INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. 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 material
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or notations 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 through an image and duplicating
adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an
indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of
movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete
copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­
graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning”
the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer
o f a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with
small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning
below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by
xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and
tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our
Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we
have filmed the best available copy.

University
Micrdrilms
International
3 0 0 N. Z E E B R O A D , A N N A R B O R , Ml 4 8 1 0 6
18 B E D F O R D R O W , L O N D O N WC1 R 4 E J , E N G L A N D

8 001532
G A N N O N * P H I L I P J E ROME
A N A L Y S I S OF O P I N I O N S U F V U T E R S AND KE Y
E D U C A T I O N A L L E A D E R S T O WA R D G O V E R N A N C E OF
P O S T —S F . C O N D A R Y E D U C A T I O N I N M I C H I G A N .
C V O L U M E S I AND I I )
MICHIGAN

STATE

UNIVERSITY,

COP f t • 1 9 7 9 G A N N U N ,
U niversity
M icrofilm s
Internationa)
300 n . z e e b r o a d , a n n

©

PHILIP

PH ILIP

a r b o r , mi

PH .D .,

JEROME

48106

1979

JEROME GANNON

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

1*79

ANALYSIS OF OPINIONS OF VOTERS AND KEY
EDUCATIONAL LEADERS TOWARD GOVERNANCE
OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
IN MICHIGAN
VOLUME I
By
P h i l i p J . Gannon

A DISSERTATION
Submitted t o
Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n ts
f o r t h e de gre e o f
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department o f A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and
Higher Education
1979

ABSTRACT
ANALYSIS OF OPINIONS OF VOTERS AND KEY
EDUCATIONAL LEADERS TOWARD GOVERNANCE
OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
IN MICHIGAN
By
Phi l i p J . Gannon

T h is stu dy f o c u s e s upon t h e f o l lo w in g problem a r e a s empha­
s i z e d i n t h e 1974 r e p o r t o f t h e G o v e rn or's Commission on Higher
E d uca tio n :
I.

The d e g re e t o which key i n d i v i d u a l s in Michigan h i g h e r

e d u c a t i o n d i f f e r o r a g re e about M ic h ig a n 's h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n r e g a r d 1n g :
A.

C e n t r a l i z a t i o n v s . D e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n — S ta te w id e
V o l u n t a r y , A d v iso ry , and R e g u la to r y Boards

B.

Governance

C.

S t a te w i d e Plannin g

D.

I n s t i t u t i o n a l Autonomy

E.

Boards o f T r u s t e e s — S a t i s f a c t i o n , S e l e c t i o n , and Siz e

F.

P o s t-S ec o n d a ry E duca tion vs. Higher Educa tion

G.

F u tu r e and P r e s e n t C o nd ition s o f Po st-S ec on d a ry
E ducation

H.

R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f a S ta te w i d e Board o f Higher
Education

I.

P u b l i c Community C o l l e g e s ;

P h ilip J.

II.

Gannon

The d e g re e t o which demographic and psyc hograp hic

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( p o s i t i o n , ty p e o f i n s t i t u t i o n , o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r
bargaining purposes, experience in higher education) are s i g n i f ­
i c a n t v a r i a b l e s a s s o c i a t e d with o p i n io n s c o ncern ing i s s u e s i n t h e
r e p o r t o f t h e G o v e r n o r 's Commission on Higher E d u ca tion ;
III.

The degre e o f d i f f e r e n c e t h a t r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s '

o p i n i o n s d i s p l a y toward s e l e c t e d i m p o r t a n t i s s u e s o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y
education.
The s t u d y used mail and te l e p h o n e surv eys developed from an
a n a l y s i s o f t h e com m ission's m in u t e s , p a p e r s , and f i n a l r e p o r t .
mail su r v e y i n c l u d e d key e d u c a t i o n a l o f f i c i a l s :

The

gove rning board

ch airmen, board members, c h i e f f a c u l t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , and p r e s i ­
d e n t s o f Michigan p r i v a t e and p u b l i c h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s .
Four hundred s i x t y - t w o q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were r e t u r n e d , a r e t u r n r a t e
of six ty -n in e percent.

The t e l e p h o n e survey used a system t h a t

all owed f o r n i n e t y - t w o p e r c e n t o f Michigan households with t e l e ­
phones t o be c o n t a c t e d ; a n i n e t y - s i x p e r c e n t completion r a t e was
achieved.
The f i n d i n g s o f t h e s tu d y a r e :
There was g e n e r a l c o n cu rren c e with t h e recommendations o f
t h e G o v e r n o r 's Commission f o r an a d v i s o r y appro ach.

Institutional

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s i n d i c a t e d a r e g u l a t o r y approach would not meet t h e
needs o f t h e f u t u r e .

They f a v o r e d a v o l u n t a r y and a d v i s o r y approach

under a s e p a r a t e s t a t e w i d e a d v i s o r y board f o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n ,
whose r o l e would be t o d i s s e m i n a t e i n f o r m a t i o n and s e r v e as t h e
f o c a l p o i n t f o r i s s u e r e s o l u t i o n and l o n g - r a n g e p l a n n i n g .

They

P h ilip J.

Gannon

f av o re d l i m i t i n g t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f th e p r e s e n t S t a t e Board o f
Education t o prim ary and se cond ary e d u c a ti o n .
R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f both p r i v a t e and p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s
responded t h a t t h e y want t o be in vo lv ed in planning f o r p o s t ­
seconda ry e d u c a t i o n and d e v elo ping a new S t a t e Board o f Higher
E d u ca tio n .

They a g re e d t h a t community c o l l e g e s now d i r e c t e d by

K-12 systems should form new d i s t r i c t s w i t h s e p a r a t e boards o f
c o n t r o l , and t h a t community c o l l e g e s should be an i n t e g r a t e d p a r t
o f t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f a new S t a t e Board o f Higher E du ca tio n .
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s c o n s i d e r t h e independence of
boards o f c o n t r o l o f c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s a key f a c t o r in t h e
q u a l i t y o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n in Michigan.

A m a j o r i t y f e l t t h a t mem­

b e rs o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l boards should be e l e c t e d on a n o n - p a r t i s a n
b a s i s ; c l o s e t o a m a j o r i t y approved appointment by t h e Governor
with a d v i c e and c o n s e n t o f t h e S e n a te ; l e s s than f i v e p e r c e n t
f a v o r e d a p a r t i s a n e l e c t i o n ; they a gre ed t h a t f a c u l t y and s t u d e n t s
should n o t s e r v e on t h e i r own boards o f c o n t r o l .

Voters p r e f e r r e d a

n o n - p a r t i s a n e l e c t i o n , w ith a p a r t i s a n vo te as second c h o i c e , and
g u b e r n a t o r i a l appoin tm ent t h i r d .
With r e g a r d t o f u t u r e c o n d i t i o n s o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y
e d u c a t i o n , i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s f e l t t h a t e n r o l l m e n t would
d e c r e a s e o r s t a b i l i z e ; v o t e r s , t h a t i t would i n c r e a s e .

Voters f e l t

t h e q u a l i t y o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n would remain t h e same o r improve.

A

m a j o r i t y o f t h e v o t e r s f e l t s t u d e n t s a r e being well p r e p a r e d f o r t h e
j o b m ark e t; f o r t y - f i v e p e r c e n t o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s
voiced c o n ce rn .

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In my p r o f e s s i o n a l l i f e many people have extended unde r­
s t a n d i n g , h e l p , and s h a r e d t h e i r i n s i g h t and s k i l l s .

This same

kindness and p r o f e s s i o n a l h e lp was t r u e i n t h e development and
co mpletion o f t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n .
Thanks t o my w i f e and c h i l d r e n who were u n d e rs t a n d i n g when
weekend p la n s and v a c a t i o n s had t o be changed to a c h i e v e a g o a l.
T h e i r s u p p o r t was always c o n s t a n t .
Thanks t o an o f f i c e f o r c e t h a t has been w ith me many y e a r s
and undoubtedly a p p r e c i a t e s t h e completion o f t h i s t a s k more than I
do.
P r o f e s s i o n a l l y I owe a g r e a t deal to t h e chairman o f my
committee, Dr. James N e lso n , f o r n o t l o s i n g f a i t h i n a r a t h e r
e l d e r l y g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t and t o Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y and t h e
land g r a n t p h i lo s o p h y .
A s p e c i a l th a n k s t o Dr. Vishwa Mishra f o r h i s i n s i g h t and
e x p e r t a d v ic e .

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Volume I
Chapter
I.

II.

III.

IV.

Page
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM.............................................................

1

I n t r o d u c t i o n ................................................................................
Need f o r t h e S t u d y ..................................................................
The P r o b l e m ................................................................................
D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms U s e d .....................................................
O r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e Remainder o f t h e D i s s e r t a t i o n .

1
2
8
10
14

REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH AND LITERATURE...................................5
I n t r o d u c t i o n .................................
Research on t h e Key I s s u e s ...............................................
S t a te w i d e Pla n n in g f o r Higher E ducation . . . .
The I s s u e s o f Governance in Michigan Higher
E d u c a t i o n ................................................................................

15
17
25

METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................

51

The Methods and P r o c e d u r e s ...............................................
H y p o t h e s e s .......................................................................................

52
61

ANALYSIS OF D A T A .........................................................................

68

I n t r o d u c t i o n ................................................................................
P r o f i l e o f t h e R e s p o n d e n t s ...............................................
I . C e n t r a l i z a t i o n vs. D e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n - S t a t e w i d e V o l u n t a r y , and R e gu la to ry Boards .
I I . G o v e r n a n c e ....................................................................
I I I . S t a t e w i d e P la n nin g ......................................................
IV. I n s t i t u t i o n a l Autonomy
..........................................
V. Board o f T r u s t e e s :
S atisfactio n,
S e l e c t i o n and S i z e .....................................................
VI. P o s t-S ec o n d a ry Edu cation vs. Higher
E d ucation
...................................................................
VII. F u t u r e and P r e s e n t C o n d i ti o n s of
P o s t -S e c o n d a ry E ducation ........................................
V I I I . R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f a New S t a t e Board o f
Higher E ducation
......................................................
IX. P u b l i c Community C o l le g e s
..................................
H ypothesis--Substantiation
...............................................

68
68

iii

33

70
74
76
79
86
106
109
124
128
132

Page

C h a p te r

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

.

.

.

.

151

.....................................................
Summary and Conclusions
Recommendations .........................................................................
Speculative R eflectio n s
.....................................................
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

................................................................................

151
176
182
186

Volume II
Appendix
A.

TABLES.....................................................................................

B.

QUESTIONNAIRE AND LETTER ATTACHMENTS

C.

LIST OF MICHIGAN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE COLLEGES
UNIVERSITIES THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE STUDY

iv

2

............................
AND
. . .

291
307

CHAPTER I
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Introduction
Worldwide, i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n a r e having
t h e i r r o l e s and f u n c t i o n s changed and, w ith t h i s change, t h e i r
d e g re e of autonomy i s d e c r e a s i n g .

R e g a r d le s s o f t h e t r a d i t i o n s

p e r t a i n i n g t o p r i v a t e and p u b l i c h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n i n each s t a t e o f
t h e Union, i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n a r e being c h a l l e n g e d as
t o t h e i r c o n t i n u i n g autonomy and t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to t h e s t a t e
and f e d e r a l governments.
Leaders in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n and in s t a t e and f e d e r a l
government a r e t a k i n g p o s i t i o n s in r e l a t i o n t o (1) governance,
(2) c e n t r a l i z a t i o n vs. d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n , (3) s t a t e w i d e p l a n n i n g ,
(4) i n s t i t u t i o n a l autonomy, (5) board o f t r u s t e e s :
s e l e c t i o n , and s i z e ,

satisfaction,

(6) p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n vs. h i g h e r

e d u c a t i o n , (7) g o a l s and p u r p o s e s , (8) r o l e d e f i n i t i o n , (9) f i n a n c e ,
and (10) e n r o l l m e n t .
The l i s t above c e n t e r s on t h e m ajor i s s u e s f a c i n g p o s t ­
secondary i n s t i t u t i o n s , s t a t e governments and t h e f e d e r a l go vern ­
ment, as t h e y s e p a r a t e l y and c o l l e c t i v e l y s t r i v e t o meet t h e i r com­
mitments t o t h e i r c o n s t i t u e n c i e s .
In Michigan, t h e t r a d i t i o n o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l autonomy has
been e x tr e m e l y s t r o n g and s u b s t a n t i a t e d th ro u g h a number o f c o u r t

2

c a s e s and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e c o g n i t i o n .

In r e c e n t y e a r s , t h e need f o r

some form o f c o o r d i n a t i o n and p l an nin g has been recog n ized by a l l
segments o f M i c h ig a n 's p u b l i c h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n and government.

A

number o f s t u d i e s have been completed and used t o implement change
in Michigan h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n .

In December o f 1972 t h e Honorable

Governor William G. M i l l i k e n e s t a b l i s h e d t h e G o v e r n o r 's Commission
on Higher E d u ca tio n , which completed i t s work and p r e s e n t e d i t s
r e p o r t in October o f 1974.

T his commission sought " t o f i n d a broad

consensus on needed reforms in p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a ti o n and b r i n g
ab o ut t h e i r i m p l e m e n t a t i o n ."

I t a l s o a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e r e i s a need

t o d e te r m i n e o p i n io n s and a t t i t u d e s o f s i g n i f i c a n t i n d i v i d u a l s and
groups toward t h i s r e p o r t .
Need f o r t h e Study
One o f t h e key i s s u e s f a c i n g Michigan h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n w i l l
be t h e p r o c e s s by which i n s t i t u t i o n s and t h e s t a t e w i l l view and
r e a c t t o t h e i s s u e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l autonomy and t h e need f o r s t a t e
p la n n in g and c o o r d i n a t i o n .

P r i o r t o t h e mid 5 0 ' s , n e i t h e r c o l l e g e s

and u n i v e r s i t i e s nor f e d e r a l and s t a t e governments i n v o lv e d them­
s e l v e s s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n s h o r t - and l o n g - r a n g e p l a n n i n g , n or did a
need m a n i f e s t i t s e l f f o r e x t e n s i v e c o o r d i n a t i o n and c o o p e r a t i o n
among l o c a l l y governed p u b l i c community c o l l e g e s .

The i n t e r f a c e

between t h e s e groups and among c o l l e g e s was amiab le and one o f
respect.

With t h e l a r g e i n f l u x o f s t u d e n t s d u r in g t h e l a t e 5 0 ' s and

e a r l y 6 0 ' s , h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n f o r c e d a r e a l l o c a t i o n o f funding
p r i o r i t i e s on f e d e r a l and s t a t e governments.

With i n c r e a s e d fund ing

came t h e r e q u e s t from t h e l e g i s l a t i v e and t h e e x e c u t i v e bran ches of
t h e s t a t e government f o r review and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y .
As Logan Wilson, P a s t P r e s i d e n t o f t h e American Council on
Education has p o i n te d o u t , " i n a s h o r t p e r i o d o f f i f t e e n y e a r s t h e
i s s u e o f r e l a t i v e autonomy o f c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s and t h e i r
freedom from u n i f i e d c o n t r o l and n a t i o n a l o r s t a t e c e n t r a l i z e d
c o n t r o l has moved from f a r down t h e agenda t o one o f t h e to p
p r i o r i t i e s in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n . 11^

A l s o , t h e d e c l i n e in t h e number

o f high school g r a d u a t e s and a l e v e l i n g o f f o f t a x e s pe o ple wish to
pay t h e s t a t e government have sharpene d c o m p e t i t i o n f o r funds as
well as i n c r e a s e d t h e p u b l i c ' s demand f o r a c c o u n t a b i l i t y .
Robe rt 0. B e rd ah l, i n S t a t e w i d e C o o r d i n a t i o n o f Higher
E d u c a t i o n , a l s o emphasized how f a r c e n t r a l i z a t i o n has moved in th e
United S t a t e s , n o t in g t h a t by 1969 o n ly two s t a t e s had no
p o l i t i c a l l y named c o o r d i n a t i n g a g e n c ie s and o n l y two c o n ti n u e d to
r e l y on v o l u n t a r y a s s o c i a t i o n s t o perform t h e c o o r d i n a t i n g f u n c t i o n .
John Gardner and Claude B i s s e l , quoted i n B e r d a h l ' s book, p o i n t o u t
r a t h e r c l e a r l y t h e i s s u e o f autonomy from t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f h i g h e r
education.
The i s s u e o f u n i v e r s i t y autonomy w i l l n e v er be f i n a l l y
solved.
I t can o n l y be l i v e d w i t h .
—John Gardner
Autonomy does n o t depend upon f i n a n c i a l in d ep en d ence,
f o r in t h e s e d a y s , no u n i v e r s i t y . . . i s f i n a n c i a l l y
^"Form and F un c tio n in American Higher E d u c a t i o n , " Emerging
P a t t e r n s i n American Higher E d u c a t i o n , ed. Logan Wilson (Washington,
D . C .: American Council on E d u c a ti o n , 1965), pp. 29-37.

4

i n d e p e n d e n t , nor does i t depend upon i s o l a t i o n from p o l i t i c s ,
which a t b e s t i s nervous and u n r e a l , f o r e very u n i v e r s i t y
t h e s e days must engage in c o n s t a n t c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h t h o s e
who have been e l e c t e d t o p u b l i c o f f i c e . Academic autonomy
r e a l l y depends on a broad s o c i a l assumption t h a t , d e s p i t e
t h e e x i g e n c i e s o f t h e moment, we must n o t make d e c i s i o n s on
inadequate in fo rm a tio n .2
—Claude B i s s e l
In 1973 William M i l l i k e n , Governor o f Michigan, in h i s
ch ar g e to h i s newly a p p o in te d Commission on High er E d u c a tio n , l i s t e d
s e v e r a l major c o n c e r n s .

The G o v e r n o r 's ch arg e t o t h e commission i s

b r i e f l y summarized below:
1.

I n s t i t u t i o n s o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n have f a l l e n from high
reg a rd to where o nly 33% o f t h e American pe o p le e x p re s s
high c o n f i d e n c e in e d u c a t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p a s compared
w i t h a f i g u r e o f 61% in 1966.

2.

Not too many y e a r s ago i n s t i t u t i o n s c o u ld r e q u e s t
r e s o u r c e s f o r c a p i t a l o u t l a y o r o p e r a t i o n from t h e
S t a t e and, a lt h o u g h many f e l t t h e y d i d n o t r e c e i v e a l l
th e y w ish e d , t h e r a t e was such t h a t i t p r o b a b l y could
be looked on as t h e golden age f o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n in
the h i s t o r y o f t h e United S t a t e s .
In t h e l a s t few
y e a r s i t seems t h a t i t has alm ost t o t a l l y r e v e r s e d .

3.

Because o f t h e d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n of many s t u d e n t s in t h e
l a t e 6 0 ' s and w ith t h e f i n a n c i a l c runch and changing
o f p r i o r i t i e s , h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n i s b e in g r e - e v a l u a t e d .
I t has t o be a c c o u n ta b le i n ways and forms i t n e ver had
before.

4.

The e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t e a c h i n g must a l s o be rev iew ed.

5.

The v a l i d i t y of t h e e x p re s s e d d e s i r e o f i n s t i t u t i o n s
f o r e x pansion i s q u e s t i o n e d .

6.

The need f o r measurement o f q u a l i t y i s t o be emphasized
and t h e v a l i d i t y o f more b u i l d i n g s , expanded programs,
and b i g g e r campuses i s q u e s t i o n e d . 3
2

Robert A. B e r d a h l , S ta te w i d e C o o r d i n a t i o n o f Higher Educa­
t i o n (Washington, D.C.: American Council on E d u c a ti o n , 1971),
preface, x i i i .
3
" G o v e r n o r 's Message and Charge o f t h e Commission on Higher
E d u c a t i o n , " J a n u a r y 24, 1973.

5

The Governor asked t h e Commission on Higher E ducation t o be
s e n s i t i v e to what he hoped would be some o f t h e a n t i c i p a t e d outcomes
and recommendations.

His r e q u e s t i s summarized below.

The Commis­

s i o n on Higher Edu cation should:
1.

Make recommendations r e g a r d i n g p l an n in g and c o o r d i n a ­
t i o n o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a ti o n and s tu d y t h e
f i n a n c i a l needs o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n .

2.

Look c a r e f u l l y a t t h e r o l e and f u n c t i o n o f h i g h e r
e d u c a t i o n i n Michigan.

3.

Devise a system f o r more e f f e c t i v e plan ning and
coordination.

4.

Look f o r a more e f f e c t i v e way f o r governance.

5.

Look f o r a bold new d e s ig n f o r t h e o r d e r i n g and d e l i v e r y o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n s e r v i c e in Michigan.
At t h e f e d e r a l l e v e l t h e Task Force on Higher E du ca tion ,

known as t h e Newman Commission, p o i n te d o u t t h e t r e n d toward
u n i f o r m i t y i n o u r i n s t i t u t i o n s , growing b u r e a u c r a c y , o v er-em phasis
on academic c r e d e n t i a l s , i s o l a t i o n o f s t u d e n t s from t h e world and
l a c k o f s e n s i t i v i t y t o c a r e e r involvement on t h e p a r t o f h i g h e r
education.

Like most s t a t e s in t h e Union which now have c e n t r a l l y

developed p lan n in g c o o r d i n a t i o n sy stem s, Michigan h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n
stands a t the crossroads.

M i c h ig a n 's c o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1962 appeared

t o g i v e t h e Department o f Educa tion t h e r o l e f o r c o o r d i n a t i o n and
planning.

This has been c o n t e s t e d in t h e c o u r t s and t h e autonomy o f

t h e i n d i v i d u a l c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s has been s u b s t a n t i a t e d .
Boards o f T r u s t e e s a r e t h e a c c o u n t a b l e group.

C o n se q ue n tly, t h e r e

i s no o f f i c e d e s i g n a t e d by law in Michigan t h a t can r e q u e s t
4Ib id .

6

c o o p e r a t i o n and c o o r d i n a t i o n o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n .

The e x e c u t i v e

and l e g i s l a t i v e o f f i c e s thro ugh a p p r o p r i a t i o n s and o t h e r approaches
do, however, impact p la n n in g and c o o r d i n a t i o n .
However, t h e a c t i o n u s u a l l y l a c k s a b a l a n c e d , l o n g - r a n g e
i m p a r t i a l a p pro a ch.

H i s t o r i c a l l y , Michigan has had a s t r o n g commit­

ment t o a l l segments o f p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n .

Over 80% o f s t u d e n t s in

p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n in Michigan a t t e n d p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s .

In

Ohio and many e a s t e r n s t a t e s t h e p r o p o r t i o n would be c l o s e r to 50%.
In i t s c o n s t i t u t i o n s and through c o u r t d e c i s i o n s , Michigan has
reemphasized many tim e s i t s r e s p e c t f o r autonomy o f l o c a l boards o f
e d u c a t i o n and p a r t i c u l a r l y u n i v e r s i t i e s and c o l l e g e s .

Time and time

a g a in when c l a s h e s have a r i s e n between i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h i g h e r
l e a r n i n g and t h e l e g i s l a t u r e o r G o v e r n o r 's o f f i c e , t h e c o u r t s have
r e a f f i r m e d t h e autonomy o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n and t h e r e s e r v e r i g h t s o f
t h e b oard s o f c o n t r o l .
As has tak e n p l a c e n a t i o n a l l y , Michigan has had a number o f
s t u d i e s completed r e g a r d i n g t h e q u e s t i o n o f c o o r d i n a t i o n and t h e
need f o r a s t a t e w i d e system.

With t h e e x c e p ti o n o f t h e G o v e r n o r 's

Commission on Higher E d u ca tio n , t h e r e have been few d i r e c t s t u d i e s
made on t h i s q u e s t i o n i n t h e l a s t few y e a r s .

S t u d i e s t h a t have been

completed o v e r t h e l a s t twenty y e a r s a r e :
1.

The John Dale R ussell s tu d y f o r t h e l e g i s l a t u r e which

did a complete and d e t a i l e d review o f h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n in Michigan
w ith some o f i t s s u g g e s t i o n s implemented in t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Con­
v e n t i o n o f 1961-62.

During t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Convention t h e r e was

a major r e w r i t i n g o f t h e e d u c a t i o n a l a r t i c l e which changed

7

s i g n i f i c a n t l y t h e r o l e o f some o f t h e h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u ­
t i o n s in Michigan and r e i n f o r c e d t h e autonomy o f u n i v e r s i t i e s .

At

t h e same tim e i t r e d e f i n e d t h e r o l e o f t h e S t a t e Board o f Education
and made p o s s i b l e t h e a p poin tm ent o f an a d v i s o r y board f o r com­
munity and j u n i o r c o l l e g e s .
2.

In 1965 Governor Romney a p p o in t e d a f i f t y - s i x member

Blue Ribbon C i t i z e n s ' Committee t h a t reviewed h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n .
T h e ir major f u n c t i o n was to g i v e guidance t o t h e new S t a t e Board o f
Education and to d e te r m i n e t h e impact o f t h e newly e n a c te d C o n s t i t u ­
tion.
3.

In 1966-67 t h e S t a t e Board o f Education developed i t s

e d u c a t i o n a l Master Plan which met with l i t t l e a c c e p t a n c e and had
l i t t l e im pact.
4.

In 1973 Governor Mi 11i k e n ' s Commission on Higher

Education was a p p o i n t e d a t a time o f c r i s e s f o r h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n
because o f t h e changing e n r o l l m e n t p a t t e r n s and l i m i t e d f i n a n c i a l
resources.
The s t u d y by t h e Commission on Higher Education p o i n t e d ou t
t h a t t h e r e i s need t o d e t e r m i n e t h e a t t i t u d e s o f t h e pe ople o f the
s t a t e o f Michigan and t h e d i f f e r e n t segments o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y
e d u c a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e i r o u t l o o k toward a need f o r change i n the
a r e a s o f c o o r d i n a t i o n , c o o p e r a t i o n , autonomy, and o t h e r key i s s u e s
in post-secondary education.

The Commission on Higher Education

made i t s r e p o r t in 1974 and Governor Mi H i ken s t a t e d in h i s " S t a t e
o f t h e S t a t e " a d d r e s s in 1976 t h a t t h e s t a t e o f Michigan must
c a r e f u l l y rev ie w t h e r o l e , f u n c t i o n , and system o f h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n

8

in Michigan.

The Governor and t h e commission f u r t h e r e x p re s s e d

t h e d e s i r e t h a t t h e a t t i t u d e s o f t h e p e op le b oth d i r e c t l y and
i n d i r e c t l y involv ed in p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n should be determ ined
and a n a ly z e d .

C on se q u e n tly , t h i s s t u d y would be h e l p f u l t o t h e com­

m is s i o n and to t h e s t a t e in a n a l y z i n g o p i n io n s o f key i n d i v i d u a l s in
p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e recommendations o f t h e Com­
m is s i o n on Higher E d u ca tio n .
The Problem
S ta te m e n t o f t h e Problem
What, t h e n , i s t h e n a t u r e and p a t t e r n o f o p i n i o n s held by
Michigan v o t e r s , board o f t r u s t e e s ' ch airm en, board members, key
f a c u l t y l e a d e r s , and p r e s i d e n t s o f p u b l i c and p r i v a t e tw o-y ear
i n s t i t u t i o n s , f o u r - and f i v e - y e a r i n s t i t u t i o n s , and p r o f e s s i o n a l
g r a d u a t e sc hools and u n i v e r s i t i e s toward t h e recommendations o f t h e
r e p o r t o f t h e G o v e r n o r 's Commission on Higher E ducation and t o what
e x t e n t do t h e s e o p i n i o n s d i f f e r ?
Scope o f t h e Problem
The s t u d y f o c u s e s upon and a n a l y z e s t h e f o l lo w in g problem
a r e a s emphasized in t h e r e p o r t o f t h e G o v e r n o r 's Commission on
Higher E ducation.
1.

The degre e to which key i n d i v i d u a l s i n v o lv e d i n Michigan

h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n d i f f e r o r hold s i m i l a r o p i n i o n s o f M i c h ig a n 's
higher education regarding:
I.

C e n t r a l i z a t i o n v s. D e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n —S t a te w i d e
V o l u n t a r y , A dvisory, and R e g u la to r y Boards

9

II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.

Governance
S ta te w i d e Planning
I n s t i t u t i o n a l Autonomy
Board o f T r u s t e e s :

S a t i s f a c t i o n , S e l e c t i o n , and Siz e

Po st-S ec on d a ry Education v s. Higher Education

VII.

F u tu re and P r e s e n t C o n d i ti o n s o f Po st-S econ d ary
Education

VIII.

R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f a S ta te w id e Board o f Higher
Education

IX.
2.

P u b l i c Community C olle ges

The de gre e to which demographic and p sychographic

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (p o s itio n , type of i n s t i t u t i o n , organization for
b a r g a i n i n g p u r p o s e s , e x p e r i e n c e in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n ) a r e s i g n i f i c a n t
v a r i a b l e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h o p i n io n s c o ncern ing i s s u e s i n t h e r e p o r t
o f t h e G o v e r n o r 's Commission on Higher E du ca tio n.
3.

The de g re e o f d i f f e r e n c e t h a t r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s ' o p i n ­

i o n s d i s p l a y toward s e l e c t e d i m p o r t a n t i s s u e s o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y
education.
These a r e t h e problem q u e s t i o n s t h a t t h e s tu d y w i l l
i n v e s t i g a t e , bu t t h e r e a r e l i m i t a t i o n s to t h e s t u d y as l i s t e d below.
L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e Study
1.

The q u e s t i o n n a i r e used to i n t e r v i e w sampled Michigan

r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s by t e l e p h o n e was l i m i t e d t o s p e c i f i c i s s u e s and
no t a s e x t e n s i v e a s t h e mail q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o key i n d i v i d u a l s in
post-secondary education.

The d a t a c o l l e c t e d by t h i s approach a r e

used i n a l i m i t e d f a s h i o n and a r e o n l y meant to g i v e i n d i c a t i o n s o f

10

v o t e r s ' r e a c t i o n s t o s e v e r a l i s s u e s and to giv e b r e a d t h to t h e
study.
2.

I t was n o t t h e i n t e n t o f t h i s stud y t o i n c l u d e t h e f o l ­

lowing gr oups:
a.

t h e Governor o f M ic hig a n 's o f f i c e and s t a f f ;

b.

t h e l e g i s l a t u r e o f Michigan and t h e i r s t a f f ;

c.

t h e S t a t e Board o f E ducation and Department o f
o f Michigan;

d.

t h e Board o f E du ca tio n, s t a f f , and f a c u l t y o f secondary
school d i s t r i c t s ;

e.

t h e f a c u l t y , s t a f f , and s t u d e n t s o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y
i n s t i t u t i o n s o f Michigan.

Education

Opinions o f t h e groups l i s t e d above w i l l be i m p o r t a n t to t h e
im plem en ta tio n o f any plan t h a t changes M i c h ig a n 's appro ach t o p o s t ­
secondary e d u c a t i o n .
D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms Used
The w r i t e r o f f e r s h e r e t h e fo llo w in g d e f i n i t i o n s t h a t he
has de veloped in t h e e x e c u t i o n o f t h i s s t u d y .

These a r e t h e a u t h o r ' s

o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s f o r pu rpose s o f t h i s st u d y .
Key E du ca tion a l O f f i c i a l s
The key e d u c a t i o n a l o f f i c i a l s a r e :

faculty rep re se n ta tiv e ,

board chairman, board member, and p r e s i d e n t o f a Michigan p o s t ­
se condary e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n .
Faculty R epresentative
The f a c u l t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i s d e f i n e d h e re as f o r m a l l y
designated or e le c te d to a p o sitio n of le a d ersh ip w ith in the

11

p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n , normally r e p r e s e n t i n g th e
f a c u l t y ' s i n t e r e s t on a t o p - p o l i c y board (chairman o f t h e i n s t i t u ­
t i o n ' s s e n a t e , asse mbly, o r union p r e s i d e n t ) .
Board Chairman
The e l e c t e d o r f o r m a l l y d e s i g n a t e d chairman o f t h e p o s t ­
se con d a ry e d u c a t i o n board o f c o n t r o l .
Board Member
The e l e c t e d o r f o r m a l l y d e s i g n a t e d member o f a p o s t ­
se condary e d u c a t i o n board o f c o n t r o l .
President
The a p p o i n t e d c h i e f e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e r o f a p o s t - s e c o n d a r y
i n s t i t u t i o n , a t tim e s i d e n t i f i e d as " a d m i n i s t r a t o r " in t h e q u e s t i o n ­
naire.
P o s t-S ec o n d a ry Education
" P o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n i s any i n s t r u c t i o n , r e s e a r c h ,
p u b l i c s e r v i c e o r o t h e r l e a r n i n g o p p o r t u n i t y o f f e r e d t o pe rsons who
have completed t h e i r se con d a ry e d u c a t i o n , o r who a r e beyond t h e
compulsory se co nd a ry school a t t e n d a n c e age (age 16) and who a r e
p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n an o r g a n i z e d e d u c a t i o n program o r l e a r n i n g
e x p e r i e n c e a d m i n i s t e r e d by o t h e r than s c h o o ls whose primary r o l e i s
e l e m e n t a r y and s e co n da ry e d u c a t i o n . "

5

G o v e r n o r 's Commission.

