critical issue confronting public higher education in Michigan for the next three to five years, 11 policy makers or 28.9 percent reported that the level of state funding support was the most critical issue. The issue of academic program change and expansion was stated by nine respondents or 2 3.6 percent of the sur­ vey group as being the most critical. Declining enroll­ ments accounted for eight respondents or 21 percent as the issue of most concern. Of the remaining ten respondents, six policy makers or 15.8 percent identified increased state centralization as the critical issue; two policy makers or 5.3 percent reported that quality of instruction, research and service as the issue of most concern; the issues of capital equipment and facilities and public accountability each were selected by one respondent percent) (2.7 as warranting the most critical designation; and, as identical to the two year category, no policy maker from the survey groups indicated that the issue of infor­ m a t i o n gathering, processing, reporting, and storage was the most critical for the next three to five years. A mong the individual respondent g r o u p s , the level of state fund­ ing support for the next three to five years was the issue TABLE 2.— Critical Issues Confronting Michigan Higher Education*: Response Category Institutions 2 Years 3-5 Years 5-10 Years Declining Enrollments 13.0 21.8 43.5 Level of State Funding Support 65.3 30.3 0.0 Percentages of Each Group by State Government Total 3-5 Years 5-10 Years 2 Years 3-5 Years 5-10 Years 2 Years 3-5 5-10 Years Years 0.0 20.0 70.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 10.5 21.0 52.6 21.8 50.0 20.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 57.8 28.9 21.0 21.8 0.0 20.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 23.6 0.0 13.0 4.3 13.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 13.1 2.7 7.9 Information Gathering, Processing, Reporting, and Storage 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Increased State Centralization 0.0 21.8 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 2.7 15.8 5.3 Quality of Instruction, Research and Service 8.7 0.0 13.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 7.9 5.3 10.5 Public Accountability 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 2.7 2.7 (N=10) (N=10) (N=10) (N=5) (N=5) (N=5) Academic Program Change and Expansion Capital Equipment and Facilities (N=23) ♦Question #1: (N=23) (N=23) 2 Years Associations (N=38) (N=38)(N=38 "Which issue of the following issues confronting public higher education in Michigan do you feel is the most critical for the next: (see above).'1 66 most frequently reported by institutional and association policy makers. However, a majority of state government policy makers identified academic program change and expansion as being the most critical issue during this period. Declining enrollments was selected as the most critical issue confronting public higher education in Michigan during the next five to ten years by 20 policy makers or 52.6 percent of the respondents. The level of state funding support was stated by eight respondents or 21 percent to be the most critical issue in this time sequence. The ten remaining responses were distributed among the issues in the following manner: four or 10.5 percent of the policy makers indicated that quality of instruction, research and service was the primary issue of concern; three or 7.9 percent of the survey population felt that capital equipment and facilities represented the most critical issue; two or 5.3 percent of the policy makers identified increased state centralization as the issue of most concern; and one respondent stated that the issue of public accountability was the most critical in the five to ten year time period. The issue of informa­ tion gathering, processing, reporting, and storage, as is consistent with the two previous time frames, was not selected by any policy maker as being the most critical 67 issue confronting public higher education in Michigan for the next five to ten years. The issue of declining enrollments received a majority of the responses in each of the individual survey groups. In question number two the policy makers were requested to indicate which purpose of public higher edu­ cation in Michigan (liberal education, graduate- professional education, technical training, research, and public service), if any, had been neglected since 1970 (see Table 3). Liberal education was the purpose iden­ tified most frequently by the respondents accounting for eleven responses or 28.9 percent of the survey population. However, ten policy makers or 26.3 percent of the respon­ dents indicated that none of the stated purposes of higher education had been neglected since 1970. Research was identified by six respondents or 15.8 percent of the policy makers as being a neglected purpose of higher edu­ cation. The eleven other responses to the question were reported in the following manner: five responses or 13.1 of the policy makers felt that public service had been the purpose neglected; technical training accounted for four responses or 10.5 percent of the survey respondents; the purpose of graduate-professional education received one response or 2.7 percent; and one policy maker stated that all the purposes of higher education in Michigan had TABLE 3.— Purposes of Public Higher Education in Michigan*: Category (2) Graduate Liberal Professional Education Education (1) Groups £N) Percentages of Each Group By Response (3) (4) Technical Training Research (5) (6) Public None Service (7) (8) All (Totals) Total (38) 28.9 2.7 10.5 15.8 13.1 26.3 2.7 (100%) Institutions (23) 26.0 4.4 15.3 13.0 8.7 30.5 4.4 (100%) State Government (10) 30.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 (100%) Associations ( 5) 40.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 (100%) ♦Question #2: "Public higher education in Michigan serves many purposes— liberal education, graduate-professional education, technical training, research, and public service. Which one of these purposes, if any, do you feel has been neglected since 1970?" 69 been neglected since 19 70. Among the groups in the survey population, both state government and association policy makers, in a majority of responses, cation had been neglected. however, felt that liberal e d u ­ Institutional policy makers reported in a majority of responses that none of the stated purposes of higher education had been neglected since 1970. In question number three the policy makers were asked to state positively or negatively if each public baccalaureate institution in Michigan should serve each of the previously stated purposes listed in question n u m ­ ber two (see Figure 1). Of the 38 policy makers, 34 or 89.5 percent indicated that each public college and u n i ­ versity should not serve each of the previously identified purposes of higher education in Michigan. The four affirmative responses to the question accounted for the remaining 10.5 percent of the survey population. The responses of the individual groups within the survey population indicated that all state government and a s s o ­ ciation policy makers were completely opposed to having each public institution of higher education serve each of the stated purposes. The four affirmative responses to the question were reported by policy makers w i t h i n the institutional group of the survey population. The respondents in question number four were asked to indicate whether advanced graduate and professional 70 *Ouestion #3: "Do you think that each public baccalaureate institution in Michigan should serve each of the previously stated purposes?" 100.0 100 959085807570656055504540353025- US w 8^5 32.6 17.4 20- 1510- 50INSTITtJTIIONS TOTAL 0.C STATE 0.0 ASSOCIATIONS government KEY: ffl Yes □ No Figure 1.— Role of public baccalaureate institutions*: Percentages of each group by response cate­ gory. 71 programs should be concentrated in three or four uni­ versities or be spread more widely among the public insti­ tutions (see Figure 2) . To the concentration of such programs in three or four universities, 26 of the policy makers or 68.4 percent reported that advanced graduate and professional programs should be restricted to three or four institutions. The remaining 12 respondents or 31.6 percent indicated that such programs should be spread more widely among public institutions. Within the indi­ vidual groups of the survey population, the state govern­ ment and association policy makers totally supported the concentration of advanced graduate and professional pro­ grams in three or four universities. The institutional responses to the question revealed a majority of policy makers (52.3 percent) in favor of a wider dispersion of these programs. Question number five dealt with the general satis­ faction of the respondents with the manner in which the needs of public higher education are articulated to state government (see Figure 3). Of the 38 policy makers, 27 or 71.1 percent responded that they were not generally satisfied with the manner in which higher education commu­ nicates its needs to state government. The remaining eleven respondents constituting 28.9 percent of the survey population stated that they were generally satisfied with 72 *Question #4: "Should advanced graduate and professional programs be concentrated in three or four universities, or be spread more widely?" TlUl'lUNS GOVERNMENT KEY: m Be Concentrated □ Be Spread More Widely Figure 2. — Concentration of graduate and professional programs*: Percentages of each group by response category. 73 ♦Question #5: "Are y o u generally satisfied w i t h the manner in w h i c h the needs of higher education are artxculated to state government?" h5.0 m pa 53 u 20.0 PS w Pli mm* mm* mm* m m INSTITUTIONS TOTAL KEY: STATE GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATIONS r i Figure 3.— General satisfaction w i t h articulation of needs to state*: Percentages of each group by response category. 74 the present articulation process. All three groups within the survey population indicated a majority of policy makers were generally dissatisfied with the manner in which the needs of higher education are communicated to state government (institutions 65 percent, state govern­ ment 80 percent, and associations 80 percent). In question number six the respondents were asked if they would prefer more or less coordination of insti­ tutional requests to state government agencies ure 4). (see Fig­ Those policy makers who reported that they would prefer more coordination of institutional requests to state government agencies represented 57.8 percent of the survey population or 22 of the 38 respondents. The 16 policy makers who preferred less coordination of requests represented 42.4 percent of the survey population. Both the state government and association groups within the survey population reported 100 percent preference for increased coordination of college and university requests to state agencies. makers A majority of institutional policy (69.5 percent) preferred less coordination of requests to state government. In question number seven the respondents were asked about their awareness and use of the current State Plan for Higher Education developed by the Michigan Department of Education in their present position (see 75 ♦Question #6: "Would you prefer moES. or less,coordination of institutional requests to state government agencies? 100.0 100.0 69.5 30.5 TOTAL Figure 4. — INSTITUTIONS 0.0 rams GOVERNMENT Coordination of institutional requests to state*: Percentages of each group by response category. 76 Figure 5). A majority of the policy makers, 22 or 57.8 percent of the survey respondents, reported that they did not use or refer to the current State Plan in their pressent position. Of the remaining 16 respondents, 12 or 31.6 percent stated that they do refer to or use the State Plan in their present capacity and four policy makers or 10.6 percent indicated that they were not aware of the Plan. The pattern of responses within the population groups revealed that a majority of institutional and state govern­ ment respondents did not refer to or use the State Plan for Higher Education. The four policy makers who reported that they were not aware of the Plan were members of the institutional group of the survey population. ciation responses indicated that a majority The asso­ (80 percent) of policy makers in this group refer to and use the Plan in their respective positions. In question number eight the respondents were asked if they would favor closer adherence to such a statewide plan for both state agencies and public colleges and universities (see Figure 6). Of the 38 policy makers, 22 or 57.8 percent of the survey population reported that they would not favor a closer adherence to a statewide plan and 16 or 42.2 percent stated that they would favor closer adherence to a plan for both state government and the institutions. Within the groups of the survey popu­ lation, both state government and association policy 77 PERCENTAGES ♦Question #7: "Do you refer to or use the current State Plan for Higher Education developed by the Michigan Department of Education in your present position?" 80757065605550454035302520 - 1510 50- 80.0 LUL 60.0 40.0 31.JL AVAVi MMIM WMVi I f f MM 2Q.Q 17.7 m m m m m m mMM W lMi mViVi TOTAL INSTITUTIONS m STATE GOVERNMENT 0.0 0.0 ASSOCIATIONS KEY: Yes No Not Aware oir Plan Figure 5.— Use of the State Plan for Higher Education*: Percentages of each group by response category. 78 ♦Question #8: "Would you favor closer adherence to such a statewide plan for both state agencies and public colleges and universities?" 807570656055« 50g 453 40w 35£ 30uj ( =L| 25201510 - 50- 80.0 73.8 60.0 57.8 42.2 f l M 20.0 ♦ w m m TOTAL KEY: Yes INSTITUTIONS STATE GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATIONS □ i:o Figure 6.— Closer adherence to statewide plan*: Percent­ ages of each group by response category. 79 makers reported a majority favoring closer adherence to a statewide plan. The college and university groups responded in a majority of policy makers (73.8 percent) indicating that they would not favor closer adherence to a statewide plan. Question number nine dealt with the general satis­ faction of the policy makers with the present division of responsibilities between the state government and the public colleges and universities (see Figure 7). The majority of respondents, 24 or 63.2 percent of the survey population, reported that they were generally satisfied with the present division of responsibilities. The remaining 14 policy makers or 36.8 percent stated that they were not generally satisifed with the current divi­ sion of responsibilities. Among the population groups, both a majority of the institution and association respondents indicated general satisfaction with the pres­ ent division of responsibilities. government policy makers A majority of state (60 percent) reported that they were not generally satisifed with the present division of responsibilities between the state and the institutions. In question number ten the survey population was asked how they felt about the amount of control the Leg­ islature has over higher education at the present time (see Figure 8 ). Of the 38 respondents, 22 or 57.8 80 ♦Question #9: "Are you generally satisfied with the pre­ sent division of responsibilities between the state govern ment and the public colleges and universities?" 75706560555045Vi w 40353 30CJ 25P wi 20 * 15- 73.8 60.0 ivm 40.0 mm WAV mm 40.0 26^.2 m - m iVmt 10- m m i 50TOTAL KEY: Yes INSTITUTIONS STATE GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATIONS I 1 No Figure 7.— General satisfaction w i t h division of responsi­ bilities*: Percentages of each group by response category. 