5

12

S t a te w i d e Board o f Higher
Education
A body o f i n d i v i d u a l s a p p o in te d o r e l e c t e d who may p l a n ,
c o o r d i n a t e , r e g u l a t e , and a d v i s e p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a ti o n in
a ccord ance w i t h t h e i r d u t i e s dete rmined by law.
Goals and Purposes
The o b j e c t i v e s toward which a p o s t - s e c o n d a r y i n s t i t u t i o n i s
directed.
P lannin g
The approach used by t h e s t a t e o r p o s t - s e c o n d a r y i n s t i t u t i o n
i n development o f a program f o r t h e accomplishment o f a g o a l .
Coordi n a t i o n
The approa ch used by t h e s t a t e o r p o s t - s e c o n d a r y i n s t i t u t i o n
f o r b r i n g i n g t o g e t h e r p o s t - s e c o n d a r y i n s t i t u t i o n s t o work toward a
common a c t i o n , e f f o r t , o r g o a l .
Governance
The g u i d in g and d i r e c t i n g o f a p o s t - s e c o n d a r y i n s t i t u t i o n o r
s t a t e w i d e b oard .
V o lu ntary
The a c t i n g o r perform ing by a p o s t - s e c o n d a r y i n s t i t u t i o n o r
a s t a t e towards i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a ti o n
w i t h o u t e x t e r n a l p e r s u a s i o n f o r compliance.

13

Advisory
The o f f e r i n g o f a d v ic e o r recommendations by t h e s t a t e o r
p o s t - s e c o n d a r y i n s t i t u t i o n towards i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n p o s t ­
se co n da ry e d u c a t i o n w i t h o u t r e q u i r i n g a c c e p t a n c e o r a c t i o n .
Regulatory
The c o n t r o l l i n g by a s t a t e o f t h e o p e r a t i o n and d i r e c t i o n o f
p o s t - s e c o n d a r y i n s t i t u t i o n s toward t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .
Two-Year I n s t i t u t i o n
Those p u b l i c and p r i v a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s t h a t have programs
t h a t a r e predo m in an tly two y e a r s in l e n g t h and o f f e r an a s s o c i a t e
d e g re e ( p r o p r i e t a r y b u s i n e s s j u n i o r c o l l e g e s , p r i v a t e j u n i o r
c o l l e g e s , p u b l i c and p r i v a t e community c o l l e g e s ) .
Four- to Five-Year I n s t i t u t i o n s
Those p r i v a t e and p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s t h a t o f f e r a bac­
c a l a u r e a t e de gre e and may o f f e r a m a s t e r ' s d e g re e ( p r i v a t e l i b e r a l
a r t s , p r i v a t e b u s i n e s s s c h o o l s , p r i v a t e t e c h n i c a l , p r i v a t e B ib le
and p u b l i c c o l l e g e s ) .
P r o f e s s i o n a l Graduate Schools
and U n i v e r s i t i e s
Those p r i v a t e and p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s t h a t o f f e r p r o f e s ­
s i o n a l d e g r e e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e Ph.D. (law s c h o o l s , medical s c h o o l s ,
and u n i v e r s i t i e s .

14

I n s t i t u t i o n s Organized f o r
Formal B arg ain in g Those p r i v a t e and p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y
e d u c a t i o n t h a t have a group o r groups o f employees o r g a n i z e d under
Act 379, P u b l i c Act o f 1965 as amended.
M ajority
Over 50% b u t l e s s th a n 75% f o r b i f u r c a t e d i v i s i o n s , w ith
t h e same l o g i c of p r o p o r t i o n a t e p e r c e n t a g e s f o r o t h e r d i v i s i o n s .
Most
In excess o f 75%.
O r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e Remainder
of the D issertatio n
The second c h a p t e r o f t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n w i l l c o n s i s t o f a
s y n t h e s i s o f s e l e c t e d pr imary and secondary l i t e r a t u r e so u rc es
r e l a t i n g t o t h e b a s i c o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e st u d y .
The d e sig n and methodology o f t h e stud y w i l l be p r e s e n t e d
in the t h i r d chapter.
The f o u r t h c h a p t e r w i l l c o n s i s t o f a n a l y s i s and i n f o r m a ti o n
r e g a r d i n g t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e st u d y .
The f i n a l c h a p t e r w i l l g e n e r a t e some c o n c l u s i o n s , g e n e r a l i z a ­
t i o n s , and recommendations p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e governance p ro ce du res
f o r p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n i n t h e s t a t e o f Michigan.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH AND LITERATURE
Introduction
T h is c h a p t e r w i l l review m a t e r i a l s as t h e y r e l a t e t o t h e key
a r e a s o f s tu d y w i t h i n t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n and t h e G o v e r n o r's Commission
Report on Higher E d u ca tio n .
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI,

These a r e a s a r e as f o l l o w s :

C e n t r a l i z a t i o n vs. D e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n - - S t a t e w i d e
V o lu n ta r y , Adviso ry , and R e g u la to ry Boards
Governance
S ta te w i d e P la nn in g
I n s t i t u t i o n a l Autonomy
Board o f T r u s t e e s :

S a t i s f a c t i o n , S e l e c t i o n , and Siz e

P o s t-S ec o n d a ry Education v s . Higher Education

V II.

Fu tu re and P r e s e n t C o n d i ti o n s o f Po st-S econ d ary
Education

V III.

R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f a S t a t e w i d e Board o f Higher
Education

IX.

P u b l i c Community C o l le g e s

These n in e t o p i c s w i l l be appro ached from t h r e e d i f f e r e n t
directions:

(1) r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s d e a l i n g w i t h o p i n io n s o f key

e d u c a t i o n a l o f f i c i a l s and v o t e r s toward t h e s e i s s u e s , (2) s t a t e w i d e
p la n n in g f o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , n a t i o n a l l y , and (3) t h e i s s u e s o f
governance in Michigan h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n .

15

16
A complete and e x h a u s t i v e survey was made o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e
on o p i n io n s o f key e d u c a t i o n a l o f f i c i a l s and v o t e r s .

No s t u d i e s

were found t h a t a n a ly z e d o p i n i o n s o f e d u c a t i o n a l o f f i c i a l s r e g a r d i n g
proposed s t a t e p l a n s f o r Michigan o r o t h e r s t a t e s , nor was t h e r e any
r e s e a r c h completed on t h e a t t i t u d e s o f v o t e r s in Michigan o r t h e
United S t a t e s a b o u t t h e ty pe o f h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n governance th ey
preferred.
Although t h e r e was no r e s e a r c h t h a t r e l a t e d d i r e c t l y to t h i s
kind o f o p i n io n s u r v e y , t h e r e was a g r e a t deal o f l i t e r a t u r e p e r t a i n ­
ing t o t h e s u b j e c t o f s t a t e w i d e p l a n n i n g , c o o r d i n a t i o n , and
go vern ance.
Because t h i s s t u d y r e l a t e s d i r e c t l y t o t h e Report o f t h e
Michigan Commission on High er Edu cation to t h e Governor, t h e minutes
o f t h a t body were reviewed c a r e f u l l y , along w i t h a l l o f t h e i r
supplementa ry r e p o r t s , which i n c l u d e d a number from n a t i o n a l
a u t h o r i t i e s who were r e q u e s t e d t o work w i t h t h e commission r e g a r d i n g
t h e d i r e c t i o n Michigan sh o uld t a k e in i t s approach toward s t a t e w i d e
c o o r d i n a t i o n and govern ance.
In t h e development o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , t h e co mm ission's
r e p o r t and i t s l i t e r a t u r e were used as a backdrop f o r f o r m u l a t i n g
t h e q u e s t i o n s t h a t l a t e r were a n a ly z e d and reviewed by s e l e c t e d
Michigan h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n board members, p r e s i d e n t s , and key f a c u l t y
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t h e f i n a l m ailed q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
Numerous m a s t e r p l a n s f o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n f o r o t h e r s t a t e s
were a n a l y z e d r e g a r d i n g t h e n i n e key a r e a s n oted abo ve, along w ith

17

l e g a l c a s e s t u d i e s used in d e t e r m i n i n g t h e q u e s t i o n o f autonomy f o r
Michigan i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n .
This c h a p t e r w i l l be devoted to a review o f t h e most
p e r t i n e n t l i t e r a t u r e and r e s e a r c h r e l a t i n g t o t h e s e t o p i c s .
Re search on t h e Key I s s u e s
P e t e r M i l l s conducted a n a t i o n a l s tu d y in 1971 o f community
c o l l e g e bo ard s o f t r u s t e e s in v o lv e d in t h e p r o c e s s o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l
change.6

This s t u d y was a su rv e y o f 239 p r e s i d e n t s and 296 t r u s t e e s

o f community c o l l e g e s unde rgoing change.
Some o f h i s f i n d i n g s were d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o t h e i s s u e o f
gove rnance .

The f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e t r u s t e e s b e l i e v e d

s t r o n g l y t h a t p u b l i c t w o - y e a r c o l l e g e s should be governed as p a r t of
a h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n s y s te m , r a t h e r t h a n a s p a r t o f a p u b l i c school
system.

In g e n e r a l , t h e y a l s o a g re ed w ith t h e p o s i t i o n o f open

ad m iss io ns and u n i v e r s a l h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n .
The s tu d y a l s o showed t h a t i n a p p r o x i m a t e ly 40% o f t h e
i n s t i t u t i o n s t h e r e was a system o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l governance t h a t
inv o lv ed f a c u l t y , s t u d e n t s , a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , and s t a f f .

The rea so n s

most f r e q u e n t l y g iven by p r e s i d e n t s f o r change in t h e method o f
i n s t i t u t i o n a l governance were:

(1) t h e involvem ent o f c o l l e c t i v e

b a r g a i n i n g and (2) t h e i n c r e a s e d i n t e r e s t by s t u d e n t s in p a r t i c i p a t ­
ing in t h e governance o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n .
6P e t e r K. M i l l s , A Study o f t h e Community C o lle g e Board o f
T r u s t e e s and t h e P r o c e s s o f I n s t i t u t i o n a l Change (New Brunswick, New
J e r s e y : R u t g e r s , The S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , Gra duate School o f Educa­
t i o n , 1971).

18

In 1972, a stu dy was made o f t h e o p i n i o n s o f Colorado
l e g i s l a t o r s and c o l l e g i a t e t r u s t e e s c o n c e rn in g s e l e c t e d i s s u e s in
higher ed u catio n .^

S i x ty - o n e l e g i s l a t o r s and s e v e n ty t r u s t e e s were

asked t o respond t o f i f t y s e l e c t e d i s s u e s i n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n .
Several o f t h e s e i s s u e s c e n t e r e d on a c c o u n t a b i l i t y , academic f r e e ­
dom, t e n u r e , economic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s and c o s t s , s t a t e w i d e c o o r d i n a ­
t i o n and c o n t r o l , and shared i n t e r n a l govern ance.

The r e s p o n d e n ts

were given t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e c o r d t h e i r o p i n io n s from " s t r o n g l y
a g r e e i n g " to " s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e i n g . "
The f i n d i n g s o f t h e stu d y i n d i c a t e t h a t t h i s g r o u p, composed
o f b oth l e g i s l a t o r s and t r u s t e e s , f e l t t h a t h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n had a
p o s i t i v e impact on t h e economy o f t h e s t a t e .
p o s i t i o n o f academic freedom.

They s u p p o r t e d t h e

They d e s i r e d f a c u l t y p a r t i c i p a t i o n in

p u b l i c a f f a i r s , b u t i n d i c a t e d t h a t f a c u l t y should not t a k e p o s i t i o n s
on p o l i t i c a l and r e l a t e d i s s u e s .

Both groups s t r o n g l y ag re ed t h a t

t h e pr imary emphasis should be on t e a c h i n g .
O p e r a t i o n a l e f f i c i e n c y , both gr oups a g r e e d , was o f almost
equal impor tanc e.

On t h e i s s u e o f f e d e r a l s u p p o r t , t h e r e were mixed

o p i n io n s and u n c e r t a i n t y as t o t h e p r o p e r r o l e o f t h e f e d e r a l
government in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n .
As t o f a c u l t y work l o a d s , both t h e l e g i s l a t o r s and t h e
t r u s t e e s f e l t th ey were to o l i g h t , and t h e y were u n c e r t a i n about
t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f uniform s a l a r y s c h e d u l e s .
^Stephen Romine, Colorado L e g i s l a t o r s and C o l l e g i a t e
T r u s t e e s Respond t o S e l e c t e d I s s u e s in Higher E ducation ( B o u l d e r :
Colorado U n i v e r s i t y Higher E du cation C e n t e r , December, 1972).

19

On t h e i s s u e o f where t h e lo cu s o f s t a t e w i d e p la n n in g and
c o o r d i n a t i o n should r e s t , t h e r e was c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f e r e n c e .

Both

l e g i s l a t o r s and t r u s t e e s agreed t h a t t h e r e sh o uld be i n c r e a s e d
p l a n n i n g a t l o c a l and s t a t e l e v e l s .

The t r u s t e e s d e f i n i t e l y d i s ­

ag re ed t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e should have a s t r o n g e r r o l e in t h e
d i r e c t i o n o f h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n i n s t i t u t i o n s in Colorado.

Both

groups p r e f e r r e d t h a t t h e boards o f t r u s t e e s in t h e i r s t a t e should
p l a y a s t r o n g e r r o l e in t h e governance o f t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s than
should t h e Colorado Commission on Higher E du ca tion .
On t h e i s s u e o f shared i n t e r n a l gove rn a nce , both l e g i s l a t o r s
and t r u s t e e s were u n c e r t a i n whe ther s t u d e n t s sho uld have t h e oppor­
t u n i t y t o p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e s s .

The t r u s t e e s

f e l t t h a t f a c u l t y should have some o p p o r t u n i t y t o p a r t i c i p a t e in
sh a r e d i n t e r n a l go vern ance, b u t t h e l e g i s l a t o r s were l e s s in a g r e e ­
ment on t h i s i s s u e .
Both groups c on curred t h a t community c o l l e g e s should p l a y a
much more i m p o r t a n t r o l e in f o s t e r i n g open door a d m issio n s i n t h e
future.

There was some d i sa g r e e m e n t as to t h e t y p e o f admission

p o l i c i e s t h a t should p r e v a i l a t f o u r - y e a r i n s t i t u t i o n s and g r a d u a t e
in stitu tio n s.
A stu dy was completed i n 1973 by David L e s l i e on f a c u l t y
p e r c e p t i o n s on t h e l e g i t i m a c y o f d e c i s i o n making a t Pen nsy lvania
Q

in stitu tio n s.

T his monograph d e a l t p r i m a r i l y w i t h an i n v e s t i g a t i o n

O

David W. L e s l i e , V a r i a b i l i t y in F a c u l t y P e r c e p t i o n o f t h e
L egitim acy o f D e c isio n Making a t Nine P e n n sy lv a n ia I n s t i t u t i o n s
( U n i v e r s i t y Park: C e nte r f o r t h e Study o f Higher E d u ca tio n ,
Pen n sy lv a n ia S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , November, 1973).

20

o f f a c u l t y p e r c e p t i o n s a t t h e tim e t h a t Penn sy lv an ia c o l l e g e s were
un dergoing s t r e s s with t h e development o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g .
I t p o i n t e d o u t t h a t a stu d y o f t h e dynamics o f c o l l e g i a t e governance
must t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t t h e typ e o f i n s t i t u t i o n and t h e i s s u e s being
studied.
During t h e l a s t t e n t o f i f t e e n y e a r s , t h e l e g i t i m a c y o f
p a r t i c u l a r forms o f c o l l e g i a t e governance has been i n c r e a s i n g l y
q u e s t i o n e d by d i f f e r e n t g rou p s.
in c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g .

Governance i s d i r e c t l y c h a l le n g e d

Although i t s prime t h r u s t i s economic,

many tim e s c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g has a l a s t i n g impact on i n s t i t u ­
t i o n a l governance.
One o f t h e s i g n i f i c a n t a s p e c t s o f L e s l i e ' s s t u d y was t h e
i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o whether p e r c e p t i o n s and o p i n i o n s o f i n d i v i d u a l s
in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n would be i n f l u e n c e d by t h e ty pe o f i n s t i t u t i o n
w i t h i n which t h e y worked.

The r e s u l t s o f t h i s s tu d y emphasized t h a t

f a c u l t y o f mature u n i v e r s i t i e s have s i m i l a r o u t l o o k s toward go vern ­
ance.

In c o n t r a s t , emerging r e g i o n a l u n i v e r s i t i e s and conmunity

c o l l e g e s f i n d t h e i r f a c u l t i e s w ith o p i n i o n s d i v e r g i n g from c o l ­
l e g i a l i t y t o a mode o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g .
In 1974, George Hall completed a s tu d y e n t i t l e d S t a t e Board
g
o f Community C o l l e g e s : An A n a l y s i s o f Concepts and P r a c t i c e s .
Boards from 20 s t a t e s were s t u d i e d .

The approach used was t o

a n a l y z e t h e agenda and minutes o f t h e s t a t e boards r e s p o n s i b l e f o r
g

George L. H a l l , S t a t e Boards o f Community C o l l e g e s ; An
A n a l y s i s o f Concepts and P r a c t i c e s ( G a i n e s v i l l e : F l o r i d a U n i v e r s i t y
I n s t i t u t e o f Higher E d u ca tio n , March, 1974).

21

community c o l l e g e s and to o b t a i n board members' o p i n io n s r e g a r d i n g
t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e major problems f a c i n g community c o l l e g e s
w i t h i n t h e i r s t a t e and a t what l e v e l r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e s e problems
would t a k e p l a c e .

From t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e agenda and minutes of

t h e s e m e e t i n g s , i t was a s c e r t a i n e d t h a t f i n a n c i a l m a t t e r s , f a c i l ­
i t i e s , and c u r r i c u l a were t h e t h r e e major t o p i c s o f c o n ce rn , f o l ­
lowed by p e r s o n n e l , p o l i c y m a t t e r s , and s t u d e n t s .

Board members

f e l t t h a t t h e most p r e s s i n g problems were a r t i c u l a t i o n , c o o r d i n a t i o n ,
f i n a n c e , and c u r r i c u l a .
In 1973, t h e A s s o c i a t i o n o f Governing Boards made a survey
o f t h e o p i n i o n s o f board chairmen.

They surveyed 1915 chairmen o f

gov ern ing bo ard s and r e c e i v e d a r e t u r n o f 788 (49%)

J . L.

Zwingle and William V. M a y v ille used t h e r e s u l t s o f t h i s su r v e y to
add dimension t o t h e i r monograph on c o l l e g e govern ance, t h e p r o b ­
lems o f a u t h o r i t y , and how bo ard s o f t r u s t e e s should be s e l e c t e d .
They d i s c u s s e d t h e i s s u e o f autonomy as i t r e l a t e d t o t e n u r e , c o l ­
l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g , and t h e r e s p o n s i v e n e s s o f board s o f c o n t r o l .
Also d i s c u s s e d were t h e i s s u e s o f e d u c a t i o n a l reforms as t h o s e
i s s u e s were r e l a t e d to bo ard s o f t r u s t e e s , board r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ,
d e l e g a t i o n o f a u t h o r i t y , and board members' p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i r
p o s i t i o n s as change a g e n t s .

Some o f t h e conce rn s f o r boards as

change a g e n t s were t h e need f o r p e r i o d i c review , t h e problems o f

J . L. Zwingle and William V. M a y v i ll e , C olle ge T r u s t e e s :
A Question o f L egitim acy (Washington, D.C.: Report No. 10, ERIC/
Higher E d ucation C l e a r i n g h o u s e , 1974).

22

p l u r a l i t y o f r o l e s , and t h e c o n s t a n t n e c e s s i t y to work on t h e educa­
t i o n a l m is s i o n o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n .
A s tu d y completed by Fred H a r cler o a d in 1975 f o r t h e American
A s s o c i a t i o n o f S t a t e C o lle g es and U n i v e r s i t i e s p e r t a i n e d t o th e
e f f i c i e n c y o f s t a t e u n i v e r s i t i e s and h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n . ^
T his r e p o r t combined a rev iew o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e c o n ce rn in g
governance w i t h an e x t e n s i v e surv ey o f t h e member i n s t i t u t i o n s o f
t h a t A ssociation.

In t h e su r v e y , o p i n io n s o f p r e s i d e n t s o r t h e i r

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s were c o l l e c t e d .

Data a l s o were c o l l e c t e d on t h e

a c t u a l c o s t s and added c o s t s which r e s u l t from an i n s t i t u t i o n ' s
involvement in a s t a t e w i d e c o o r d i n a t e d and governing syste m.

The

s t u d y in c l u d e d a d i s c u s s i o n on how b u s i n e s s and i n d u s t r y a r e o r g a n ­
iz e d i n t o c e n t r a l i z e d o r d e c e n t r a l i z e d s t r u c t u r e s and how t h e s e
s t r u c t u r e s r e l a t e t o meeting g o a ls and p urp ose s.
The monograph p ro vided an e x c e l l e n t review o f developments
in gove rnance and s t a t e w i d e c o o r d i n a t i o n o ver t h e l a s t t h i r t y y e a r s .
A major o b s e r v a t i o n was t h a t s t a t e w i d e c o o r d i n a t i o n i n c r e a s e d
d r a m a t i c a l l y in t h e 1 9 6 0 's .
A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e s t u d y p o i n t e d o u t t h a t n in e f u n c t i o n s have
been e s t a b l i s h e d f o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n a d m i n i s t r a t i o n :

(1) System

O r g a n i z a t i o n a l S t r u c t u r e , (2) Program A l l o c a t i o n , (3) Budget
Development, (4) F i s c a l P o l i c i e s , (5) Program C o n t e n t , (6) Personnel
S e l e c t i o n , (7) P l a n n in g , (8) E v a l u a t i o n - A c c o u n t a b i l i t y , and
^ F r e d A. H a r c l e r o a d , I n s t i t u t i o n a l E f f i c i e n c y in S t a t e
Systems o f P u b l i c Higher Edu cation (Tucson, A rizo n a: Higher Educat i o n Program, C o lle g e o f E d u c a ti o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f A r i z o n a , November,
1975).

23

(9) C a p it a l Programs.

Each o f t h e above f u n c t i o n s was l i s t e d and

the degre e o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was a l l o c a t e d f o r the f o l lo w in g a r e a s :
(1) s t a t e government, (2) c o o r d i n a t i n g body, (3) board o f t r u s t e e s ,
and (4) h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n .
As t h e s t u d y p o i n t e d o u t , a l l p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s have been
s u b j e c t , s i n c e t h e i r b e g i n n i n g , t o some form o f s t a t e c o o r d i n a t i o n
o r c o n t r o l , and t h e f e d e r a l government i n t e r a c t s w ith them i n many
ways thro ugh a m u l t i t u d e o f law s.

There a l s o i s impact from the

e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e , as in Wisconsin in 1971, when Governor P a t r i c k J .
Lucey e l i m i n a t e d t h e Wisconsin C o o r d i n a t i n g Committee f o r Higher
Education and merged t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Wisconsin and t h e Wisconsin
S t a t e U n i v e r s i t i e s i n t o t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Wisconsin System.
One o f t h e c o n c e p ts t h a t t h i s r e p o r t e s t a b l i s h e d was t h a t ,
w hile p l an n in g and t h e need f o r c o o r d i n a t i o n were paramount during
t h e 6 0 ' s and e a r l y 7 0 ’s , e x c e s s i v e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n may be t h e problem
o f the 8 0 's.
The stud y p o i n t e d o u t t h e c u r r e n t s t a t u s o f c e n t r a l i z a t i o n
o f i n s t i t u t i o n s t h a t were p a r t o f t h e a s s o c i a t i o n and noted t h e i r
de g re e o f autonomy.
In 1977, Sandra Drake made an e x t e n s i v e stu d y o f t h e ty p es
o f boards o f tw o -y ea r c o l l e g e s and whether t h e r e were d i f f e r e n c e s o f
a t t i t u d e s between t h e t r u s t e e s and p r e s i d e n t s toward management o f
12
t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s and o p e r a t i o n s o f t h e bo ard .
12

Sandra L. Drake, A Study o f Community and J u n i o r Colle ge
Boards o f T r u s t e e s (American A s s o c i a t i o n o f Community and J u n i o r
C o l l e g e s , 1977).

24

The d a t a f o r t h i s s t u d y were g a t h e r e d by q u e s t i o n n a i r e , with
t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f t h e American A s s o c i a t i o n o f Community and J u n i o r
C o l l e g e s , and t h e A s s o c i a t i o n o f Governing Boards.
n a i r e s were developed :
members.

Two q u e s t i o n ­

one f o r p r e s i d e n t s and t h e o t h e r f o r board

Demographic d a t a on t h e background o f board members were

generated.

T h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward f u n c t i o n s o f t h e board and i t s

r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l s o were surv eyed.
Comparisons were made between p u b l i c and p r i v a t e two-year
institu tion s.

F u r t h e r s t u d y was made o f s t a t e boards t o compare

t h o s e which had complete r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r gov ernance, t o t h o s e
w i t h shared g o vern ing a u t h o r i t y and t h o s e which served as c o o r d i n a t ­
ing b o a rd s .
The e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e b o a r d s ' f u n c t i o n s was measured and
s t u d i e d a g a i n s t p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s o f t h e A s s o c i a t i o n o f Governing
Boards.
In 1977, Maxwell King and Robert Breuder r e p o r t e d on t h e
r e l a t i o n s h i p between c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n t s and t r u s t e e s , and how they
13
might meet t h e c h a l l e n g e o f l e a d e r s h i p .
T h e i r s tu d y t o d ete rm in e
t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f t r u s t e e s and p r e s i d e n t s r e g a r d i n g t h e a ssum ptio ns
and t e c h n i q u e s o f community c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n t s in r e l a t i n g t o boards
o f t r u s t e e s was s e n t t o 55 t r u s t e e s and 142 p r e s i d e n t s th r o u g h o u t
t h e United S t a t e s .

13

Maxwell C. King and Robert L. B r e u d er , P r e s i d e n t - T r u s t e e
R e l a t i o n s h i p s : Meeting t h e C h allenge o f L e a d e r sh ip (Washington,
D.C.: American A s s o c i a t i o n o f Community and J u n i o r C o l l e g e s , 1977).

25

The study emphasized t h e approa ches and s t y l e s t h e p r e s i d e n t
should use in d e a l i n g w i t h t h e board.

A key o pin io n o f both p r e s i ­

d e n t s and board members was t h a t p r e s i d e n t s should be c a r e f u l in
d e a l i n g with board members on s u b s t a n t i v e m a t t e r s on a one to one
o r small group b a s i s , in p r e f e r e n c e t o working w i t h t h e e n t i r e boa rd;
th e y a l s o f e l t t h a t q u a l i t y o f in f o r m a ti o n was more im p o r t a n t than
q u a n t i t y , and t h a t board members should be well informed i n advance
o f board m ee tin g s.

T h is s tu d y re-e m phasi zed f u n c t i o n s o f t h e board

and t h e p r e s i d e n t , and t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r some degre e o f autonomy a t
t h e l o c a l l e v e l , i f t h e s e f u n c t i o n s were to be c a r r i e d o u t .
S ta te w id e P la n n in g f o r Higher Education
The s i x s t a t e s t h a t were s t u d i e d , V i r g i n i a , C o n n e c t i c u t ,
Montana, I l l i n o i s , C a l i f o r n i a , and Washington, were s e l e c t e d
because o f t h e b r e a d t h o f t h e i r s t a t e w i d e s t u d i e s .

The c h o ic e o f

t h e s e s t a t e s was a l s o de te rm ine d b e c a u s e . o f t h e range o f t h e i r
h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n syste m s, t h e appro aches t h e y used t o s t a t e w i d e
p l a n n i n g , governance, and i n s t i t u t i o n a l autonomy, and t h e recen cy
of th e ir reports.

The o r d e r o f p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e s t a t e p l a n s f o l ­

lows a p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e most c e n t r a l i z e d t o t h e l e a s t c e n t r a l i z e d ,
ex c lu d in g Michigan, which would be c o n s i d e r e d t o rank a t t h e end o f
t h i s type o f continuum, a llo w in g f o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l autonomy and a
d e c e n t r a l i z e d approach t o s t a t e p l a n n i n g .

26

V irginia

In 1967 t h e S t a t e Council f o r Higher Edu cation f o r V i r g i n i a
14
p u b l is h e d i t s f i r s t m aste r p l a n .
This was in te n d e d t o be a t e n y e a r p lan and was c o n s i d e r e d to be an im p o r t a n t i n i t i a l development
f o r t h e Commonwealth.

In 1974, because o f t h e r a p i d changes t a k i n g

p l a c e in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , t h e S t a t e Council developed a new plan
c a l l e d t h e V i r g i n i a Plan f o r Higher E d uca tion .

T h is p l a n , as do

many, in v o lv e s f a c u l t y , i n s t i t u t i o n s , l e g i s l a t u r e , and many o t h e r
segments o f t h e s t a t e .

The S t a t e Council d i s t r i b u t e d a f o u r t e e n -

goal s t a t e m e n t w ith a q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o p r o f e s s i o n a l s in h ig h er
e d u c a t i o n , as well as t o s e l e c t e d c i t i z e n s .

T h e i r recommendations

in c lu d e d a p l an nin g r e q u e s t which c a l l s f o r c o n ti n u o u s u p d a ti n g and
e v alu atio n r a t h e r than a f i v e - or te n -y e a r plan to stand alone.
V i r g i n i a ' s approach t o c o o r d i n a t i o n compared t o M i c h ig a n 's i s much
more d i r e c t i v e and a ppears t o be becoming more c e n t r a l i z e d .

The

V i r g i n i a Plan f o r Higher Education emphasizes t h e changing r o l e o f
the s t a t e :
In a d d i t i o n t o t h e Council o f Higher E d u c a t i o n ' s e x i s t i n g
a u t h o r i t y t o review and approve newly proposed programs,
i t should have t h e a u t h o r i t y t o t e r m i n a t e t h o s e programs
which a r e n o n - p r o d u c t i v e .
(45)
E qually c r i t i c a l i s th e f a c t t h a t w i t h an i d e n t i f i a b l e and
d e c l i n i n g number o f p o t e n t i a l s t u d e n t s , e n r o l l m e n t growth
a t any one i n s t i t u t i o n w i l l a f f e c t t h e e n r o l l m e n t a t o t h e r
i n s t i t u t i o n s and w i t h i n t h e system as a whole. For t h e s e
r e a s o n s , t h e Council o f Higher Education sh o uld be r e s p o n ­
s i b l e f o r approving e n ro l l m e n t p r o j e c t i o n s f o r V i r g i n i a ' s
state-supported in s t it u t io n s .
(45)
^4The V i r g i n i a Plan f o r Higher E ducation (Richmond,
V i r g i n i a : S t a t e Council o f Higher Education f o r V i r g i n i a , J a n u a r y ,
1974).

27

During t h e n e x t decade as t h e demand f o r f i n a n c i a l
r e s o u r c e s i n c r e a s e s , e d u c a t i o n a l p r i o r i t i e s must be
d e te r m in e d . The Council o f Higher E d uca tio n , as t h e
p l a n n i n g and c o o r d i n a t i n g agency f o r s t a t e - s u p p o r t e d
i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n in V i r g i n i a , should
have i n c r e a s e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r c o n du ctin g a c o o r d i n a ­
t e d review o f budget r e q u e s t s from i n d i v i d u a l i n s t i t u t i o n s
t o a s s u r e e q u i t a b l e a l l o c a t i o n and t h e most e f f i c i e n t and
e f f e c t i v e u t i l i z a t i o n o f t h e r e s o u r c e s committed t o h i g h e r
education.
(46)
C e r t a i n l y t h e e x e r c i s e o f any o f t h e above mentioned
f u n c t i o n s by a c e n t r a l board i s to some degre e a n i t h e t i c a l
to i n s t i t u t i o n a l autonomy. However, w i t h a c e n t r a l
c o o r d i n a t i n g board working in c o n j u n c t i o n w ith t h e i n s t i ­
t u t i o n a l go v ern ing b o a r d s , any l o s s o f autonomy i s meas­
u r a b l y l e s s than under a s i n g l e c e n t r a l governing
b o a rd. (46)
Connecticut
In J a n u a r y , 1974, t h e S t a t e o f C o n n e c t ic u t Commission f o r
Higher Education completed i t s f i r s t m a s te r plan f o r h i g h e r educa15
tion.
The a r e a s o f s t u d y were s i m i l a r t o t h o s e o f o t h e r s t a t e
m a s te r p l a n s :

concern f o r e n r o l l m e n t , f a c i l i t i e s , program, non-

t r a d i t i o n a l a p p r o a c h e s , equal o p p o r t u n i t y , and f i n a n c e .

An

i m p o r t a n t a r e a , no t found in a l l s t u d i e s , was a r e q u e s t f o r a
s t a t e w i d e i n f o r m a t i o n syste m.

This m a s te r p l a n , as do o t h e r s ,

emphasized some o f t h e same conce rn s being mentioned i n Michigan by
t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , c i t i z e n s and i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .
The p lan i t s e l f i s s p e c i f i c in i t s recommendations, and t h e
a r e a s s t u d i e d a r e s i m i l a r t o t h o s e mentioned in t h e l i t e r a t u r e o f
s t u d i e s i n Michigan.
16

Master Plan f o r Higher E duca tion in C o n n e c t i c u t , 1974-1979
( H a r t f o r d , C o n n e c t i c u t : Commission f o r Higher E d u ca tio n , J a n u a r y ,
1 9 7 4 ).