81 percent felt that the amount of legislative control over higher education was about right; 11 policy makers or 28.9 percent felt that the Legislature has too much c o n ­ trol over higher education; and four or 13.3 percent of the respondents felt that the Legislature had too little control over higher education at the present time. Both the institutions and the associations, as groups within the survey population, had a majority of policy makers who felt that the amount of legislative control over higher education was about right at the present time. State government respondents indicated a majority of the groups' policy makers felt that the Legislature has too little control over higher education at the present time. The policy makers were requested to state why they responded in the manner in which they did in q u e s ­ tion 10. Of the 24 policy makers who completed the why portion of the question, four explained why they felt the Legislature had too little control over higher education. There comments are as follows: State Government Respondents: 1. "Constitutional autonomy is not conducive to any controls" 2. "Not enough staff and resources to evalu­ ate institutions' performance" 3. "In effect there is no legislative over­ sight over expenditures" 82 Association Respondent: 4. "No control except over total appropriation" With regard to those respondents who completed the second portion of the question, 13 reported why they felt that legislative control over higher education was about right, their comments are as follows: Institution Respondents 1. "It allows for institutional autonomy and creativity yet provides for informal inter­ action and sharing" 2. "Control over academic program development should be exercised by a separate, non­ elective body" 3. "Moving towards more control" 4. "The Legislature appropriates funds, but provides minimum stipulation about the institution's use of the funds" 5. "Issues of accountability, duplication etc. should be (the) concern of Legis­ lature; educational policy issues should be concern of institutions" 6. "There is a system of checks and balances while, at the same time, the stimulation of independence and competition is pre­ served" 7. 8. 9. "Control is about right but allocations are too small" "The provisions of the State Constitution properly outline the various relationships, however, legislative control of capital outlay is excessive both in terms of the executive branch and the institutions" "More control and you homoginize the process" 83 State Government Respondent 10. "Under the current constitutional provi­ sions , its the only focal point for state level policy making" Association Respondents 11. "Interference is minimal considering legislative control of appropriations" 12. "Any change would likely be toward more control and that could not be tolerated" 13. "The Legislature tends to respect insti­ tutional autonomy, but manages some financial accountability" The remaining seven policy makers who responded to the second portion of question 10, indicated as follows why they felt the Legislature has too much control over higher education at the present time: Institution Respondents: 1. "Funding appears to be based on 'pork bar r e l l ' or political motives primarily" 2. "The Legislature becomes involved in too many operating details" 3. "More autonomy would strengthen the insti­ tutions" 4. "Line iteming by Legislature erodes the budgetary and academic authority of the institutions" 5. "Too detailed controls, too political, and too influential on program priorities— not critically so but worrisome in trend" State Government Respondent 6. "Legislature gets into issues which are beyond the legislative function" 84 PERCENTAGES ♦Question #10: "How do you feel about the amount of con trol the Legislature has over higher education at the present time?" 7570656055504540353025- 60.0 57.8 20 .0 20- 1510- 50Institutions Total [ KEY: Too Little Figure State Government Associations I About Ripht 'Io o Much 8 .--Control of Legislature over higher education*: Percentages of each group by response cate­ gory. 85 Association Respondent! 7. "Legislature is not equipped to make sound academic decisions: In Question number eleven the policy makers were requested to indicate how they felt state control should be changed, if at all, with respect to legislative activ­ ity in budget review, admission standards, curriculum, new buildings and facilities construction, and appoint­ ments to governing boards (see Table 4). A majority of the respondents in all categories indicated that they felt that state control should not be changed. Within the institutional group of the survey population, the policy makers reported in every category of legislative activity a majority favoring no change in state control. The responses of the state government and association policy makers to the question were mixed. For example, five state government respondents or 50 percent felt that leg­ islative action with respect to budget review should be increased. A majority of state government policy makers also supported an increase of legislative action in cur­ riculum (50 percent) boards (60 p e r c e n t ) . and in appointments to governing Association response to the stated activities was either a majority favoring no change (admission standards 60 percent, new buildings and facil­ ities construction 60 percent, and appointments to TABLE 4.— Exercise of State Control*: Percentages of Each Group by Response Category Institutions IN=23) Increase State Government (N=10) No Change Decrease Increase No Change Decrese Associations (N=5) Total (N=38) Increase No Change Decrease Increase No change Decrease Budget Review 4.4 73.8 21.8 50.0 30.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 21.1 57.8 21.1 Admission Standards 4.4 60.8 34.8 0.0 80.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 5.3 65.8 28.9 Curriculum 4.4 60.8 34.8 50.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 20.0 40.0 21.1 44.7 34.2 New Buildings and Facilities Construction 8.6 60.8 30.5 20.0 80.0 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 13.1 65.8 21.1 17.4 60.8 21.8 60.0 30.0 10.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 28.9 55.3 15.8 Appointments to Governing Boards •Qustion #11: "Regarding legislative action in the following activities, please indicate how you feel state control should be changed, if at all, for each activity." 87 governing boards 80 percent) or a division of views with no majority opinion. In question number twelve the policy makers were asked if they felt that the Legislature is able, with its current staff and resources, to do a proper job of over­ seeing public higher education in Michigan {see Figure 9).. Of the 38 respondents, 21 or 55.3 percent felt that the Legislature is able to oversee higher education properly with its current staff and resources. The remaining 17 respondents or 44.7 percent of the survey population felt that the Legislature is not able with its current staff and resources to properly oversee public higher education in Michigan. Both the institutions and association groups of the survey population had a majority of policy makers who felt that the Legislature is able to properly oversee higher education. State government respondents indicated that a majority of this group (70 percent) felt that the Legislature is not able to do a proper job of overseeing public higher education in Michigan. In the second portion of question twelve the respondents who answered the question negatively were asked to suggest changes that they would make regarding legislative ability to oversee higher education. Of the 17 policy makers who responded negatively to the question, 13 addressed the second portion of the question. statements are as follows: Their PERCENTAGES ♦Question #12: "Do you feel that the Legislature is able, with its current staff and resources, to do a proper job of overseeing public higher education in Michigan? 7570656055504540353025- 70.0 65.3 tnnn 60.0 i w mm mw IHMf 30.0 Vitro 20- 1510 50- m - w mm AAAAAAJ_ _ _ Total KEY: Figure m ies Institutions State Government Associations □ No 9 .— Legislative ability to oversee public higher education*: Percentages of each group by response category. 89 Institution Respondents 1. "More and better qualified staff" 2. "They have the staff to adequately do the job if responsibilities decreased" 3. "They really don't understand what it takes to have quality higher education in the state" 4. "Why should the Legislature oversee at all" 5. "Leave us alone" State Government Respondents 6. "More specific program approval" 7. "Overseers must be able to take some visible action regarding abuses in higher education" 8. "More capable staff" 9. "Have Department of Education assume the responsibility" 10. "Legislature should not be involved" 11. "Legislature gets involved in issues which are beyond the legislative function" Association Respondents 12. "Better and larger staff" 13. "More on-site inspection" In question number thirteen the policy makers were requested to indicate if they were generally satisfied w i t h the posture assumed by the Executive Branch of state government and the direction it provides concerning higher education issues (see Figure 10). The majority of 90 ♦Question #13: "Are you generally satisfied with the posture assumed by the executive branch of state govern­ ment and the direction it provides concerning higher education issues?" CO w < [4 & (4 PM 90858075706560555045403530252015- 90.0 ,81.5, ,82.5 ASUl 10. 0 10- 50Total Institutions yfffffi mState m Associations Government KEY: □ Yes Wo Figure 10.— General satisfaction w i t h executive branch direction*: Percentages of each group by response category. 91 respondents to the question (31 or 81.5 percent of the survey population) reported that they were not generally satisfied with the posture assumed by the Executive Branch and the direction it provides concerning higher education issues in Michigan. The seven policy makers who responded that they were generally satisfied with the Executive Branch of state government accounted for 18.5 percent of the survey population. With regard to this question, all three of the individual groups comprising the survey popu­ lation revealed a majority of policy makers were not gen­ erally satisfied with the Executive Branch of state government (institutions 82.5 percent, state government 90 percent, and associations 60 percent). Question thirteen also contained a second part in which the respondents were asked, if they answered no to the question, to make recommendations regarding the Executive Branch. Of the 31 policy makers who responded negatively to the question, 21 completed the second por­ tion of the question. The following are their comments and recommendations: Institutional Respondents 1. "(Setting) a higher priority for higher education on state resources" 2. "Basic support for higher education needed not control; funding for higher education has declined drastically in the past ten (years)" 92 3. "The Executive Branch should provide more leadership and decreasing the amount (of funds) spent on welfare and increasing the amount (of funds) spent on higher educa­ tion" 4. "More leadership in educational matters" 5. "(a) Too little concern about equity in funding 15 universities; (b) too little concern about tuition policy" 6. "Higher education has a relative low priority with the Executive Office" 7. "Basically, re-establishing higher edu­ cation as a priority program" 8. "There should be a closer and more effec­ tive working relationship between the Executive Office and the universities" 9. "State budget planning in the Executive Branch over the last several years has led to a decline in relative appropriations to higher education. The Capital Outlay now seems to be both executed as well as legislated by the Legislative Branch" 10. "Get away from comparing everyone to every­ one else and seek quality in all efforts" 11. "They (should) become more knowledgeable about the problems of higher education" 12. "State is falling behind in nationwide ranking with regard to higher education funding" State Government Respondents 13. "Executive Branch should accord more concern" 14. "Governor's office should assert more leader­ ship and support for existing planning func­ tions in Department of Education" 15. "Should take a more dominant role in policy setting" 93 16. "More time and attention given to the complex policy issues of the day" 17. "More program analysis statewide and recommendations for Legislature to consider" 18. "It seems foolish for the Legislature and the Executive Branch to go their separate ways in regard to higher educa­ tion, closer coordination with the Legislature is mandatory" Associated Respondents 19. "More on-site inspection" 20. "The Executive Office should better inform itself, as staffing is not compe­ tent. Department of Education is of absolutely no value to the state. DMB (Department of Management and Budget) staff (is competent, but not influential)" 21. "The Executive Branch has become too absorbed with predicting doom rather than helping institutions . . . need some fresh outlook, new or additional staff" Question number fourteen in the survey inquired about the use of instructional facilities at public fouryear institutions and the policy makers were asked if they felt the buildings are being used economically and effi­ ciently (see Figure 11). Of the 38 policy makers, 22 or 57.9 percent of the survey population felt that instruc­ tional facilities at public colleges and universities are being used economically and efficiently and 16 respondents or 42.1 percent stated that the facilities are not being used economically and efficiently. makers representing the institutions A majority of policy (65.2 percent) and 94 ♦Question #14-A: "Do you feel that instructional faci­ lities at public four-year institutions are being used economically and efficiently?" (See Table 5 for 14-B) . 7065.2 65605550- 60.0 57. 9 42.1 g £ A035- S 30~ y 25- s £ 10- 5- 0Total KEY: Yes Institutions State Government Associations □No Figure 11.— Economical and efficient use of facilities*: Percentage of each group by response category. 95 the associations (60 percent) felt that the buildings are being used economically and efficiently. The majority of state government respondents felt that insti­ (60 percent) tutional facilities are not being used economically and efficiently at public four-year institutions. In the second part of question fourteen, vey population was asked, the s u r ­ if it answered no, to indicate which of the following potential actions would they sup­ port to increase efficiency: extend building hours, increase class size, consolidate program offerings, close low demand buildings, prioritize programs according to resource generation-then reallocate space, and other (see Table 5). Of the 16 policy makers who responded negatively to the first portion of the question, pleted the second portion. 15 com­ The potential actions most frequently selected by the policy makers were extending building hours and prioritize programs according to the 'resources generated. Both of these potential actions received the support of eight respondents. The closing of low demand buildings also received favorable support from seven spolicy makers. Under the "other" category in this part of the question, the following three suggestions were made by the r e s p o n d e n t s : Institutional Respondent 1. "Capital expenditure necessary to incorpor­ ate energy conservation increases" TABLE 5.