28

P a r t l y i n r e s p o n s e t o p u b l i c demands f o r g r e a t e r a c c o u n t ­
a b i l i t y , t h e Commission f o r Higher E ducation and t h e con­
s t i t u e n t u n i t s have i n t e n s i f i e d t h e i r e v a l u a t i v e and
p l a n n i n g a c t i v i t i e s in r e c e n t y e a r s . The most comprehen­
s i v e e f f o r t t o d a t e o c c u r r e d in 1970 when f o u r c i t i z e n Task
Forces s t u d i e d and made recommendations i n f o u r major a r e a s :
(1) Needs--Socio-Economic, Manpower, R e g io n a l; (2) F u n c t io n ,
Scope and S t r u c t u r e o f Higher E du catio n ; (3) Financing
Higher E d u c a tio n ; and (4) Q u a l i t a t i v e and Q u a n t i t a t i v e P e r ­
formance and Achievement i n Higher Education.
Unlike p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s , t h e Master Plan i s more th an a
r e p o r t t o t h e Governor and General Assembly. As adopted by
t h e Commission, i t w i l l p r o v i d e - - w i t h i n t h e p r e s e n t s t a t u s - a b a s i s f o r t h e Commission's r e l a t i o n s h i p s to t h e o p e r a t i n g
u n i t s and f o r a d d i t i o n a l l e g i s l a t i v e p r o p o s a l s a f f e c t i n g
higher education,
(x)
Montana
In 1973 t h e l e g i s l a t u r e o f Montana c r e a t e d t h e Montana Com­
m is sio n on P o s t -S e c o n d a ry Education and d i r e c t e d i t t o make a
d e t a i l e d and thoro ugh s t u d y o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a ti o n in t h a t
sta te .^

In November, 1974, t h e s tu d y f o r Montana was completed.

The s t u d y covered p r e s e n t and f u t u r e needs o f t h e s t a t e f o r p o s t ­
se con d a ry e d u c a t i o n , s e t g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s , d ete rm ined t h e
r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e , and recommended t h e most e d u c a t i o n a l l y and
e c o n o m ic a lly e f f e c t i v e ways t o meet t h e s t a t e ' s needs.

The plan was

ve ry d e t a i l e d and s p e c i f i c and had an addendum t h a t was unusual and
most i n t e r e s t i n g .

T h is was t h e m i n o r i t y r e p o r t co n cernin g t h e i s s u e s

t h a t t h e Commission f a c e d .

•I C

D r a f t R e po rt. Montana Commission on P ost-S econdary
E ducation (Helena, Montana: Commission on P o s t-S ec o nd a ry E d u c a tio n ,
November, 1974).

29

On J u l y 1, 1973, a new system under t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n o f
Montana was e s t a b l i s h e d f o r p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n .

This was

d e s c r i b e d in a r e p o r t as f o l l o w s :
The s i n g l e gov e rn in g board f o r a l l o f p u b l i c e d u c a ti o n was
r e p l a c e d by a Board o f P u b lic E ducation and a Board o f
Re gents. The Regents were d e l e g a t e d " f u l l power, r e s p o n ­
s i b i l i t y and a u t h o r i t y t o s u p e r v i s e , c o o r d i n a t e , manage
and c o n t r o l t h e Montana U n i v e r s i t y System." The Regents
a l s o s h a r e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y w ith l o c a l boards of t r u s t e e s
f o r governance o f community c o l l e g e s . The Board o f Pu b lic
E d u c a tio n , in a d d i t i o n t o i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r primary
and e le m e n t a r y s c h o o l s , was d e s i g n a t e d by s t a t u t e as t h e
S t a t e Board f o r V ocational E ducation w i t h program and
budget c o n t r o l o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y v o c a t i o n a l - t e c h n i c a l
c e n t e r s . The C o n s t i t u t i o n a l s o c r e a t e d a S t a t e Board o f
E d u c a tio n , c o n s i s t i n g o f t h e members o f t h e Board o f
Regents and t h e Board o f P u b l i c E d u ca tio n . This board i s
charged with p l a n n i n g , c o o r d i n a t i n g and e v a l u a t i n g p o l i ­
c i e s and programs f o r t h e e n t i r e e d u c a t i o n a l system and
w i t h s u b m i t t i n g comprehensive budgets f o r Montana p u b l i c
education.
The s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y
System in t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n i s t h a t i t no l o n g e r i s a
c r e a t u r e o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e and t h e b a s i c s t r u c t u r e o f
h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i s n o t s u b j e c t t o a l t e r a t i o n by s t a t u t e .
In e f f e c t , h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i s a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l e n t i t y in
t h e same way as t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , t h e e x e c u t i v e and t h e
j u d i c i a r y b ran c h es o f government. In t h i s r e s p o n s e , t h e
Regents can be d e s c r i b e d as " c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y a u to n o ­
mous." (29)
Montana's p o p u l a t i o n and s t r u c t u r e a llow f o r a d i f f e r e n t
approach p o s s i b l y th a n one t h a t would be a c c e p t a b l e o r a p p r o p r i a t e
f o r Michigan, w i t h i t s much l a r g e r p o p u l a t i o n and g r e a t e r number o f
complex i n s t i t u t i o n s .

I t i s o f s i g n i f i c a n c e t h a t t h e Montana board

has c o n s t i t u t i o n a l autonomy s i m i l a r t o t h e autonomy given t o t h e
p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s and c o l l e g e s o f t h e s t a t e o f Michigan.

30

Illin o is
Master p l a n n i n g f o r s t a t e s i s a complex and d i f f i c u l t p r o ­
cess.

The s t a t e o f I l l i n o i s has been i n vo lv e d s i n c e 1961 w ith a

S t a t e Board o f High er E ducation which plac ed t h e i r

primary emphasis

on p la n n in g

has moved from a

a ctiv itie s.^ 7

Over t h e y e a r s I l l i n o i s

d e c e n t r a l i z e d h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n system t o one t h a t s t i l l allows f o r
i n s t i t u t i o n a l autonomy b u t i s much more d i r e c t i v e than Michigan
r e g a r d i n g c o o r d i n a t i o n and p la n n in g and i n s t i t u t i o n a l autonomy.

The

emphasis on

p l a n n i n g , as a c o n ti n u o u s and complex p ro ce ss ,w a s s t a t e d

in t h e 1966

Master P l a n , Phase I I :

Master p la n n in g i s n e c e s s a r i l y a co n tin u o u s p r o c e s s . A
l a r g e complex o f s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s i s n o t e a s i l y moved.
Indeed, r e s i s t a n c e s ap pea r t o compound w ith each proposed
change. The n e t r e s u l t i s t h a t r e v i s i o n s and m o d i f i c a t i o n
must be pr oposed and c o n s i d e r e d in a planned s e r i e s o f
s t a g e s so t h a t , s t e p by s t e p , p r o g r e s s can be s u r e ­
footed.
(4)
C alifornia
C a l i f o r n i a was one o f t h e f i r s t s t a t e s t o develop a m aste r
p lann in g app ro ach.
i n v o lv e d .

I t s h i s t o r y i n t h i s a r e a has been long and

J u s t r e c e n t l y t h e C a l i f o r n i a l e g i s l a t u r e plac ed i t s e l f in

t h e p l an n in g mode r a t h e r th a n having p r o f e s s i o n a l o r o u t s i d e c o n s u l t 18
a n t s develop a r e v i s e d o r updated m a s te r p l a n .
This a p p a r e n t l y
ev olv ed b ecause o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e ' s concern a b o u t:

(1) t h e la c k o f

17A Master Plan f o r Higher Education i n I l l i n o i s , Phase II Extending E du ca tio n a l O p p o r t u n i ty ( S p r i n g f i e l d . I l l i n o i s : Board o f
Higher E d u ca tio n , December, 1966;.
18
John V a s c o n c e ll o s and P a t r i c k M. C a l l a n , " L e g i s l a t i v e
Master Pla n n in g : The C a l i f o r n i a E x p e r i e n c e , " Planning f o r Higher
Education 3 (F e b r u a r y 1974).

31

c o n t i n u i t y i n t h e im p lem enta tio n o f p l a n n i n g , and (2) t h e h i g h e r
e d u c a ti o n community's i n a b i l i t y t o meet t h e needs o f t h e i r s t a t e .
This was n o t t h e f i r s t major s tu d y o f h i g h e r e d u c a tio n
d i r e c t e d by a l e g i s l a t i v e committee i n C a l i f o r n i a . How­
e v e r , t h o s e most g e n e r a l l y r ec o g n ize d as t h e most im p o r tan t
s t u d i e s , t h e S u z o l lo Re port (1932), t h e S t r a y Report (1948),
th e Restudy (1 9 55 ), and t h e renowned Master Plan o f 1960,
were a l l conducted i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e and
s t a t e government, a lt h o u g h under o c c a s i o n a l l e g i s l a t i v e
a u s p i c e s o r l e g i s l a t i v e p ro d din g. The Master Plan was
b a s i c a l l y a s e l f - s t u d y , w r i t t e n by a team c o n s i s t i n g o f two
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from each o f t h e s t a t e ' s p u b l i c and p r i v a t e
i n s t i t u t i o n s o f higher education.
(1)
The approach tak e n by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e was ve ry broad and
involv ed a g r e a t deal o f p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n a c r o s s t h e s t a t e o f
C alifornia.

They used a v a r i e t y o f t e c h n i q u e s to o b t a i n i n p u t —

a r t i c l e s , s u r v e y s , r e s e a r c h r e p o r t s , p o l i c y s t u d i e s , and personal
contacts.

From t h i s s t u d y evolved s t a t e w i d e g o a ls f o r h i g h e r educa­

t i o n and a number o f recommendations f o r change.
g o a ls were:

Some o f t h e s a l i e n t

(1) u n i v e r s a l a c c e s s , (2) l i f e l o n g l e a r n i n g , (3) f l e x ­

i b i l i t y , and (4) i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o o r d i n a t i o n and c o o p e r a t i o n .
Some o f t h e recommended changes were:

(1) c o n tin u o u s p l a n ­

ning p r o c e s s , (2) s e n s i t i v i t y to m i n o r i t i e s and women, (3) a change
in t h e governance s t r u c t u r e in t h e appointm ent o f board members,
(4) a change in t h e c o n s u l t a t i o n and p l ann ing agency f o r t h e s t a t e
with a c l e a r m a j o r i t y o f t h e members p u b l i c r a t h e r t h a n p r o f e s s i o n a l
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , (5) r e g i o n a l c o u n c i l s .

Inasmuch as C a l i f o r n i a has

a r e p u t a t i o n o f bein g a l e a d e r in t h e development o f s t a t e w i d e
c o o r d i n a t i o n and p l a n n i n g , i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t to r e c o g n i z e t h a t
a p p a r e n t l y t h e l e g i s l a t u r e and t h e e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e have moved more
d i r e c t l y i n t o t h e governance o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n thro ugh t h i s

32

appro ach.

This has i n v o lv e d the p u b l i c more d i r e c t l y than t h e

p ro fessio n al educator a t p o licy s e t t i n g l e v e l s .

I t would seem t h a t

y e a r s o f c o o r d i n a t i o n and p la n n in g o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n with a very
s o p h i s t i c a t e d h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n board s t r u c t u r e w i t h ample funding
d i d n o t s a t i s f a c t o r i l y meet t h e needs o f t h e c i t i z e n s , as p e r c e i v e d
by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e .
Washington
In May o f 1974, t h e Council on Higher E d u ca tion , in i t s
recommendations f o r t h e development o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n in
t h e s t a t e o f Washington, r e q u e s t e d t h a t :

(1) t h e s t a t e be r e s p o n s i v e

to t h e f u l l range o f a d u l t e d u c a t i o n , (2) e d u c a t i o n be a v a i l a b l e f o r
a l l s t u d e n t s beyond high school a g e , (3) t h e r e be a c c e s s to a v a r i e t y
o f o p t i o n s , and (4) t h e r e be a u t i l i z a t i o n and c o o r d i n a t i o n o f a l l
19
educational reso u rces.
The mandate i n t h e S t a f f P r e f a c e o f t h i s
s t u d y i s s i m i l a r t o t h o s e found in many o f t h e s t a t e s t u d i e s :
In 1969, t h e S t a t e L e g i s l a t u r e c r e a t e d t h e Council on
Higher Education as a permanent p l a n n i n g and c o o r d i n a t i n g
body to conduct comprehensive p l a n n i n g f o r Washington
h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n . T his mandate was i n t e r p r e t e d by t h e
Council as e n t a i l i n g t h e development o f a l o n g - r a n g e p l a n ,
t h e f i r s t v e r s i o n o f which would a p p ly d u r i n g t h e remain­
ing y e a r s o f t h e decade o f t h e 1 9 7 0 ' s .
(3)
W ash ington's development and approach t o s t a t e w i d e c o o r d i n a ­
t i o n , compared to V i r g i n i a ' s , a p p e a r s t o be moving i n a d i r e c t i o n o f

19

Recommendations f o r t h e Development o f Po st-S ec o nd a ry
Edu cation in Washington: Report o f t h e Council on Higher E d u c a t i o n 's
Advisory Committee on E du ca tio na l Goals (Olympia: Council on Higher
E d u c a tio n , S t a t e o f Washington, May, 1974).

33

more l o c a l autonomy f o r i n s t i t u t i o n s and f o l lo w s i n a g en eral d i r e c ­
t i o n o f t h e t r a d i t i o n s a c c e p te d in Michigan.
The Is s u e s o f Governance in Michigan
Higher Education
The need f o r c o o r d i n a te d governance o f Michigan h i g h e r educa­
t i o n has been a d d re ss e d by many d i f f e r e n t s e c t o r s w i t h i n t h e s t a t e .
C o o r d i n a t i o n and Planning
In 1975 Governor William G. Mi H i ken asked t h a t an e i g h t member committee, headed by Oscar A. Lunden, form er Vice Chairman o f
General Motors C o r p o r a t i o n , be a t a s k f o r c e on Michigan e f f i c i e n c y .
In a r e p o r t d e l i v e r e d t o t h e Governor in 1976, t h i s group developed
more than 100 recommendations f o r improving t h e management o f c o l l e g e
and u n i v e r s i t y o p e r a t i o n .

As to t h e i s s u e s o f autonomy and c o o p e r a ­

t i o n , t h i s group in i t s implementation p r o g r e s s r e p o r t o f 1978
r e a f f i r m e d p r e v i o u s p o s i t i o n s o f c o n s u l t a n t s and e d u c a t o r s as t o t h e
need f o r c o o r d i n a t i o n and plan nin g f o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n in Michigan.
I t i s hoped t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n o f autonomy can be s e t a s i d e
i n i n s t a n c e s where c o o p e r a t i v e e f f o r t s w i t h o t h e r i n s t i t u ­
t i o n s o r s t a t e a g e n c ie s would be o f mutual b e n e f i t . One
o f t h e key t a s k f o r c e p r o p o s a l s was t o e s t a b l i s h a p l a n ­
ning a u t h o r i t y f o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n . Three a l t e r n a t i v e s
were su gg e ste d which shared a common v ie w p o in t t h a t t h e
new e n t i t y should be given a u t h o r i t y f o r g e n e r a l p l an n in g
and c o o r d i n a t i o n o f a l l p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n . Crea­
t i o n o f t h i s c o o r d i n a t i n g body i s e s s e n t i a l i f p r o p o s a l s
f o r i n c r e a s e d e f f i c i e n c y and c o s t r e d u c t i o n a r e t o be
implemented e f f e c t i v e l y . 20
20

"Implementation P r o g r e s s R ep ort: A summary o f f i r s t y e a r
accomplishments and f u t u r e c h a l l e n g e s - - M a r c h , 1978" (Lansing:
Michigan E f f i c i e n c y Task Force, 1978).

34

Many a r t i c l e s have been in t h e Michigan p a pers r e g a r d i n g
iss u e s o f higher edu catio n , fin an ce, co o rd in atio n , curriculum ,
gov ern an ce, p l a n n i n g , and f u t u r e c o n d i t i o n s o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y
education.

On November 19, 1977, a h e a d l i n e rea d "Mi H i ken T e l l s

U n i v e r s i t i e s to Get F i n a n c i a l Act T o g e t h e r . "
Higher e d u c a t i o n i s being prodded by Gov. William G.
M i l l i k e n to de v elop a c o o r d i n a t i n g co un cil t o watch-dog
programs and e x p an sio n s a t t h e s t a t e ' s 13 u n i v e r s i t i e s .
At u n p u b l i c i z e d meetings l a s t Monday, t h e go vern or
and t h e u n i v e r s i t y p r e s i d e n t s a l s o d i s c u s s e d t h e formula
approach f o r d iv v y in g up a p p r o p r i a t i o n s on what th ey
f e e l may be a more e q u i t a b l e b a s i s than what now f r e ­
q u e n t l y develops i n t o a do g -ea t-d o g scramble to g e t
more.
"I t h in k even t h e u n i v e r s i t i e s r e a l i z e t h e r e ' s a
need f o r some c o o r d i n a t i o n , " s a i d Douglas Smith, t h e
g o v e r n o r ' s s p e c i a l a s s i s t a n t f o r e d u c a t i o n . " I t ' s kind
o f c u t - t h r o a t (now). Each i n s t i t u t i o n wants more and
more. "
C o o r d in a tio n i s needed to end t h e d u p l i c a t i o n o f
programs we have o u t t h e r e , t h e expansion o f programs
and t h e f a c t t h a t we have l i m i t e d d o l l a r s and a d e c l i n ­
ing e n r o l l m e n t . We need b e t t e r c o o r d i n a t i o n i f we a r e
to use our r e s o u r c e s w e l l .
"Whoever has t h e l e g i s l a t o r s in key p o s i t i o n s - - t h e y
do come o u t w e l l , " Smith s a i d .
I t ' s a p o l i t i c a l process
r a t h e r than t h e needs o f t h e s c h o o l s . Because o f t h i s ,
some sch o o ls a r e under-funded and o t h e r s c h o o ls a r e
doing q u i t e w e l l . 21
Paul Dressel made some s a l i e n t p o i n t s r e g a r d i n g c o o r d i n a t i o n
and autonomy in t h e Michigan h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n s c e n e .

From h i s long

e x p e r i e n c e o f o v e r 45 y e a r s in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , he had t h e f o l lo w in g
to say:
Perhaps most o f a l l in my e x p e d i t i o n s around t h e
c o u n t r y I have marveled a t t h e way in which Michigan
i n s t i t u t i o n s have f o u g h t o f f formal c o o r d i n a t i o n . To
21

" M i l li k e n T e l l s U n i v e r s i t i e s to Get F i n a n c i a l Act
T o g e t h e r , " Lansing S t a t e J o u r n a l , 19 November 1977.

35

say t h a t t h e r e i s no c o o r d i n a t i o n i s simply a myth. In
my own o b s e r v a t i o n and e x p e r i e n c e a t Michigan S t a t e , i t
seems t o me t h a t many tim e s we have fac ed more c o o r d i n a ­
t i o n from l e g i s l a t i v e and bud get o f f i c e s than I f i n d in
o t h e r s t a t e s and g r e a t amounts o f energy have been
expended by many, many people i n responding t o i n c r e a s ­
i n g l y i n t r u s i v e demands f o r new kind o f d a t a and f o r
rev iew o f d a t a a l r e a d y p r o v i d e d .
I se e f a c u l t y members l a r g e l y as u sin g i n s t i t u t i o n s
to maximize t h e i r own acc omplish m en ts, and I see many
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s t r y i n g t o do t h e same. In t h i s p r o c e s s ,
I se e i n s t i t u t i o n s as t a k i n g a p o s i t i o n t h a t what th ey
do i s so e s o t e r i c t h a t o t h e r s cannot u n d e rs ta n d i t and
ough t t o be s a t i s f i e d t o p r o v id e t h e d o l l a r s r e q u e s t e d
w i t h a s s u r a n c e t h a t t h e y w i l l be well used. As I have
looked a t many i n s t i t u t i o n s a c r o s s t h e c o u n t r y , I have
n o t seen one bu t what cou ld make cu tb a ck in i t s p r o ­
grams, t h e r e b y improving t h e r e s t o f i t s o f f e r i n g s and
i n no wise s i g n i f i c a n t l y re d u c in g i t s e d u c a t i o n a l s e r ­
v i c e s t o t h e s t a t e . My f e e l i n g i s t h a t i t i s overdue
f o r f a c u l t y members t o reexamine t h e i r r o l e s in educa­
t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s and f o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s to t a k e r e s ­
p o n s i b i l i t y f o r i n s i s t i n g t h a t t h e f a c u l t y do t h i s .
In my ju dgment, t h e s i t u a t i o n in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n
t o day i s no t a r e s u l t o f t h e p u b l i c a t t e m p t i n g t o
w r e s t autonomy from o u r i n s t i t u t i o n s , b u t r a t h e r a con­
v i c t i o n , which I have come t o s h a r e , t h a t t h e i n s t i t u ­
t i o n s have n o t used autonomy r e s p o n s i b l y . 22
Areas o f Concern
In 1978 a s t u d y and surv e y was completed by Dan Angel, S t a t e
R e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e 49th d i s t r i c t , r e g a r d i n g c r i t i c a l i s s u e s f a c i n g
Michigan h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n .
f o r higher education:

He emphasized t e n major a r e a s o f concern

(1) a u t h o r i t y , (2) r o l e and m i s s i o n , (3)

d e c l i n i n g e n r o l l m e n t , (4) c o s t b e n e f i t , (5) community c o l l e g e s t r u c ­
t u r e , (6) midwestern s t a t e e d u c a t i o n a l compact, (7) t h e e x t e r n a l

22

Paul L. D r e s s e l , “C o n f l i c t i n g P r e s s u r e s f o r C o o r d i n a t i o n
and Autonomy in Michigan Higher E d u c a t i o n , " Michigan S t a t e U niv e r­
s i t y , 1977. (Mimeographed.)

36

d e g r e e , (8) s t a t e t u i t i o n p o l i c y , (9) funding model, and (10)
coordination of p r iv a te i n s t i t u t i o n s .
Angel a l s o noted t h e needs o f t h e s t a t e and c a l l e d f o r an
approach t o s t u d y and implement a more a p p r o p r i a t e way t o deal with
h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n t h a n i s p r e s e n t l y allow ed under t h e s t r u c t u r e of
the s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n .
A number o f t r e n d s on t h e h o rizo n w i l l have a s e r i o u s
impact on h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n in t h e 1 9 8 0 's : d e c l i n i n g
e n r o l l m e n t , t h e high c o s t o f m a i n t a i n i n g a l r e a d y e x i s t i n g
programs, demands f o r s t a t e s u p p o r t o f o t h e r programs,
and t h e slowing o f M i c h ig a n 's r a t e o f economic growth.
These t r e n d s r e s u l t in i n c r e a s i n g c oncern s about t h e b e s t
use o f f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s .
I f t h e s t a t e and i t s h i g h e r
educational i n s t i t u t i o n s e x e rc is e the ap p ro p ria te le a d e r­
s h i p now t o p r e p a r e , t h e n economic p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l
r e p e r c u s s i o n s p r o j e c t e d f o r t h e 1 9 8 0 's can be cushioned
o r accommodated.
I am n o t a l o n e i n my c a l l f o r f o r m a tio n o f a s t a t e
plan f o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n :
In 1974, t h e G o v e r n o r 's Com­
m is sio n on Highe r Edu cation p o i n t e d t o t h e need f o r
"d ev e lo p in g and a r t i c u l a t i n g a s t a t e m e n t o f M i c h ig a n 's
b a s i c g o a l s and p urposes in p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n . "
In 1976, t h e Michigan E f f i c i e n c y Task Force r e p o r t
c a l l e d f o r "a m a s t e r plan f o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n . "
E a r l i e r i n 1977, t h e Michigan Bureau o f Management
S c ie n c e s o f t h e Department o f Management and Budget con­
c lu ded in a r e p o r t t h a t t h e r e i s "a genu ine need f o r th e
development o f a new S t a t e P l a n . "23
C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Ambiguity
In t h e S t a t e o f S t a t e message o f 1978 t h e Governor was more
s p e c i f i c in p o i n t i n g o u t t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n ' s a m b ig u ity and t h a t t h e
s t a t e had l i t t l e o r no means o f l o n g - r a n g e p l a n n i n g f o r h i g h e r

23

Dan Angel, " C r i t i c a l I s s u e s Facing Michigan Higher Education
1978" ( L ansin g , Mich.: Michigan House Republican Caucus, 1978).

37

e d u c a t i o n in Michigan.

He had t h e f o l lo w in g t o say a b ou t a S t a t e

Board o f Higher E du catio n :
I c o n ti n u e t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ambiguity
r e g a r d i n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l autonomy, t h e r o l e o f t h e S t a t e
Board o f Education and s u b s e q u e n t c o u r t d e c i s i o n s have
r e s u l t e d in i n e f f e c t i v e p l a n n i n g and c o o r d i n a t i o n in
h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n . No means r e a l l y e x i s t t o e x p l o r e
changes and de velop b e t t e r i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o o p e r a t i o n and
statew ide planning. I again c a l l f o r a se p a ra te S ta te
Board o f Higher E d ucation as recommended in 1974 by my
Commission o f Highe r E d u c a tio n . This recommendation has
r e c e i v e d t h e endorsement o f t h e f o u r - y e a r c o l l e g e p r e s i ­
d e n ts and t h e Michigan A s s o c i a t i o n o f Governing
B o a r d s . 24
S t a t e Board o f E ducation
In March o f 1965 a C i t i z e n s ' Committee on Higher Education
o f Michigan r e p o r t e d t o Governor George Romney.

In t h e i r recom­

mendations r e g a r d i n g t h e i s s u e s f a c i n g Michigan t h e y gave t h e f o l ­
lowing d i r e c t i o n s t o t h e S t a t e Board o f Education o f Michigan.
The a b i l i t y o f t h e S t a t e Board o f E du cation t o c a r r y
o u t i t s charge t o do o v e r a l l p l a n n i n g and t o c o o r d i n a t e
h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n w i l l depend h e a v i l y upon t h e s u p p o r t o f
t h e p u b l i c , t h e l e g i s l a t o r s , and t h e govern or and o t h e r
s t a t e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e r s . Much w i l l depend a l s o ,
upon t h e B o a r d 's a b i l i t y t o win t h e r e s p e c t and c o o p e r a ­
t i o n o f t h e h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n s t h e m s e lv e s .
But in t h e end, t h e B o a r d 's a b i l i t y to s e c u r e c o o p e r a ­
t i o n and compliance on major i s s u e s w i l l f a l l back upon
how well i t c a r r i e s o u t i t s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c h ar g e to
a d v i s e t h e l e g i s l a t u r e as t o f i n a n c i a l r e q u i r e m e n t s and
how well t h e l e g i s l a t u r e and t h e v a r i o u s d e p artm e n ts o f
t h e s t a t e s u p p o r t i t in c a r r y i n g o u t t h a t c h a r g e .
The Committee c o n g r a t u l a t e s t h e Michigan i n s t i t u t i o n s
upon t h e i r e f f o r t s t o a ccom plish v o l u n t a r y c o o r d i n a t i o n
throu gh t h e Michigan C o o r d i n a t i n g Council f o r P u b l i c
Higher E d u c a tio n . When w ho lly r e l i e d upon, however,
v o l u n t a r y complianc e has broken down when t h e i n t e r e s t s
24

William G. M i l l i k e n , "Michigan S t a t e o f t h e S t a t e Mes­
sage" (Lansing: G o v e r n o r 's o f f i c e , J a n u a r y , 1978).

38

o f a major i n s t i t u t i o n have become c h a l l e n g e d . The
Committee pro pose s t h a t t h e S t a t e Board o f Education
encourage v o l u n t a r y compliance t o t h e g r e a t e s t e x t e n t
p o s s i b l e , but i t p r o p o s e s , a l s o , t h a t t h e Board be p r e ­
p are d a t a l l tim e s t o a pply p r e s s u r e on t h e i n s t i t u ­
t i o n s as n e c e s s a r y t o s e c u r e compliance when o t h e r w i s e
i t might f a i l .
A second way i s f o r t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o a s s i g n t h e
i n s t i t u t i o n s t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e r o l e s by law.
A t h i r d way i s t o have an a l l - p o w e r f u l s t a t e board
o f e d u c a ti o n whose c o o r d i n a t i n g o r d e r s have t h e e f f e c t
o f law.
The f o u r t h way i s d e sig ned t o p r e s e r v e f l e x i b i l i t y
and d i v e r s i t y and t o reward t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s f o r t h e
e x e r c i s e o f i m a g i n a t io n and c r e a t i v i t y .
I t is , there­
f o r e , more s u i t e d t o M i c h ig a n .25
Over t h e y e a r s t h e S t a t e Board o f Education has not been
s u c c e s s f u l in im plementa tio n o f t h e recommendations o f t h i s comittee.

I t has not g a in e d t h e backing o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h i g h e r

e d u c a t i o n , t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , o r t h e Governor.
In 1967 a c o u r t c ase was f i l e d by t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Michi­
gan, Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , and Wayne S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y r e q u e s t ­
in g t h a t c e r t a i n a c t s o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e be d e c l a r e d u n c o n s t i t u ­
t i o n a l as c o n t r a r y t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e A r t i c l e V I I I , S e c t i o n 5,
o f t h e Michigan c o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1965 which g i v e s t h e i n s t i t u t i o n
g e n e r a l s u p e r v i s i o n o f t h e c o n t r o l and d i r e c t i o n o f t h e i r e x p en d i­
t u r e s and funds.

At t h e recommendation o f t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l, t h e

S t a t e Board o f E du cation i n t e r v e n e d in t h i s c a s e t o ask a l s o f o r
l e g a l c l a r i f i c a t i o n c o n ce rn in g t h e i r r o l e in g e n e r a l p la n n in g and
coo rd in atio n of higher education c o n s is te n t with A r t i c l e V III,
26

"Reports o f t h e Six Study Committees" and "A C o n s o l i d a t e d
and Summary Sta te m ent o f F ind ing s and Recommendations," Report o f
C i t i z e n s Committee on Higher E d ucation in Michigan (Kalamazoo,
Mich.: The C i t i z e n s Committee on Higher E d u ca tio n , Harold T. Smith,
E xec u tive D i r e c t o r , March, 1965).

39

S e c t i o n 3, o f t h e 1965 Michigan c o n s t i t u t i o n .

The d e c i s i o n p e r t a i n ­

ing to t h e above c a s e , t h e "Salomon d e c i s i o n " o f t h e Ingham County
C i r c u i t Court r u l e d in f a v o r o f i n s t i t u t i o n s having independence
from t h e l e g i s l a t u r e and t h e s t a t e board i n program p l a n n i n g .

A

l a t e r d e c i s i o n by t h e Oakland County C i r c u i t Court used t h e "Salomon
d e c i s i o n " as p r e c e d e n t in a c a s e where t h e l e g i s l a t u r e had r e q u e s t e d
t h a t community c o l l e g e s levy a c e r t a i n l e v e l o f t u i t i o n .

The c o u r t

held t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e did not have t h i s a u t h o r i t y , given t h e
autonomy o f community c o l l e g e b o a rd s .

C o nsequ en tly , in Michigan t h e

c o u r t s have upheld t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l autonomy o f i t s p o s t - s e c o n d a r y
i n s t i t u t i o n s , and t h e S t a t e Board o f E du cation has n o t been su c ­
c e s s f u l in c a r r y i n g o u t i t s p e r c e i v e d r o l e o f c o o r d i n a t i o n .
In May o f 1977 Gorton R i e t h m i l l e r was g iven t h e p o s i t i o n o f
Ombudsman t o t h e S t a t e Board o f E ducation f o r p o s t - s e c o n d a r y
education.

He was ask ed by t h e d e p artm e n t t o v i s i t w i t h c o l l e g e

p r e s i d e n t s and o t h e r c o l l e g e o f f i c i a l s a c r o s s t h e s t a t e t o see
wh eth er he could work o u t a c o o p e r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e
S t a t e Department and t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s and to a d v i s e t h e S u p e r i n t e n ­
d e n t o f P u b lic I n s t r u c t i o n on t h e va ry ing views o f t h e d i f f e r e n t
in stitu tio n s.

He summed up h i s f e e l i n g s r e g a r d i n g h i s v i s i t s and

t h e r o l e o f t h e s t a t e board and p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n in t h e
f o l lo w in g s t a t e m e n t :
A m biguities in t h e p r e s e n t C o n s t i t u t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e
f u n c t i o n and a u t h o r i t y o f t h e S t a t e Board o f Education
t o g e t h e r w ith more than a decade o f i r r e s o l u t i o n and con­
f l i c t d i c t a t e a new c o u rs e o f a c t i o n .
In s p i t e o f con­
t i n u a l e f f o r t s on t h e p a r t o f t h e S t a t e Board o f Educa­
t i o n , i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t t h e e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e w i l l not
work. T h e r e f o r e , t h e S t a t e Board o f Edu cation should

40

r e c o g n i z e i t s p l i g h t and dilemma in r e g a r d t o p o s t ­
se con d a ry e d u c a t i o n and e x e r t i t s l e a d e r s h i p t o d i r e c t
s t a f f t o p r e s e n t v a r i o u s a l t e r n a t i v e s whereby a s e p a r a t e
bo ard o r commission on p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a ti o n may be
c r e a t e d . Such a l t e r n a t i v e s should i n c l u d e p o s s i b l e Con­
s t i t u t i o n a l r e v i s i o n a n d / o r s t a t u t o r y e n a c tm e n t s , v a r i o u s
v i a b l e s t r u c t u r e s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y and r e s p o n ­
s i b i l i t i e s , and t h e means whereby p o l i c i e s w i l l be formed
and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f p o l i c i e s w i l l be implemented. From
t h e s e a l t e r n a t i v e s t h e S t a t e Board o f Education should
counsel w i t h t h e L e g i s l a t u r e and t h e Governor as t o t h e
b e s t means f o r r e s o l v i n g t h e e x i s t i n g s i t u a t i o n s . 26
The S t a t e Board o f Education and t h e Governor a t tim es have
d i f f e r e n c e s o f o p i n i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e i r r o l e s , as p o i n t e d o u t in t h e
D e t r o i t Free P r e ss on March 30, 1978.

The s t a t e board r e q u e s t e d a

c o n t i n u i n g r o l e i n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , bu t t h e Governor remained f i r m
t h a t t h e r e should be a s e p a r a t e bo ard .
S t a t e Board o f E ducation members urged Governor
Mi H i ken Wednesday t o abandon h i s d r i v e f o r a s e p a r a t e
board on h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n . M i l l i k e n r e f u s e d . He s a i d
t h e c o m p l e x i t i e s o f e d u c a t i o n problems in Michigan a r e
such " t h a t a s i n g l e board c a n ' t deal s a t i s f a c t o r i l y
w i t h t h e whole r a n g e . " He a l s o s a i d t h e p r e s e n t board
has enough on i t s hands d e a l i n g w i t h i t s pr imary r e ­
s p o n s i b i l i t y —t h e problems o f e le m e n tar y and secondary
e d u c a t i o n - - a n d t h a t a s e p a r a t e board f o r h i g h e r e duca­
t i o n would have more " a c c e p t a b i l i t y " w ith t h e s t a t e ' s
h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n community. S u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f P u b l i c
I n s t r u c t i o n , John W. P o r t e r , who opposes M i l l i k e n ' s
p r o p o s a l , t i c k e d o f f a l i s t o f accomplishments by t h e
c u r r e n t Board o f Education d u r i n g t h e l a s t decade in
h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n . He to o urged M i l l i k e n t o g i v e t h e
board t h e t o o l s t o do more. M i l l i k e n , however, s a i d he
p l a n s t o r e d o u b l e h i s e f f o r t s t o win l e g i s l a t i v e
appro val f o r a b a l l o t proposa l t h a t would e s t a b l i s h a
s e p a r a t e h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n board i n t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n .
Such a b o a r d , u n der M i l l i k e n ' s p l a n , would be a p p o in t e d
by t h e govern or and have a d v i s o r y powers o n l y .

nc

1978.

Gorton R e i t h m i l l e r , Report t o t h e S t a t e Board o f E du cation

41

But, s a i d M i l l i k e n Wednesday, i t would be s t a f f e d and
f i n a n c e d s u f f i c i e n t l y "so t h a t by s h e e r f o r c e o f q u a l i t y
o f i t s work i t would have s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l u e n c e . " A p r o ­
posal f o r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment pro posa l to s e t up t h e
new board was i n t r o d u c e d i n t h e House l a s t J u l y by Rep.
John S. Mowat, J r . , R-Adrian, b u t i t has y e t to be given
a p u b l i c h e a r i n g in committee. In g e n e r a l , t h e L e g i s l a ­
t u r e has t r e a t e d such p r o p o s a l s c o o l l y o ver t h e y e a r s ,
p r e f e r r i n g t o deal w ith h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n p la n n in g thro ugh
t h e annual a p p r o p r i a t i o n s p r o c e s s . Both M i l l i k e n and t h e
Board o f E du cation members a g re e t h a t such a p r o c e s s has
le d t o d u p l i c a t i o n o f many s e r v i c e s and o v e r l a p p in g
j u r i s d i c t i o n s i n such m a t t e r s as e n r o l l m e n t and c o u rs e
o f f e r i n g s . M i c h ig a n 's major u n i v e r s i t i e s , w i t h t h e i r
p o t e n t l o b b i e s in t h e L e g i s l a t u r e , have p ro s p e r e d under
such a system, however, and have been r e l u c t a n t to
e n d o rs e p r o p o s a l s t h a t would giv e s i g n i f i c a n t powers
e i t h e r t o t h e Board o f Education o r t o a s e p a r a t e board
on h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n in 1974, and M i l l i k e n , f o r t h e l a s t
t h r e e y e a r s , has i n c l u d e d such a recommendation i n h i s
S t a t e o f t h e S t a t e message to t h e L e g i s l a t u r e . 27
P e t e r McCarthy, c o r r e s p o n d e n t f o r G annett News S e r v i c e , r e ­
sponded f o r t h e news s e r v i c e on August 18, 1978.

In review ing some of

t h e f u n c t i o n s o f t h e S t a t e Board o f E d u ca tion , h i s comments empha­
s i z e d t h e S t a t e Board o f E d u c a t i o n ' s d i f f i c u l t i e s :
An i n s i g h t —o f s o r t s — i n t o t h e growth p r o c e s s o f h i g h e r
f i n a n c e s o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n was provided l a s t week by
t h e S t a t e Board o f E d u ca tio n . The board reviewed 50 new
c o u r s e s o f s t u d y t h a t were given o f f i c i a l appro val by
t h e L e g i s l a t u r e i n Ju n e . Of t h o s e 15, r e q u i r i n g an
e s t i m a t e d $900,000 a y e a r t o o p e r a t e , t h e board s t a f f
had urged t h a t seven were not a j u s t i f i e d i n v e s tm e n t f o r
t h e t a x p a y e r s ' money. The b o a r d , however, d e c id e d t h a t
two o f t h o s e r e j e c t i o n s should have i t s a p p r o v a l , anyhow.
That t h e board even b o t h e r e d may be p u z z l i n g . The L e g i s ­
l a t u r e had a l r e a d y approved t h e new c o u rs e s o f s t u d y ,
p l u s 18 o t h e r s , i n i t s h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n b i l l and presum­
a b l y pro v id ed fu nd ing f o r them. Some o f t h e programs
deemed by t h e S t a t e Board s t a f f as unworthy o f t a x d o l l a r
s u p p o r t d id g e t l e g i s l a t i v e a p p r o v a l . For i n s t a n c e , t h e
S t a t e Board s t a f f concluded t h a t Oakland U n i v e r s i t y ' s
pro p osal t o s e t up a m a s t e r ' s de g re e program i n computer
27

" M i l l i k e n Firm on 2nd Board o f E d u c a t i o n , " D e t r o i t Free
P r e s s , 30 March 1978.

42

s c i e n c e had f a i l e d to d e te rm in e whether t h e r e was even
any market demand f o r such g r a d u a t e s . In any c a s e , a
c o o p e r a t i v e arrangem ent f o r o t h e r s c h o o l s t o s h a r e f a c ­
u l t y and computer time might p r o v i d e a more economical
use o f r e s o u r c e s , t h e s t a f f e v a l u a t i o n con cluded. P r e ­
sumably, t h e $ 7 9 , 0 0 0 - a - y e a r program i s a l r e a d y under
way. Some programs g e t thumbs down from everyone con­
c e r n e d , such as t h e p e r e n n i a l Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
r e q u e s t f o r a d e n t a l s u r g e r y program, a t $144,000 a
y e a r , o r a law s c h o o l , a t $409,000 a y e a r . Some may
r e g a r d l e g i s l a t i v e s c r e e n i n g o f new c o u r s e s , s t a r t e d
t h r e e y e a r s ago to p u t a s t o p to empire b u i l d i n g , as an
e x e r c i s e in s e l f - i m p o r t a n c e , b ecause o f t h e c o n s t i t u ­
t i o n a l autonomy o f t h e u n i v e r s i t i e s . But f o r a school
t o go ahead w i t h o u t t h a t approval i s t o r i s k a very
u n f r i e n d l y r e c e p t i o n when i t comes time f o r n e x t y e a r ' s
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s . The C o n s t i t u t i o n g u a r a n t e e s t h e
u n i v e r s i t i e s academic freedom in spending t h e money
anyway i t p l e a s e s them—b u t i t b e t t e r p l e a s e t h e L e g i s ­
l a t u r e , t o o . 28
E l e c t i o n , Appointment o f
I n s t i t u t i o n a l Boards
Throughout M i c h i g a n 's h i s t o r y o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n ,
the i s s u e o f appointm ent o r e l e c t i o n o f p u b l i c c o l l e g e and u n i v e r ­
s i t y bo ard s o f c o n t r o l has been d e b a t e d ; changes have ta k e n p l a c e
periodically.

In t h e 1 8 0 0 's , f o r exam ple, t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Michi­

gan Board o f Regents was a p p o i n t e d by t h e Governor.

At a l a t e r d a t e ,

1863, t h e r e g e n t s were e l e c t e d t o o f f i c e by a s t a t e w i d e v o t e .

This

change from an a p p o in t e d board t o an e l e c t e d one r e s u l t e d from con­
c e r n s o ver t h e p o l i t i c a l n a t u r e o f t h e ap p oin tm en ts and t h e i r impact
upon t h e u n i v e r s i t y .
J u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n s e s t a b l i s h e d t h e autonomy o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y
o f Michigan and d e f i n e d i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e G o v e r n o r 's o f f i c e
28

"Board Review P u z z l i n g , " Lansing S t a t e J o u r n a l , 18 August
1978, s e c . 2.

43

and t h e l e g i s l a t u r e .

The c o u r t s r u l e d t h a t t h e r e g e n t s , having been

e l e c t e d by t h e p e o p l e , were r e s p o n s i b l e t o them f o r t h e u n i v e r s i t y ' s
budget and d i r e c t i o n .

The u n i v e r s i t y was exempted from t h e d i r e c ­

t i o n o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e and t h e e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e in a r e a s o f budget
and program.
M i c h ig a n 's former s t a t e t e a c h e r c o l l e g e s , i . e . , Northern
Michigan, Western Michigan, E a s te r n Michigan, and C e n tr a l Michigan
U n i v e r s i t i e s , were under t h e d i r e c t i o n o f a s i n g l e s t a t e w i d e b oa rd,
which was c r i t i c i z e d f o r n o t having t h e tim e to g iv e d i r e c t i o n and
guidance t o t h e s e p a r a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s .

These c o l l e g e s were given

u n i v e r s i t y s t a t u s and g r a n t e d autonomy i n t h e 1965 c o n s t i t u t i o n .
The s t a t e w i d e board was r e p l a c e d by i n d i v i d u a l b o a r d s , whose members
a r e a p p o in t e d by t h e Governor w ith t h e a d v ic e and c o n s e n t o f t h e
S e n a te .
At p r e s e n t t h e boa rds o f t h e t h r e e major p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s
i n Michigan, Wayne S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , and
t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan a r e e l e c t e d a t l a r g e ; t h i s approach i s
s u p p o r te d a t t h e s e i n s t i t u t i o n s .

The b oard s o f t h e o t h e r p u b l i c

i n s t i t u t i o n s , whose members a r e a p p o i n t e d , f a v o r appointm ent with
a d v i c e and c o n s e n t o f t h e S e n a te .
The s u b j e c t has become one o f t h e key i s s u e s i n Michigan
p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n , and was d i s c u s s e d in The S t a t e J o u r n a l .
The f o l l o w i n g e d i t o r i a l appeared on December 10, 1978.
Before l a s t November's e l e c t i o n , Re publican c a n d i ­
d a t e s f o r t h e Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Board o f T r u s t e e s
e x p r e s s e d conce rn about r e p o r t s t h a t some t r u s t e e s wanted
a h u r r y - u p d e c i s i o n on a new p r e s i d e n t f o r t h e s c h o o l .

44

Presumably, t h e concern was t h a t t h e Democratic
m a j o r i t y on t h e board wanted t o make s u r e i t would be
a Democratic d e c i s i o n j u s t in c a s e t h e two Republicans
won i n November. Had t h a t happened, t h e board would
have had f o u r R e publicans and f o u r Democrats i n Ja n uary
i n s t e a d o f t h e p r e s e n t 6-2 Democrat v o t e do m in atio n.
Whatever p o l i t i c a l maneuvering was going on , i t
e v a p o r a te d on Nov. 7 when two Democrats were e l e c t e d ,
Carol Lick and Barbara Sawyer.
What t h e MSU s i t u a t i o n p r o v i d e s i s a n o t h e r re a so n
why members o f to p s t a t e e d u c a t i o n boards should n o t be
e l e c t e d on a p a r t i s a n b a s i s .
P o l i t i c k i n g has been a p a r t i c u l a r bane o f t h e S t a t e
Board o f E ducation and t h e MSU b o a rd , w i t h much to o
much i n f i g h t i n g and p o s t u r i n g o v e r p o l i c i e s , many o f
which a r e more r e l a t e d t o p a r t y p h i l o s o p h i e s t h a n educa­
t i o n a l needs o f t h e s t a t e .
E l e c t i n g t h e s t a t e ' s to p e d u c a t i o n l e a d e r s on a
s t r a i g h t p a r t y l i n e b a s i s , which i s what u s u a l l y
happens, i s sim ply a l o u sy way t o run an e d u c a t i o n a l
system.
Another p o i n t worth n o t i n g i s t h e high v o t e r d r o p o f f
in t h e e d u c a t i o n b a l l o t i n g which took p l a c e t h i s y e a r as
in p a s t e l e c t i o n s . That i s a c l e a r s u g g e s t i o n t h a t many
v o ters are e i t h e r d i s i n t e r e s t e d or are not voting
because they know no th in g a b ou t t h e c a n d i d a t e s . We s u s ­
p e c t i t ' s a combination o f b o t h .
A b e t t e r system would be t o e s t a b l i s h a s t a t e c i t i z e n
committee t o s c r e e n and s e l e c t nominees f o r t h e e d u c a ti o n
p o s t s and th en have t h e g o ve rn o r a p p o i n t from t h o s e
l i s t s . The s e l e c t i o n s could a l s o be s u b j e c t t o a d v ic e
and c o n se n t o f t h e S e n a t e , as i s t h e c a s e w i t h s t a t e c o l ­
l e g e boards o t h e r th a n t h e Big Three and t h e s t a t e bo ard .
Such a c o u r s e , i n our view, would p r o v i d e a b e t t e r
system f o r b r i n g i n g e d u c a t i o n a l q u a l i t y t o t h e gov ern ing
boa rds th an t h e p o l i t i c i z e d h i t and miss approach t h a t
we now h a v e . 29
In an a r t i c l e which appeared on J a n u a r y 16, 1979, W. Kim
Heron, a Lansing S t a t e J o u r n a l s t a f f w r i t e r , s a i d :
A prop osal t o make t h e g o ve rn ing bo ard s o f Michigan
S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan and Wayne

29

" P o l i t i c k i n g in E d u c a t i o n , " Lansing S t a t e J o u r n a l , 10
December 1978.

45

S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y a p p o in ted r a t h e r than e l e c t e d o f f i c e s
has drawn mixed r e a c t i o n a f t e r being forwarded by
Governor William l a s t week.
Governor Mil l i k e n made t h e prop osal f o r a c o n s t i t u ­
t i o n a l amendment d u rin g h i s S t a t e o f th e S t a t e message
on Thursday and c i t e d t h e su c c e s s o f t h e a p p o i n t i v e
system a t t h e o t h e r t e n c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s in t h e
s t a t e . Under h i s p l a n , t h e app ointm ents would go
through the Se n a te f o r c o n f i r m a t i o n .
"The P r e s i d e n t s o f t h e u n i v e r s i t i e s have in t h e p a s t
i n d i c a t e d t h e y a r e not s a t i s f i e d w ith t h e q u a l i t y and
typ e o f people you g e t through t h e p r e s e n t s y s te m , " s a i d
a to p Mi H i ken a i d e . The a i d e s a i d former Michigan
u n i v e r s i t y p r e s i d e n t s C l i f t o n R. Wharton, J r . , Thomas
Gullen and Robin Fleming o f MSU, WSU and U o f M r e s p e c ­
t i v e l y , had e x p r e s s e d t h o s e concerns on l e a v i n g o f f i c e .
Proponents o f t h e p l a n , which would have t o be
approved by t h e L e g i s l a t u r e and go b e f o r e t h e v o t e r s as
a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment, say t h e plan w i l l reduce
p o l i t i c s on t h e b o a rd s .
Sinc e t h e e l e c t e d e d u c a ti o n s e a t s , t h e t h r e e u n i v e r ­
s i t i e s and t h e s t a t e board o f e d u c a t i o n , u s u a l l y go t o
t h e p a r t y which runs t h e s t r o n g e s t in t h e major s t a t e ­
wide r a c e s , s u p p o r t e r s o f t h e appointment i d e a say few
v o t e r s a r e e x p r e s s i n g t h e i r o p i n io n anyways.
C r i t i c s o f t h e Mi H i ken proposal say an a p p o i n t i v e
system would be s u b j e c t t o p a t r o n a g e , would s t i l l be
p o l i t i c a l and would deny v o t e r s t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o
express t h e i r choice.
Edgar A. Harden, i n t e r i m p r e s i d e n t o f MSU, s a i d t h a t
he su p p o r te d t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment "as a m a t t e r
o f b a s i c p h i l o s o p h y . " He s a i d he came t o t h a t view
a f t e r working w i t h an a p p o in t e d board as p r e s i d e n t o f
Northern Michigan U n i v e r s i t y .
"I t h i n k t h e r e a r e people who w i l l t a k e an a p p o i n t ­
ment who w i l l n o t run on a p o l i t i c a l p l a t f o r m , " s a i d
Harden. He s a i d t h e NMU board had " p r e t t y good r e p r e ­
s e n t a t i o n , " in term s o f b u s i n e s s , l a b o r and s o c i a l
i n t e r e s t g r o u p s . 30
E x te r n a l I n f l u e n c e s
The r o l e and c o n s t i t u e n c y o f t h o s e d i r e c t i n g h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n
has changed r a p i d l y in t h e l a s t t e n y e a r s with i n c r e a s e d s t a t e
on

" T a l e n t e d T r u s t e e s in S p i t e o f System?" Lansing S t a t e
J o u r n a l , 16 Ja n u a r y 1979.

46

c o o r d i n a t i o n , t h e development o f s t a t e b o a rd s , and t h e s t r o n g e r r o l e
playe d by t h e f e d e r a l and s t a t e governments.

In p a r t i c u l a r , c o l ­

l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g has had a d i r e c t impact on t h e d e c i s i o n and p o l ­
i c y making p r o c e s s e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , t h e
G o v e r n o r 's o f f i c e , p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s , b u s i n e s s and u n i o n s , and t h e
f e d e r a l government.
The Governor in h i s S t a t e o f t h e S t a t e message in 1977 made
t h e f o l l o w i n g o b s e r v a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g a r e g i o n a l approach t o h i g h e r
education.
L a s t summer, t h e Midwestern Gove rnors' Conference
observ ed :
"Long-term t r e n d s in h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n e n r o l l m e n t s ,
t h e high c o s t o f m a i n t a i n i n g a l r e a d y e x i s t i n g programs
a t p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n s in t h e Midwest,
t h e c o s t o f t h e numerous new h i g h - c o s t programs which
a r e being proposed ( p a r t i c u l a r l y a t t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l
l e v e l ) , and t h e p r o j e c t e d f u t u r e l o n g - te r m growth o f t h e
r e g i o n ' s economy a l l s u g g e s t t h a t a new approach may be
r e q u i r e d t o t h e p la n n in g and f i n a n c i n g o f h i g h e r educa­
t i o n among Midwestern s t a t e s . "
The g o v e r n o r s , a t my u r g i n g , agreed t o e x p l o r e t h e
p o s s i b i l i t y o f e s t a b l i s h i n g more s y s t e m a t i c , i n t e r ­
s t a t e , and r e g i o n a l app roaches t o new program rev iew and
a p p r o v a l , c o s t s h a r i n g and c o n t r a c t i n g r e g i o n a l l y , and
t h e use o f f e d e r a l funds t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e n e c e s s a r y
p l a n n i n g f o r such a rr a n g em e n ts .
The Council o f S t a t e Governments i s , I am p l e a s e d t o
s a y , p u r s u i n g t h i s r e g i o n a l app roach . I w i l l be making
s p e c i f i c recommendations as t o how Michigan may b e n e f i t
from such an arrangem ent when t h e Council o f S t a t e
Governments, working w i t h t h e Midwestern Gove rnors'
Confe re nce , completes i t s w o r k .31
In t h e Natio nal E duca tion A s s o c i a t i o n ' s p u b l i c a t i o n o f
O c t o b e r , 1978, Barry S t e a r n s , P r e s i d e n t o f t h e Michigan A s s o c i a t i o n
■^William G. Mi H i ken, "Michigan S t a t e o f t h e S t a t e Message"
(L an sin g: G o v e r n o r 's O f f i c e , J a n u a r y , 1977).

47

f o r Higher E d u c a ti o n , d i s c u s s e d t h e approach o f a new c o o r d i n a t e d
b a r g a i n i n g program t h a t would be implemented a c r o s s t h e s t a t e o f
Michigan.

The approach i s t h a t o f r e g i o n a l b a r g a i n i n g where a g r e e ­

ments on t h e p a r t o f t h e union a t t h e l o c a l l e v e l must be c o o r d i n a t e d
w i t h a r e g i o n a l approach b e f o r e a c c e p t a n c e by t h e l o c a l union can
take place.

C o n se q u e n tly , t h i s changes t h e autonomy o f t h e l o c a l

union and bo ard .

The approach being developed f o r Michigan c o l l e g e s

and u n i v e r s i t i e s i s one t h a t w i l l c o o r d i n a t e b a r g a i n i n g o f t h e i r
unions a c r o s s t h e s t a t e .

Mr. S t e a r n s makes t h e f o l lo w in g p o i n t s

regarding the u n ion's plans:
Any MAHE a f f i l i a t e t h a t s e t t l e s e a r l y f o r l e s s w i l l
have t o answer t o i t s c o u n t e r p a r t s a t o t h e r Michigan c o l ­
l e g e s . Regional review boards a r e being e s t a b l i s h e d
which w i l l have a u t h o r i t y t o examine a l l t e n t a t i v e a g r e e ­
ments and t o g r a n t e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e minimum s t a n d a r d s
where n e c e s s a r y .
" C o o r d i n a t i o n —a c t i n g in c o n c e r t w i t h o t h e r s r a t h e r
t h a n s t a n d i n g a l o n e — g i v e s a small a s s o c i a t i o n b a r g a i n i n g
l e v e r a g e . The minimum s t a n d a r d s a r e p r o v i d i n g us w i t h a
new se n se o f d i r e c t i o n , p u r p o se , and c o n t r o l a t t h e b a r ­
gaining t a b l e . "
MAHE's e v e n t u a l goal i s common e x p i r a t i o n d a t e s f o r
a l l c o n t r a c t s a c r o s s t h e s t a t e , t o giv e f a c u l t y even
more e f f e c t i v e c o o r d i n a t e d b a r g a i n i n g c l o u t . 3 2
In an a r t i c l e by Gene I . Maerof f, New York Times, September
6 , 1977, t h e r e was a s u c c i n c t d e s c r i p t i o n o f what i s happening t o
c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s as t h e y a c c e p t funding and d i r e c t i o n from
t h e f e d e r a l government:
Higher e d u c a t i o n , along w ith e le m e n ta r y and se condary
e d u c a t i o n , has been t h e t a r g e t o f growing Fe dera l i n t e r ­
v e n t i o n as Washington has s t e a d i l y expanded i t s r e g u l a ­
t i o n o f t h e s c h o o l s and c o l l e g e s along w i t h i t s funding
32

N a tio n a l Edu cation A s s o c i a t i o n p u b l i c a t i o n , O c t o b e r , 1978.

48

o f them. The Government's involvement in h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n
now t o u c h e s a lm o st e v ery a s p e c t o f academic l i f e from h i r ­
ing and d i s m i s s a l s t o s t u d e n t a i d , c u r r i c u l u m , a r c h i t e c ­
t u r a l d e s i g n , r e s e a r c h a c t i v i t i e s and e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r
programs. The Government g i v e s $14 b i l l i o n a y e a r
d i r e c t l y t o t h e c o u n t r y ' s 11 m i l l i o n c o l l e g e and u n i v e r ­
s i t y s t u d e n t s and t o t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s . Washington a l s o
c o n t r i b u t e s t o h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n through income t a x p r o ­
v i s i o n s worth a lm o s t $2 b i l l i o n , such as a llo w in g p a r e n t s
t o c la im s t u d e n t s a s dep end ents and p e r m i t t i n g s c h o l a r ­
s h i p s and g r a n t s t o be excluded from income. D e sp ite a l l
t h i s , however, t h e r e i s no u n i f y i n g p o l i c y on h i g h e r educa­
tio n .
In t h i s r e s p e c t , t h e s i t u a t i o n res em bles t h a t in
e le m e n t a r y and se c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n . At l e a s t 70 sub­
committees o f 34 s e p a r a t e committees i n t h e House and
Se n a te have some j u r i s d i c t i o n over 439 s t a t u t o r y
a u t h o r i t i e s a f f e c t i n g p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n , a cco rding
t o A llan W. O s t a r , e x e c u t i v e d i r e c t o r o f t h e American
A s s o c i a t i o n o f S t a t e C o lle g e s and U n i v e r s i t i e s . Thus,
t h e r e a r e many h a n d le s by which Washington can a t t e m p t to
g e t a g r i p on h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , as many sch o o ls have d i s ­
c ov ered .
In t h e December 13, 1977, i s s u e o f The S t a t e J o u r n a l ,
L a n s in g , Michigan, t h e e d i t o r i a l h e a d l i n e was "Get t h e Fed Meddlers
O u t ."

The i s s u e a t hand d e a l t w i t h t h e a c c e p t a n c e o f funding by t h e

C o lle g e o f Human M e d icin e, Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , and t h e d i r e c ­
t i o n t h a t Congress was t a k i n g i n d e te r m i n i n g adm ission s t a n d a r d s as
well a s openin gs f o r medical s c h o o l s a c r o s s t h e c o u n t r y , i f t h e
i n s t i t u t i o n was w i l l i n g t o a c c e p t t h e f u n d i n g .

As t h e e d i t o r i a l

states:
Many f a r - s i g h t e d e d u c a t o r s warned y e a r s ago t h a t once th e
f e d e r a l government g o t i n t o t h e a i d - t o - e d u c a t i o n b u s i n e s s
i t would n o t be long b e f o r e s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t s i n Congress
would be t r y i n g t o c a l l t h e s h o t s in a r e a s where th ey
d o n ' t b e lo n g . The p r o p h e c i e s , o f c o u r s e , were a l l to o
t r u e and Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y t r u s t e e s found them­
s e l v e s g r a p p l i n g w i t h one o f t h e consequences l a s t week.
On t h e agenda was a $576,000 g r a n t t o t h e u n i v e r s i t y ' s
C o lle g e o f Human Medicine from t h e N a tion a l I n s t i t u t e o f
H e a l t h . One o f t h e s t r i n g s a t t a c h e d was a p r o v i s i o n t h a t
MSU must i n c r e a s e i t s t h i r d - y e a r e n r o l l m e n t s by f i v e p e r ­
c e n t and f i l l t h o s e s l o t s w i t h American s t u d e n t s who

49

a t t e n d e d f o r e i g n medical s c h o o l s t h e f i r s t two y e a r s .
This s t i p u l a t i o n was a t t a c h e d by Congress a p p a r e n t l y t o
b e n e f i t some a f f l u e n t s t u d e n t s , m o stly from t h e s t a t e s
o f C a l i f o r n i a , New York and New J e r s e y , who could no t
g e t i n t o U.S. medical s c h o o l s a t t h e f i r s t - y e a r l e v e l
and t h u s o p ted f o r t h e f o r e i g n i n s t i t u t i o n s .
In s h o r t ,
t h e f e d e r a l s a r e usi ng t h e power o f money t o i n f l u e n c e
medical school a dm issio n p o l i c i e s .
The r e s e a r c h in t h e f i e l d , t h e s t a t e plan nin g documents, and
t h e more r e c e n t newspaper a r t i c l e s and monographs a l l emphasize t h e
co nce rn s a c r o s s t h e United S t a t e s r e g a r d i n g :
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.

C e n t r a l i z a t i o n v s. D e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n —S t a te w i d e
V o l u n t a r y , A d v iso r y , and R e g u la to ry Boards
Governance
S t a t e w i d e Pla n n in g
I n s t i t u t i o n a l Autonomy
Board o f T r u s t e e s :

S a t i s f a c t i o n , S e l e c t i o n , and Size

P o s t -S e c o n d a ry Education v s . Higher E ducation

VII.

F u t u r e and P r e s e n t C o n d i t i o n s o f Po st-S econ d ary
E d ucation

VIII.

R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f a S t a te w i d e Board o f Higher
E d ucation

IX.

P u b l i c Community C o l le g e s

The i n t e n s i t y in Michigan i s i n c r e a s i n g f o r some d e c i s i o n
t o be made r e g a r d i n g t h e f u t u r e o f c o o r d i n a t i o n and p la n n in g f o r
Michigan h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n .

In J a n u a r y , 1978, a t t h e tim e o f t h e

G o v e r n o r 's S t a t e o f t h e S t a t e A d d r e ss , t h e e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e and
o t h e r s in t h e s t a t e d i s c u s s e d t h e i r concern f o r t h e impact o f c e n ­
t r a l i z a t i o n and t h e need t o be s e n s i t i v e to i n s t i t u t i o n a l autonomy.
I t a p p ea rs t h a t t h e pendulum i s swinging in t h e s t a t e o f Michigan in
t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e recommendations o f t h e G o v e r n o r 's Council

50

Report f o r an Advisory Board, but an approach t h a t does g ive Michi­
gan a p l a n and a way t o exchange i n f o r m a t i o n and recommend p r i o r i ti es.
In Chapter I I I t h e s tu d y methodology i s e x p l a i n e d , i n c l u d i n g
how t h e w r i t e r g a t h e r e d and an aly ze d i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g o p i n i o n s
and a t t i t u d e s o f Michigan v o t e r s and key e d u c a t i o n a l o f f i c i a l s
toward t h e r e p o r t o f t h e G o v e r n o r 's Commission on Higher E d uca tio n .

CHAPTER I I I

METHODOLOGY

In d e te r m i n i n g what i s to happen in p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n
in Michigan, the o p i n i o n s o f s e v e r a l s i g n i f i c a n t segments o f t h e
s t a t e ' s p o p u l a t i o n w i l l need to be c o n s i d e r e d .
are:

Among t h e s e groups

(1) t h e Se na te and House and t h e i r f i s c a l a g e n c i e s , (2) t h e

e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e and i t s s t a f f , (3) t h e Department o f E d u c a tio n , t h e
S t a t e Board o f E d u ca tio n , and t h e S t a t e Board f o r P u b l i c Community
and J u n i o r C o l l e g e s , (4) th e "key e d u c a ti o n a l o f f i c i a l s , " i . e .
govern ing board chairmen, board members, c h i e f f a c u l t y r e p r e s e n t a ­
t i v e s , and p r e s i d e n t s o f M ic h ig a n 's p r i v a t e and p u b l i c h i g h e r educa­
t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n s , and (5) t h e v o t e r s .

The a sse ssm e nt o f v o t e r s '

o p i n i o n s was c o n s i d e r e d c r u c i a l s i n c e Governor M i l l i k e n ' s S t a t e o f
t h e S t a t e a d d r e s s o f both 1977 and 1978 p o i n te d o u t t h e need f o r
c r e a t i n g a s e p a r a t e Board f o r Higher Education e i t h e r through r e f e r ­
endum o r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment.
Inasmuch as t h e o p i n io n s o f "key e d u c a ti o n a l o f f i c i a l s " and
v o t e r s on governance o f h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n c o n ta in e d in t h e recommenda­
t i o n o f t h e G o v e r n o r 's Commission on Higher Education have n o t been
s y s t e m a t i c a l l y s t u d i e d , t h e a u t h o r s e l e c t e d t h o s e two segments o f
t h e p o p u l a t i o n as b ein g o f prime importance f o r an o p i n i o n s t u d y and
analysis.
51

52

The Methods and Procedures
The methods u t i l i z e d in t h e e x e c u t i o n o f t h e stud y c o n s i s t e d
p r i m a r i l y o f (1) mail su rve y r e s e a r c h t e c h n i q u e s and (2) t e le p h o n e
survey i n t e r v i e w i n g .
The f i r s t s e t o f t e c h n i q u e s — t h e mail survey t e c h n i q u e s —
was u t i l i z e d in t h e a sse ss m e n t o f o p i n io n s o f t h e "key e d u c a t i o n a l
o f f i c i a l s " o f M i c h ig a n 's p u b l i c and p r i v a t e h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n i n s t i t u ­
tions.

The mail su rve y t e c h n i q u e s were p r e f e r r e d over personal

i n t e r v i e w i n g because o f time e f f i c i e n c y and c o s t e f f e c t i v e n e s s t h a t
they e n s u r e .