— Potential Actions to Increase Facility Efficiently*; Response Category Groups Extend Building Hours (N) Increase Class Size Consolidate Program Offering 25.0 Total (16) 50.0 12.5 Institutions ( 8) 31.25 12.5 State Government ( 6) 12.5 Associations ( 2) ♦Question #14-B: 6.25 0 0 6.25 12.5 6.25 Percentages of Each Group by Close Low Demand Buildings Priotirize Programs Other No Response 43.75 50.0 6.25 6.25 18.75 18.75 6.25 6.25 18.75 31.25 6.25 0 6.25 6.25 12.5 0 "If no, which of the following potential actions would you support to increase efficiency; extend building hours; increase class size, consolidate program offerings; close low demand buildings; prioritize programs according to response generation then reallocate space; other (indicate more than one if you desire)." 97 State Government Respondent 2. "Shared use with adjacent or nearby commu­ nity colleges" Association Respondent 3. "More instructional hours by full professors" In question number fifteen the policy makers were asked if, in their view, competition among state colleges and universities for tax dollars and programs has affected state government support of Michigan higher education Figure 12). (see A majority of the survey population (22 of 57.8 percent) reported that they believed that competition among public institutions had affected state support of higher education. Those 16 policy makers who responded negatively to the question represented 42.2 percent of the survey population. A majority of the respondents in each of the three survey groups indicated that they viewed competition as affecting state support of higher education in Michigan (institutions 52.3 percent, state government 60 percent, and associations 80 percent). If the respondents answered affirmatively to the first part of question fiteeen, they were asked to indi­ cate how support is affected. Of the 22 policy makers who answered the first portion of the question in the affirmative, 20 indicated how in their view support for higher education is affected. as follows: Their respective views are 98 ^Question #15: "In your view, has competition among state colleges and universities for tax dollars and programs affected state government support of Michigan higher education?" 807570656055- 80.0 imm 60.0 57.8 50t/i 45- % 40- W U 47.7 /c w 42.2 40.0 35- 30- £ 25- * 2015105- 20.0 mm mm 0Total Lnstitutions AAAAflAAJ State Government Assoc iations KEY: Yes No Figure 12.— Institutional competition for state funds*: Percentage of each group by response category. 99 Institutional Respondents 1. "Competition is perceived as self-serving, result is less accountability and respon­ sive" 2. "Political process often based on factors other than need" 3. "The competition has caused legislators to keep re-thinking the total problem. Without competition, many would become complacent. Competition leads to better support" 4. "More total dollars made available" 5. "It has resulted in new programs. College of Medicine is the best example at M.S.U." 6. "It directly involves the legislature in programmatic considerations and the compe­ tition is, by and large, a healthy and vigorous one" 7. "If total support were adequate, the compe­ tition w o u l d not be as it is. But the competition causes two losers at times" 8. "Recruitment of students should be done statewide, but colleges do not offer same courses in same locations— branch c a m p u s e s , etc." 9. "Support is in favor of established colleges and universities. Developing institutions need more support" 10. "It has contributed to the development of funding models and potentially more equi t ­ able finance" 11. "Probably increased support" State Government Respondents 12. "Too many vieing for appropriations with similar contentions" 13. "In the average has created inequity in resource distribution. Competition for students has created major duplication" 100 14. "Those institutions with lobbying power still control major appropriation levels" 15. "It's not competition among the colleges, rather its the priority of higher education in relation to other governmental services. In this regard, funding has not kept pace with costs" 16. "Those with political clout get money and program. Those with little clout don't" Association Respondents 17. "Competition has created a negative impact on attitude or individual legislators" 18. "Favor is sought for and granted to those who lobby well" 19. "Allocation overly affected by lobbying process. Total support may have been slightly improved by the competition" 20. "Specifically in area of off-campus pro­ grams, competition delayed state recogni­ tion of state funding responsibility" In question number sixteen the respondents were requested to identify where, in their view, the greatest need for additional funding lies with respect to the following areas: student access/financial aid; research (applied and theoretical); faculty salaries; physical plant needs and construction; instructional equipment and devices; and other (see Table 6). The 38 policy makers selected student access/financial aid (21 percent) and instructional equipment and devices (21 percent) as the two categories of the six where the greatest need for additional funding lies. Within the survey population, TABLE 6.— Additional Funding Needs*: (1) Percentages of Each Group by Response Category (2) (3) Faculty Salaries (4) Physical Plant Needs and Construction (5) Instructional Equipment and Devices (6) (N) Student Access Financial Aid Total (38) 21.0 7.8 18.5 13.2 21.0 18.5 (100%) Institutions (23) 17.4 4.4 21.7 21.7 17.4 17.4 (100%) State Government (10) 30.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 30.0 (100%) Associations ( 5) 20.0 20.0 40.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 (100%) ♦Question #16: Research Other (Totals) "In terms of financing public higher education in Michigan, where, in your view, does the greatest need for additional funding lie with respect to the following: student access/financial aid; research (applied and theoretical); faculty salaries; physical plant needs and construction; instructional equipment and devices; other." 102 the institution group reported that the greatest need for additional funding is in the two areas of faculty salar­ ies (21.7 percent) struction and physical plant needs and new con­ (21.7 percent). State government respondents indicated that they considered student access/financial aid (30 percent) and instructional equipment and devices (30 percent) to. be the categories that represented the greatest need for additional funding. The association group of the survey population indicated that faculty salaries (40 percent) is the area of greatest need for additional financial support. In question number seventeen respondent views were elicited regarding college and university salary levels (see Table 7). The survey population was asked to indi­ cate its feeling with respect to administrative and fac­ ulty salary levels in the following terms: adequate, and too low. too high, Regarding administrative and faculty salaries, 22 respondents or 57.9 percent of the survey population reported that they felt the salaries of both groups are adequate. Of the remaining 16 policy makers in the administrative salary category, seven or 18.4 percent reported that they felt salaries of this group were too high and nine policy makers or 2 3.7 percent indicated that they believed these salaries to be too low. Of the 16 respondents remaining in the faculty salary TABLE 7.— College and University Salaries*: Institutions Administrative Salaries (N=23) Faculty Salaries Percentages of Each Group by Response Category State Government (N=10) Associations Administrative Salaries Faculty Salaries Administrative Salaries 4.4 40.0 20.0 40.0 (N=5) Faculty Salaries Total (N— 38) Administrative Salaries Faculty Salaries 20.0 18.4 10.5 4.4 Adequate 60.8 65.1 50.0 50.0 60.0 40.0 57.9 57.9 Too Low 34.8 30.5 10.0 30.0 0.0 40.0 23.7 31.6 103 Too High ♦Question #17: "Regarding salaries at Michigan's public colleges and universities, please indicate your feeling in reference to the following (above):" 104 category, 12 policy makers or 31.6 percent viewed faculty salaries as being too low and four respondents or 10.5 percent felt that these salaries were too high. The p e r ­ ceptions of salary levels wi t h i n the groups of the survey p opulation revealed that a majority of policy makers from the three groups felt that both administrative and faculty salaries were adequate. In the administrative category of salary levels, one institutional respondent cent) (4.4 per­ felt that these salaries were too high, while four state government policy makers or 40 percent believed the salary levels of administrators were too high. association group, Within the two respondents or 40 percent felt that administrative salaries are too high and none of the policy makers in this group of the survey population belie ved the salaries of administrators were too low. In question number eighteen the respondents were asked if they thought that students should pay a larger share of the costs of higher education than they are pres­ ently paying (see Figure 13). Of the 38 respondents, 29 or 76.3 percent of the survey population responded n e g a ­ tively to the question and nine policy makers representing 2 3.7 percent thought that students should pay a larger share of the costs of higher education. The majority of r espondents within each of the three groups of the survey p opulation thought that students should not pay a larger 105 4-vvinV students should pay a larger s h ^ f o r t h e ^ o s t f o f h i g h e r education than they are presently paying?" in U4 % <_? P WS PM 86.8 9085807570656055504540353025- 76.3 60.0 60.0 WMV 2015- 13.2 10- m iim 5- 0Total KEY: m □ Yes No Institutions State G o v e r n t r e t it Associations 106 share of the costs of higher education than they are pres­ ently paying (institutions 86.8 percent, state government 60 percent, and associations 60 percent). In the second portion of question eighteen those respondents who answered the question negatively were requested to indicate why they thought students should not pay a larger share of the costs of higher education: Institutional Respondents 1. "Getting too high already as a percent of total dollars of budget" 2. "Educational opportunity should be avail­ able without severe financial restrictions" 3. "They will pay later as tax-paying citizens" 4. "Can't give aid to a majority of the students" 5. "Students' share has risen relatively more than other revenue sources, in response to relatively lower state appropriations. There may well be an access problem" 6. "They already share a larger burden than they did in the past. Soon they will be driven away by high costs" 7. "Higher tuition would exclude large numbers of young people from access to higher edu­ cation . . . particularly middle class young people" 8. "College education should be made available to qualified students as an investment in the future of the state. Present percentage is a deterrent" 9. "Not fair— burden should be a state responsi­ bility" 107 10. "Increasing their share before they become significant taxpayers does little but per­ petrate the existing elitist class system" 11. "Affects access to higher education" 12. "The balance overall taxes the user suffi­ ciently " 13. "Relatively open access benefits society" 14. "Education is in the interest of the state; one of the best investments" 15. "High cost would limit access" 16. "It would deny access to the segment of society that needs higher education the most" 17. "Its too high now. Middle income families are having the most difficult time" 18. "I support the concept of free education through at least the first two years of college" 19. "They should not be required to compensate for inflation and reduced state aid. Inex­ pensive higher education is of the greatest value— including financial value— to this state especially at a time of out migration" State Government Respondents 20. "Many students, ineligible for financial aid, are being priced out of the market for college programs" 21. "The higher education chronicle reports we are already high nationally" 22. "The percentage of cost burden borne by the student has increased dramatically in recent years due to state funding shortfalls. This problem is beginning to impact equal access opportunity" 108 Association Respondents 23. "Student costs should not continue to increase faster than other costs, but proportionately" 24. "Because increased share of costs applied to tuition restricts access" 25. "The public has a responsibility to guar­ antee equal access to higher education" In question number nineteen the respondents were asked if they thought that the present geographic location of the state universities and colleges is effective in meeting present needs and future needs of Michigan r e s i ­ dents {see Figure 14 a and 1 4 B ) . To the segment of the question concerning present needs, 97.4 37 policy makers or percent of the survey population reported that they thought the geographic location of the existing institu­ tions is effective in meeting present needs of Michigan citizens and one respondent (2.6 percent) indicated that the current location of public colleges and universities is not meeting the present needs of the state. The policy makers also reported a positive majority regarding the effectiveness of the present locations of institutions in meeting future needs of the state (34 or 89.5 percent). Question number twenty dealt with the role of the urban university in the future, and the policy makers were requested indicate if they felt the urban university w o u l d be assuming a large role in the future and why (see 109 ♦Question #19: "Do you think the present location of the state universities and colleges is effective in meeting present needs?" ssocxations Government KEY: E23 f I Yes Uo Figure 14-A.--Geographic location of colleges and univer sities*: Percentages of each group by response category. 110 ★★Question #19: "Do you think the present location of the state universities and colleges will be effective in meet­ ing future needs?" CA W 5 H3 § w Pk 100.0 100959085807570656055504540353025- 91.4 89.5 f ■ 80.0 ( m i VAm WAV ilm ♦Vhi m mm ♦VAV mii 20.0 20- 15- in-r> 10- 50- >.0 Total key: m m Yes Institutions State Government Associations □ No Figure 14-B**.— Future needs**: Percentages of each group by response category. Ill Figure 15). Of the 38 policy makers in the survey popula­ tion, 23 or 60.5 percent felt that the urban university would play an increased role in the future, 13 respondents or 34.3 percent felt that the urban university would not be playing an increased role in the future, and two policy makers (5.2 percent) did not answer the question. 36 respondents who answered the question, Of the 26 policy makers stated why they felt the role of the urban university would increase or decrease in the future. The following 15 responses were given by those members of the survey population who thought that the urban university's role will increase in the future; Institution Respondents 1. "Energy" 2. "The urban university, with its reservoir of talent, should have extensive public service funds to aid in the solutions to the urban problems" 3. "The present and future problems of society are urban related. Students should be pre­ pared for an urban society. Research on urban problems is needed. Public service functions of an urban university should be increased" 4. "As we move toward more technical training for those who live at home, the urban uni­ versity (and the community colleges) will carry more of this vocational-technical load" 5. "Related to costs— students stay at home to reduce costs" 6. "More part-time students" 112 ♦Question #20: "Do you see the urban university playing an increased role in the future?" 9590858075- 7065« <3 605550- H 55 8 45- S * 4035- 30252015- 105- 0- 60.0 60.5 m mu iVfffi VfAV m m )4, iVffH ImH Vffff iVfffj Vffff iV h h 52.1 M * M W 39.1 fffff ifA h fffff 40.0 ifHH ffl AVA Vf fffffff f j Vffff 1 8.6 vmVj “ 1 Institutions Total State 0 Associations Government KEY: KXXXXM Yes -Jo Ho Response Figure 15.— Role of the urban university*: Percentages of each group by response category. 