A d d i t io n a l a d v an tag e s o f t h e t e c h n iq u e s ov er personal

interview s include:

(1) l e s s d i s t r i b u t i o n b i a s in con n ectio n w ith

the a f o r e s a i d groups under s t u d y , (2) l e s s d i s t r i b u t i o n b i a s in con­
n e c t io n w i t h t h e i n d i v i d u a l , (3) no i n t e r v i e w e r b i a s , (4) b e t t e r
chance o f o b t a i n i n g more a c c u r a t e r e p l i e s , (5) b e t t e r chance o f
obtaining thoughtful r e p l i e s ,

(6) more time e f f i c i e n c y (7) c e n t r a l ­

ized c o n t r o l , and (8) c o s t s a v i n g .
Even th en i t was r e a l i z e d t h a t use o f mail survey t e c h n iq u e s
does s u f f e r from c e r t a i n i n h e r e n t l i m i t a t i o n s .
in c l u d e :

(1) u n a v a i l a b i l i t y o f m a i l i n g l i s t ,

These l i m i t a t i o n s may
(2) b i a s in t h e m a ilin g

l i s t , (3) q u e s t i o n n a i r e d e s i g n , (4) q u e s t i o n n a i r e l e n g t h , and
(5) r e t u r n r a t e o f t h e mailed q u e s t i o n n a i r e s .

These l i m i t a t i o n s were

reviewed, s t u d i e d , and t h e f o l lo w in g p r o ce d u r es were developed t o
l e s s e n t h e i r impa ct.
F i r s t , w ith t h e c o o p e r a t i o n o f both t h e p u b l i c and p r i v a t e
i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n in Michigan, p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s o c i a ­
t i o n s t h a t s e r v e t h e s e i n s t i t u t i o n s , and t h e v a r i o u s bureaus o f t h e

53

s t a t e government, a comprehensive m a i l i n g l i s t o f "key e d u c a ti o n a l
o f f i c i a l s " was de velo p ed .

The l i s t was checked and updated through

the a s s i s t a n c e o f t h e U.S. P o s ta l S e r v i c e and t e l e p h o n e c a l l s t o
the i n s t i t u t i o n s where t h e "key e d u c a t i o n a l o f f i c i a l s " were l o c a t e d .
This procedure e n su red c o r r e c t p o s t a l a d d r e s s e s f o r t h e s e o f f i c i a l s
and v i r t u a l l y e l i m i n a t e d d i s t r i b u t i o n b i a s w i t h t h e groups under
st u d y .
Second, t h e l i m i t a t i o n o f low r a t e o f r e t u r n in t h e mail
surve y q u e s t i o n n a i r e was c o n s i d e r e d t o be a s e r i o u s one.

Schrier

s u g g e s t s t h a t u s u a l l y a 40 p e r c e n t r e t u r n i s c o n s i d e r e d a good
rate.

33

A ttem pts, t h e r e f o r e , were made:

(1) t o maximize t h e r e ­

sponse r a t e , (2) to make t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e easy t o complete in a
l i m i t e d t im e , and (3) t o e n s u r e t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s o f th e
o b t a i n e d d a ta as well as t h e c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t .

The

r e t u r n r a t e was maximized by sending o u t advance l e t t e r s , one from
t h e w r i t e r , one from t h e Governor o f Michigan, and a t a l a t e r d a t e a
l e t t e r from t h e E x e c u tiv e S e c r e t a r y o f t h e A s s o c i a t i o n o f Independent
C o lle g e s and U n i v e r s i t i e s o f Michigan, along w i t h a copy o f t h e
G o v e r n o r 's Commission r e p o r t .
t h e mail q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

T his had t h e e f f e c t o f p e r s o n a l i z i n g

All communications m ailed o u t t o t h e r e s p o n ­

d e n t s used t h e s t a t i o n e r y o f t h e O f f i c e o f t h e Governor, t h e A s s o c ia ­
t i o n o f Indepe ndent C o l le g e s and U n i v e r s i t i e s o f Michigan, o r Lansing
Community C o l le g e , and c a r r i e d t h e s i g n a t u r e o f t h e Governor o f
Michigan, t h e E x e c u ti v e S e c r e t a r y o f t h e A s s o c i a t i o n o f Independent
33

Fred T. S c h r i e r , Modern Marketing Rese arch: A Behavioral
Approach (Blemont: Wadsworth P u b l i s h i n g C o., 1963), p. 198.

54

C o lle g e s and U n i v e r s i t i e s o f Michigan, o r t h e P r e s i d e n t o f Lansing
Community C o l le g e .

A f t e r t h e advance l e t t e r s were s e n t , t h e f i n a l

q u e s t i o n n a i r e w ith a cover l e t t e r from t h e a u t h o r was m ailed o u t
( s e e Appendix B).
The p ro cedu re was found t o be e f f e c t i v e s i n c e by t h e c l o s i n g
d a t e a t o t a l o f 462 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were r e t u r n e d f o r a r e t u r n r a t e
o f 69 p e r c e n t .
The second method—t h e te l e p h o n e su r v e y i n t e r v i e w i n g —
was u t i l i z e d t o a s s e s s t h e o p i n i o n s o f Michigan v o t e r s .

The complex

Random D i g i t D i a li n g (RDD) system o f t e l e p h o n e i n t e r v i e w i n g in
Michigan was developed in t h e 1976 p r e s i d e n t i a l e l e c t i o n .

The

system i s a p r e f e r r e d p r o b a b i l i t y sample o f Michigan households w ith
telephones.

I t a llo w s a c c e s s t o t h e 92 p e r c e n t o f t h e Michigan
34
households which have t e l e p h o n e s .
P r o c e d u r a l ! y , a c o re o f 13 i n t e r v i e w e r s w ith te l e p h o n e
i n t e r v i e w i n g e x p e r i e n c e were r e c r u i t e d and t r a i n e d f o r t h e su rv e y .
These i n t e r v i e w e r s were s p e c i f i c a l l y i n s t r u c t e d a b ou t t h e need f o r
b u i l d i n g r a p p o r t and f o r a v o id i n g t h e v a r i o u s b i a s i n g f a c t o r s .

The

random m o n ito rin g o f t h e i n t e r v i e w e r s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e c o o p e r a t i o n
between i n t e r v i e w e r s and i n t e r v i e w e e s was rem arkably h i g h .

T his may

a c c o u n t f o r t h e a p p r o x i m a t e ly 96 p e r c e n t c om p letio n r a t e o f t h e
telephone in terv iew s.

34

V.
M. Mish ra, "Mishra Random D i g i t D i a l i n g (RDD) System
f o r P r o j e c t i n g E l e c t i o n Outcome. A Research Tool f o r P o l i t i c a l Mass
Communication" ( E a st L ansin g: Mishra and A s s o c i a t e s , 1976).

55

The Sample
To t e s t t h e c e n t r a l p r o p o s i t i o n and r e l a t e d h y p o t h e s e s , two
u n i v e r s e s f o r t h e sampling purposes were i d e n t i f i e d and s e v e r a l
sampling c o n s i d e r a t i o n s were made.
The f i r s t u n i v e r s e f o r t h e s tu d y c o n s i s t e d o f t h e "key
e d u c a t i o n a l o f f i c i a l s " o f a l l t h e p u b l i c and p r i v a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s o f
h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n i n Michigan.

These "key e d u c a t i o n a l o f f i c i a l s "

i n c l u d e d key f a c u l t y l e a d e r s , board chairmen, board members, and
p re s id e n ts o f the a fo re s a id i n s t i t u t i o n s .

Since t h e t o t a l number

o f t h e key f a c u l t y l e a d e r s , board chairm en, and p r e s i d e n t s o f t h e s e
i n s t i t u t i o n s was small enough not t o w a r r a n t sam pling, t h e e n t i r e
u n i v e r s e o f t h e s e t h r e e segments o f t h e "key e d u c a t i o n a l o f f i c i a l s "
was i n c l u d e d in t h e s t u d y .

The numerical d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f t h e s e

segments from both t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s were as f o l l o w s :

(1) t h e

key f a c u l t y l e a d e r s , N = 67; (2) board chairmen, N = 67; and
(3)

p r e s i d e n t s , N = 67.

A lso , t h e e n t i r e u n i v e r s e o f board members

from p u b l i c h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n s o f t h e s t a t e f o r an N = 468
was i n c l u d e d in t h e s t u d y .
However, s i n c e t h e p r i v a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n
do seem t o have a r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e number o f board members, i t was
deemed n e c e s s a r y t o draw a sample o f t h i s segment i n t h e i n t e r e s t o f
tim e e f f i c i e n c y and c o s t e f f e c t i v e n e s s .

T h e r e f o r e , a random sample

o f 100 board members from t h e l i s t o f t h e s e board members c o n t a i n e d

56

i n t h e d i r e c t o r y o f t h e A s s o c i a t i o n o f Independent C o lle g es in th e
35
S t a t e o f Michigan was s y s t e m a t i c a l l y drawn.
The a g g r e g a t e r e t u r n r a t e o f 69 p e r c e n t was c o n s i d e r e d
s i g n i f i c a n t enough t o approxim ate r e l i a b l e r e s u l t s which would have
been o b t a i n e d i f everyone i n t h e u n i v e r s e had been i n t e r v i e w e d .
The second u n i v e r s e f o r t h e study c o n s i s t e d o f r e g i s t e r e d
v o t e r s i n t h e S t a t e o f Michigan.

From t h i s u n i v e r s e , a sample o f

540 r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s was drawn from a p r e f e r r e d p r o b a b i l i t y sample
o f Michigan households w ith t e l e p h o n e s .

The complex Random D i g i t

D i a l i n g (RDD) system o f i n t e r v i e w i n g en su red t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s
o f t h e sample by a l l o w i n g equal a c c e s s t o 92 p e r c e n t o f t h e Michigan
households which have t e l e p h o n e s .

The com pletion r a t e f o r t e l e p h o n e

i n t e r v i e w s was 96 p e r c e n t .
The Q u e s t i o n n a i r e
On t h e b a s i s o f e a r l i e r d i s c u s s i o n , i t was d e te rm in e d t h a t
t h e i m p o r t a n t i s s u e s which f a c e t h e "key e d u c a t i o n a l o f f i c i a l s " in
Michigan and which need t o be s t u d i e d i n c l u d e :

(1) C e n t r a l i z a t i o n

v s. D e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n - - S t a t e w i d e V o lu n ta r y , Adviso ry, and R e g u la to r y
Boards, (2) Governance, (3) S t a te w i d e P l a n n in g , (4) I n s t i t u t i o n a l
Autonomy, (5) Board o f T r u s t e e s :

S a t i s f a c t i o n , S e l e c t i o n , and S i z e ,

(6) P o s t - s e c o n d a r y E ducation vs. Higher E d u c a ti o n , (7) F u t u r e and
P r e s e n t C o n d itio n s o f P o s t - s e c o n d a r y E d u ca tio n , (8) R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s

35

See L e s l i e Kish, Survey Sampling (New York:
and S o n s, 1 9 6 5).

John Wiley

57

o f a S ta te w i d e Board o f Higher E d u ca tio n , and (9) P u b l i c Community
C olleges.
A d r a f t mail surv e y q u e s t i o n n a i r e was developed t o a s s e s s
t h e o p i n i o n s o f t h e "key e d u c a t i o n a l o f f i c i a l s " on t h e s e i s s u e s .
In t h e development o f t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e , a c a r e f u l a n a l y s i s o f t h e
f i n a l r e p o r t o f t h e G o v e r n o r 's Commission and t h i s commission's
m in utes and background papers was made.

The a n a l y s i s g e n e r a t e d

v a l u a b l e i n p u t f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

Addi­

t i o n a l l y , t h e mail su r v e y q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n c o r p o r a t e d t h e ite ms t h a t
were c o n s t r u c t e d t o t r a n s l a t e t h e o b j e c t i v e s o f t h i s s t u d y .
The mail su r v e y q u e s t i o n n a i r e , t h e n , was p r e t e s t e d on a
su b-sam ple o f t h e "key e d u c a t i o n a l o f f i c i a l s " i n Michigan.

The

q u e s t i o n n a i r e was r e v i s e d t o e n s u r e p ro p e r mail survey l a y o u t ,
s t r u c t u r e d d e sig n c l a r i t y in wording and p h r a s i n g and e ase w ith
which i t can be f i l l e d o u t in a s h o r t time span.

The a verage com­

p l e t i o n r a t e f o r t h e mail survey q u e s t i o n n a i r e was found t o be
a p p ro x i m a t e ly 15 m i n u t e s .
A second d r a f t q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n t h e for m at o f a t e l e p h o n e
i n t e r v i e w surv ey i n s t r u c t i o n was a l s o developed t o a s s e s s t h e
o p i n i o n s o f M i c h i g a n 's r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s on t h e i s s u e s .

In t h e

development o f t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e , a s e t o f s i g n i f i c a n t i n d i c a n t s o f
a t t i t u d e s , o p i n i o n s , and p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e "key e d u c a t i o n a l o f f i c i a l s "
as g lea n ed from t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e mail survey was i d e n t i f i e d .

This

p r o c e s s g e n e r a t e d some v a l u a b l e i n p u t f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e
t e l e p h o n e i n t e r v i e w q u e s t i o n n a i r e ( s e e Appendix B).

58

The t e l e p h o n e surv e y i n s t r u m e n t , t o o , was p r e t e s t e d among a
sub-sample o f M i c h ig a n 's r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s and r e v i s e d .

The average

completion time f o r t h e t e l e p h o n e su r v e y was found t o be about
t h r e e minutes p e r sampled v o t e r .
Both survey i n s t r u m e n t s c o n t a i n e d in depend en t v a r i a b l e s and
r e l a t e d ite ms on o p i n i o n s on h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i s s u e s such a s :
(1) v o t in g p a t t e r n s o f r e s p o n d e n t s , (2) m i n o r i t y v s . n o n-m in ority
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f v o t e r s , (3) t h e "key e d u c a t i o n a l o f f i c i a l s ' "
l e v e l s o f e x p e r i e n c e i n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , (4) t h e s e l e a d e r s '
p o s i t i o n s , (5) t y p e o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , and
(6) u n io n iz ed v s. n o n - u n i o n iz e d n a t u r e o f t h e s e i n s t i t u t i o n s .
These i n s t r u m e n t s a l s o c o n t a i n e d depende nt v a r i a b l e s r e l a t e d items
on o p i n io n s on such i s s u e s as (1) j o b market f o r c o l l e g e t r a i n e d
p e r s o n s , (2) e n r o l l m e n t p a t t e r n s , (3) q u a l i t y o f e d u c a t i o n ,
(4) l e v e l o f i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n among t h e
sampled v o t e r s , (5) typ e o f board s e l e c t i o n , and (6) s i n g l e s t a t e ­
wide board .
The A n a ly sis and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n
o f Data
The a n a l y s i s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e d a t a r e p o r t e d in t h i s
s t u d y a r e concerned mainly w i t h t h e s t a t i s t i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f the
d a t a r a t h e r th an i n f e r e n c e s drawn from t h e d a t a .

The mathematical

model o f s t a t i s t i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n was chosen f o r s e v e r a l r e a s o n s .
F i r s t , d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s , which i s a f r e q u e n t l y under­
emphasized a s p e c t o f s t a t i s t i c s , can g e n e r a t e summary s t a t i s t i c s on
t h e v a r i o u s v a r i a b l e s o f t h i s s t u d y and can h e lp draw i n f e r e n c e s

59

from t h e samples t o p o p u l a t i o n .

Even then i t i s r e a l i z e d t h a t

s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s o f sig n ific a n c e are cru c ial since inferences are
t h e c o re o f most o f t h e s t u d i e s o f t h e ty pe r e p o r t e d h e r e .

Never­

t h e l e s s , t h e s e i n f e r e n c e s i n v o lv e t h e p r o j e c t i o n o f some d e s c r i p t i v e
sample s t a t i s t i c s t o a d e s c r i p t i o n o f p o p u l a t i o n .

In t h e p r o c e s s ,

i t i s t h e d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s t h a t i s being p r o j e c t e d through
inferences.
Second, t h e w r i t e r chose t h e d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s o f
p e r c e n t a g e s r a t h e r th an a measure o f c e n t r a l tendency s i n c e he
wanted a sim ple index o f t h e r e l a t i v e o c c u r r e n c e s o f t h e a l t e r n a t i v e
of responses.

A d d i t i o n a l l y , he t h o u gh t t h e r e a d e r s o f such a r e p o r t

w i l l comprehend c o n c l u s i o n s b e t t e r when defended w ith p e r c e n t a g e s
r a t h e r than w i t h o t h e r measures o f c e n t r a l te n d e n c y .

This assump­

t i o n was based on t h e f a c t t h a t t h e s e r e a d e r s t e n d t o t h i n k
dich otom ousl y.

T h e r e f o r e c a t e g o r i e s o f r e s p o n s e s were combined to

form a s e t o f d icho tom ie s f o r e a s e o f d e s c r i p t i o n .
T h i r d , even th en i t was r e a l i z e d t h a t t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e
s tu d y r e p o r t e d h e re could have t u r n e d o u t d i f f e r e n t l y th an what they
have turn ed o u t t o be.

This b e l i e f prompted t h e w r i t e r t o t a k e some

measures t o move from t h e d i s c o m f o r t o f u n c e r t a i n t y t o a p r o b a b i l i s ­
t i c e s t i m a t e o f r e a l i t y th ro u gh such s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s o f s i g n i f ­
i c a n c e as Chi Square.
Fourth, the w r i t e r , in the a fo re sa id context a lso r e a liz e d
t h a t t h e primary v a lu e o f t h e d a ta l i e s in what th e y i n d i c a t e , o r
what th ey a p p e a r t o show.

T his a p p eara nce may be q u i t e e x a c t , may

be a m a t t e r o f ch an ce, o r may be a m i x t u r e o f b o th .

Therefore, i t

60

could be q u i t e w a s t e f u l t o su p p r e s s r e s u l t s because they a r e n o t
i n d i v i d u a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , o r because t h e i r j o i n t s i g n i f i c a n c e can
n o t be s a t i s f a c t o r i l y a p p r a i s e d .
F i f t h , even then a t t e m p t s have been made here t h a t t h e
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n does not go beyond t h e l i m i t s o f t h e d a t a .

I t should

be p o i n t e d ou t t h a t any i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n based upon
t h e f i n d i n g s r e p o r t e d here must be t r e a t e d g u a rd e d l y .
t a k e R e d f i e l d ' s admonition i n t o a cc o u nt:

They must

"The e f f o r t o f t h e

s c i e n t i f i c mind t o reduce t h e r e a l i t y t o e le m e n ts amenable t o
a n a l y s i s , comparison, and even m ensuratio n e a r l y r e s u l t s in a d i s ­
t o r t i o n o r i n t h e d i s a p p e a r a n c e o f t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r as common
se n se knows i t . " 36
The Coding and P r o c e s s i n g o f Data
Thed a ta were coded by th e a u t h o r
coder.

The

i n t e r c o d e r r e l i a b i l i t y , which

with t h e help o f one
was measured in terms o f

e f f e c t i v e l e v e l o f agreement among t h e c o d e s , was a t t h e 98 p e r c e n t
level.
The p r o c e s s i n g o f d a t a was conducted w ith t h e h e lp from t h e
Management In f o r m a tio n Systems Department a t Lansing Community
C o l le g e .

A s e r i e s o f c r o s s t a b u l a t i o n r o u t i n e s were u t i l i z e d to

a n a l y z e t h e d a t a from both d e s c r i p t i v e and i n f e r e n t i a l s t a t i s t i c a l
perspectives.

OC

Robert R e d f i e l d , " R e l a t i o n s o f Anthropology t o S o c i a l
S c ien c es and H u m a n ities," i n Sol Tax ( e d . ) , Anthropology Today
(Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago P r e s s , 1962), p. 458.

61
H y potheses

The f o l l o w i n g h ypotheses were developed from a review o f
t h e l i t e r a t u r e p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e f i e l d o f governance in h i g h e r
e d u c a t i o n , background m a t e r i a l developed by a u t h o r i t i e s t h a t were
c a l l e d t o g e t h e r t o work on th e r e p o r t o f t h e 1976 G o v e rn o r's Com­
m is sio n on Higher E d u c a ti o n , i n t e r v i e w s w ith a u t h o r i t i e s who se rved
on t h e G o v e r n o r's Commission on Higher E d u ca tio n , s e v e r a l t a s k
f o r c e s o f t h e commission, and t h e a u t h o r ' s e x p e r i e n c e in h i g h e r
education.
I . C e n t r a l i z a t i o n vs.
D e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n — S ta te w i d e
V o lu n tary , A d v isory , and
Regula to ry Boards
H ypothesis I
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l res p o n d e n ts w i l l
s u p p o r t t h e c r e a t i o n o f a s e p a r a t e S t a t e Board o f
Higher E d u c a ti o n , w i t h a d v i s o r y power f o r
c o o r d i n a t i o n and p l a n n i n g .
H yp o th e sis I I
There w i l l n o t be a m a j o r i t y o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l
r e s p o n d e n t s who w i l l s u p p o r t t h e c r e a t i o n o f a
s e p a r a t e S t a t e Board o f Highe r Education with
r e g u l a t o r y c o n t r o l f o r c o o r d i n a t i o n and p l a n n i n g .
Hypo thesis I I I
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s will
a g re e w i t h t h e recommendations o f t h e 1976
G o v e r n o r 's Commission on Higher E ducation r e g a r d ­
ing l i m i t i n g t h e f u n c t i o n s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
o f t h e p r e s e n t S t a t e Board o f E d u ca tio n .

62

II.

Governance
Hypothesis IV
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s w i l l
no t s u p p o r t t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a new S t a t e Board
o f Higher E d u ca tio n by c o n s t i t u t i o n a l change w ith
regulatory a u th o rity .

III.

S ta te w i d e Pla n n in g
Hypothesis V
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s w i l l
a g re e t h a t t h e p r e s e n t appro ach t o p la n n in g and
c o o r d i n a t i o n f o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n in Michigan w i l l
not meet t h e needs o f t h e f u t u r e .
H yp o th esis VI
There w i l l be no m a j o r i t y agreement among t h e
i n s t i t u t i o n a l respondents t h a t c o n sid era tio n of
s t a t e w i d e p l a n n i n g and c o o r d i n a t i o n f o r Michigan
h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i s s e p a r a b l e from co n ce rn s o f
i n s t i t u t i o n a l govern an ce.

I V.

I n s t i t u t i o n a l Autonomy
Hypothesis VII
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s w i l l
a g re e t h a t one o f t h e s t r e n g t h s o f h i g h e r
e d u c a t i o n in Michigan i s t h e r e l a t i v e independence
o f t h e bo ard s o f c o n t r o l .
Hypothesi s VIII
There w i l l n o t be a m a j o r i t y o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l
r e s p o n d e n t s o f p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s
who w i l l a g re e t h a t t h e p r e s e n t i n s t i t u t i o n a l
b oard s s h o u ld be r e p l a c e d with a s i n g l e s t a t e w i d e
board.

63

H y p o th e s is IX

The m a j o r i t y o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s w ith more
experience in higher education w ill not favor
r e p l a c i n g t h e p r e s e n t i n s t i t u t i o n a l board s w ith a
s i n g l e s t a t e w i d e bo ard .
Hypothesis X
The m a j o r i t y o f v o t e r s w i l l no t f a v o r replacem ent
o f t h e p r e s e n t c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y board s by a
s t a t e w i d e board o f c o n t r o l .
Hypothesis XI
There w i l l be no m a j o r i t y agreement among t h e
i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s t h a t t h e absence o f a
s t a t e w i d e board o f c o n t r o l w i l l le a d t o d u p l i c a ­
t i o n o f r e s o u r c e s , unwarr anted c o m p e t i t i o n , and
la c k o f i n t e r - i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o o p e r a t i o n .
VI. Board o f T r u s t e e s :
S a tis fa c tio n , Selection,
and S i z e
Hypothesis XII
The m a j o r i t y o f v o t e r s w i l l a g re e t h a t th ey a r e
uninformed about p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n .
Hypo thesis XIII
The m a j o r i t y o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s o f
p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s w i l l f a v o r
s e l e c t i o n o f p u b l i c c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y board
members thro ugh a p poin tm ent by t h e Governor, w ith
a d v ic e and c o n s e n t o f t h e S e n a te .
Hypothesis XIV
The m a j o r i t y o f v o t e r s w i l l f a v o r s e l e c t i o n o f
p u b l i c c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y board members
thro u g h a p p oin tm en t by t h e Governor, w i t h a d v ic e
and c o n s e n t o f t h e S e n a te .

64
H y p o th e s is XV

The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s
w i l l a g re e t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s should n o t be
e l e c t e d o r a p p o in te d t o s e r v e on boards o f
c o n t r o l o f t h e i r own i n s t i t u t i o n .
VI.
P o st-S econdary Education
vs. Higher Education
Hypothesis XVI
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s w i l l
hold a f a v o r a b l e o p i n io n toward t h e G o v e r n o r 's
Commission's d e f i n i t i o n o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y
education.
Hypothesis XVII
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s w i l l
agre e t h a t t h e g o a ls and p urposes o f p o s t ­
secondary e d u c a ti o n in Michigan a r e n o t c l e a r l y
defi ned.
V II. F u t u r e and P r e s e n t
C o n d i ti o n s o f Post-S econdary
E ducation
Hypothesis XVIII
The m a j o r i t y o f v o t e r s w i l l a g r e e t h a t e n r o l l m e n t
w i l l i n c r e a s e in t h e f u t u r e , r a t h e r than d e c r e a s e
o r not change.
Hypothesis XIX
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s w i l l
ag re e on t h e s e f u t u r e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f p o s t ­
second ary e d u c a t i o n :
(1) i n c r e a s i n g c o s t , (2)
more s p e c i a l i z e d demands f o r e d u c a t i o n a l s e r v i c e s ,
(3) c o m p e t i t i o n f o r s t u d e n t s , (4) c o m p e t i t i o n f o r
rev e n u e, (5) i n s t i t u t i o n a l m is s i o n s more d i f f i c u l t
t o d e f i n e , (6) maintenance o f q u a l i t y more
d i f f i c u l t t o d e f i n e , (6) maintenance o f q u a l i t y
more d i f f i c u l t t o s u s t a i n , (7) c o o p e r a t i v e e f f o r t
among i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n more
d i f f i c u l t t o manage, (8) r e s o u r c e s more d i f f i c u l t

65

t o manage, (9) g r e a t e r d i v e r s i t y o f programs o f
h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , and (10) i n c r e a s e d r e s p e c t f o r
h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n by t h e p u b l i c .
Hypothesis XX
The m a j o r i t y o f v o t e r s w i l l a g re e t h a t the
q u a l i t y o f p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s w i l l
improve.
H ypothesis XXI
The m a j o r i t y o f v o t e r s who i d e n t i f y them se lves
as belo ng ing t o t h e m i n o r i t y r a c e s w i l l hold more
f a v o r a b l e o p i n io n s toward the r o l e o f p u b l i c
c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s in p r e p a r i n g s t u d e n t s
f o r t h e j o b market th an t h e v o t e r s who i d e n t i f y
them selv es as w h i t e .
Hypothesis XXII
Voter o p i n i o n s r e g a r d i n g Michigan p u b l i c h i g h e r
e d u c a t i o n w i l l show d i f f e r e n c e s a c c o rd in g t o t h e
f o l l o w i n g f o u r Michigan g e o g ra p h ica l r e g i o n s :
(1) c e n t r a l , (2) s o u t h e a s t , (3) Upper P e n i n s u l a ,
and (4) w e s t e r n .
Hypothesis XXIII
V oter o p i n io n s w i l l va ry a c c o rd in g t o t h e i r
r e s i d e n t i a l p a t t e r n s , such as c e n t r a l c i t y , farm ,
r u r a l , su b u rb a n , and small c i t y .
Hypothesis XXIV
There w i l l be a m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l
re s p o n d e n t s who w i l l a g re e t h a t M ic h ig a n 's p u b l i c
higher education is e f f e c t i v e l y preparing students
f o r t h e j o b m ark et.

66

H y p o th e s is XXV

A g r e a t e r p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e responding i n s t i t u ­
t i o n a l p r e s i d e n t s w i l l hold a more f a v o r a b l e
o p i n io n toward t h e r o l e o f c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r ­
s i t i e s i n p r e p a r i n g s t u d e n t s f o r t h e j o b market
than w i l l t h e key f a c u l t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .
Hy pothesis XXVI
The m a j o r i t y o f v o t e r s w i l l hold p o s i t i v e
o p i n i o n s toward t h e r o l e o f Michigan p u b l i c
c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s in p r e p a r i n g s t u d e n t s
f o r t h e j o b m arket.
VIII.
R e sp o n sib ilitie s of a
S t a te w i d e Board o f Higher
Education
H y po the sis XXVII
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n ts
w i l l s u p p o r t t h e recommendations o f t h e
G o v e r n o r 's Commission r e g a r d i n g t h e makeup,
f u n c t i o n s , r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , and d u t i e s o f a
new S t a t e Board o f Higher E ducation.
IX.

P u b l i c Community C o lle g e s
H ypothesis XXVIII
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l res p o n d e n t s
w i l l a g r e e t h a t Michigan community c o l l e g e s
should n o t o f f e r b a c c a l a u r e a t e d e g r e e s .
H y po the sis XXIX
The m a j o r i t y o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n ts o f
r e g i o n a l p u b l i c and p r i v a t e f o u r - t o f i v e - y e a r
i n s t i t u t i o n s w ill not support r e d i s t r i c t i n g o f
Michgian community c o l l e g e s t o p r o v id e s e r v i c e s
o f t h e s e i n s t i t u t i o n s e q u a l l y to a l l a r e a s o f
the s t a t e .

67

The ne x t c h a p t e r w i l l deal w ith t h e a n a l y s i s o f d a ta c o l ­
l e c t e d from "key e d u c a t i o n a l o f f i c i a l s " and a sample o f Michigan
v o t e r s r e g a r d i n g t h e i r o p i n io n s toward t h e G o v e r n o r 's Commission on
Higher E ducation.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA
Introduction
The r e p o r t o f t h e G o ve rno r's Commission on Higher Education
p r i m a r i l y d e a l t w i t h ni ne a r e a s :
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.

C e n t r a l i z a t i o n vs. D e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n — S t a te w i d e
V o l u n t a r y , Advisory and Re gu la to ry Boards
Governance
S t a te w i d e Plannin g
I n s t i t u t i o n a l Autonomy
Board o f T r u s t e e s :

S a t i s f a c t i o n , S e l e c t i o n , and Size

P o s t-S ec o n d a ry Education vs. Higher Edu cation

VII.

F u t u r e and P r e s e n t C o n d itio n s o f P o s t-S ec o n d a ry
Education

VIII.

R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f a S ta te w i d e Board o f Higher
Education

IX.

P u b l i c Community C o lle g es

The d a ta f o r t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n evolved from an a n a l y s i s o f
o p i n io n s from key e d u c a t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s and sampled Michigan
voters.

The d a ta were o r g a n iz e d and a nalyzed by f o l l o w i n g t h e above

mentioned c a t e g o r i e s .
P r o f i l e o f t h e Respondents
The p r o f i l e o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s e vo lv es i n t o two d i s t i n c t
p a t t e r n s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e two u n i v e r s e s s t u d i e d .
68

The

69

r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s ' p r o f i l e f o l lo w s t h e demographic p a t t e r n s f o r
Michigan r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e i r m a j o r i t y / m i n o r i t y
makeup and t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n g e o g r a p h i c a l l y i n t o f o u r major a r e a s
of the s t a t e :
western.

(1) c e n t r a l , (2) s o u t h e a s t , (3) Upper P e n i n s u l a , and

The sample was f u r t h e r d e l i n e a t e d i n t o v o t e r p a t t e r n s f o r :

(1) c e n t r a l c i t y , (2) farm, (3) r u r a l , (4) small c i t y , and (5)
suburbs.

The e le v e n s u b d i v i s i o n s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e above mentioned

c a t e g o r i e s made p o s s i b l e an a n a l y s i s o f t h e v o t e r s ' o p i n i o n s and
a t t i t u d e s toward p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n and t h e i r p o s s i b l e v o t in g
p a t t e r n s toward t h e key q u e s t i o n o f c o o r d i n a t i n g o r c o n t r o l l i n g
p u b l i c h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i n Michigan.
Over 600 key f a c u l t y , p r e s i d e n t s , board chairmen, and board
members o f e i g h t y - t w o Michigan h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s ,
ran ging i n ty p e from p r i v a t e and p u b l i c tw o - y e a r c o l l e g e s , f o u r - y e a r
p u b l i c and p r i v a t e c o l l e g e s , t o s p e c i a l i z e d i n s t i t u t i o n s and p u b l i c
and p r i v a t e u n i v e r s i t i e s , were mailed q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , w i t h a com­
p l e t i o n r e t u r n o f o v e r 69%.

The range i n s i z e o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n

was from s e v e r a l hundred to o ver 40,000 s t u d e n t s .

For each t y p e o f

i n s t i t u t i o n , t h e o p i n i o n s o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s were an aly ze d by number
o f y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e i n i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n and
whether o r not t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n was o r g a n i z e d f o r b a r g a i n i n g p u r ­
poses by employees.

70

I.

C e n t r a l i z a t i o n v s. D e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n - S ta te w id e V o lu n ta r y , and
Re g ula to ry Boards

A. Approaches t o Governance:
V olun tary (46% A g r e e i n g 7
When i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s were asked whether t h e
v o l u n t a r y approach f o r governance and c o o r d i n a t i o n f o r h i g h e r educa­
t i o n was a p p r o p r i a t e , 52% o f t h e board members were in f a v o r w ith
t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a t 46%.

F a c u lt y members d i s a g r e e d t h a t t h e

v o l u n t a r y approach would be a s a t i s f a c t o r y one, w ith only 36%
favoring t h is p ropo sition .
When a n aly ze d by ty p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , t h e r e s p o n d e n t s o f
t h e p r i v a t e community c o l l e g e s seemed t o be more in f a v o r o f t h e
p r o p o s i t i o n than d i d t h e p u b l i c community c o l l e g e s (57% t o 49%).
The f o u r - y e a r p r i v a t e and p u b l i c c o l l e g e s were about t h e same, b u t
t h e p r i v a t e c o l l e g e s were s l i g h t l y more i n f a v o r (47% vs. 42%).
U n i v e r s i t i e s were q u i t e s i m i l a r . i n p o s i t i o n , b u t once a g ain t h e
p r i v a t e g r a d u a t e u n i v e r s i t i e s were more in f a v o r (56%) than were t h e
p u b l i c g r a d u a t e u n i v e r s i t i e s (50%).
Analyzed by r e s p o n d e n t s ' y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e in h i g h e r
e d u c a t i o n , t h e most i n t e r e s t i n g d i f f e r e n c e was t h a t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
w i t h more e x p e r i e n c e seemed t o be o f t h e o p in io n t h a t t h e v o l u n t a r y
approach was a b e t t e r one.

71

B. Approaches t o Governance:
Advisory (59% A greeing)
Hypothesis I
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l res p o n d en ts
w ill support the c re a tio n of a sep arate S ta te
Board o f E d u c a ti o n , w ith a d v i s o r y power f o r
c o o r d i n a t i o n and p l a n n i n g .
The range o f o p i n i o n s by i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s
r e g a r d i n g t h e c r e a t i o n o f a s e p a r a t e S t a t e Board o f Higher Education
w i t h a d v i s o r y powers did s u b s t a n t i a t e t h e h y p o t h e s is t h a t t h e r e
would be g e n eral s u p p o r t f o r t h i s p o s i t i o n (53% - 68%) (Appendix A,
Table 2 ).
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s were asked t h e i r o p i n io n s
r e g a r d i n g a s t a t e w i d e a d v i s o r y approach f o r governance and c o o r d i n a ­
tio n o f higher ed u catio n .

The s t r o n g e s t a d v o ca te s o f t h i s p o s i t i o n

were t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s (68%), follo w ed by t h e f a c u l t y (59%), with
b oard chairmen and board members in g e n eral agreem ent, 53% and 55%
respectively.
Analyzed by t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , t h e r e s p o n d e n t s o f the
f o u r - y e a r p r i v a t e c o l l e g e s were l e a s t i n c l i n e d (50%) in t h i s d i r e c ­
t i o n , w i t h t h e p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s most i n c l i n e d t o a c c e p t t h i s
p o s i t i o n (66%).
Analyzed by r e s p o n d e n t s ' e x p e r i e n c e in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , t h e
i m p o r t a n t d i f f e r e n c e was w i t h t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .

The l o n g e r th ey

se r v e d in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , t h e more t h e y f a v o r e d t h e s t a t e w i d e
a d v i s o r y a p pro a ch, w i t h an 18% s h i f t i n f a v o r o f t h i s p o s i t i o n a f t e r
t e n y e a r s o r more o f e x p e r i e n c e .

72

C. Approaches t o Governance;
R e g u la to r y (12% Agreeing)Hypothesis I I
There w i l l not be a m a j o r i t y o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l
r e s p o n d e n t s who w i l l s u p p o r t t h e c r e a t i o n o f a
s e p a r a t e S t a t e Board o f Higher Education w ith
r e g u l a t o r y c o n t r o l f o r c o o r d i n a t i o n and p l a n n i n g .
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , by p o s i t i o n (68% - 84%) and
by t y p e o f i n s t i t u t i o n (61% - 80%), s t r o n g l y su p p o rte d t h e p o s i t i o n
t h a t i t would be i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r Michigan t o c r e a t e a s e p a r a t e
board f o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , w i t h r e g u l a t o r y c o n t r o l f o r c o o r d i n a t i o n
and p l a n n i n g .

The h y p o t h e s i s was s u p p o r t e d (Appendix A, Tables 3

and 3 a ) .
When i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s were asked t h e i r o p i n io n s
r e g a r d i n g a r e g u l a t o r y approach f o r s t a t e w i d e governance and
c o o r d i n a t i o n f o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , f a c u l t y were in l e a s t d i s a g r e e ­
ment w i t h t h i s , as compared w ith a d m i n i s t r a t o r s who were most
e m p h a t i c a l l y in o p p o s i t i o n (68% f o r f a c u l t y and 84% f o r a d m i n i s t r a ­
tors).

Seventy -sev en p e r c e n t o f board chairmen and 74% o f board

members a l s o d i s a g r e e d w ith t h i s a p p ro a c h , b u t not t o t h e degre e o f
d i f f e r e n c e between f a c u l t y and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
Analyzed by t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , r e s p o n d e n t s agreed gen­
e r a l l y a c r o s s t h e bo ard t h a t t h i s was n o t t h e approach t o t a k e ,
a lt h o u g h t h e r e was some d egre e o f d i f f e r e n c e w ith t h e p r i v a t e
g r a d u a t e u n i v e r s i t i e s (61% in o p p o s i t i o n ) compared w i t h t h e p u b l i c
u n i v e r s i t i e s (80% i n o p p o s i t i o n ) .

73

D. S t a t e Board o f Education:
L im i ti n g P r e s e n t F u n c tio n s and
R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s (66% Agreeing)
Hypothesis I I I
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s w i l l
a g re e w i t h t h e recommendations o f t h e 1976
G o v e r n o r 's Commission on Higher Education r e g a r d ­
ing l i m i t i n g t h e f u n c t i o n s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
o f t h e p r e s e n t S t a t e Board o f E du ca tio n.
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s agreed
t h a t t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f t h e p r e s e n t S t a t e Board o f E ducation
should be l i m i t e d .

The range was from 62% t o 70%, t h e r e f o r e sub­

s t a n t i a t i n g t h e h y p o t h e s i s (Appendix A, Table 4 ) .
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n ta t iv e s ' opinions regarding the r e ­
s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f t h e p r e s e n t S t a t e Board o f Education and i t s
l im i t a t i o n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y to le a d e r s h ip , general s u p e rv is io n ,
p l a n n i n g and c o o r d i n a t i o n seemed t o be in g e n e ra l agreem ent on t h i s
q u e s t i o n ; t h e agreement l e v e l ranged from 62% t o 70%.
Analyzed by t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , t h e r e s p o n d e n t s o f t h e
p r i v a t e community c o l l e g e s , f o u r - y e a r c o l l e g e s , and u n i v e r s i t i e s
were s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s i n c l i n e d t o a g r e e w ith t h i s p o s i t i o n , com­
p are d with t h o s e o f t h e p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s who f a v o r e d i t .

On t h i s

i s s u e t h e p r i v a t e and t h e p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s seemed t o show
i m p o r t a n t v a r i a t i o n ; t h i s d i f f e r e n c e ranged from 35% t o 80%.

This

i s s u e may r e l a t e d i r e c t l y t o a number o f c o u r t c a s e s i n v o l v i n g
p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s and c o l l e g e s but n o t i n v o l v i n g p r i v a t e i n s t i t u ­
t i o n s , h en ce, t h e v a r i a t i o n .

74

The r e s p o n d e n t s from i n s t i t u t i o n s o r g a n iz e d f o r b a r g a i n i n g
pu rp ose s h e l d t h e i r p o s i t i o n more s t r o n g l y r e g a r d i n g t h e l i m i t s f o r
t h e s t a t e board (72%), th a n di d t h o s e not o rg a n iz e d (50%).
II.

Governance

A. C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Ambiguity:
(50% Agreeing)
When asked t h e q u e s t i o n about t h e ambiguity o f t h e p r e s e n t
s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n r e g a r d i n g p la n n i n g and c o o r d i n a t i o n and t h e
a u t h o r i t y o f t h e S t a t e Board o f E d u c a tio n , both board chairmen (51%)
and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s (55%) seemed t o a g re e t o a g r e a t e r e x t e n t than
d id f a c u l t y members (46%) and board members (46%).
B. C o n s t i t u t i o n a l R e v is io n :
Advisory (60% A g reeing)
As t o t h e q u e s t i o n wheth er t h e r e should be a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
r e v i s i o n f o r t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a new S t a t e Board f o r Higher
E ducation l i m i t i n g i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s to p la n n in g and c o o r d i n a t i o n
o f a l l e d u c a t i o n beyond t h e se co n da ry l e v e l , w ith a d v i s o r y b u t no t
mandatory a u t h o r i t y , t h e r e was an im p o r t a n t range o f o p i n i o n .

All

r e s p o n d e n t s s u p p o r t e d t h e q u e s t i o n , with a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a t 67%,
board chairmen a t 63%, board members a t 59%, and f a c u l t y members a t
49%. •
Responses an aly ze d by t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s showed t h a t t h e
p r i v a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s seemed t o be l e s s i n c l i n e d t o a g re e w i t h t h i s
p o s i t i o n t h a n p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s , rang in g from 30% t o 69%.

The

p u b l i c community c o l l e g e s were s t r o n g e s t i n s u p p o r t o f t h i s q u e s t i o n
(69%).

An i m p o r t a n t d i f f e r e n c e o f o p i n io n was i n d i c a t e d between t h e

75

f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e s i n agreement a t 45%, compared w i t h p u b l i c
u n i v e r s i t i e s a t 55%.
C. C o n s t i t u t i o n a l R e v is io n ;
R e g u la to r y A u t h o r i t y
(15% Agreeing)
Hypothesis IV
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s w i l l
not s u p p o r t t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a new S t a t e Board
o f Higher Education by c o n s t i t u t i o n a l change with
regulatory au th o rity .
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s were in
o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a new s t a t e board by c o n s t i t u ­
t i o n a l change w i t h r e g u l a t o r y a u t h o r i t y f o r g e n e r a l p l ann ing and
coordination.

The h y p o t h e s i s was s u b s t a n t i a t e d (Appendix A,

T able 7 ) .
The r e s p o n d e n t s ' y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e in h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n
tended t o move them in t h e d i r e c t i o n o f l e s s c o n c u r r e n c e w ith t h i s
ap p ro ach .
D. S t a t u t o r y Enactment:
C o o r d i n a t i o n and Plannin g
(40% Agreeing)
When re s p o n d e n t s were asked t h e q u e s t i o n whether c o o r d i n a ­
t i o n and p la n n in g sho u ld be bro u g h t about by s t a t u t o r y e n a c tm e n t,
l i t t l e s t a t i s t i c a l s u p p o r t emerged with t h e e x c e p t i o n o f f a c u l t y who
f a v o r e d t h i s p o s i t i o n a t t h e 50% l e v e l .
Analyzed by t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n , r e s p o n d e n t s f a v o r i n g t h i s
p o s i t i o n t o t h e g r e a t e s t e x t e n t were from t h e p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s .
Those l e a s t f a v o r a b l y impr ess ed were from t h e p r i v a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s .

76

E. C o n s t i t u t i o n a l R e v is io n :
C o o r d i n a t i o n and Pla nn in g
(33% Agreeing)
When r e s p o n d e n t s were asked t h e q u e s t i o n w h e th er c o o r d i n a ­
t i o n and p la n n in g sh o u ld be b rou g ht a bo u t by c o n s t i t u t i o n a l change,
f a c u l t y r e s p o n d e n t s h e l d more pronounced d i f f e r e n c e s o f o p i n io n
r e g a r d i n g t h i s q u e s t i o n compared w i t h t h e o t h e r g r o u p s , d i s a g r e e i n g
on t h i s approach 51% compared w i t h a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a t 32%.
When r e s p o n d e n t s were viewed from t h e s t a n d p o i n t o f types
o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , t h o s e w i t h t h e s t r o n g e s t d i sa g r e e m e n t were from
f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e s (55%), and p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s (57%).
III.

S t a te w i d e Pla n n in g

A. P lannin g and C o o r d i n a t i o n :
P r e s e n t Approach Not S a t i s f a c t o r y
(54% Agr eeing)
Hypothesis V
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s w i l l
a g r e e t h a t t h e p r e s e n t appro ach t o p la n n i n g and
c o o r d i n a t i o n f o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i n Michigan w i l l
n o t meet t h e needs o f t h e f u t u r e .
The i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h e
board members, a g re e d t h a t t h e p r e s e n t approach f o r t h e p la n n in g and
c o o r d i n a t i o n o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i n Michigan would no t meet f u t u r e
needs (43% - 61%).

The h y p o t h e s i s was s u b s t a n t i a t e d (Appendix A,

T able 1 0).
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , when asked i f t h e y were o f
t h e o p i n io n t h a t t h e p r e s e n t appro ach t o p la n n in g and c o o r d i n a t i o n
would meet t h e needs o f Michigan h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n f o r t h e f u t u r e ,
showed some d i s a g r e e m e n t .

Board chairmen responded more s t r o n g l y

77

(52%) t h a t t h e p r e s e n t approach would n o t work, compared t o board
members (43%).

The f a c u l t y were s t r o n g l y convinced t h a t t h i s

approach would n o t be a d e q u a t e , with t h e f a c u l t y (61%) and a d m in is ­
t r a t o r s (59%) both a g r e e i n g t h a t our p r e s e n t approach was n o t
satisfactory.

The r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s h e ld t h e

o p i n io n t h a t o u r p r e s e n t approach would n o t be s a t i s f a c t o r y , w ith
community c o l l e g e s (56%) most s t r o n g l y h o l d in g t h i s p o s i t i o n .

The

p r i v a t e c o l l e g e s , however, were i n c l i n e d t o be more i n agreement
t h a t t h e p r e s e n t approach was s a t i s f a c t o r y .
The l e n g t h o f s e r v i c e o f board members made l i t t l e d i f ­
f e r e n c e i n t h e i r a t t i t u d e ; however, when f a c u l t y had more th a n t e n
y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n t h e y responded more s t r o n g l y
t h a t o u r p r e s e n t approach was not s a t i s f a c t o r y , a lo ng w ith admin­
i s t r a t o r s o f more th an t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e .

As t h e y ga in e d more

e x p e r i e n c e in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n t h e i r o p i n i o n s on t h i s i s s u e were
positive.
B. S ta te w id e Plannin g and
C o o r d i n a t i o n S e p a r a b l e from
Concerns o f I n s t i t u t i o n a f
Governance (45% A g r e e i n g J
Hypothesis VI
There w i l l be no m a j o r i t y agreement among t h e
i n s t i t u t i o n a l res p o n d e n t s t h a t c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f
s t a t e w i d e p la n n in g and c o o r d i n a t i o n f o r Michigan
h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i s s e p a r a b l e from c oncern s o f
i n s t i t u t i o n a l gove rnance.
T h i s complex q u e s t i o n r e g a r d i n g governance de m o n s tra te d t h e
wide v a r i a n c e o f o p i n i o n s o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .
There were a few t h a t f e l l in t h e "no o p i n io n " g r o u p , emphasizing

78

o p i n io n s one way o r the o t h e r he ld by i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s
(37% - 49%).

The h y p o t h e s i s was s u b s t a n t i a t e d (Appendix A, Table

11).
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , when q u e s t i o n e d a b o u t s t a t e ­
wide p la n n in g and c o o r d i n a t i o n f o r h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n and t h e i r
s e p a r a t i o n from concerns o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l govern ance, he ld o p i n io n s
t h a t g e n e r a l l y were evenly d i s t r i b u t e d .

F a c u lt y held t h e s t r o n g e s t

o p i n io n in c o n t r a s t w ith t h e o t h e r groups (54% d i s a g r e e i n g ) .

Board

chairmen, board members and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s responded somewhat t h e
same, e v en ly d i v i d e d on t h e i r o p i n i o n s .
F o u r - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and p r i v a t e g r a d u a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s
and u n i v e r s i t i e s were t h e o nly two t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s in which
t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s were in agreement r e g a r d i n g t h i s q u e s t i o n (61%
and 56%).

The r e s p o n d e n t s from t h e p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s were in

s t r o n g e s t d isa g re e m e n t (57%) with t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e s e con­
c e r n s were s e p a r a b l e .
C. P r i v a t e C o lle g es Involved in
S t a t e C o o r d i n a t i o n and Planning
(71% Agreeing)
When i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s were asked whether s t a t e law
sh o uld p r o v id e f o r i n v o l v i n g t h e s t a t e ' s inde pendent c o l l e g e s and
u n i v e r s i t i e s and t h e p r i v a t e t r a d e , t e c h n i c a l and b u s i n e s s s c h o o l s
i n t h e o v e r a l l p la n n i n g and c o o r d i n a t i o n p r o c e s s , a l l c a t e g o r i e s o f
i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s were i n agreement rang ing from 64% t o 78%.
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s , an alyze d by t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s ,
e x h i b i t e d an i n t e r e s t i n g p a t t e r n o f r e s p o n s e s .

Respondents o f

79

p r i v a t e c o l l e g e s as well as t h o s e o f p u b l i c c o l l e g e s viewed t h e
involvement o f t h e s e i n s t i t u t i o n s in p lan n in g and c o o r d i n a t i o n d i f ­
feren tly .
Those o f f o u r - y e a r p r i v a t e c o l l e g e s and community c o l l e g e s
f a v o r e d being i n v o l v e d .

Those o f p r i v a t e g r a d u a t e sch o o ls and

u n i v e r s i t i e s did n o t f a v o r being i n vo lve d a t 46%.

However, w i t h t h e

e x c e p t i o n o f t h e f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and p r i v a t e g r a d u a t e
s c h o o l s , the ne x t lo w e st f a v o r i n g t h i s p o s i t i o n were t h o s e o f p u b l i c
u n i v e r s i t i e s a t 61%.

The p o s s i b l e r o l e c l a s h between f o u r - y e a r

p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and f o u r - y e a r p r i v a t e c o l l e g e s might be so d i r e c t
t h a t t h e p r i v a t e c o l l e g e s would want t o be invo lv ed i n t h e p la n n in g
and t h e p u b l i c c o l l e g e s would want t h e p r i v a t e c o l l e g e s ex clu d ed .
The s i n g l e purpose u n i v e r s i t i e s and g r a d u a t e s c h o o l s , b ecause o f
t h e i r uniqueness and s e c u r i t y , might view t h e s t a t e as being much
more involv ed i n s t a t e w i d e p lan nin g and c o o r d i n a t i o n .

Competition

f o r s t u d e n t s might be more d i r e c t a t t h e f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e
l e v e l th an a t t h e g r a d u a t e school l e v e l a t t h e time o f t h i s s t u d y .
IV.

I n s t i t u t i o n a l Autonomy

A. Continuance o f Independence o f
t h e Boards o f Control o f C o l le g es
and U n i v e r s i t i e s (79% Agreeing)
Hypothesis VII
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s
w i l l a g r e e t h a t one o f t h e s t r e n g t h s o f h i g h e r
e d u c a t i o n i n Michigan i s t h e r e l a t i v e independ­
ence o f t h e boards o f c o n t r o l .

80

The h y p o t h e s i s was s u b s t a n t i a t e d by a l l i n s t i t u t i o n a l
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , r a n g i n g from 88% approval by board chairmen and
board members t o 59% by f a c u l t y (Appendix A, Table 13).
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , when asked t o respond t o th e
p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t one o f t h e s t r e n g t h s o f h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n in Mich­
igan i s t h e r e l a t i v e independence o f t h e boards o f c o n t r o l , were in
s t r o n g agre em ent, w i t h f a c u l t y being in agreement 59%, but c o n s i d e r ­
a b l y l e s s than t h e o t h e r t h r e e g r o u p s.

Undoubtedly, t h e i r respo n se

c ou ld have something t o do w i t h t h e i r p o s s i b l e p e r c e p t i o n o f the
r e l a t i v e s t r e n g t h o f t h e f a c u l t y v i s - a - v i s board and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
Responses a n a ly z e d by d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s showed
t h a t t h e p r i v a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s tende d t o be l e s s f a v o r a b l y i n c l i n e d
towards t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n th an t h e p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s .

A l l , however,

were in high ag re em e nt.
The more e x p e r i e n c e r e s p o n d e n t s had in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , t h e
more t h e y tended t o be in f a v o r o f a s t r o n g independent b oa rd , with
t h e e x c e p t i o n o f f a c u l t y members.

I f f a c u l t y had l e s s than ten

y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e in h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n t h e y were more in f a v o r (70%),
b u t l e s s in f a v o r (54%) i f th ey had more than t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e .
B. S i n g l e S t a te w i d e Board:
D is c o n tin u a n c e o f Local Boards o f
Control — I n s t i t u t i o n a l Respondents
(12% Agreeing)
Hypothesis VIII
There w i l l n o t be a m a j o r i t y o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l
r e s p o n d e n t s o f p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s
who w i l l a g r e e t h a t t h e p r e s e n t i n s t i t u t i o n a l
bo ards sh ou ld be r e p l a c e d w i t h a s i n g l e s t a t e ­
wide b o a rd .

81

More r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s a gre ed (94%)
than d id p r i v a t e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s (81%), s u b s t a n t i a t i n g
the p o sitio n of the hypothesis.

The o p i n io n s o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ,

as r e l a t e d t o agreement and d i sa g r e e m e n t by t h e ty pe o f i n s t i t u t i o n
th e y r e p r e s e n t e d , were s i g n i f i c a n t s t a t i s t i c a l l y (P < .0001)
(Appendix A, T ables 14a and 1 5 ).
When r e s p o n d e n t s were asked whether t h e p r e s e n t boards o f
c o n t r o l f o r p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s should be d i s c o n t i n u e d
and t h e s e c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s p lac ed under a s i n g l e s t a t e w i d e
b o a rd , board chairmen (86%) and board members (90%) he ld t h e
s t r o n g e s t o p i n io n s in o p p o s i t i o n .

The f a c u l t y (70%), a lth o u g h in

o p p o s i t i o n , were l e s s so t h a n a d m i n i s t r a t o r s (84%), o r board members.
However, t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s tended t o f o l l o w t h e f a c u l t y in not
h oldin g q u i t e as s t r o n g a p o s i t i o n as t h e board members.

I t is

a p p a r e n t t h a t a l l c a t e g o r i e s o f r e s p o n d e n t s h e ld s t r o n g o p i n io n s in
o p p o s i t i o n to t h i s q u e s t i o n .
Analyzed by t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , t h e r e s p o n d e n t s o f t h e
p u b l i c community c o l l e g e s and t h e f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and
u n i v e r s i t i e s h e ld t h e s t r o n g e s t p o s i t i o n , follo w ed by t h o s e o f t h e
p riv ate colleges.
Hypothesis IX
The m a j o r i t y o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s w ith more
e x p e r i e n c e i n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n w i l l not f a v o r
r e p l a c i n g t h e p r e s e n t i n s t i t u t i o n a l boards w ith a
s i n g l e s t a t e w i d e b oard .
The i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s , by l e v e l o f e x p e r i e n c e , were
in s u b s t a n t i a l agreement t h a t t h e p r e s e n t boards should n o t be

82

r e p l a c e d by a s i n g l e s t a t e w i d e bo ard .

P r o p o r t i o n a t e l y more r e s p o n ­

d e n ts w i t h l e s s than t e n y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h e i r
d isa g r ee m e n t with t h e replacem ent o f t h e p r e s e n t boards th an d i d
t h o s e w i t h more e x p e r i e n c e .

D e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s d e m o n s tr a te t h a t

t h e h y p o t h e s i s was not upheld.

D i f f e r e n c e s in t h e o p i n io n s o f t h e

r e s p o n d e n t s , by l e v e l o f e x p e r i e n c e , as r e l a t e d t o a t t i t u d e s toward
rep la ce m e n t o f p r e s e n t b o a rd s , were s i g n i f i c a n t s t a t i s t i c a l l y
(P < .05) (Appendix A, Tab les 14c and 16).
C. S i n g l e S ta te w id e Board:
D isc o n tin u a n c e o f Local Boards o f
C o n t r o l — R e g i s t e r e d Voters
(33% Agr eeing)
Hypothesis X
The m a j o r i t y o f v o t e r s w i l l not f a v o r rep la c e m e n t
o f t h e p r e s e n t c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y b o a rd s by a
s t a t e w i d e board o f c o n t r o l .
The sampled Michigan r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s s u b s t a n t i a t e d t h e
h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e y would n o t f a v o r t h e re p l a c e m e n t o f p r e s e n t
c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y board s o f c o n t r o l by a s t a t e w i d e b o a r d , with
66% opposed t o a change, and only 33% f a v o r i n g t h e s t a t e w i d e board.
The v o t e r s ' o p i n i o n s were s i g n i f i c a n t s t a t i s t i c a l l y

(P < .0001)

(Appendix A, Table 1 7).
The sample o f r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s who r e p o r t e d t h e y were
informed on t h i s i s s u e , when asked wh ether t h e p r e s e n t gov ern ing
board members f o r Michigan p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s sh o uld be
r e p l a c e d by a s i n g l e s t a t e w i d e b o a rd , noted t h a t t h i s should n o t be
the case.

F o r t y - e i g h t p e r c e n t s a i d t h i s sh o uld n o t be done and 24%

s a i d i t shou ld (Appendix A, Table 18).

83

The r e s p o n d e n t s o f m i n o r i t y r a c e s were l e s s a g a i n s t t h i s
approach than were t h e w h i t e s .

The w h i t e s were 51% a g a i n s t and t h e

m i n o r i t y r a c e s 33% a g a i n s t (Appendix A, Table 1 8 a ).

The r e s p o n s e s

t o t h i s q u e s t i o n can be s i g n i f i c a n t from t h e s t a n d p o i n t o f c e n t r a l ­
i z a t i o n v e r s u s d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n and t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t a c e n t r a l ­
i z e d system b e n e f i t i n g m i n o r i t i e s can be more e a s i l y a c t i v a t e d
through a s t a t e w i d e system than through s e p a r a t e l o c a l b o a rd s .
D. S i n g l e S t a t e w i d e Board:
Advisory o r R e g u la to r y —
R e g i s t e r e d V oters (40% A~dvisor.y,
38% R e g u la to ry )
In lookin g a t t h e s t a t e , r e g i o n a l l y , i t was n o ted t h a t t h e
s t r o n g e s t p o s i t i o n f o r an a d v is o r y board was t h a t o f t h e Upper
P e n i n s u l a (60%), whereas t h e w e s t e r n p a r t o f t h e s t a t e f a v o r e d i t
51%, follo w ed by c e n t r a l Michigan (38%) and t h e s o u t h e a s t (35%).
However, t h e r e g i o n s r e p o r t e d t h e i r o p i n io n s r e g a r d i n g a r e g u l a t o r y
approach in t h e f o l lo w in g p a t t e r n :

t h e c e n t r a l and s o u t h e a s t e r n

p a r t s were in f a v o r by 41% e a c h , t h e Upper P e n i n s u l a by 27% and t h e
w e s t e r n p a r t by 28% (Appendix A, Table 19b).
Respondents from r u r a l a r e a s had t h e h i g h e s t p e r c e n t a g e in
f a v o r o f an a d v i s o r y board (47%), fo llo w ed by suburban (42%), farm
and small c i t y (39%), and c e n t r a l c i t i e s (35%).

The s t r o n g e s t p o s i ­

t i o n f a v o r i n g a r e g u l a t o r y approach was t h a t o f r e s p o n d e n t s o f t h e
c e n t r a l c i t i e s (46%), follo w ed by t h e farm a r e a (44%), and then
small c i t y , r u r a l and suburban (Appendix A, T able 1 9 c ).

84

E. S e p a r a t e S t a t e Board:
E d u c a tio n a l Community Support
(45% Agreeing)
When asked about s u p p o r t in th e e d u c a t i o n community f o r t h e
c r e a t i o n o f a s e p a r a t e S t a t e Board of Higher Educa tion w i t h a d v is o r y
powers, i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s gave l e s s than m a j o r i t y
a p p r o v a l , w i t h t h e board members 33%, compared w i t h t h e board
chairmen 47%, a d m i n i s t r a t o r s 52% and f a c u l t y 48% a g r e e i n g .
Analyzed by t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n , r e s p o n d e n t s from t h e
p r i v a t e and p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s were l e s s i n c l i n e d to
t h i n k t h e r e was s u p p o r t , w h ile more r e s p o n d e n ts from t h e p u b l i c
community c o l l e g e s (49%) tho u gh t t h e r e was s u p p o r t .
With board members, t h e more e x p e r i e n c e th ey had in h i g h e r
e d u c a t i o n t h e more prone th e y were to have an o pin io n t h a t t h e r e was
s u p p o r t in t h e e d u c a t i o n a l community.

With t h e f a c u l t y , e x p e r i e n c e

seemed t o make no d i f f e r e n c e , b u t w i t h a d m i n i s t r a t o r s an im p o r t a n t
difference.

The l o n g e r t h e y were in a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n h i g h e r educa­

t i o n , t h e more prone th ey were to b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l
s u p p o r t f o r t h i s p o s i t i o n (36% v s. 63%).
F. S e p a r a t e S t a t e Board:
L e g i s l a t i v e Support
(16% Agreeing)
When asked t h e q u e s t i o n about s u p p o r t f o r a s e p a r a t e S t a t e
Board o f Higher Edu cation on t h e p a r t o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , t h e
m a j o r i t y o f r e s p o n d e n t s he ld no o pin io n o r d id not f e e l t h e y were
w e ll enough informed t o answer t h i s q u e s t i o n .

I t a p p ea rs t h a t the

85

e d u c a t i o n a l community does n o t f e e l informed on t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e
l e g i s l a t u r e regarding t h is question.
G. S e p a r a t e S t a t e Board:
E x e c u ti v e S upport (27% Agreeing)
When asked whether t h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l s u p p o r t f o r a
s e p a r a t e S t a t e Board o f Education in t h e e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e , t h e
m a j o r i t y res ponded t h a t t h e y la c k e d i n f o r m a t i o n o r he ld no o p i n i o n ,
w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f board chairmen who had some tende ncy t o
respond f a v o r a b l y t o t h e q u e s t i o n (38%).
H. Not Having S ta te w i d e Board:
Lead t o D u p l i c a t i o n and
C o m p etitio n (24% Agr eeing)
H yp o th esis XI
There w i l l be no m a j o r i t y agreement among t h e
i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s t h a t t h e absence o f a
s t a t e w i d e board o f c o n t r o l w i l l le a d t o d u p l i c a ­
t i o n o f r e s o u r c e s , unwarranted c o m p e t i t i o n , and
lack of i n t e r - i n s t i t u t i o n a l cooperation.
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a gre ed t h a t a s t a t e board o f
c o n t r o l was no t n e c e s s a r y and t h a t t h i s lac k o f c o o r d i n a t i o n would
n o t l e a d t o d u p l i c a t i o n of r e s o u r c e s , unwarranted c o m p e t i t i o n , and
l a c k o f i n t e r - i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o o p e r a t i o n (57% - 75%).

The h y p o t h e s is

was s u b s t a n t i a t e d (Appendix A, Table 23).
When ask ed wh ether n o t having a s t a t e w i d e board o f c o n t r o l
f o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n would l e a d t o d u p l i c a t i o n o f r e s o u r c e s and
u n w a r r an ted c o m p e t i t i o n , a l l d i s a g r e e d w ith th e s t a t e m e n t .

However,

f a c u l t y (57%) and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s (58%), as compared w ith board

86

chairmen (68%) and board members (75%), e x p re s s e d l e s s disagreem ent
c o nce rnin g t h i s i s s u e .
When viewed from t h e s t a n d p o i n t o f typ es o f i n s t i t u t i o n s ,
a l l s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e d w ith t h i s p o s i t i o n .

The p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and

u n i v e r s i t i e s d i s a g r e e d more s t r o n g l y than d i d t h e p r i v a t e i n s t i t u ­
tions.

I t i s a p p a r e n t t h a t a l l o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , p u b l i c and

p r i v a t e , f e e l t h a t a s t a t e board o f c o n t r o l i s no t n e c e s s a r y t o sto p
d u p l i c a t i o n o r unw arranted c o m p e t i t i o n and lac k o f i n t e r i n s t i t u t i o n a l cooperation.
Respondents from i n s t i t u t i o n s o r g a n iz e d f o r b a r g a i n i n g p u r ­
poses a l s o d i s a g r e e d w ith t h i s p o s i t i o n more s t r o n g l y th a n did t h o s e
i n s t i t u t i o n s not o r g a n i z e d .
V.

Board o f T r u s t e e s : S a t i s f a c t i o n ,
S e l e c t i o n , and Size

A. Voter S a t i s f a c t i o n Level:
Governing Boards (65% Not Informed,
22% S a t i s f i e d . 10% Not S a t i s f i e d ,
3% D o n 't Know)
H ypothesis XII
The m a j o r i t y o f v o t e r s w i l l a g r e e t h a t th ey a r e
uninformed about p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n .
The sampled Michigan r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s s u b s t a n t i a t e d t h e
h y p o t h e s i s by i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e y were uninformed (65%).