113 7. "Most of the U. S. population is centered in and around major cities. With adult and continuing education on the increase the urban schools will have to meet this chal­ lenge" 8. "Because of its better availability to parttime students of all types" State Government Respondents 9. "Major problems are in urban areas" 10. "The urban areas will see a return to growth" 11. "Possibly in the concept" 12. "Increased part-time enrollments, learning for adults" 13. "Energy problems may give birth to a renewed trend towards urban population concentrations" 'blue collar sabbatical' life long Assocation Respondents 14. "Energy problems will force people back to cities. It is however unclear whether the cities and their universities will be accommodating" 15. "Urban and suburban needs will continue to increase" The following 11 responses were provided by those members of the survey population who did not see the urban university assuming an increased role in the future: Institution Respondents 1. "Students prefer to be away from cities" 2. "Most students will want to enroll in nonurban institutions" 3. "Population tends to be moving more toward suburban areas" 114 4. "No public urban university has really met the challenge" 5. "Urban populations will dec l i n e — the regional universities are more strategi­ cally located to serve the need of people in a region" 6. "People's desire to get out of the urban areas" 7. "The trend is to leave the urban campuses where there is a choice" State Government Respondent 8. "People are moving to the suburbs and attending colleges regionally or in other areas of the state. The ma j o r urban uni ­ versity in this state is experiencing (a) major enrollment decline" Association Respondents 9. "If by urban you mean c i t y — no community or other college will continue to supplement university's role in Detroit" 10. "Because I do not anticipate increased con­ centration of population in urban centers" 11. "We will be lucky if we can main t a i n the present level of support" In question number twenty-one the policy makers were asked if they felt that the state's needs for p r o ­ fessional training in the areas of law, human medicine, dentistry and veterinary medicine are being met Table 8). A majority of policy makers indicated that w i t h respect to the professions of law medicine (see (68.4 percent) (84.2 percent), and dentistry human (60.5 percent) that they felt that the state's needs for professional training TABLE 8.— State's Needs for Professional Training*: Institutions Yes No Percentages of Each Group by Response Category State Government Yes No Associations Yes No Total Yes No Law 82.5 17.5 90.0 10.0 80.0 20.0 84.2 15.8 Human Medicine 78.2 21.8 60.0 30.0 40.0 60.0 68.4 31.6 Dentistry 56.5 43.5 80.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 60.5 39.5 Veterinary Medicine 52.5 47.8 50.0 50.0 20.0 80.0 50.0 50.0 ♦Question #21: "Do you feel that the state's needs for professional training are being met in the following areas: Law; Human Medicine; Dentistry; Veterinary Medicine?" 116 are being met. The respondents were equally divided with regard to the profession of veterinary medicine. Institution and state government policy makers, within their survey groups, reported a majority of respondents who felt that the needs of each profession are being met. The association group of the survey population indicated that a majority of policy makers in this group felt that the needs for professional training are not being met in the three professions of human medicine dentistry (60 p e r c e n t ) , (60 p e r c e n t ) , and veterinary medicine (80 per­ cent) . In question number twenty-two the respondents were asked if they thought that the federal government has a special responsibility in regard to professional training (see Figure 16). A majority of the policy makers, 65.7 percent of the survey population, 25 or indicated that they thought the federal government did have a special responsi­ bility regarding the support of professional training and 13 respondents accounting for 44.3 percent of the total population did not think the federal government has a special responsibility in this area of higher education. Within the three groups of the survey population, a majority of policy makers in each group responded affirma­ tively to the question (institutions 65.3 percent, state government 60 percent, and associations 80 p e r c e n t ) . PERCENTAGES ♦Question #22: "Do you think the federal government has a special responsibility in regard to professional train­ ing?" 8580757065605550454035302520151050- 8 0 .0 mm 65.7 W iV at 60.0 *1 WAV AWA i v A A A 44.1 AAA AAA AAV w (AAV AAA AAA AAA AAA m AAA A iM 1 KEY: Yes i 40.0 20.0 WAVi AAA VAW AAA iViYiY Total W AAA VAVA VAVA Institutions State Government Associations □ No Figure 16.— Federal responsibility for professional training*: Percentages of each group by response category. 118 Question number twenty-three dealt with the flow of federal aid to higher education. The respondents were asked if federal support to the different state colleges * and universities should be channeled through some central state agency as it now comes in many forms to both the state and to the institutions of higher education Figure 17). A majo r i t y of the policy makers, percent of the survey population, (see 33 or 86.5 reported that federal aid to public institutions should not be channeled through some central state agency and five respondents or 13.2 percent felt such aid should flow through a central state agency. A majority of policy makers in each of the three groups of the survey population did not support the dis­ b u r s e ment of federal aid to colleges and universities through a state central agency state government 70 percent, (institutions 95.5 percent, and associations 80 p e r c e n t ) . The policy makers were also asked to explain why they answered the question in either a positive or nega­ tive manner. Of the 38 respondents, 28 reported w h y they answered the question either yes or no. The following 26 comments were made by those policy makers w h o responded n egatively to the question: Institution Respondents 1. "They w o n ' t distribute it equitably" 2. "The competitive merits of the present system are more effective and productive" 119 #Question #2 3: "Federal aid now comes in many forms to both the state and to the institutions of higher education. Should federal aid to the different state colleges and universities be channelled through some central state agency?" 100- 05.5 9590- 85807570to w % H Ed £ w£ O-i 80.0 6560- 55504540- 353025- 30.0 20- 1510- 50Total KEY; m Yes MInstitutions i State Government Associations □ No Figure 17.— Federal aid disbursement*: Percentages of each group by response category. 120 3. "Institutions would lose some control" 4. "Too expensive" 5. "No need for a middle man to get involved" 6. "Another bureaucracy is unnecessary" 7. "Meritocracy would be diminished" 8. "To do wo would seriously reduce the autono­ mous nature of our institutions, would add a layer of bureaucracy, and would not result in additional federal dollars" 9. "Why create another layer of bureaucracy" 10. "No purpose to add another layer of control" 11. "Better to fund programs or students on need" 12. "Too much of it (aid) gets lost in transit, or diverted to political interests. The state agencies attempt to control program rather than just funds" 13. "Increased centralization with the resultant inefficiency and waste should be avoided" 14. "A state board would give rise to haves and have nots" 15. "The institutions are required to perform, not the state agencies" 16. "Because of the red tape— of which we have too much now" 17. "The larger the number of quasi-independent sources of funds— the greater the degree of academic freedom" State Government Respondents 18. "Autonomy of the colleges and universities and they are required to report all fiscal data to the state" 121 19. "The aid is let by the Feds, based on insti­ tutional 'quality.' The state should not be spreading this money" 20. "Incentive is important" 21. "Creates too much bureaucratic paperwork and overhead costs to the system. Most funds are locked in by federal guidelines, and expenditures are audited by the Feds, regularly. Under these circumstances, I see no redeeming value in the proposal" 22. "No specific gain" Association Respondents 23. "There is too much now that needs coordina­ tion" 24. "Should be to institutions and students, less for fixed programs and more at large" 25. "At every stop-off point in the route of feceral dollars, a chunk of the money is removed to feed the bureaucracy operating the stop-off point" 26. "Too high a percentage of such funds go to its administration now. Also subjective judgments by state agencies are not always rational" The following comments were provided by the two respon­ dents who indicated support for the channeling of federal higher education aid through a state agency: State Government Respondent 1. "More responsive to statewide needs" Assocation Respondent 2. "More familiarity with state needs and resources" 122 In the first part of question number twenty-four, the policy makers were asked, if in their judgment, does federal money to state institutions and programs make it possible for the colleges and universities to do things they otherwise would not do ity of the respondents, population, (see Figure 18-A). The major­ 32 or 84.2 percent of the survey felt that federal funds do make it possible for the institutions to do things they would not be able to do without such support. The remaining six policy makers representing 15.8 percent of the survey population felt that federal support to state institutions and pro­ grams did not make it possible for colleges and univers­ ities to do things they otherwise would not do. A majority of the respondents within each of the three groups of the survey population (institutions 82.4 per­ cent, state government 80 percent, and associations 100 percent) believed that federal funds do permit public colleges and universities to do things they would other­ wise not be able to do without such support. In the second portion of question twenty-four, the policy makers were asked if federal money to public institutions and programs simply eases the burden of the state (see Figure 18-B). A majority of policy makers, 21 or 55.3 percent of the survey population, reported that federal money to public institutions and programs did not 123 ♦Question #24: "In your judgment does federal m o n e y to state institutions and programs make it possible for c o l ­ leges and universities to do things they otherwise would not do?" Government KEY: BJH Yes □ Figure 18-A: No Impact of federal aid upon higher education*: Percentages of e a c h group by response cate­ gory. 124 **Question 24: "Or does federal money simply ease the burden of the state?" 9590858075706560w 55w <: 50H 45§ 40W 35A. 302520- 1510- 50- 80.0 n IVtV 55.3 WiW 44.7 40.0 AVAV< AAA iAAA Vmfi AAA* VAVA AVAA AAA AVAA AAA Wm M o 11 ill ♦WAV AAAi iVrnV* Total KEY: 52.3 m Yes Institutions State Government 20.0 m m AAA AVAA AAA M®. Associations □ No Figure 18-B.— Impact of federal aid upon the state**: Percentages of each group by response category. 125 ease the burden of the state. Seventeen respondents accounting for 44.7 percent of the survey population felt that the s t a t e 's burden was eased by federal support to institutions and programs. A majority of policy makers within the state government (60 percent) groups (80 percent) and association felt that the state's burden was eased with respect to support of public higher education. The institutional group of the survey population reported that a majority of these policy makers (52.3 percent) feel that the state's support burden is eased by federal support to institutions and programs. In question number twenty-five the survey popula­ tion was informed that private colleges and universities are accounted for in state level planning of higher edu­ cation need and, further, that the private institutions are financially hard pressed. The respondents were then asked if they would support the state doing something about the situation makers, (see Figure 19). Of the 38 policy 24 or 63.1 percent of the survey population indi­ cated they would support state efforts to improve the financial condition of the private institutions. The 14 policy makers who stated that they did not support state action to assist private institutions represented 36.9 percent of the survey population. Within the three popu­ lation groups of the survey, a majority of policy makers 126 ♦Question #25: "Private colleges and universities are accounted for in state level planning of higher education needs. The private institutions are financially hard pressed. Do you support the state doing something about the situation?" 100.0 10095908580757065Vi Pd 60<: 555045Pd 40353025201510 50- 80.0 l W 63.1 56.5 iin iVAAV mm \ % % m m If - AVAA w Nm Total KEY: aW j m Yes Institutions State Government Associations □ No Figure 19.— Support for private institutions*: Percent­ ages of each group by response category. 127 from the state government category the associations (80 percent) private institutions. dents (56.5 percent) {100 percent) and from support state action to help A majority of institutional respon­ indicated that they do not support the state doing something about financial conditions of private institutions. Question number twenty-six was divided into two parts. In the first part the policy makers were asked if the state were to provide financial assistance to the p r i ­ vate i n s t i t u t i o n s , should it have control over appoint­ ments to governing boards of the policy makers lation) (see Figure 2 0 - A ) . The m a j ority (27 or 71 percent of the survey p o p u ­ responded that the state should not have control over appointments to the governing boards of private institutions. The remaining 11 policy makers or 29 p e r ­ cent of the survey population indicated that the state should have control over appointments to governing boards if it were to provide financial assistance to private institutions. The majority of respondents in each of the three groups of the survey population percent, state government 100 percent, 100 percent) (institutions 52.3 and associations did not support state control over appoint­ ments to governing boards of private institutions if the state were to financially assist them. 128 ♦Question #26: "If the state were to provide financial assistance to the private institutions, should it control over appointments to governing boards? 100.0 100.0 100 9590858075706560w 5553 50[d 4540a It d 35P-> 302520151050- 71.0 47. 7 fffrn V mm { m f m IHHff m m miffn frtVufi Wifi m m i Total KEY: B B Y es Institutions 0.0 0.0 State Associations Government □ No Fiaure 20-A.— State control over private institutions y Percentages of each group b y response category, 129 In the second part of question twenty-six the respondents were asked, if the state were to provide financial assistance to the private institutions, should it have control over budget and audit The majority of policy makers survey population) (see Figure 20-B). (21 or 55.3 percent of the felt that the state should have con­ trol over budget and audit if it provided financial assistance to private institutions. The 17 respondents who stated that the state should not have control over budget and audit accounted for 44.7 percent of the survey population. As was similar to the first part of the ques­ tion, a majority of the policy makers in each of the three groups of the survey population (institutions 69.5 percent, state government 60 percent, and associations 80 percent) reported that the state should have control over the budget and audit of private institutions if it provides them with financial assistance. In question number twenty-seven the policy makers were asked to estimate how higher education in Michigan compares with other states (see Table 9). The pattern of majority responses for the total survey population is identical to the pattern of majority responses reported within each of the three groups within the survey popu­ lation. A majority of the respondents (31 or 81.5 per­ cent) felt that Michigan higher education compared 130 **Question #26: audit?" 