The p o s i ­

t i o n s he ld by t h e s e v o t e r s were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (P < .0001)
(Appendix A, Tables 24 and 2 5).
The sampled r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s i n a t e l e p h o n e s u r v e y , when
asked t h e q u e s t i o n o f how well t h e y were s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e a c t i o n s
o f t h e gove rning bo ard s o f o ur p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s ,

87

responded t h a t th ey were n o t well informed (65%).

T hirty-eight

p e r c e n t were s a t i s f i e d o r m od era te ly s a t i s f i e d , and only 12% were
dissatisfied .
The o p i n io n s o f w h i t e s and m i n o r i t i e s on t h i s q u e s t i o n
seemed t o f o l lo w somewhat t h e same t r e n d , r e g a r d l e s s o f what a r e a
o f t h e s t a t e was surv e y ed .
The o p i n i o n s o f t h o s e r e s p o n d e n t s r e p o r t i n g th em se lv e s as
b ein g informed, when viewed by r e g i o n s , were as f o l l o w s :

the respon­

d e n ts o f t h e Upper P e n i n s u l a were t h e most s a t i s f i e d (86%), t h o s e of
t h e w e ste r n p a r t o f t h e s t a t e were m o d e r a te ly s a t i s f i e d (69%), and
t h o s e l e a s t s a t i s f i e d were t h o s e o f t h e s o u t h e a s t p a r t o f t h e s t a t e
a t 59%.
C l a s s i f y i n g t h e o p i n io n s o f t h i s group by urban o r r u r a l ,
showed t h e farm and r u r a l v o t e r s t h e l e a s t s a t i s f i e d and the small
c i t y / s u b u r b a n and c e n t r a l c i t y t h e most s a t i s f i e d .
B. Post-S ec on d a ry Board o f T r u s t e e
S e l e c t i o n : E le c t e d on N o n - P a r tisa n
B a l l o t (59% Agreeing )
When i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s were ask ed wheth er board
members in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n sh o uld be e l e c t e d on a n o n - p a r t i s a n
b a l l o t , t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and f a c u l t y were most in f a v o r o f t h i s
(62%), and t h e board members (56%) were a lm o st i d e n t i c a l w ith board
chairmen (55%) in s u p p o r t .
Analyzed by t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , t h e r e s p o n d e n t s d i s a g r e e ­
ing most s t r o n g l y w i t h t h e p r o p o s i t i o n were from t h e p u b l i c
u n i v e r s i t i e s (86%).

Those from p r i v a t e g r a d u a t e s c h o o l s and

88

u n i v e r s i t i e s a g re e d w i t h t h e p r o p o s i t i o n a t 72%, t h o s e from p r i v a t e
community c o l l e g e s agreed a t 81% and t h o s e from p u b l i c community
c o l l e g e s a g re e d a t 77%.

Those from f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e s were

v e ry c l o s e t o b e in g t h e l o w e s t , f o l lo w in g t h e t r e n d o f t h o s e from
p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s w ith o n ly 16% f a v o r i n g t h i s p o s i t i o n .

The t h r e e

major p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s in t h e s t a t e have t h e i r boards s e l e c t e d on
a partisan b allo t.

I t i s v ery p o s s i b l e t h a t th o se so s e l e c t e d would

f i n d s e l e c t i o n by a n o n - p a r t i s a n b a l l o t n o t a p p r o p r i a t e a c c o r d i n g t o
t h e i r background and s e r v i c e .

T h i s , in p a r t , might a l s o be t h e

rea son f o r r e s p o n d e n t s from t h e f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e s d i s a g r e e ­
i n g , b u t p o s s i b l y from a d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n .

T h e i r board members

a r e s e l e c t e d through appointm ent by t h e Governor w ith a d v ic e and
c o n s e n t o f t h e S e n a t e , and i n t h i s s t u d y r e s p o n d e n t s o f f o u r - y e a r
p u b l i c c o l l e g e s have f a v o re d t h e i r p r e s e n t approach r a t h e r than
public e le c t i o n , p a rtis a n or non-partisan.
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s w ith i n c r e a s e d e x p e r i e n c e in
h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n d e m o n s tr a te d a tende ncy t o be l e s s in f a v o r o f
s u p p o r t i n g a p o s i t i o n f o r n o n - p a r t i s a n b a l l o t f o r s e l e c t i o n o f board
members in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n .

T his f i n d i n g i s t o some e x t e n t a

r e v e r s a l o f t h e e x p e c te d r e s p o n s e , inasmuch as i t i s sa y in g t h a t with
i n c r e a s e d e x p e r i e n c e t h e i n d i v i d u a l would be l e s s f a v o r a b l y i n c l i n e d
toward a n o n - p a r t i s a n approach t o e l e c t i o n .

I t does n o t s a y , how­

e v e r , t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t s f a v o r e l e c t i o n on a p a r t i s a n b a l l o t o r
a pp o in tm en t by t h e Governor, which i s s u p p o r te d by l a t e r f i n d i n g s .
Of t h e t h r e e a p p r o a c h e s — by p a r t i s a n e l e c t i o n , by n o n - p a r t i s a n

89

e l e c t i o n o r by a p p o in tm e n t— t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n ( n o n - p a r t i s a n e l e c t i o n )
drew t h e h i g h e s t d e g re e o f agreement from r e s p o n d e n t s .
C. P o s t-S e c o n d a ry Board o f
T r u s t e e s S e l e c t i o n : E l e c t e d on
P a r t i s a n B a l l o t (5% Agreeing)
When i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s were asked whether board
members in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n should be e l e c t e d on a p a r t i s a n b a l l o t ,
a l l r e p o r t e d t h a t t h i s was n o t t h e approach t o t a k e .

The re s p o n se s

ranged in d i s a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n from 91% f o r a d m in is­
t r a t o r s t o 86% f o r t h e board members.
Analyzed by t h e i r t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , a l l res p o n d e n t s
d i s a g r e e d w i t h t h e p r o p o s i t i o n , w ith t h o s e o f t h e f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c
c o l l e g e s and p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s being in l e a s t d isa g r ee m e n t a t t h e
80% l e v e l as compared w ith t h e o t h e r s a t t h e 90% l e v e l o r h i g h e r .
D. P o s t-S e c o n d a ry Board o f
T r u s t e e S e l e c t i o n : Appointment
by Governor (45% A g r e e i n g !
Hypothesis XIII
The m a j o r i t y o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s o f
p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s w i l l f a v o r
s e l e c t i o n o f p u b l i c c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y
board members th rou g h a p poin tm ent by t h e
Governor, w i t h a d v i c e and c o n s e n t o f t h e
S e n a te .
P r o p o r t i o n a t e l y more r e s p o n d e n t s o f p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s than
p r i v a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s f a v o r e d a p poin tm ent o f board members by t h e
Governor, s u b s t a n t i a t i n g t h e h y p o t h e s i s .

However, both p u b l i c and

p r i v a t e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s d e m o n s tr a te d a s t r o n g e r p r e f e r e n c e
f o r s e l e c t i o n by a n o n - p a r t i s a n v o te (Appendix A, T ables 28 and 2 8a).

90

When i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n ts were asked whether t h e board
members in h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n should be a p p o in t e d by t h e Governor w ith
a d v ic e and c o n s e n t o f t h e S e n a t e , t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s were i n g r e a t ­
e s t agreement a t 49%, f ollo w ed by board chairmen (45%), and th en by
f a c u l t y (46%), and board members (40%).

Board members d i s a g r e e d

w ith t h i s p o s i t i o n t o t h e h i g h e s t d egre e (52%), w ith t h e o t h e r s in
t h e high 40 p e r c e n t i l e s .

Responses to t h i s q u e s t i o n , i n a l l

c a t e g o r i e s , d i d ' t a p p e a r t o vary n o t i c e a b l y .
For t h e t h r e e q u e s t i o n s on s e l e c t i o n o f b o a r d s , t h e p a t t e r n
shows r e s p o n d e n t s , v o t e r s and i n s t i t u t i o n a l , to be in g r e a t e s t
agreement f o r t h e n o n - p a r t i s a n a pp roa ch , se co n dly f o r app ointm ent by
t h e Governor, w ith a lm o st t o t a l d isa g ree m e n t f o r t h e p a r t i s a n
ap p ro a ch .

With more d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s and w ith an u n d e r s t a n d i n g

t h a t t h e board s o f t h e t h r e e major u n i v e r s i t i e s a r e s e l e c t e d on a
p a r t i s a n b a l l o t , t h e d a t a e x h i b i t e d t h e f o l lo w in g p a t t e r n .

Both

p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s under 30,000 in s i z e and o v e r 30,000 i n s i z e
were in c l o s e agreement a t t h e 80% l e v e l t h a t n o n - p a r t i s a n e l e c t i o n
was no t t h e appro ach f o r s e l e c t i o n o f board members.

However, a l l

segments o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n d i s a g r e e d w i t h t h e approach o f s e l e c t ­
ing board members on a p a r t i s a n b a l l o t .

The d i sa g r e e m e n t ranged

from 85% t o 100% w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s w ith o v e r
30,000 s t u d e n t s which a g re e d (55%) with t h i s approach and d i s a g r e e d
a t 45%.
Analyzed by t h e i r t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , t h e r e s p o n d e n t s in
g r e a t e s t agreement f o r appoin tm ent o f board o f t r u s t e e s by t h e
Governor were from t h e f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e s (87%).

Those from

p r i v a t e community c o l l e g e s were t h e l e a s t in f a v o r o f t h i s p o s i t i o n
a t 20%.

Respondents from p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s fa v o r e d t h i s p o s i t i o n

a t 79%.

However, t h e d a t a , when reviewed by s i z e o f i n s t i t u t i o n ,

showed t h e p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s under 30,000 in s i z e a g r e e i n g a t t h e
96% l e v e l w ith p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s o v e r 30,000 a g r e e i n g a t t h e 40%
l e v e l (60% d i s a g r e e i n g ) , which once more p o i n t s o u t t h a t res p o n d e n t s
from t h e t h r e e l a r g e s t u n i v e r s i t i e s found t h e p a r t i s a n b a l l o t was
t h e i r f a v o re d appro ach f o r s e l e c t i n g a b oa rd.

But, s e l e c t i o n by

G o v e r n o r 's a p po intm ent was t h e f a v o r e d approach o f t h e p u b l i c
u n i v e r s i t i e s under 30,000 in s i z e .
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s w ith i n c r e a s e d e x p e r i e n c e i n
h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n were more i n agreement w i t h t h e approach o f
appointm ent by t h e Governor, w i t h a d m i n i s t r a t o r s w ith g r e a t e r
e x p e r i e n c e showing t h e g r e a t e s t degre e o f d i f f e r e n c e , 28% f a v o r i n g
t h i s p o s i t i o n w ith l e s s th a n t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e in h i g h e r educa­
t i o n as compared t o 61% o f t h o s e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s w ith more than ten
y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e , f o l lo w e d by f a c u l t y a t 39% f a v o r i n g w i t h l e s s
than t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e and 51% f a v o r i n g w ith more th an t e n y e a r s
experience.
I t would a p p e a r t h a t t h e s i n g l e most i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r in
d e te rm in in g t h e o p i n i o n s o f r e s p o n d e n t s from p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and
u n i v e r s i t i e s was t h e ty p e o f i n s t i t u t i o n and t h e p r e s e n t p ro ce ss
used f o r s e l e c t i n g t h e i r gov ern ing b o a rd s .

92

E. Po s t-S ec o n d a ry Board o f
T r u s t e e S e l e c t i o n P r o c e s s ; Voter
Opinions ( Non-Partisan--42%
Agreeing; P a r t i s a n — 27% Agreeing;
Appointment b.y t h e G o v e r n o r - - 21%
Agreei ngT
H ypothesis XIV
The m a j o r i t y o f v o t e r s w i l l f a v o r s e l e c t i o n o f
p u b l i c c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y board members
through appoin tm ent by t h e Governor, w ith a d v ic e
and c o n s e n t o f t h e S e n a te .
The sampled Michigan r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s fav o re d t h e s e l e c t i o n
o f board members in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n s by a n o n - p a r t i s a n
e l e c t i o n (42%), r a t h e r t h a n by a p a r t i s a n e l e c t i o n (27%), o r by
a p poin tm ent by t h e Governor (21%).
ported.

The h y p o t h e s i s was not sup­

However, t h e i r v o t e r o p i n i o n s were found t o be s t a t i s t i c a l l y

s i g n i f i c a n t (P < .0001) (Appendix A, Tables 29 and 30).
R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f sampled Michigan r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s , when
asked about t h e t h r e e main ways o f s e l e c t i n g governing board members
f o r Michigan p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s , p r e f e r r e d t h e non­
p a r t i s a n b a l l o t by a s i z e a b l e margin (42%), a p a r t i s a n b a l l o t (27%),
and t h e Governor appoin tm ent w i t h a d v ic e and c o n s e n t o f t h e Senate
(21%) (Appendix A, Table 2 9 ) .

I t i s o f some i n t e r e s t t o n o t e t h a t

t h e v o t e r s p r e f e r a n o n - p a r t i s a n b a l l o t as compared w i t h i n s t i t u ­
t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s who a r e more f a v o r a b l y i n c l i n e d t o a p p o i n t ­
ment; however, t h e v o t e r s r e p o r t e d t h e p a r t i s a n approach as t h e i r
second c h o ic e as compared with i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a g r e e ­
ing on appointment by t h e Governor.
The sampled Michigan r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s , when c a t e g o r i z e d as
v o t e r s who d e f i n e d th em se lv e s as b e lo n g in g t o t h e m i n o r i t y r a c e s and

93

t h o s e who d e f i n e d th em se lv e s as w h i t e , showed an i m p o r t a n t d i f ­
ference:

m i n o r i t y v o t e r s r e p o r t e d agreement on t h e p a r t i s a n b a l l o t

p r o c e s s a t 35% and t h e n o n - p a r t i s a n b a l l o t p ro ce ss a t 33%, as com­
p a re d w i t h w h i t e v o t e r s f a v o r i n g t h e n o n - p a r t i s a n b a l l o t a t 46% and
t h e p a r t i s a n b a l l o t a t 26%.

Both groups r e p o r t e d in c l o s e agreement

a t hav in g t h e Governor a p p o i n t w ith a d v ic e and co n sen t o f t h e
S e n a t e , 21% v e r s u s 17% (Appendix A, Table 2 9a).

The sampled v o t e r s

c a t e g o r i z e d by r a c e may be e x h i b i t i n g d i f f e r e n c e s f o r a number o f
reasons.

Voters who i d e n t i f y th em se lv es as members o f t h e m i n o r i t y

r a c e s may p e r c e i v e t h a t t h e r e i s a g r e a t e r o p p o r t u n i t y thro ugh
p a r t y a c c o u n t a b i l i t y t o i n f l u e n c e the d e cisio n -m a k in g p r o c e s s o f
g ov e rn in g bo ard s through t h e s e l e c t i o n by p a r t i s a n b a l l o t .

Commit­

ments t o a p a r t y p o s i t i o n have been p e r c e i v e d to be more v i s i b l e in
Michigan p o l i t i c s under t h e p a r t i s a n approach than under t h e non­
p a r t i s a n approach o r appointm ent by t h e Governor.
When sampled Michigan v o t e r s were c a t e g o r i z e d geograph­
i c a l l y , those favoring the non-partisan b a l l o t a t the h ig h est level
were from t h e Upper P e n i n s u l a (53%), w i t h t h o s e from t h e o t h e r
p a r t s o f t h e s t a t e — c e n t r a l , s o u t h e a s t and w e s t e r n — in t h e 40
percentiles.

A p a r t i s a n b a l l o t was fa vo re d in t h e w e stern p a r t o f

t h e s t a t e (33%), t h e h i g h e s t , w i t h t h e r e s t o f t h e a r e a s i n t h e
mid-20 p e r c e n t i l e s .

The G o ve rn o r's appointm ent w ith a d v ic e and

c o n s e n t o f t h e S e n a te was l e a s t a c c e p t a b l e in t h e Upper P e n i n s u l a
(7%) and most f a v o r a b l y a c c e p t e d in t h e s o u t h e a s t (23%) (Appendix A,
T able 29b).

94

When sampled Michigan r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s ' o p i n io n s were
a n a ly z e d by u r b a n /s u b u rb a n makeup, t h e n o n - p a r t i s a n b a l l o t was
f a v o r e d t o t h e g r e a t e s t e x t e n t by t h o s e from t h e suburbs (49%), and
l e a s t f a v o r a b l y a c c e p t e d by t h o s e from t h e farm a r e a (30%).

The

p a r t i s a n b a l l o t was most f a v o r a b l y a c c e p t e d by t h o s e from t h e
c e n t r a l c i t y (34%) and l e a s t f a v o r e d by t h o s e from t h e suburban
a r e a s (20%).

The G overnor’s appointment w ith Senate approva l was

f a v o r e d by t h o s e from t h e farm a r e a a t a high o f 35% w ith t h e
low e st a t 16% by t h o s e in t h e small c i t i e s (Appendix A, Table 29c).
F. P o s t-S ec o n d a ry Board o f
Control S e l e c t i o n P r o c e s s :
F a c u l t y R e p r e s e n t a t i o n on Own
I n s t i t u t i o n a l Board o f Control
(20% Agr eeing)
Hypothesis XV
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n ts
w i l l a g r e e t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s should not be
e l e c t e d o r a p p o in t e d t o s e r v e on boards o f
c o n t r o l o f t h e i r own i n s t i t u t i o n .
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s held o p i n i o n s t h a t showed
them in agreement t h a t people should no t be a p p o in t e d t o t h e i r own
b oa rds o f c o n t r o l , wh ether t h e y be f a c u l t y members (9% - 46%), o r
s t u d e n t s (15% - 41%).

They were a l s o in agreement t h a t i t was

a p p r o p r i a t e t h a t t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s be allowed t o s e r v e on board s o f
c o n t r o l o t h e r th a n t h e i r own, r a t h e r d i r e c t l y answering t h e q u e s t i o n
a b o u t t h e i r o p i n i o n s on c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t .

The h y p o t h e s is was

s u p p o r t e d (Appendix A, T ab les 31 - 35).
When i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s were asked wh eth er f a c u l t y
members sh o uld be allow ed t o s e r v e on t h e i r own i n s t i t u t i o n ' s board

95
o f c o n t r o l , board chairmen r e p o r t e d t h e s t r o n g e s t o p i n io n s r e g a r d i n g
t h i s i s s u e and d i s a g r e e d a t t h e 89% l e v e l , w i t h t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
alm ost i d e n t i c a l a t 88% and board members a t 84%.

The f a c u l t y took

an o p p o s i t e p o s i t i o n w i t h 46% a g r e e i n g and 43% d i s a g r e e i n g .

Inter­

e s t i n g l y , f a c u l t y members d id n o t s u p p o r t t h i s p o s i t i o n by even a
b a re m a j o r i t y and were alm ost evenly s p l i t on t h i s i s s u e .

I t would

a p p ea r t h a t p o s s i b l e c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t i s o f concern t o a l l
i n s t it u t io n a l respondents.
Opinions o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s , an alyze d by t h e i r
t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , showed t h o s e o f p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s opposed
t o t h i s p o s i t i o n a t t h e 88% l e v e l w ith t h o s e from p r i v a t e community
c o l l e g e s a t 67%, t h e lo w e st l e v e l o f d i s a g r e e m e n t.
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s w i t h i n c r e a s e d e x p e r i e n c e in
h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n developed a most i n t e r e s t i n g p a t t e r n in c o n t r a s t
t o f a c u l t y members w i t h l e s s than t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e .

Board

members and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , r e g a r d l e s s o f y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e ,
opposed having f a c u l t y members from t h e i r own i n s t i t u t i o n s e r v i n g
on t h e i r b o a r d s , w i t h both board members and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s demon­
s t r a t i n g more o p p o s i t i o n w i t h i n c r e a s e d e x p e r i e n c e .

F a c u l t y members

w i t h l e s s than t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e f a v o r e d t h i s method o f s e r v i c e
a t 52% agreement and f a c u l t y members w i t h more than t e n y e a r s
e x p e r i e n c e a t 44%.

Analyzed from t h e s t a n d p o i n t o f d i s a g r e e m e n t ,

t h o s e w i t h l e s s t h a n t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e i n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n opposed
a t t h e 49% l e v e l , a lm o s t a m a j o r i t y .

I t would a p p ea r t h a t t h e

f a c u l t y members w i t h l e s s th an t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e i n h i g h e r educa­
t i o n e x h i b i t a much h i g h e r de gre e o f i n t e r e s t i n s e r v i n g on t h e i r own

96

boards and a r e p o s s i b l y l e s s concerned w ith c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t .
They may r e f l e c t more p o l i t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n s as voiced by AFT, NEA,
AAUP, and o t h e r s .
G. Po s t-S ec o n d a ry Board o f
Control S e l e c t i o n P r o c e s s :
S t u d e n t R e p r e s e n t a t i o n on Own
I n s t i t u t i o n a l Board o f Control
(27% Agreeing)
When asked w he th er s t u d e n t s should be allowed to s e r v e on
t h e i r own i n s t i t u t i o n ' s board o f c o n t r o l , t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l
r e s p o n d e n t s most in agreement w ith t h i s were f a c u l t y (41%).
chairmen were in lo w e s t agreement (15%).

Board

In d isa g r e e m e n t w i t h t h i s

p r o p o s i t i o n , t h e board chairmen were t h e h i g h e s t (85%) and t h e
f a c u l t y were t h e lo w e st (51%).

F a c u lt y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s r e p o r t e d

g r e a t e r d i s a g r e e m e n t w i t h s t u d e n t s s e r v i n g on bo ard s (51%) (Appendix
A, Table 32) th an w ith f a c u l t y s e r v i n g on boards (43%) (Appendix A,
Table 3 1 ) .

I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o te t h a t board members, a f t e r

f a c u l t y , were t h e n e x t h i g h e s t group in f a v o r of a ll o w i n g s t u d e n t s
on t h e b o a r d , as compared w ith board chairmen and c h i e f a d m i n i s t r a ­
tiv e o ffice rs.
Analyzed by t h e i r t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , r e s p o n d e n t s w ith
t h e g r e a t e s t o b j e c t i o n t o t h e pro posa l were from p r i v a t e g r a d u a t e
i n s t i t u t i o n s and u n i v e r s i t i e s a t 76%.

The n e x t h i g h e s t d i s a g r e e m e n t

came from t h e p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s and f o u r - y e a r p r i v a t e c o l l e g e s a t
69%, and t h e l e a s t o b j e c t i o n came from t h e p r i v a t e community c o l ­
l e g e s a t 40%.

Respondents o f t h i s ty pe o f i n s t i t u t i o n were t h e o n l y

ones who f a v o r e d t h e proposa l in a m a j o r i t y o f 53%.

97

I n s t i t u t i o n a l respondents with increased years of experience
in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , w i t h o u t e x c e p t i o n , were more opposed t o s t u ­
d e n t s s e r v i n g on t h e i r own b o a rd s .

Board members d i s a g r e e d w ith the

approach a t 61% w i t h l e s s than t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e , compared w ith
t h o s e w ith more t h a n t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e a t 68%.

F a c u lt y w i t h l e s s

th a n t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e d i s a g r e e d a t 30%, and t h o s e w ith more than
t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e d i s a g r e e d a t 59%.

A dm inistrators with less

than t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e d i s a g r e e d a t 64%, compared w i t h t h o s e with
more than t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e a t 84%.

The o n ly group t h a t a gre ed

w ith t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n was t h e f a c u l t y w i t h l e s s than t e n y e a r s , who
approved a t t h e 61% l e v e l

(Appendix A, Table 3 2 c ).

I t w i l l be

i n t e r e s t i n g t o se e in t h e f u t u r e whether t h e f a c u l t y a t t i t u d e o r
o p i n io n c o n t i n u e s w i t h i n c r e a s e d e x p e r i e n c e o r whether i t i s an
i n d i c a t o r o f s t r o n g l y h e ld o p i n i o n s r e g a r d i n g s t u d e n t in volv em ent.
H. P o s t-S e c o n d a ry Board o f
Control S e l e c t i o n P r o c e s s :
F a c u l t y Members on Boards o f
Control Other Than T h e i r Own
(66% Agre eing)
When i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s were asked whe ther f a c u l t y
members should be allowed t o s e r v e on boards o f c o n t r o l i n i n s t i t u ­
t i o n s o t h e r t h a n t h e i r own, board chairmen f a v o r e d t h i s approach t h e
l e a s t (54%), compared w i t h f a c u l t y (76%), and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s (69%).
I t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t i s s u e o f f a c u l t y s e r v i n g on
t h e i r own board was " k e y ," inasmuch as a l l r e s p o n d e n t s f a v o r e d
a l l o w i n g f a c u l t y members t o s e r v e on bo ard s o f c o n t r o l o t h e r th an

98

t h e i r own.

C o nsequ en tly , t h e r e s p o n d e n t s a r e n o t opposing f a c u l t y

involvement as such.
I.
P o s t-S ec o n d a ry Board o f
Control S e l e c t i o n P r o c e s s :
A d m i n i s t r a t o r s and S t a f f Members
on Boards o f Control Other Than
Own (59% Agr eeing) When i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s were asked wh ether a d m i n i s ­
t r a t o r s and s t a f f members should be allowed t o s e r v e on board s o f
c o n t r o l o f i n s t i t u t i o n s o t h e r th an t h e i r own, a d m i n i s t r a t o r s r e ­
sponded most f a v o r a b l y (68%), with f a c u l t y n e x t h i g h e s t in a g r e e ­
ment (63%).
a t 47%.

The board members agreed a t 59% and t h e board chairmen

Board chairm en, a lt h o u g h no t g i v i n g a sim ple m a j o r i t y o f

approv al o r d i s a p p r o v a l , had t h e h i g h e s t number w i t h no o p i n i o n .
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s , a n a ly z e d by t y p e s o f i n s t i t u ­
t i o n s , were i n f a v o r o f t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n with t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h o s e
from f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e s who d i v i d e d t h e i r o p i n i o n alm ost
evenly.
I n s t i t u t i o n a l respondents with increased ye ars o f experience
in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n d e m o n s tra te d an i n t e r e s t i n g p a t t e r n .

Board mem­

b e r s with l e s s than t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e a g r e e d a t t h e 64% l e v e l ,
b u t t h o s e w i t h more t h a n t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e f e l l t o 45%.

Faculty,

r e g a r d l e s s o f l e n g t h o f s e r v i c e , a g r e e d ; however, t h e r e was a s l i g h t
i n c r e a s e on t h e p a r t o f f a c u l t y w ith l e s s th an t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e ,
65% t o 61%.

A d m i n i s t r a t o r s were in h i g h e s t agreement a t 64% and

71%, w ith t h e more e x p e r i e n c e d in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n f a v o r i n g t h i s
a pproa ch.

99

J . P o s t-S ec on d a ry Board o f
Control S e l e c t i o n P r o c e s s;
S t u d e n ts Allowed t o Serve on
Boards O th e r Than T h e i r Own
(54% Agreeing)
I n s t i t u t i o n a l res p o n d e n t s q u e stio n e d whether s t u d e n t s
should be allowed t o se r v e on boards o f c o n t r o l in i n s t i t u t i o n s
o t h e r than t h e i r own r e v e a l e d a d m i n i s t r a t o r s most in f a v o r o f t h i s
approach (62%) and board chairmen l e a s t i n f a v o r (42%).
chairmen d i s a g r e e d w i t h t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n a t 43%.

Board

This one p e r c e n t

d i f f e r e n c e i s not s t a t i s t i c a l l y im po rtant b u t i t i s a p o s s i b l e
i n d i c a t o r o f a d i f f e r e n c e i n o pin io n compared to o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s
o f r e s p o n d e n t s who a l l f a v o r e d t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n .
Analyzed by t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , res p o n d e n t s showed an
e x c e e d i n g ly i n t e r e s t i n g p a t t e r n .

Those from f o u r - y e a r p r i v a t e and

p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and p r i v a t e g r a d u a t e sch o o ls and u n i v e r s i t i e s
a gre ed a t t h e lo w e st l e v e l , 47%, 45%, and 24% r e s p e c t i v e l y , with
th e p r i v a t e and p u b l i c community c o l l e g e s a g r e e i n g a t 53% and 62%,
and p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s a t 64%.
F a c u l t y and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s w ith i n c r e a s e d y e a r s o f e x p e r i ­
ence i n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n fav ored t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n t o t h e g r e a t e s t
e x t e n t , 61% and 64% r e s p e c t i v e l y .

F a c u lt y w i t h l e s s th an t e n y e a r s

e x p e r i e n c e a g re e d a t 48% and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a t 57%.

The r e v e r s e

was t h e c a s e w i t h board members--those with l e s s than t e n y e a r s
f av o re d t h i s p o s i t i o n a t 57% and th ose with more than t e n y e a r s
e x p e r i e n c e a t 47%.

100
K. Community C o lle g e Board:
E le c t e d (68% Agreeing)
When i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s were asked whether community
c o l l e g e boards o f c o n t r o l should c o n ti n u e t o be e l e c t e d , a l l
a g re ed.

The lo w e s t in agreement were t h e f a c u l t y a t 59% and th e

h i g h e s t were t h e board members a t 73%.

Board chairmen a g re ed a t

t h e 71% l e v e l and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a t 67%.
Analyzed by t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , t h e r e s p o n d e n t s fav o re d
community c o l l e g e b oard s to c o n t i n u e being e l e c t e d , with t h e excep­
t i o n o f t h o s e from p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s a t 43%.

The h i g h e s t in

f a v o r o f e l e c t i o n were from t h e p u b l i c community c o l l e g e s a t 91%.
They a r e a l s o t h e most d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d s i n c e th ey p r e s e n t l y
s e l e c t t h e i r board members in t h i s manner.
t h e 50 ' s i n t o t h e 6 0 ' s .

The o t h e r s ranged from

F u r t h e r a n a l y s i s showed t h a t r e s p o n d e n ts

from p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s under 30,000 in s i z e , which have t h e i r
board members a p p o i n t e d , d i s a g r e e d with t h i s q u e s t i o n a t t h e 49%
l e v e l and agreed w i t h i t a t t h e 35% l e v e l .

I n t e r e s t i n g l y enough,

t h e p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s o v e r 30,000 t h a t have e l e c t e d boards agreed
a t t h e 60% l e v e l .

I t a p p e a r s t h a t one o f t h e most im p o r t a n t f a c t o r s

in d e te r m in in g r e s p o n s e t o t h i s q u e s t i o n i s t h e mode o f s e l e c t i o n
c u r r e n t l y being used a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s c o l l e g e .
L. Community C o lle g e Board:
Appointed by t h e Governor
(23% Agreeing)
When i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s were asked whether t h e com­
munity c o l l e g e boards o f c o n t r o l should be a p p o in t e d by th e
Governor w i t h a d v i c e and c o n s e n t o f t h e S e n a te , th ey d i s a g r e e d in

101

e very c a t e g o r y w i t h t h i s approach f o r community c o l l e g e board
selection.

The board members were h i g h e s t i n d i sa g r e e m e n t (69%),

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s (68%), board chairmen (65%) and f a c u l t y lowest (55%).
The p r e s e n t board s o f c o n t r o l o f community c o l l e g e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e
K-12 b oard , a r e e l e c t e d a t l a r g e and, a s had been t h e c a s e i n t h e
o t h e r q u e s t i o n s , r e s p o n d e n t s seemed t o p r e f e r t o remain with th e
s e l e c t i o n method now being used f o r t h a t ty p e o f i n s t i t u t i o n .
Analyzed by t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , r e s p o n d e n t s from t h e
f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e s r e p o r t e d 48% d isa g ree m e n t w ith t h i s
approach and 33% agreem en t.

The group most i n d isa g r e e m e n t w ith

appointm ent by t h e Governor were from t h e p u b l i c coiranunity c o l l e g e s
(89%), fo llo w ed by t h o s e from p r i v a t e community c o l l e g e s (73%), and
t h o s e from f o u r - y e a r p r i v a t e c o l l e g e s and g r a d u a t e s c h o o ls and
u n i v e r s i t i e s in th e m id-50's.
M. S e p a r a t e Boards o f T r u s t e e s
f o r Community C o l le g e s Now Under
K-12 Boards (69% A g reeing)
When i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s were asked whether t h e r e
should be s e p a r a t e boards o f t r u s t e e s f o r t h o s e community c o l l e g e s
p r e s e n t l y under K-12 b o a r d s , a l l c a t e g o r i e s a g r e e d , t h e h i g h e s t
b e ing a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a t 73%, fo llo w ed by board chairmen a t 70%,
f a c u l t y a t 68%, and board members a t 65%.
Analyzed by t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , t h e r e s p o n d e n t s a g re ed
t h a t s e p a r a t e boa rds should be e s t a b l i s h e d , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f
t h o s e from p r i v a t e g r a d u a t e s c h o o l s and u n i v e r s i t i e s , who r e p o r t e d
a l e v e l o f 41% having no o p i n i o n , 29% n o t r e s p o n d i n g , and o n ly 24%

102

i n agreem ent.

F o r t y - s i x p e r c e n t o f t h o s e from p r i v a t e community

c o l l e g e s were i n agre em ent.