100 95908580757065t/1 60w 55504540ui 353025- "What about control over budget and - 80.0 69.5 55.3 44.7 60.0 a m mm muf ♦Vffff 30.5 20- w MV.V 15- VHfVl 10- 50- M Total KEY: ♦WAY Vffff ESS Yes L Institutions State Government Associations | I No Figure 20-B.— State control of budget and audit**: Percentages of each group by response category. TABLE 9.— Michigan Higher Education Compared with Other States*: Response Category Institutions State Government Associations Total Favorably 73.8 26.2 100.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 81.5 18.5 Unfavorably 39.2 60.8 0.0 100.0 20.0 80.0 26.3 73.7 Michigan can't keep up with others 30.5 69.5 20.0 80.0 20.0 80.0 23.7 76.3 Is of little or no concern 17.5 82.5 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 10.5 89.5 Causes undue costs increases 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 20.0 80.0 2.6 97.4 13.2 86.8 30.0 70.0 42.0 60.0 21.1 78.9 Cannot be controlled ♦Question #27: Accurate Not Accurate Accurate Not Accurate "In your estimation, how does higher education in Michigan compare with other states with regard to the following (above) statements:" 131 Accurate Not Accurate Accurate Not Accurate Percentages of Each Group by 132 favorably with public higher education in other states; 28 policy makers or 73.7 percent of the survey population felt that Michigan higher education did not compare unfav­ orably with other states; 29 respondents or 76.3 percent indicated that the view that Michigan cannot keep up with higher education in other states is not accurate; 34 policy makers or 89.5 percent reported that it is not accurate to view comparison with other states as being of little or no concern to them; 37 respondents or 97.4 per­ cent felt that comparison of higher education in Michigan with other states does not cause undue cost increases; and 30 policy makers of 78.9 percent felt that it was not accu­ rate to view factors of comparison of public higher edu­ cation between states as uncontrollable. In question number twenty-eight of the survey, the policy makers were asked if the control pattern established by the 1963 Constitution of the State of Michi­ gan and as interpreted by the three branches of state government adequately recognizes the individual character of each of the four-year institutions as each pursues its established functions and goals {see Figure 21). There was not a majority view expressed regarding this question by the total survey population. Of the 38 policy makers, 17 or 44.7 percent stated "yes, definitely" the control pattern provided by the present state constitution 133 PERCENTAGES ♦Question #28: "Does the control pattern established by the 1963 State of Michigan Constitution and as inter­ preted by the three branches of state government adequately recognize the individual character of each of the four— year institutions as each pursues its established func­ tions and goals?" 908580757065605550454035302520 1510 50- - 60.0 52.3 w nr 4 U 39 . o J l M i i .5 W i mm iViViVi mm W i mifm UNffi m m mm institutions Total KEY: 30.0 , m m 50.11 IZZl Yes Yes Definitely 8,7 State Government Associations No To a Limited Extent Figure 21.— Constitutional recognition of institutions*: Percentages of each group by response c a t e ­ gory. 134 adequately recognizes the individual character of each public college and university. To the alternative "yes, to a limited extent," 17 or 44.7 percent indicated that this selection best described their view of the estab­ lished control pattern and four policy makers or 10.5 percent felt that the present control pattern does not adequately recognize the individual character of the institutions. Within the three groups of the survey popu­ lation, a majority of respondents in the state government (59 percent) and association (60 percent) categories chose the "yes, definitely" response alternative. Among the institutional respondents, a majority of policy makers (52.3 percent) selected the "yes, to a limited extent" response as best representing their view of the control pattern established by the 196 3 State of Michigan Consti­ tution. In question number twenty-nine respondent views were solicited regarding establishment of a coordinating body for higher education which would control overall planning and statewide policies (centralized policy con­ trol) while leaving local policies and executive decision making to the local institutions tions) (see Figure 22). (decentralized opera­ A majority of the policy makers, 18 or 47.3 percent of the survey population, indicated that they would not support the establishment of a 135 PERCENTAGES ♦Question #29: "Would you support the establishment of a coordinating body for higher education which control overall planning and statewide policies (centralized policy control) while leaving local policies and execu­ tive decision making to the local institutions (decen­ tralized operations)?" 90858075706560555045- 60.0 56 47.3 40353025- 34.2 20.0 1110 2015- 105- 0- 0.0 Total KEY: mm Yes ~ Institutions IZZI Yes State Government Associations No Definitely To a Limited Extent Figure 22.— Establishment of a coordinating body*: Per­ centages of each group by response category. 136 coordinating body for higher education in Michigan. Those 13 respondents who stated that they would support, to a limited extent, the establishment of a coordinating body represented 34.2 percent of the sample population, and seven policy makers or 18.5 percent stated that they definitely would support the creation of a coordinating body as described in the question. The two respondent groups within the survey population in which a majority of policy makers in each group reported that they would not support the establishment of a coordinating board are the institutions percent). (56.5 percent) and the associations (60 A majority of state government policy makers (60 percent) indicated that they would support the crea­ tion of a coordinating body for higher education in M i c h i ­ gan . In question number thirty the policy makers were asked if they felt that the process of long-range planning has been impaired as a result of institutional autonomy (see Figure 2 3). tion, Of the respondents in the survey popula­ 20 or 52.6 percent did not feel that the process of long-range planning has been impaired as a result of institutional autonomy; 10 policy makers or 26.4 percent felt that the long-range planning process, has been impaired as a result of institutional autonomy. three groups of the survey population, Among the a majority of 137 PERCENTAGES ♦Question #30: "As a result of institutional autonomy, do you feel that the process of long-range planning has been impaired?" 959085807570656055504540353025- 52.6 40.0 40.0 539763 71.8 21.0 20- 1510 50- 20.0 m mm W mm Yfffffi mm - 4.3 # Institutions Total KEY: CZ3 Yes Yes Definitely To A Limited Extent State Government Associations No Figure 23.— impairment of long-range planning*: Percent­ ages of each group by response category. 138 policy makers representing the institutions (73.9 percent) felt that institutional autonomy had not impaired the process of long-range planning; a majority of state government respondents (60 percent) felt that the process has been impaired as a result of institutional autonomy; and the association policy makers did not report a major­ ity view favoring one aspect of the question (40 percent stated yes, to a limited extent and 40 percent felt that there was no impairment of the long-range planning pro­ cess) . In question number thirty-one the policy makers were requested to indicate which of the listed choices (the legislature, the legislature with recommendations from a coordinating body, a coordinating body, a coordi­ nating body with input from the institutions, and the individual institutions which establish their own internal standards) should establish standards for use in evaluat­ ing an institution's resource allocation and utilization in Michigan (see Table 10). The majority alternative selected by 18 or 47.4 percent of the policy makers was that, in Michigan, the individual institution should establish its own internal standards for use in evaluat­ ing resource allocation and use. The choice of a coordi­ nating body with input from the institutions was selected by 11 respondents or 28.9 percent of the survey population. TABLE 10.— Standards for Evaluation of Resource Allocation and Use*: Response Category (1) The Legislature (2) The Legislature With Input From a Coordinating Body (3) A Coordinating Body Percentages of Each Group by (4) A Coordinating Body With Input From the Institutions (5) The Individual Institution Group (N) Total (38) 7.9 13.2 2.6 28.9 47.4 (100%) Institutions (23) 0.0 13.0 0.0 21.7 65.3 (100%) State Government (10) 30.0 20.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 (100%) Associations ( 5) 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 (100%) "The establishment of standards for use in evaluating an institution's resource allocation and utilization should be done in Michigan by: The Legislature; the Legislature, with recommendations from a coordinating body; a coordinating body; a coordinating body with input from the institutions; the individual institution, which establishes its own internal standards." 139 ♦Question #31: (Totals) 140 The remaining nine policy makers reported their choices as follows: five or 13.2 percent selected the legisla­ ture with recommendations for a coordinating body, or 7.9 percent chose the legislature, maker (2.6 percent) three and one policy felt that a coordinating body should establish standards for evaluation of resource allocation and use. tion The majority of respondents within the institu­ (65.3 percent) and association (60 percent) groups of the survey population stated that the individual insti­ tutions should establish their own standards. The ma j o r ­ ity of state government respondents felt that a coordinating body with input from the institutions is the appropriate group to establish resource allocation and use standards in Michigan. In question number thirty-two the policy makers were asked to indicate which of the choices listed as question thirty-one) (same should actually evaluate an insti­ tution's resource utilization (see Table 11). ity choice of the survey respondents, The ma j o r ­ (13 or 32.2 percent) was a coordinating body with input from the institutions. The individual institution was selected by 12 respondents representing 31.6 percent of the survey population. the remaining 13 policy makers, tified the legislature; Of six or 15.8 percent iden­ four or 10.5 percent chose the legislature with recommendations from a coordinating body; TABLE 11.— Evaluation of Institutional Resource Use*: Groups (N) (1) The Legislature (39) 15.8 Instiutions (23) 8.7 State Government (10) 20.0 Associations ( 5) 40.0 ‘Question #32: The Institutions' A Coordinating Body A Coordinating Body, With Input From The Institutions Own Administrations Which Establish Their Own Internal Standards and Totals Review Procedures 7.9 34.2 31.6 (100%) 8.7 17.4 47.8 (100%) 0.0 0.0 80.0 0.0 (100%) 0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 (100%) 10.5 17.4 "The actual evaluation of an institution's resource utilization should be done by: The Legislature; the Legislature, with recommendations from a coordination body, a coordinating body; a coordinating body, with input from the institutions; the institution's own admin­ istrations which establish their own internal standards and review procedures." 141 Total The Legislature, With Recommendations From A Coordinating Body Percentages of Each Group by Response Category 142 and three respondents felt that a coordinating body should actually evaluate an institution's resource utili­ zation. Among the three groups of the survey population, a majority of institutional representatives (47.8 percent) indicated that the individual institutions should perform the actual evaluation of resources used; state government policy makers (80 percent) stated that a coordinating body with input from the institutions should do the evaluation; and among the assocation policy makers, the majority percent) (40 felt that the legislature should actually evalu­ ate an institution's resource utilization. Question number thirty-three dealt with the role of a coordinating body with respect to the determination of administrative and faculty salaries (see Table 12). The survey population was asked which of the following statements would they support as being the proper role of a coordinating body: (1) Has no policy. is left to the individual institution; This function (2) sets general salary levels, while the determination of specific sal­ aries is left to the institution; (3) approves specific salaries upon recommendation by the institution; and (4) sets the specific salaries of individuals. The majority of respondents, 25 or 65.8 percent of the policy makers, felt that a coordinating body should have no policy regarding the determination of adminstrative and faculty TABLE 12.— Determination of Administrative and Faculty Salaries*: Response Category (1) (2) Sets General Salary Levels Percentages of Each Group by (3) Approves Specific Salaries (4) Sets The Specific Salaries Groups (N) Total (38) 65.8 34.2 0.0 0.0 (100%) Institutions (23) 69.5 30.5 0.0 0.0 (100%) State Government (10) 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 (100%) Associations ( 5) 80.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 (100%) ♦Question #33: Has No Policy (Totals) "With respect to the determination of administrative and faculty salaries, which of the following statements would you support as being the proper role of a coordinat­ ing body? Has no policy, this function is left to the individual institution; sets general salary levels, while the determination of specific salareis is left to the institution; approves specific salaries, upon recommendation by the institution; sets the specific salaries of individuals." 144 salaries. The remaining 13 policy makers or 34.2 percent of the survey population indicated that they supported a coordinating body whose role encompassed the setting of general salary levels, while the determination of specific salaries is left to the institution. None of the members of the survey population selected the latter two alterna­ tives (numbers 3 and 4 stated p r e v iously). Among the individual groups of the survey population, a majority of policy makers representing the institutions (69.5 percent) and the associations (80 percent) supported the alterna­ tive of leaving this function to the individual institu­ tion. The state government group of the survey population divided their support equally among the choices of a coordinating body having no policy (50 percent) and a body whose role incorporates setting general salary levels (50 p e r c e n t ) . In question number thirty-four the views of the policy makers were examined concerning capital expendi­ tures and construction, and it was requested that they indicate if they were in agreement with the following statements regarding the role of a statewide coordinating body in Michigan: (1) approves the selection of archi­ tects for the planning and construction supervision of buildings; (2) approves the planning and construction of buildings; (3) administers capital expenditures for build­ ings; (4) administers capital expenditures for major 145 equipment; and minor equipment (5) administers capital expenditures for (see Table 13) . A majority of the survey population stated that they were not in agreement with each of the five statements regarding the role of a state­ wide coordinating body in Michigan percent, (statement one 78.9 statement two 52.6 percent, statement three 7 3.7 percent, statement four 78.9 percent, and statement five 97.3 percent). Within the three respondent groups of the survey population, a majority of the policy makers were not in agreement with statement one percent, (institutions 86.8 state government 60 percent, and associations 80 p e r c e n t ) ; statement two was agreed with by a majority of the state government cent) (80 percent) and association (60 per­ representatives and disagreed with by a majority of institutional policy makers (69.5 percent). respondents from the institutions associations A majority of (91.3 percent) and the (60 percent were not in agreement with the third statement while state government policy makers were divided equally on the statement percent disagreed). (50 percent agreed and 50 In regard to statement four, a major­ ity of the policy makers in each group were in disagree­ ment with it (institutions 91.3 percent, state government 60 percent, and associations 60 p e r c e n t ) . Statement five revealed that a majority of the respondents in each group were not in agreement with it as it relates to the role of TABLE 13.— Capital Expenditures for Construction and Equipment*: Category Groups (N) (1) Approves the Selection of Architects Yes No (2) Approves the Planning and Construction Yes No (3) Administers Expenditures For Buildings Yes No Percentages of Each Group by Response (4) Administers Expenditures For Minor Equip. Yes (5) Administers Expenditures For Minor Equip. No Yes No Total (38) 21.1 78.9 47.4 52.6 26.3 73.7 21.1 78.9 2.7 97.3 Institution (23) 13.2 86.8 30.5 69.5 8.7 91.3 8.7 91.3 4.5 95.5 State Government (10) 40.0 60.0 80.0 20.0 50.0 50.0 40.0 60.0 0.0 100.0 Associations ( 5) 20.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 40.0 60.0 40.0 60.0 0.0 100.0 ♦Question #34: "Concerning capital expenditures and construction, please indicate if you are in agree­ ment with the following statement regarding the role of a statewide coordinating body in Michigan: approves the selection of architects for the planning and construction super­ vision of buildings; approves the planning for and construction of buildings; administers capital expenditures for buildings; administers capital expenditures for major equipment; administers capital expenditures for minor equipment." 147 a statewide coordinating body in Michigan (institutions 95.5 percent, state government 100 percent and associa­ tions 100 percent). The final question of the survey instrument, number thirty-five, concerned academic affairs and the study population was asked to indicate if they were in agreement with the following statements regarding the role of a statewide coordinating body in Michigan: (1) formulates policies with respect to student admissions; (2) formulates policies with respect to tuition, fees, and financial aid; (3) formulates policies with respect to scholastic levels for retention and granting of degrees; (4) formulates policies with respect to student recruitment and selection; (5) establishes policies for selection, promotion, and tenure of faculty; (6) estab­ lishes personnel controls for non-academic personnel; (7) approves academic programs, including specific courses; (8) develops policy research and suggests topics which emphasize state and federal interests; (9) estab­ lishes the policies pertaining to the growth and to the rate of growth of an institution or campus; (10) estab­ lishes policies pertaining to the growth and to the rate of growth of any subdivision, such as a branch campus or even a department; and (11) assists in the selection of academic and administrative leadership for state colleges 148 and universities (see Table 14). Of the 38 respondents in the survey population, a majority of the policy makers indicated that they were not in agreement with each of the eleven statements (statement one 73.7 percent, statement two 6 8.4 percent, statement three 86.8 percent, statement four 94.7 percent, statement five 97.3 percent, statement six 94.7 percent, statement seven 78.9 percent, eight 55.3 percent, statement nine 55.3 percent, statement statement ten 65.8 percent, and statement eleven 94.7 percent). Among the three groups of the survey population, the policy makers representing the institutions reported a majority of this group were not in agreement with each of the eleven statements. State Government respondents indi­ cated that a majority of these policy makers were in agreement with statements one, two, seven, eight, nine, and ten and were not in agreement with the remaining statements. The policy makers in the association group of the survey population indicated that a majority of its respondents were not in agreement with each of the eleven statements regarding the role of a statewide coordinating body in Michigan. The following chapter contains a comparative analysis of the results of the survey assessing the atti­ tudes of state, institutional and association policy mak­ ers on the coordination and planning of higher education TABLE 14.— Role of a Coordinating Body in Academic Affairs*: Category Percentages of Each Group by Response Total Institutions State Associations institutional category of the survey population reported that they did not feel a single statewide agency would be more responsive to the needs of the state and to the con­ cerns of colleges and universities. The majority of institutional policy makers in the survey population indi­ cated that the most critical problems facing public higher education for the next decade are the level of state fund­ ing support and declining enrollments. The institutional respondents differed from the majority of state govern­ ment and association policy makers on the issue of con­ centrating graduate-professional programs in three or four universities by supporting a wider dispersion of such advanced training among the public institutions. The 191 institutional academic and financial officers also dif­ fered from the majority views of the other two groups of the survey population on the question of closer adherence to a state-wide plan by reporting a majority not favoring closer adherence to a plan. The majority of institutional policy makers did not favor state government action to aid private colleges and universities as did the majority of policy makers from the state government and associaion groups of the survey population. In respect to the question of what is an appro­ priate structure for the coordination and planning of public higher education in Michigan, the view expressed by the majority of policy makers representing the instituions appears to support their earlier position that the existing constitutionally defined approach to coordination and planning of higher education is the appropriate struc­ ture for Michigan. The majority of respondents from the colleges and universities did not support the establish­ ment of a statewide coordinating body for higher education in Michigan nor did they support the inclusion of any of the activities identified in the survey as being associa­ ted with a coordinating body as part of the role of such a body. 192 Respondents from State Government Offices and Agenciesf The majority of the policy makers representing the state government group of the survey population viewed the existing structure of coordination and plan­ ning of public higher education as inadequate and reported that they were not generally satisifed with the present constitutionally mandated division of responsi­ bilities nor the operational format established between the state and the institutions. The majority of state government policy makers reported that they preferred more coordination of institutional support requests, increased legislative authority in regard to budget review, curriculum, appointments to governing boards and limitation of institutional autonomy. State government officials also indicated that competition among public institutions for tax dollars had negatively affected state support of higher education. In respect to the existing structure of coordination and planning meeting the needs of the state, state government policy makers indicated that in general the higher education needs of Michigan were being met but that instructional facilities were not being used economically and efficiently by the colleges and universities. The views expressed by the majority of state government officials indicated that the state government 193 group of the survey population does believe that a single statewide agency for public higher education would be more responsive to the concerns of the state and to the needs of the institutions. The majority of state govern­ ment respondents agreed with the majority of the other two groups of the survey population that the critical issues for the next decade are the level of state funding support and declining enrollments. However, in the three to five year period, the issue of academic program change and expansion was an exception to the view of the majority of the survey population and was identified by state govern­ ment policy makers as being the critical issue for that particular time period. Also the majority of state govern­ ment policy makers differed from the majority of institu­ tional respondents by supporting the concentration of advanced graduate and professional programs in three or four universities, favoring closer adherence to a state­ wide plan, and indicating support for state action to assist private colleges and universities. A majority of state government policy makers sup­ ported the establishment of a statewide coordinating body for public higher education in Michigan. However, the activities that the majority of state government policy makers would support for inclusion in the role of a coordinating agency were limited to general policy issues 194 affecting all institutions with the responsibility for implementation of the policies remaining with the indi­ vidual institutions. The exceptions to the general policy responsibilities of a coordinating body which were sup­ p o rted by the majority of state government respondents were in the administration of capital outlay funds for buildings and in regard to the growth and rate of growth of institutions, branch campuses and departments. Respondents from the Associations The majority of respondents in the association category of the survey population reported that they felt the existing structure of planning and coordination of higher education was generally adequate and meeting the needs of the state. However, association policy makers indicated they were not generally satisfied with the m a n ­ ner in which institutional requests are conveyed to the state and that faculty salary levels are too low. The association policy makers were in agreement with state government officials regarding the negative influence that institutional competition for tax dollars has on state support of higher education and that institutional autonomy had impaired long-range planning. The views reported by the majority of the policy makers representing the association group of the survey population indicated that the respondents in this category 195 felt that a single statewide agency for public higher edu­ cation would be more responsive to state needs and insti­ tutional concerns. The majority of the association policy makers supported along with the majority of the state government respondents the position that closer adherence to a statewide plan would be beneficial to both institu­ tions and state agencies. Association policy makers indicated that they did not believe that the role of the urban university would be expanded in the future which was in contrast to the majority view of the institutions and the state government respondents. The majority of respondents from the associations category of the survey population indicated that this group, as did the institutional policy makers, believed that the existing structure of coordination and planning is the appropriate form for public higher education in Michigan. The majority of association policy makers did not support the establishment of a statewide coordinating body nor, with the exception of the administration of capital outlay funds for buildings, the inclusion of the activities specified in the survey instrument as being part of the role of a coordinating body. Conclusions From the survey of institutions, state government and association policy makers and the comparative analysis 196 of the survey results the following conclusions were developed concerning the coordination and planning of public higher education in Michigan: Conclusion Number O n e . The majority of policy makers in the survey population view the existing struc­ ture of coordination and planning of public higher educa­ tion as adequate and meeting the needs of the s t a t e 1s citizens. Conclusion Number T w o . There is support to change the existing structure and to establish a single state­ wide body for the coordination and planning of public higher education in Michigan only among the majority of policy makers from the state government category of the survey population. Conclusion Number T h r e e . The existing structure of coordination and planning of public higher education contains operational features, i.e., the method of communi­ cating funding needs by institutions to the state and the role and posture of the executive office, which were found to be unsatisfactory by the majority of respondents in the survey population. Conclusion Number F o u r . The majority of policy makers in the survey population viewed the existing struc­ ture of coordination and planning of public higher educa­ tion as the appropriate structure for Michigan and would 197 not support the establishment of a single statewide body for coordination and planning. Recommendations On the basis of the consistent and almost complete agreement expressed by the policy makers in the survey population on these issues, the following recommendations are m a d e : Recommendation Number O n e . That research be con­ ducted involving the three groups of policy makers repre­ sented in the survey population to identify and address the specific problems associated with the present method of articulating institutional requests for funding support to state government; Recommendation Number T w o . That the Executive Office of state government examine and evaluate its role with regard to the initiation and setting of public policy concerning higher education in Michigan. Further, that the Executive Office accord particular attention to the areas of long-range planning and capital outlay issues affecting public higher education; Recommendation Number T h r e e . That the public colleges and universities examine and evaluate their cur­ rent approach and practices relating to inter-institutional competition to acquire state funding support for their respective programs, operational needs and institutional objectives. APPENDICES 198 APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE RECIPIENTS 199 PUBLIC FOUR-YEAR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES Central Michigan University Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858 Dr. John Cantelon, Provost Mr. J. Ronald Tubbs, Vice President for Business . Eastern Michigan University Ypsilanti, MI 48197 Dr. James Magee, Vice President of Academic Affairs Mr. Robert Romkema, Vice President for Business and Finance Ferris State College Big Rapids, MI 49307 Dr. James Farrell, Vice President of Academic Affairs Mr. George Hartford, Vice President of Business Operations Grand Valley State Colleges Allendale, MI 49401 Mr. Glenn Niemeyer, Vice President for Academic Affairs Mr. Ronald Vansteeland, Vice President for Administration Lake Superior State College Sault Ste. Marie, MI 49783 Dr. Kenneth F. Light, Vice President of Academic Affairs Mr. Lyle Shaw, Vice President for Business Affairs Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 Dr. Lawrence Boger, Provost Mr. Jack Breslin, Executive Vice President 200 201 Michigan Technological University Houghton, MI 49931 Mr. Joseph Romig, Vice President of Academic Affairs Mr. Edward Koepel, General Manager of Operations Northern Michigan University Marquette, MI 49 855 Dr. Robert Glenn, Provost Mr. Leo Van Tassel, Vice President of Business and Finance Oakland University Rochester, MI 4806 3 Dr. Frederick Obear, Vice President of Academic AffairsProvost Mr. Robert Swanson, Vice President of Business Affairs Saginaw Valley State College University Center, MI 48710 Dr. Curtis McCray, Vice President for Academic Affairs Dr. Russell Driver, Vice President for Business Affairs University of Michigan— Ann Arbor Campus Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Dr. Frank Rhodes, Vice President of Academic Affairs Dr. James Brinkerhoff, Vice President for Financial Affairs University of Michigan— Dearborn Campus Dearborn, MI 4812 8 Dr. Eugene Arden, Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs Mr. Richard Schwartz, Vice Chancellor, Business University of Michigan— Flint Campus Flint, MI 48503 Dr. Wesley D. Rae, Dean of College Arts and Sciences Dr. Arnold Melnick, Dean of Administration 202 Wayne State University Detroit, Mi 48202 Dr. Diether Haenicke, Provost Mr. Edward Cushman, Executive Vice President W e stern Michigan University Kalamazoo, MI 49008 Dr. Stephen Mitchell, Vice President for Academic Affairs Mr. Robert W e t n i g h t , Vice President for Finance 203 STATE AGENCIES Michigan Department of Education Lansing, MI 48902 Dr. Robert L. Huxol, Associate Superintendent for Higher Education Dr. James F. Weber, Director, Higher Education Management Services Executive Office Lansing, MI 48909 Dr. James L. Phelps, Special Assistant to the Governor for Higher Education Dr. Fred Whims, Section Chief, Educational Section, Bureau of the Budget Dr. Gerald H. Miller, Director, Department of Management and Budget Fiscal Agencies Lansing, MI 48902 Dr. David E. Murphy, Assistant Director, Senate Fiscal Agency Mr. Vincent Carillot, Assistant Director, House Fiscal Agency Legislature— Senate Lansing, MI 48909 Senator Jerome T. Hart, Chairman, Committee on Appro­ priations Senator Charles 0. Zollar, Senior Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations Senator Gary G. Corbin, Chairman, Committee on Colleges and Universities Senator Bill S. Huffman, Chairman, Committee on Higher Education 204 Legislature— House of Representatives Lansing, MI 48909 Representative Dominic Jacobetti, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations Representative Raymond Kehees, Majority Vice Chairman, Committee on Appropriations Representative Melvin DeStigter, Committee on Appropria­ tions Representative Gary M. Owen, Committee on Appropriations 205 ASSOCIATIONS Michigan Council of Graduate Deans Dr. Philip J o h n s o n , Chairman Michigan Council of State College Presidents Lansing, MI 48933 Mr. Richard Miller, Executive Director Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Michigan Lansing, MI 48902 Dr. John Gaffney, Executive Director Michigan Education Association East Lansing, MI Mr. William Owen, Consultant Association of American College and University Professors Lansing, MI 48902 Dr. Alan Jones, Executive Secretary APPENDIX B SURVEY INSTRUMENT 206 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Which issue of the following issues confronting publich higher education in Michigan do yo u feel is the most critical for the next? Three Two Years Five to Five Ten Years to Years Declining Enrollments Level of State Funding Support Academic Program Change and Expansion Capital Equipment and Facilities Information Gathering, Proces­ sing, Reporting, and Storage Increased State Centralization Quality of Instruction, and Service Research Public Accountability Other 2. Public Hi g h e r Education in Michigan serves many p u r poses— liberal education, graduate-professional education, technical training, research, and public service. Which one of these purposes, if any, do y o u feel has been neglected since 1970? 3. Do you think that each public baccalaureate institution in Michigan should serve each of the Yes 4. previously stated purposes? No Should advanced graduate and professional programs, _______ be concentrated in three or four universities, _______ or be spread more widely? 207 208 5. Are you generally satisfied with the manner in which the needs of higher education are articulated to state government? Yes No 6. Would you prefer more or _____ less coordination of institu­ tional requests to state government agencies? 7. Do you refer to or use the current State Plan for Higher Education developed by the Michigan Department of Education in your present position? ___ Yes No Not Aware of Plan. 8. Would you favor closer adherence to such a statewide plan for both state agencies and public colleges and universities? Yes 9. __ _ No Are you generally satisfied with the present division of responsibilities between the state government and the public colleges and universities? Yes No 10. How do you feel about the amount of control the Legislature has over higher education at the present time? Too Little About Right ___ Too Much Why?________________________________________________________________ 11. Regarding legislative action in the following activities, please indicate how you feel state control should be changed, if at all, for each activity. Increase No Change Decrease Budget Review Admission Standards Curriculum __________________________________ New Buildings and Facilities Construction Appointments to Governing Boards 209 12. Do you feel that the Legislature is able, with its current staff and resources, to do a proper job of overseeing public higher education in Michigan? Yes No If no, what changes would you suggest? _________________________________________________ 13. Are you generally satisfied with the posture assumed by the executive branch of state government and the direction it provides concerning higher education issues? ___ Yes No. If no, what recommendations would you make regarding the executive branch? 14. Do you feel that instructional facilities at public four-year institutions are being used economically and efficiently? Yes ___ No. If no, which of the following potential actions would you support to increase efficiency? {Indicate more than one if you desire) Extend Building Hours Increase Class Size Consolidate Program Offerings Close Low Demand Buildings Prioritize Programs According to Resource Generation Then Reallocate Space Other 15. In your view, has competition among state colleges and uni­ versities for tax dollars and programs affected state government support of Michigan higher education? ____ Yes No. If yes, please indicate how support is affected. 16. In terms of financing public higher education in Michigan, where, in your view, does the greatest need for additional funding lie with respect to the following (Check only one) ___ Student Access/Financial Aid Research (Applied and theoretical) Faculty Salaries Physical Plant Needs and Construction Instructional Equipment and Devices Other 210 17. Regarding salaries at Michigan's Public colleges and univers­ ities, please indicate your feeling in reference to the following? Administrative Salaries Faculty Salaries Too High Adequate Too Low 18. Do yo u think that students should pay a larger share of the costs of higher education than they are presently paying? ____ No . Yes 19. If no, why? Do you think the present geographic location of the state univities and colleges is effecting in meeting present needs? Yes ___ No, Future needs? ___ Yes No 20. Do you see the urban university playing an increased role in the future? ___ Yes No. Why? 21. Do yo u feel that the state's needs for professional training are being met in the following areas: Yes No Law Human Medicine Dentistry Veterinary Medicine 211 22. Do you think the federal government has a special responsibility ___ Yes ___ No in regard to professional training? 23. Federal aid now comes in many forms to both the state and to the institutions of higher education. Should federal aid to the different state colleges and universities be channelled through some central state agency? Yes No Why? ______________________________________________________________ 24. In your judgment, does federal money to state institutions and programs make it possible for the colleges and universities to do things they otherwise would not do? Yes ___ No Or does federal money simply ease the burden of the state? Yes No 25. Private colleges and universities are accounted for in state level planning of higher education needs. The private institu­ tions are financially hard pressed. Do you support the state doing something about the situation? ___ Yes No 26. If the state were to provide financial assistance to the private institutions, should it have control over appointments to the governing boards? ___ Yes No. What about control over budget and audit? ___ Yes No. 27. In your estimation, how does higher education in Michigan com­ pare with other states with regard to the following statements? Accurate Not Accurate Favorably Unfavorably Michigan Can't Keep up with Other States Is of Little or No Concern Causes Undue Costs Increases Cannot Be Controlled 212 28. Does the control pattern established by the 1963 State of Michigan Constitution and as interpreted by the three branches of state government adequately recognize the individual char­ acter of each of the four-year institutions as each pursues its established functions and goals? _____ Yes, Definitely Yes, To a Limited Extent _____ No 29. Would you support the establishment of a coordinating body for higher education which would control overall planning and state­ wide policies (centralized policy control) while leaving local policies and executive decision making to the local institutions (decentralized operations)? _____ Yes, Definitely _____ Yes, To a Limited Extent No 30. As a result of institutional autonomy, do you feel that the PROCESS of long-range planning has been impaired? Yes, Definitely Yes, To a Limited Extent No 31. The establishment of standards for use in evaluating an insti­ tution's resource allocation and utilization should be done in Michigan by: _____ The Legislature _____ The Legislature, with Recommendations from a Coordinating Body _____ A Coordinating Body _____ A Coordinating Body with Input from the Institutions The Individual Institution, which Establishes Its Own Internal Standards 213 32. The actual evaluation of an institution's resource utilization should be done by: _____ The Legislature _____ The Legislature, with Recommendations from a Coordinating Body _____ A Coordinating Body A Coordinating Body, with Input from the Institutions The Institution's Own Administrations Which Establish Their Own Internal Standards and Review Procedures 33. With respect to the determination of administrative and faculty salaries, which of the following statements would you support as being the proper role of a coordinating body? _____ Has No Policy. Institution This Function is Left to the Individual _____ Sets General Salary Levels, While the Determination of Specific Salaries is Left to the Institution _____ Approves Specific Salaries, Upon Recommendation by the Institution _____ Sets the Specific Salaries of Individuals 34. Concerning capital expenditures and construction, please indi­ cate if you are in agreement with the following statements regarding the role of a statewide coordinating body in Michigan: Yes No Approves the Selection of Architects for the Planning and Construction Supervision of Buildings Approves the Planning for and Construction of Buildings Administers Capital Expenditures for Buildings Administers Capital Expenditures for Major Equipment Administers Capital Expenditures for Minor Equipment 214 35. Concerning academic affairs, please agreement with the of coordinating body Yes a statewide following indicate statements in if y o u regarding are the in role Michigan? No Formulates Policies with Respect to Formulates Policies with Respect to Tuition, Respect to and Financial Policies Levels Retention with and Tenure of Fees, Policies for Scholastic Granting of Formulates Policies with Respect Recruitment and Selection Establishes Admissions Aid Formulates for Student to Degrees Student Selection, Promotion, and Faculty Establishes Personnel Controls for Non-Academic Personnel Approves Academic Programs, Including Specific Courses Develops Policy Emphasize Research State and Establishes to the Rate the Policies of Growth of Establishes Policies the Growth Rate of Branch Assists Campus or and Federal of Even Suggests Topics Pertaining to the an Institution o r Pertaining to the any Subdivision, a in the Selection Leadership for State Which Interests Growth Campus Growth Such and as and to a Department of Academic Colleges and and Administrative Universities. APPENDIX C SURVEY COVER LETTERS AND FOLLOW-UP LETTER 215 March 25, 1977 The enclosed survey questionnaire is part of a doctoral dissertation study examining statewide coordination and planning issues in Michigan. Your confidential coopera­ tion and assistance is vital to the research. All responses will remain confidential, with findings being reported by aggregate groups only. The research project was reviewed and approved by the Executive Vice President of Michigan State University and by the Researcher's Guidance Committee. Confirmation of legitimacy and confidentiality will be given by the Guidance Committee chairman, Dr. R. L. Featherstone, (517-353-1746). I am requesting that you complete the questionnaire and return it in the enclosed, self-addressed and stamped envelope by April 15, 1977. A summary of findings and conclusions will be provided to you at your request. I am available to meet and discuss with you, at your con­ venience, any questions you may have regarding the survey and your participation in it. You may contact me through Dr. Featherstone's telephone number and address listed above. Again, I would stress that individual responses will not be reported in the study and urge your confidential participation. Thank you for your interest and time in helping to make the research successful. Sincerely, Thomas E. Johnston E n c . (2) 216 217 March 25, 1977 The enclosed survey questionnaire is part of a doctoral dissertation study examining statewide coordination and planning issues in Michigan. Your confidential coopera­ tion and assistance is vital to the research. All responses will remain confidential, with findings being reported by aggregate groups o n l y . The research project was reviewed and approved by the Executive Vice President of Michigan State University and by the Researcher's Guidance Committee. Confirmation of legitimacy and confidentiality will be given by the Guidance Committee chairman, Dr. R. L. Featherstone, (517-353-1746). I am requesting that you complete the questionnaire and return it in the enclosed, self-addressed and stamped envelope by April 15, 1977. A summary of findings and conclusions will be provided to you at your request. Again, I would stress that individual responses will not be reported in the study and urge your confidential participation. Thank you for your interest and time in helping to make the research successful. Sincerely, Thomas E. Johnston Enc. (2) 218 April 21, 1977 The enclosed survey questionnaire is a follow-up to one sent to you in late March. This second questionnaire is submitted to you because to d a t e , your response to the initial questionnaire has not been received. Again I urge your confidential participation and assistance in helping to make the research effort successful. The survey questionnaire is part of a doctoral disserta­ tion study examining statewide coordination and planning of higher education in Michigan. All responses will remain confidential, with findings being reported by aggre­ gate groups only. Your cooperation is vital to the research which is attempting to clarify and understand the respective views of policy-makers concerning the issues of coordination and planning of higher education in Michigan. The research project was reviewed and approved by the researcher's Guidance Committee. Confirmation of legiti­ macy and confidentiality will be given by the Guidance Committee chairperson, Dr. R. L. Featherstone, at 517-353-1746. I am again requesting that you complete the questionnaire and return it in the enclosed, self-addressed, stamped envelope at your earliest convenience. A summary of find­ ings and conclusions will be provided to you when the study is completed. I am available to meet and discuss with you, at your con­ venience, any questions you may have regarding the survey and your participation in it. You may contact me through Dr. Featherstone's telephone number and address listed above. Again, I would stress that individual responses will not be reported in the study and urge your confidential par­ ticipation. Thank you for your interest and time in helping to make the research successful. S i n c e rely, Thomas E. Johnston Enc. (2) BIBLIOGRAPHY 219 BIBLIOGRAPHY American Association of State Colleges and Universities. Coordination and Governance of Higher Education. Washington, D.C., 1971. American Council on Education. Universal Higher Education; Costs and Benefits. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1971. "American Higher Education: Toward an Uncertain Future, Volume I." DAEDALUS 103:4 {Fall 1974). "American Higher Education: Toward an Uncertain Future, Volume II." DAEDALUS 104:1 (Winter 1975). Ashby, Eric. Adapting Universities to a Technological Society. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, Inc., 1974. Baldridge, J. Victor. Academic Governance. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1971. Baldridge, J. Victor. Models of University Governance: Bureaucratic, Collegial, and Political (Research and Development Memorandum Number 77). Stanford: Stanford Center for Research and Development in Teaching, 1971. Beneyet, Louis T. Private Higher Education and Public Funding (ERIC/Higher Education Research Report Number 5, 1976). Washington, D.C.: American Asso­ ciation for Higher Education, 1976. Berdahl, Robert 0. Statewide Coordination of Higher Educa­ tion. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1971. Brubacher, John S., and Rudy, Willis. Higher Education in Transition. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1976. Brumbaugh, A. J. Statewide Planning and Coordination of Higher Education. Atlanta, Ga.: Southern Regional Education Board, 1963. 220 221 Budig, Gene A., and Rives, Stanley G. Academic Quicksand; Some Trends and Issues in Higher E d u c a t i o n . Lincoln, Nebraska: Professional Educators Publi­ cations, Inc., 1973. Building for the Future of Postsecondary Education in M i c h i g a n . Report of the Governor's Commission on Higher Education. Lansing, Mi., 1974. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. Governance of Higher Educa t i o n . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 19 73. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. The Capitol and the Campus: State Responsibility for Postsecondary E d u c ation. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971. Chambers, M. M. Voluntary Statewide Coordination in Higher Education. Ann Arbor: University of gan Press, 1961. Public Michi­ Clark, Burton R . , and Youn, Ted I. K. Academic Power in The United States (ERIC/Higher Education Research Report Number 3, 1976). Washington, D . C . : A m e r i ­ can Association for Higher Education, 19 76. Conrad, Clifton, and Cosand, Joseph. The Implications of Federal Education Policy (ERIC/Higher Education Research Report Number 1, 1976). Washington, D.C. : American Association for Higher Education, 1976. Cooper, William Mansfield; Davis, William G . , Parent, Alphonse-Marie; and McConnell, Thomas R. Govern­ ments and the University. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1966. Corson, John J. The Governance of Colleges and Univers­ ities . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975. Cremin, Lawrence A. The Genius of American E d u c a t i o n . New York: Vintage Books, 1965. Dressel, Paul L. Handbook of Academic E v a l u a t i o n . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, I n c . , 1976. Dressel, Paul L . , and Faricy, William H. Return to Responsibility. Washington, D . C . : American Council of Education, 1971. Dressel, Paul L . , and Pratt, Sally B. The World of Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, I n c . , Publishers, 19 71. 222 Dressel, Paul L . ; Johnson, F. Craig; and Marcus, Philip M. The Confidence C r i s i s . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 1976. Education Commission of the States. Coordination or Chaos? Report of the Task Force on Coordination, Governance and Structure of Postsecondary Educa­ tion. Denver: E.C.S., 1973. Epstein, Leon D. Governing the Univer s i t y . San Fran­ cisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers, 1974. Epstein, Leon D. "State Authority and State Universities." DAEDALVS 99:3 (Summer 1970): 700-712. Eulau, Heiny, and Quinley, Harold. State Officials and Higher Education: A Survey of the Opinions and Expectations of Policy Makers in Nine States (Carnegie Commission on Higher Educat i o n ) . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970. Fuller, Bruce. "A Framework for Academic Planning." The Journal of Higher Education 47:1 (January/ February, 1976): 65-77. Getzels, J. W . , and Guba, E. G. Administrative Process." (Winter 1957): 423-441. "Social Behavior and the The School Review 45:4 Glaser, Barney G . , and Strauss, Anselm L. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1967. Glenny, Lyman A. Autonomy of Public C o l l e g e s : The Challenge of Coordination. New York: McGrawHill Book Co., 1959. Glenny, Lyman A. "In Institutional Autonomy for Whom?" In The Troubled Campus: Current Issues in Higher E d u c a t i o n , 1970, pp. 153-160. Edited by G. Kerry Smith. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 19 70. Glenny, Lyman A. "The '60's in Reverse." Reporter 8:3 (1973): 1-4. The Research Glenny, Lyman A., and Weathersby, George B., eds. State­ wide Planning for Postsecondary Education: Issues and Design. Boulder, Colorado: NCHEMS at WICHE, 1971. 223 Glenny, Lyman A.; Berdahl, Robert O . ; Palola, Ernest G. ; and Paltridge, James G. Coordinating Higher Edu­ cation for the '70's. Berkeley: CRDHE University of California, 1971. Glenny, Lyman A.; Shea, John R. ; R u y l e , Janet H.; and Freschi, Kathryn H. Presidents Confront R e a l i t y . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 1976. Goltz, H. A. Barney. "The State Legislature and the C a m ­ pus Community." Planning for Higher Education 5 (February 1976). Goodall, Leonard E. "Emerging Political Issues for State Coordinating B o a r d s ." Journal of Higher Education 45:3 (March 1974): 219-228. Goodall, Leonard E . , ed. State Politics and Higher E d u ­ c a t i o n . Dearborn, Mi.: LMG Associates, 1976. Halstead, D. Kent. Statewide Planning in Higher E d u c a t i o n . Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1974. Harcleroad, Fred F. Institutional Efficiency in State Systems of Public Higher E d u c a t i o n . Washington, D . C . : American Association of State Colleges and Universities, 1975. Harcleroad, Fred F., and Dickey, Frank G. Educational Auditing and Voluntary Institutional Accrediting (ERIC/Higher Education Research Report Number 1, 1975). Washington, D . C . : American Associat i o n for Higher Education, 1975. Heckinger, Fred M. "Self-Doubt in American Higher E d u c a ­ tion." Phi Delta Kappa 58:1 (September 1976): 48-52. Henderson, Algo D . , and Henderson, Jean Glidden. Higher Education in A m e r i c a . San Francisco: JosseyBass Publishers, Inc., 1974. Henry, David D. C hallenges Past, Challenges P r e s e n t . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., P u b l i s h e r s , 1975. 224 Hook, Sidney; Kurtz, Paul? and Todorovich, Miro, eds. The Idea of a Modern University. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1974. Iannaccone, Laurence. "Interdisciplinary Theory Guilded Research in Educational Administration: A Smoggy View From the Valley." Teachers College Record 75:1 (September 1973): 55-66. Jamrich, John X. "Cooperation, Coordination, and Control in Higher Education." In Encyclopedia of Educa­ tional Research (Fourth edition). Edited by Robert L. Ebel. New York: Macmillan, 1969. Jellema, William W . , ed. Efficient College Management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, Inc., 1973. Jenny, Hans H. H igher Education and the Economy (ERIC/ Higher Education Research Report Number 2, 1976). Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education, 1976. Johnson, Elizabeth H. "Role of Statewide Boards in Pro­ gram Review." In Learner Centered Reform, pp. 37-50. Edited by Dyckman W. Vermilye. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, Inc., 1975. Karl, Barry D. "Philanthropy, Policy Planning, and the Bureaucratization of the Democratic Ideal." DAEDALUS 105:4 (Fall 1976): 129-149. Kemerer, Frank R . , and Baldridge, J. Victor. Unions on Campus. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, Inc. Keer, Clark. The Uses of the University with a Post­ script— 1972. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni­ versity Press, 1972. Lee, Eugene C., and Bowen, Frank M. The Multicampus University (Carnegie Commission on Higher Education). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971. Leslie, David W. Conflict and Collective Bargaining. ERIC/Higher Education Research Report Number 9, 1975). Washington, D . C . : American Association for Higher Education, 1975. 225 Martorana, S. V. , and Hollis, Ernest V. State Boards Responsible for Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1960. Mayhew, Lewis B. The Carnegie Commission on Higher Educa­ tion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, Inc., 1973. Michigan. Constitution. Art. VIII, Education, 1963. Michigan, Department of Education. Higher Education Management Services, HEGIS Records for 1975-1976 and 1976-1977. Michigan, Department of Education. Internal Communication. Michigan State of the State Messages. 1977, p. 37. 1976, p. 36 and Millard, Richard M. "Changing Patterns of Statewide Coordination." Paper prepared for ACT's Seminar for Administrators of Statewide Boards and Commis­ sions of Higher Education in Vail, Colorado, June 24-25, 1974. Millard, Richard M. State Boards of Higher Education (ERIC/Higher Education Research Report Number 4, 1976). Washington, C . C . : American Association ofr Higher Education, 1976. Millett, John D. "College and University Administration," Encyclopedia of Educational Research (Fourth Edition). Robert L. Ebel, Editor. New York: MacMillan, 1969. Millett, John E. The Budget Formula As the Basis for State Appropriations in Support of Higher Educa­ t ion. New York: Management Division, Academy for Educational Development, Inc., 1974. Moos, Malcolm, and Rourke, Francis E. The Campus and the State. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1959. Morphet, Edgar L . , and Ryan, Charles O . , eds. Planning and Effecting Needed Changes in Education. New York: Citation Press, 1967. Morton, Ben L. "Perspective From a State Coordinator of Higher Education." Educational Record 51:3 (1970): 296-300. 226 National Center for Higher Education Management Systems at W I C H E . Academic Unit Planning and Management (Technical Report 75). Boulder, Colorado: NCHEMS, 1976. Nowlan, James Dunlap. The Politics of Higher Education: Lawmakers and the Academy m Illinois. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1976. Palola, Ernest. "A Challenge for Statewide Planners." The Research Reporter 5:2 (1970): 1-7. Palola, E. G . ; Lehman, T . ; and Blischke, W. R. Higher Education by Design: The Sociology of P l a n n i n g . Berkeley: Center for Research and Development in Higher Education, University of California, 1970. Paltridge, James Gilbert. Conflicts and Coordination in Higher Education: The Wisconsin Experience! Berkeley: Center for Research and Development in Higher Education, University of California, 196 8. Paltridge, James Gilbert. "Toward a Systems Model for State Coordination." Educational Record 50:1 (1969): 71-77. Parsons, Talcott, and Platt, Gerald M. The American Uni­ v e r s i t y . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973. Perkins, James A . , ed. Higher Education: From Autonomy to Systems. New York: International Council for Education Development, 1972. Richardson, Richard C. Jr. "Governance Theory: A Com­ parison of Approaches." Journal of Higher Educa­ tion 45:5 (May 1974): 344-354. Richman, Barry M . , and Farmer, Richard N. Leadership, Goals and Power in Higher E d u c a t i o n . San Fran­ cisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, Inc., 1974. Report of the Governor's Commission on Higher Education, Building for the Future of Postsecondary Education in Michigan (Lansing, Michigan, 1974), p. 3. Ross, Murray G. The Univer s i t y . Book Company, 1976. New York: McGraw-Hill Rudolph, Frederick. The American College and University: A H i s t o r y . New York: Vintage Books, 1962. 227 Russell, John Dale. Control, and Coordination of Higher Education in Michigan (Staff Study Number 12). Lansing: Michigan Legislative Study on Higher Education, 195 8. Shils, Edward, ed. and Trans. Max Weber on U n i v e r s i t i e s . Chicago: The University o£ Chicago Press, 1974. Shulman, Carol Herrnstadt. Enrollment Trends in Higher Education (ERIC/Higher Education Research Report Number 6, 1976). Washington, D . C . : American Association for Higher Education, 1976. Silvestri, Marco J. "Towards a Redefinition of Institu­ tional Autonomy for Public Colleges and Univ e r s ­ ities." Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 19 74. Stark, Joan S . , ed. Promoting Consumer Protection for S t u d e n t s . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass I n c . , Publishers, 1976. Summary Findings and R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s . G o v e r n o r 1s E f f i ­ ciency Task Force Report. Lansing, 1976. "The Budget Cycle as a Basis for Decision Making in Higher E d u c a t i o n . " Planning for Higher Education 4:5 (October 1975) . "The Embattled University." Trivett, DAEDALUS 99:1 (Winter 1970). David A. Goals for Higher Education: Definitions and Directions (ERIC/Higher Education Research Report Number 6, 1973). Washington, D . C . : A m e r i ­ can Association for Higher Education, 197 3. Trivett, David A. "Postsecondary Education: The Ne w Meaning." ERIC Higher Education Research C u r r e n t s . Washington, D . C . : American Association for Higher Education, 1973. University of Michigan, et a l . , V. State of Michigan and State Board of Education, 47 Mich. App. 43; 20 8 N W 2d 871 (1973). Vaccaro, Louis C. Notes From a College P r e s i d e n t . Beacon Hill Press, 1975. Boston: 228 Vaccaro, Louis C. Notes from a College President. Beacon Hill Press, 1975. Wolff, Robert Paul. The Ideal of the University. Beacon Press, 1973. Boston: Boston: Yarmolinsky, Adam. "Challenges to Legitimacy: Dilemmas and Directions." Change 8:3 (April 1976): 18-25.