Respondents from p u b l i c community

c o l l e g e s , b e in g most d i r e c t l y impa cted, were i n t h e h i g h e s t l e v e l
o f agreement a t 79%, followed by t h o s e from f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c u n i v e r ­
s i t i e s a t 63%, t h o s e from p u b l i c f o u r - y e a r c o l l e g e s a t 61%, and
t h o s e from f o u r - y e a r p r i v a t e c o l l e g e s a t 60%.
I n s t i t u t i o n a l res p o n d e n ts w ith i n c r e a s e d e x p e r i e n c e in
h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , w i t h o u t e x c e p t i o n , were i n g r e a t e r agreem ent.
Board members w ith l e s s th a n t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e were 61% i n a g r e e ­
ment, and t h o s e w i t h more than t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e were a t 73%
agreement on t h i s q u e s t i o n .

F a c u lt y w i t h l e s s than t e n y e a r s

e x p e r i e n c e r e p o r t e d 57% agreem ent, compared w i t h t h o s e having more
t h a n ten y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e a t 77% agre em ent.

A dm inistrators with

l e s s th an t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e r e p o r t e d 64% ag re em e n t, compared
w i t h t h o s e having more than t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e a t 77%.
N. S t a t e Board o f Higher
Edu cation Membership Appointed
by t h e Governor (56% Agreeing)
The m a j o r i t y o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s o f a l l c a t e g o r i e s
f a v o r e d s e l e c t i o n o f members t o t h e s t a t e board by t h e Governor.
The a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and board chairmen f a v o r e d t h i s p o s i t i o n t o a
g r e a t e r de g re e (61% and 60%) th an d i d board members and f a c u l t y
members (58% and 53%).
By t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n t h e r e was a w id e sprea d d i f f e r e n c e
o f o p i n i o n among r e s p o n d e n t s c o ncerning t h i s ty p e o f s e l e c t i o n .
Respondents from p r i v a t e and p u b l i c community c o l l e g e s were t h e

103
l e a s t in f a v o r , w i t h t h o s e from f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e s t h e h i g h ­
e s t a t 87%.

The f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e s a r e i n s t i t u t i o n s t h a t

a r e now working under t h i s type o f board s e l e c t i o n .
I n s t i t u t i o n a l res p o n d e n t s from c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s
t h a t were o r g a n i z e d f o r b a r g a i n i n g purposes were in f a v o r o f t h i s
typ e o f s e l e c t i o n t o a n o t i c e a b l y g r e a t e r e x t e n t than t h o s e not
o r g a n i z e d , 61% compared t o 49%.
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s , when an aly ze d from t h e s t a n d ­
p o i n t o f l e n g t h o f e x p e r i e n c e in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , showed board
members as well as a d m i n i s t r a t o r s w i t h g r e a t e r e x p e r i e n c e more in
f a v o r o f t h i s ty pe o f s e l e c t i o n .

A r e v e r s e tendency was n o t i c e a b l e

w i t h f a c u l t y members, w i t h t h o s e having l e s s th an t e n y e a r s e x p e r i ­
ence bein g more i n f a v o r o f t h i s approach th an t h o s e with more
th an t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e .

The d i f f e r e n c e on t h e p a r t o f admin­

i s t r a t o r s showed t h e h i g h e s t d egre e o f d i v e r g e n c e , from 42% t o 73%
f o r t h o s e having e x p e r i e n c e o f more th an t e n y e a r s .
0. Members E l e c t e d a t Large
(35% Agreeing)
On t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e members o f t h e proposed board
be e l e c t e d a t l a r g e , i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s took th e f o l ­
lowing p o s i t i o n :

a l l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s d i s a g r e e d with t h i s p r o p o s i ­

t i o n , w i t h t h e l o w e s t a t 51% and t h e h i g h e s t a t 62%.

In comparison,

t h e c a t e g o r y in agreem ent a t t h e h i g h e s t l e v e l was f a c u l t y a t 43%.
Both a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and board chairmen, compared t o f a c u l t y , would
seem t o be h o l d in g o p i n i o n s o f some d isa g r ee m e n t r e g a r d i n g t h e
a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f t h i s approach f o r s e l e c t i o n o f board members.

104

The impact o f f a c u l t y o r g a n i z a t i o n s e x t e r n a l and i n t e r n a l t o the
i n s t i t u t i o n s and t h e i r involvement i n s t a t e w i d e p o l i t i c s may give
an i n s i g h t i n t o t h e o p i n io n s o f both g r o u p s , p r e s e n t board members
v is-a -v is faculty.
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s , a n aly ze d by typ es o f i n s t i t u ­
t i o n s , showed wide d iv e r g e n c e o f o p i n io n s on t h i s q u e s t i o n .

Re­

spondents from p r i v a t e community c o l l e g e s fav o re d e l e c t i o n a t
l a r g e (67%), compared w i t h t h o s e from f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e s
a t 9%.

However, r e s p o n d e n t s from f o u r - y e a r p r i v a t e and p u b l i c

c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s a l l d i s a g r e e d t h a t t h e board should
be e l e c t e d a t l a r g e , w ith t h o s e from p u b l i c community c o l l e g e s
in d isa g r ee m e n t a t 47% and t h o s e from p r i v a t e community c o l l e g e s
a t 27%.

I t a p p e a rs t h a t t h e d i v e r g e n c e does not f o l lo w a path

t h a t can be e x p l a i n e d by how t h e p r e s e n t i n d i v i d u a l i n s t i t u t i o n s '
bo ard s a r e s e l e c t e d ; however, t h e f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e s
have t h e s t r o n g e s t f e e l i n g s on t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n .

I t i s pos­

s i b l e t h a t t h e p r i v a t e community c o l l e g e s w i t h t h e i r a p p o in te d
bo ard s f e e l t h a t an e l e c t e d board would be more r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
of the public i n t e r e s t .
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s , when an alyze d from l e n g t h o f
e x p e r i e n c e in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , developed i n t e r e s t i n g p a t t e r n s on
th is question.

A d m i n i s t r a t o r s w ith l e s s than t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e

r e p o r t e d 43% in o p p o s i t i o n to t h i s a p p ro a c h , compared w i t h admin­
i s t r a t o r s w i t h more than t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e a t 69%.

Faculty

r e v e r s e d t h i s te n d e n c y , with t h o s e having l e s s than t e n y e a r s

105
e x p e r i e n c e a t 61% in o p p o s i t i o n and t h o s e w ith more than t e n y e a r s
43% i n o p p o s i t i o n .
P. Membership D e l i m i t a t i o n
(85% A greeing)
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , when asked t h e q u e s t i o n
w he ther proposed boards should be l i m i t e d t o no l e s s than seven and
no more t h a n f i f t e e n , were overwhelmingly in agreement.
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s , a n alyze d by y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e
i n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , ten de d in g en eral t o f a v o r d e l i m i t a t i o n of
t h i s kind w i t h i n c r e a s e d y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e , w ith t h e e x c e p t i o n o f
t h e board members where o n l y a s l i g h t d i f f e r e n c e was ob se rv ed .
Q. E l e c t i o n o f Board C h ie f
E x e c u tiv e O f f i c e r (22% Agr eeing)
The i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s , when asked whether t h e c h i e f
e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e r o f t h i s board should be e l e c t e d , a l l opposed t h i s
a p p ro a c h , b u t w ith f a i r d i v e r g e n c e o f o p i n i o n .

The a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

opposed i t a t 77%, f o llo w ed by board members and board chairmen a t
64% and 69%, w ith f a c u l t y i n o p p o s i t i o n a t 57%.
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s , an alyze d by t y p e s o f i n s t i t u ­
t i o n s , opposed t h i s p o s i t i o n , w ith t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h o s e from
p r i v a t e community c o l l e g e s who approved i t by 54%.

Those o f p u b l i c

u n i v e r s i t i e s and f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e s were s t r o n g e s t i n o p p o s i ­
t i o n a t 84%.
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s , analy ze d by y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e
i n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , tended t o be more i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h i s p o s i t i o n

106
w ith a d d i t i o n a l y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e than d i d r e s p o n d e n t s w i t h fewer
y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n .
R. Appointment o f Board C h ie f
E x ecu tiv e O f f i c e r (66% Agr eeing)
When i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s were asked wheth er t h e
c h i e f e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e r o f t h e proposed S t a t e Board f o r Higher
Education should be a p p o i n t e d , t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s were in g r e a t e s t
agreement (78%), and in lo w e st agreement were f a c u l t y members (59%).
S. Board F u n c tio n s Reviewed
(87% Agreeing)
When i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s were asked whether t h e f u n c ­
t i o n s o f t h i s proposed board sh o uld be reviewed e very f i v e t o e i g h t
y e a r s , a l l c a t e g o r i e s a g re e d a t t h e l e v e l o f 83% o r b e t t e r .
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s , an aly ze d by y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e ,
tended w i t h a d d i t i o n a l y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e t o i n c r e a s e t h e i r a g r e e ­
ment r e g a r d i n g t h i s t y p e o f review o f t h e b o a rd , w ith t h e e x c e p t i o n
o f board members.

I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t board members, being f a m i l i a r

w ith t h a t r o l e , may n o t be so i n c l i n e d t o a g re e w i t h t h i s ty p e o f
p e r i o d i c re vie w , as would a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and f a c u l t y .
VI.
A.

P o s t-S ec o n d a ry Education
vs. Higher E ducation

D e f i n i t i o n (82% Agreeing)
" P o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n i s any i n s t r u c t i o n , r e s e a r c h ,

p u b l i c s e r v i c e o r o t h e r l e a r n i n g o p p o r t u n i t y o f f e r e d t o p e rs o n s who
have completed t h e i r se c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n o r who a r e beyond t h e com­
p u l s o r y s e co nd a ry school a t t e n d a n c e age (age 16) and who a r e

107

p a r t i c i p a t i n g in an o r g a n iz e d e d u c a t i o n a l program o r l e a r n i n g
e x p e r i e n c e a d m i n i s t e r e d by o t h e r than scho o ls whose primary r o l e i s
e le m e n ta r y and se con d a ry e d u c a t i o n . "
Hypothesis XVI
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l res p o n d e n t s w i l l
hold a f a v o r a b l e o p in io n toward th e G o v e r n o r 's
Commission's d e f i n i t i o n o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y
e d u c a ti on.
Without e x c e p t i o n , t h e surveyed r e s p o n d e n ts h e ld h i g h l y
f a v o r a b l e o p i n io n s r e g a r d i n g t h e a c c e p ta n c e o f t h e d e f i n i t i o n of
p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n (79% - 85%).

The h y p o t h e s is was sub­

s t a n t i a t e d (Appendix A, Table 45 ).
When i n s t i t u t i o n a l res p o n d e n t s were asked wh ether t h e above
d e f i n i ti o n is ap p ro p ria te f o r post-secondary education, a ll c a t ­
e g o r i e s o f r e s p o n d e n t s f a v o r e d t h e d e f i n i t i o n a t t h e 79% l e v e l o r
h i g h e r , with f a c u l t y a t 85%, board chairmen and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a t
83% e a c h , and board members a t 79%.
Analyzed by t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , t h e r e s p o n d e n t s a g r e e d ,
w ith a range o f 61% f o r t h o s e from p r i v a t e g r a d u a t e s c h o o l s and
u n i v e r s i t i e s t o a high o f 88% f o r t h o s e from p u b l i c community c o l ­
l e g e s and p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s .
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s w ith i n c r e a s e d e x p e r i e n c e in
h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n were more in f a v o r o f t h i s d e f i n i t i o n , t h e e xcep­
t i o n being board members w ith l e s s than t e n y e a r s a t 85% and t h o s e
w i t h more than t e n y e a r s a t 80%.

The r e v e r s e held t r u e w ith

f a c u l t y w i t h more t h a n t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n
f a v o r i n g t h e d e f i n i t i o n (89%) compared w i t h t h o s e having l e s s th an

108
t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e (78%).

A d m i n i s t r a t o r s with more than ten y e a r s

e x p e r i e n c e f a v o r e d t h i s p o s i t i o n a t 90% and th o se w ith l e s s than
ten y e a r s a g re ed a t 71%.

Although th e board members r e v e r s e d th e

t r e n d , as n o t e d , wheth er t h e y had more o r l e s s than t e n y e a r s
e x p e r i e n c e , t h e y were in t h e 80% l e v e l , and th u s did n o t d i f f e r
from t h e o t h e r groups to any g r e a t e x t e n t .

I t i s im p o r ta n t t o note

t h a t t h e d e f i n i t i o n developed by t h e G o v e rn o r's Commission on Higher
Education was h i g h l y a c c e p te d by a l l c a t e g o r i e s of r e s p o n d e n t s .
U su ally a c onsensus i s d i f f i c u l t to reach when one i s t r y i n g to
d e f i n e an a r e a as complex as p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n .
B. Post-S ec on d a ry Education:
Goals and Purposes C l e a r l y
Defined (26% Agr eeing)
Hypothesis XVII
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l res p o n d e n t s w i l l
a g r e e t h a t th e g o a ls and purpose s o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y
e d u c a t i o n i n Michigan a r e not c l e a r l y d e f i n e d .
Those who responded from i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n
t o t h e q u e s t i o n a b o u t c l a r i t y o f g o a ls and purpose s o f p o s t ­
se conda ry e d u c a t i o n , g e n e r a l l y a gre ed t h a t t h i s was n o t t h e case
(49% - 64%).

The h y p o t h e s i s was s u b s t a n t i a t e d (Appendix A, Table

4 6).
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s responded t o t h e q u e s t i o n
about c l a r i t y o f g o a l s and purposes o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n in
Michigan by i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e y a r e not c l e a r l y d e f i n e d :

board

chairmen (54%), a d m i n i s t r a t o r s (51%), board members (49%), and
f a c u l t y (64%).

109

When i t came t o t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , t h e p r i v a t e i n s t i t u ­
t i o n s , w ith t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h e p r i v a t e u n i v e r s i t i e s , did n o t hold
as s t r o n g an o p i n i o n .

All o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s responded t h a t t h e

g o a l s were n o t s p e l l e d o u t and c l e a r l y d e f i n e d .
However, t h o s e i n s t i t u t i o n s t h a t were o r g a n i z e d f o r b a r ­
g a i n i n g pu rpose s responded more s t r o n g l y in agreement t h a t t h e g o a ls
and purpose s were n o t c l e a r (56%), th an t h o s e t h a t were n o t org an i zed (40%).
When a n aly ze d by r e s p o n d e n t s ' y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e in h i g h e r
e d u c a t i o n , t h e o p i n io n s o f both f a c u l t y and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s were
t h a t t h e g o a ls f o r p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n f o r Michigan were no t
c l e a r l y defined.

Board members h e ld ve ry s i m i l a r p o s i t i o n s .

With

i n c r e a s e d e x p e r i e n c e , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and f a c u l t y held an even
s t r o n g e r p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e g o a l s were n o t c l e a r l y s p e l l e d o u t .
VII.
A. E n rollm en t:
(41% Agreeing)

F u tu re and P r e s e n t C o n d itio n s o f
Po st-S ec o nd a ry Education

Will S t a b i l i z e

When asked whether t h e f u t u r e c o n d i t i o n s o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y
e d u c a t i o n r e g a r d i n g e n r o l l m e n t would be s t a b i l i z e d , t h o s e i n g r e a t ­
e s t agreement t h a t t h i s would be t h e c a s e were t h e f a c u l t y members
(50%), a d m i n i s t r a t o r s (43%), and t h e l e a s t i n agreement were t h e
board chairmen (35%), fo llo w ed by t h e board members (37%).
Analyzed by t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , r e s p o n d e n t s viewed
s t a b i l i z e d e n r o l l m e n t as not b e in g a c o n d i t i o n f o r t h e f u t u r e .
Respondents from p r i v a t e community c o l l e g e s f e l t t h e s t r o n g e s t t h a t

110

s t a b i l i z e d e n r o l l m e n t would n o t be t h e c a s e (60%), follo w ed by
t h o s e o f p r i v a t e g r a d u a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s and u n i v e r s i t i e s (53%) and
f o u r - y e a r p r i v a t e c o l l e g e s (49%).
B. E n r o llm e n t:
(47% A greeing)

Will Decrease

Analyzed by t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , r e s p o n d e n t s
t h e r e would be a d e c r e a s e in e n r o l l m e n t were

whoagreed

from t h e p r i v a t e

com­

munity c o l l e g e s and t h e p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s a t 54% and t h o s e from
f o u r - y e a r p r i v a t e c o l l e g e s a t 48%.
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s were:

The o p i n i o n s o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s 40%, f a c u l t y 50%, board

members 45%, and board chairmen 52%.
C. E n ro llm en t:
(18% Agr eeing)

Will I n c r e a s e

When asked whether t h e f u t u r e holds an i n c r e a s e in e n r o l l ­
ment, a l l c a t e g o r i e s o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s f e l t t h i s would n o t be t h e
case:

f a c u l t y 13%, board chairmen 17%, a d m i n i s t r a t o r s 19%, and

bo ard members 23%.
Analyzed by t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , a l l d i s a g r e e d w i t h t h i s
p o s itio n o f in creasin g enrollment.
The g r e a t e r t h e number o f y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e in h i g h e r
e d u c a t i o n , t h e more r e s p o n d e n t s a g re ed t h a t i n c r e a s e s in e n r o l l m e n t
would n o t t a k e p l a c e .
H ypothesis XVIII
The m a j o r i t y o f v o t e r s w i l l a g r e e t h a t e n r o l l m e n t
w i l l i n c r e a s e i n t h e f u t u r e , r a t h e r th an d e c r e a s e
o r n o t change.

Ill

The sampled r e g i s t e r e d Michigan v o t e r s did have o p i n io n s
regarding enrollment tren d s.

T h e i r o p i n io n s were 45% t h a t e n r o l l ­

ment would i n c r e a s e , 22% t h a t t h e r e would be no change, and 33%
t h a t e n r o l l m e n t s would d e c r e a s e .
supported.

D e s c r i p t i v e l y , t h e h y p o t h e s i s was

The v o t e r s ' o p i n io n s were found t o be s t a t i s t i c a l l y

s i g n i f i c a n t (P < .0001) (Appendix A, Table 51).
D. Enrollm ent: V oter Opinions
(38% I n c r e a s e ; 27% Decrease)
When t h e sampled r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s were asked whether
e n r o l l m e n t f o r Michigan p u b l i c c o l l e g e s would i n c r e a s e o r d e c r e a s e ,
t h e g r e a t e s t number r e p o r t e d t h a t i t would i n c r e a s e (38%), w hile
27% t h o u g h t i t would d e c r e a s e .
The r e s p o n d e n t s o f m i n o r i t y r a c e s r e p o r t e d (52%) t h a t th ey
a n t i c i p a t e d an i n c r e a s e in e n r o l l m e n t in p u b l i c h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n
i n t h e next f i v e y e a r s .
position.

The w h i t e v o t e r s a gre ed (36%) w i t h t h i s

This d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f r e c e n t

s t u d i e s o f m i n o r i t y o p i n i o n s a b o u t t h e f u t u r e showing t h a t th e y a r e
o f t e n more o p t i m i s t i c than t h e w h i t e m a j o r i t y .
Viewed by de g re e o f u r b a n i z a t i o n , res p o n d e n ts from t h e farm
a r e a r e p o r t e d t h e g r e a t e s t agreement (52%) t h a t e n r o l l m e n t would
i n c r e a s e , follo w ed by c e n t r a l c i t i e s (46%), suburban a r e a s (39%),
small c i t i e s (32%) and r u r a l a r e a s (31%).
Hypothesis XIX
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s w i l l
a g re e on t h e s e f u t u r e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f p o s t ­
se con d a ry e d u c a t i o n :
(1) i n c r e a s i n g c o s t , (2)
more s p e c i a l i z e d demands f o r e d u c a t i o n a l
s e r v i c e s , (3) c o m p e t i t i o n f o r s t u d e n t s ,

112

(4) c o m p e t i t i o n f o r rev e n u e, (5) i n s t i t u t i o n a l
m is s i o n s more d i f f i c u l t t o d e f i n e , (6) main­
t en a n ce o f q u a l i t y more d i f f i c u l t t o s u s t a i n ,
(7) c o o p e r a t i v e e f f o r t among i n s t i t u t i o n s o f
h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n more d i f f i c u l t t o manage,
(8) r e s o u r c e s more d i f f i c u l t t o manage,
(9) g r e a t e r d i v e r s i t y o f programs o f h i g h e r
e d u c a t i o n , and (10) i n c r e a s e d r e s p e c t f o r
h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n by t h e p u b l i c .
The i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s su pp o rted t h e h y p o t h e s i s
r e g a r d i n g t h e f u t u r e c o n d i t i o n s o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n , as
r e l a t e d to c o s t s , e d u c a t i o n a l s e r v i c e s , s t u d e n t s , rev en ue, m i s s i o n ,
q u a l i t y , c o o p e r a t i o n , management of r e s o u r c e s , d i v e r s i t y o f p r o ­
grams, and r e s p e c t f o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n .

Board members were t h e

o nly group t h a t f e l l below t h e 50% l e v e l , and t h i s was i n t h e a re a
of in s t it u t io n a l cooperation.

All o t h e r a r e a s were above 50% by

a l l groups (Appendix A, Tab les 52 - 61).
When i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s and sample Michigan
v o t e r s were asked t h e i r o p i n io n about t h e fo llo w in g s t a t e m e n t s
regarding th e f u tu r e co n dition o f post-secondary edu catio n , they
h e ld v a r i e d o p i n io n s and a t t i t u d e s .
E. C o sts : I n c r e a s i n g
(93% Agreeing)
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s r e p o r t e d t h e y saw h i g h e r c o s t s in
t h e f u t u r e , w ith agreement ra n g in g from 88% t o 97%.
F. S p e c i a l i z e d Demands
(89% Agreeing )
When i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s were asked t h e q u e s t i o n con­
c e r n i n g more s p e c i a l i z e d demands i n t h e f u t u r e f o r e d u c a t i o n a l
s e r v i c e s , t h e f a c u l t y a g re ed most s t r o n g l y (95%) t h a t t h e r e would

113

be more s p e c i a l i z e d demands f o r e d u c a t i o n a l s e r v i c e s , w ith t h e
o t h e r r e s p o n d e n t s a g r e e i n g above t h e 80% l e v e l .
G. Com petition f o r S t u d e n ts
(90% Agr eeing)
All i n s t i t u t i o n a l res p o n d e n t s r e p o r t e d t h a t c o m p e ti t io n f o r
s t u d e n t s would i n c r e a s e , w i t h a range o f agreement from 83% t o 96%.
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , a nalyzed by ty pe o f i n s t i t u ­
t i o n s , ranged i n agreement from 76% f o r p r i v a t e g r a d u a t e s c h o o l s and
u n i v e r s i t i e s t o 100% f o r p r i v a t e community c o l l e g e s .
H. Com petition f o r Revenue
(94% Agreeing)
When asked a b ou t c o m p e ti t io n f o r r ev e n u e, i n s t i t u t i o n a l
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a g re e d s t r o n g l y t h a t c o m p e t i t i o n f o r revenue would
be a common s i t u a t i o n i n t h e f u t u r e , w i t h agreement rang in g from
89% t o 98%.
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , an aly ze d by t y p e s o f i n s t i ­
t u t i o n s , showed a h i g h e r l e v e l o f agreement r e g a r d i n g c o m p e ti t io n
f o r revenue i f t h e y were from p u b l i c community c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r ­
s i t i e s , compared w i t h t h o s e from p r i v a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s , a lth o ug h t h e
d i f f e r e n c e was n o t g r e a t .
I . I n s t i t u t i o n a l Missions
(58% Agreeing)
When i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s were asked whether i n s t i ­
t u t i o n a l m is s i o n s would be more d i f f i c u l t t o d e f i n e i n the f u t u r e ,
f a c u l t y co n cu rred a t 66% ag re em en t, board chairmen a t 63%, board
members a t 51% and c h i e f a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a t 50% agreement.

114

J . Maintenance o f Q u a l i t y :
Michigan Voters (55% A g re ein g );
M in o r ity /W h ite V oter P a t t e r n s
(68% t o 58%T
H ypothesis XX
The m a j o r i t y o f v o t e r s w i l l a g re e t h a t t h e q u a l i t y
o f p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s w i l l improve.
The sampled r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s held t h e o p i n io n t h a t t h e
q u a l i t y o f p u b l i c c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y e d u c a t i o n would improve
(55%), r a t h e r th an remain t h e same (30%), o r n o t improve (15%).
The h y p o t h e s i s was s u p p o r t e d .

The o p i n io n s h e ld were s i g n i f i c a n t

s t a t i s t i c a l l y (P < .0001) (Appendix A, Table 5 7 ).
Hypothesis XXI
The m a j o r i t y o f v o t e r s who i d e n t i f y them se lv e s as
b elo n gin g t o t h e m i n o r i t y r a c e s w i l l hold more
f a v o r a b l e o p i n io n s toward t h e r o l e o f p u b l i c
c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s in p r e p a r i n g s t u d e n t s
f o r t h e j o b market th an t h e v o t e r s who i d e n t i f y
them se lv e s a s w h i t e .
The sampled Michigan r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s who i d e n t i f i e d them­
s e l v e s as members o f m i n o r i t y r a c e s held d i f f e r e n t o p i n i o n s from
t h o s e who i d e n t i f i e d th em se lv es as w h i t e .

M i n o r i t i e s held a more

f a v o r a b l e o p i n io n toward t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f p u b l i c h i g h e r educa­
t i o n in p r e p a r i n g s t u d e n t s f o r t h e j o b market th an d i d t h e w h i t e
v o t e r s , 42% to 36%.

The d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s upheld t h e hypoth­

e s i s (Appendix A, Table 58).
K. Maintenance o f Q u a l i t y
D i f f i c u l t (62% Agreeing)
When i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s were asked whether
q u a l i t y in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n would be more d i f f i c u l t t o s u s t a i n , t h e

115

f a c u l t y r e p o r t e d 70% agreement t h a t t h i s would be a d i f f i c u l t
problem in t h e f u t u r e .

In comparison, t h e board chairmen agre ed a t

62%, a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a t 59%, and board members a t 58%.
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , an aly ze d by typ es o f i n s t i t u ­
t i o n s , g e n e r a l l y a g re e d t h a t q u a l i t y would be d i f f i c u l t t o s u s t a i n
in t h e f u t u r e .
o f 69%.

T h e i r agreement ranged from a low o f 47% t o a high

However, ty p e o f i n s t i t u t i o n was not an i m p o r t a n t v a r i a b l e

fo r t h i s question.
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s , a nalyzed by i n c r e a s e d y e a r s o f
e x p e r i e n c e in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , showed an i n t e r e s t i n g p a t t e r n o f
response.

For example, board members and f a c u l t y w ith added y e a r s

o f e x p e r i e n c e were i n g r e a t e r agreement on t h i s q u e s t i o n , but
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s were in l e s s agreement w ith added e x p e r i e n c e .

Per­

haps a d m i n i s t r a t o r s f e e l q u a l i t y w i l l improve i n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n in
t h e f u t u r e because o f b e t t e r s e l e c t i o n o f p e r s o n n e l , b e t t e r f a c u l t y ,
stronger adm inistration, or a g rea ter fu lfillm e n t of accountability
co n ce p t.
Voters who i d e n t i f i e d th em se lv es as b e lo nging t o t h e m in or­
i t y r a c e s showed a h i g h e r d egre e o f optimism on t h i s q u e s t i o n com­
p are d w ith v o t e r s who i d e n t i f i e d th em se lv es as being w h i t e .

This

d i f f e r e n c e between r e s p o n s e s o f w h i t e and m i n o r i t y r a c e s compared
favorably with t h a t o f o th e r re c e n t s t u d ie s .

The g r e a t e r c o n c u r ­

r e n c e by m i n o r i t i e s may be based p a r t i a l l y on t h e i r f e e l i n g t h a t
t h e y a r e becoming p a r t o f t h e mainstream o f American l i f e .

116
H y p o t h e s is XXII

Voter o p i n i o n s r e g a r d i n g Michigan p u b l i c h i g h e r
e d u c a t i o n w i l l show d i f f e r e n c e s a c c o rd in g t o t h e
f o l l o w i n g f o u r Michigan g e o g ra p h ic a l r e g i o n s :
(1) c e n t r a l , (2) s o u t h e a s t , (3) Upper P e n i n s u l a ,
and (4) w e s t e r n .
In t h e above q u e s t i o n , as well as in o t h e r segments o f th e
m a t e r i a l r e g a r d i n g an a n a l y s i s o f v o t e r s ' o p i n i o n s , a d e f i n i t e d i f ­
f e r e n c e o f o p i n io n was d i s p l a y e d g e o g r a p h i c a l l y a c r o s s Michigan, as
r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e wide v a r i a n c e from 60% in t h e Upper P e n in su la t o
33% in t h e s o u t h e a s t s e c t i o n o f t h e s t a t e .

This d i f f e r e n c e i s

found thro u gh o ut t h e d a t a , v e r i f y i n g t h e h y p o t h e s i s (Appendix A,
Table 66a).
Hypothesis XXIII
Voter o p i n i o n s w i l l vary a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r
r e s i d e n t i a l p a t t e r n s , such as c e n t r a l c i t y , farm,
r u r a l , su b u rb a n , and small c i t y .
The o p i n i o n s o f t h e sample o f Michigan r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s
did vary by t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l p a t t e r n s , as seen th r o u g h o u t t h e d a t a .
The p a t t e r n was c o n s i s t e n t , v a ry in g from a high o f 40% t o a low o f
34%, as d e m o n stra te d i n t h e t a b l e use d.

The h y p o t h e s i s was sub­

s t a n t i a t e d (Appendix A, T able 66b) .
L. C o o perativ e E f f o r t : More
D i f f i c u l t (47% A g r e e i n g T
When i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s were asked whether c o o p era ­
t i v e e f f o r t among i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n would be more
d i f f i c u l t , f a c u l t y members r e p o r t e d t h a t i t would (55%), compared
with a d m i n i s t r a t o r s (46%), board chairmen (45%), and board members
(40%).

117

Analyzed by t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , t h e r e s p o n d e n t s d e s c r i b e d
an i n t e r e s t i n g p a t t e r n in which t h o s e o f p u b l i c f o u r - y e a r c o l l e g e s
and u n i v e r s i t i e s showed t h a t c o o p e r a t i o n would n o t be a d i f f i c u l t
problem in t h e f u t u r e , as compared w i t h t h o s e o f p r i v a t e c o l l e g e s
and t h e p u b l i c community c o l l e g e s t h a t f e l t t o a g r e a t e r e x t e n t t h a t
c o o p e r a t i o n could be a problem.

This d i f f e r e n c e o f op in io n by

r e s p o n d e n t s , an aly ze d by ty p e o f i n s t i t u t i o n , d e s e r v e s f u r t h e r
s t u d y , t o d e te r m in e why i n s t i t u t i o n s , by t y p e , d i f f e r c oncern ing
th is question.

Problems o f c o o p e r a t i o n may r e l a t e t o how t h e s e

i n s t i t u t i o n s perceive t h e i r fu tu re.
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s from i n s t i t u t i o n s o r g a n iz e d f o r
b a r g a i n i n g p urp oses d i s a g r e e d t h a t c o o p e r a t i o n would be more d i f ­
f i c u l t (46%), compared w i t h 34% o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s from th o se
i n s t i t u t i o n s not organized.

A lso , o f some im p o rtan c e was t h e

f i n d i n g t h a t from t h o s e i n s t i t u t i o n s n o t o r g a n i z e d , 14% o f t h e
r e s p o n d e n t s had no o p i n i o n .

I t i s p o ss ib le t h a t la rg e public

i n s t i t u t i o n s and community c o l l e g e s r e p r e s e n t t h e g r e a t e s t number
o f i n s t i t u t i o n s and t h e i r r e s p o n d e n t s f o l l o w t h e o p i n io n s of
organized i n s t i t u t i o n s regarding t h i s q u e stio n .
M. R eso urces: More D i f f i c u l t
t o Manage (68% A g r e e i n g J
When i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s were asked t h e q u e s t i o n
about f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s being more d i f f i c u l t t o manage in t h e
f u t u r e , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s r e p o r t e d t h e h i g h e s t l e v e l o f agreement on
t h i s q u e s t i o n (75%), fo llo w ed by f a c u l t y (71%), w i t h board chairmen
(64%), and board members a t 60%.

T h is p a t t e r n would f o l l o w t h e

118

l o g i c t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l c l o s e s t t o t h e problem w i t h t h e g r e a t e s t
amount o f i n f o r m a t i o n would be in agreement w i t h e x p e r t s in the
f i e l d t h a t cla im f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s would be a more d i f f i c u l t
problem in t h e f u t u r e .
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , a naly ze d by y e a r s o f
e x p e r i e n c e , were c o n s i s t e n t l y a t a h i g h e r l e v e l o f agreement on
t h i s q u e s t i o n w ith i n c r e a s e d e x p e r i e n c e .

A d m i n i s t r a t o r s w ith

e x p e r i e n c e , p rob ab ly because o f t h e i r c l o s e invo lvement with
f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s and b a r g a i n i n g , p e r c e i v e d t h i s t o be a much
more d i f f i c u l t problem i n t h e f u t u r e th an d id f a c u l t y and board
members w i t h a d d i t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e .

A d m i n i s t r a t o r s w i t h added

y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e changed t h e i r o p i n i o n s from 61% t o 81%.
N. D i v e r s i t y o f Programs o f
Higher Education (82% Agreeing)
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , when asked i f t h e f u t u r e
h old s g r e a t e r d i v e r s i t y o f programs i n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , were in
agreement t h a t t h i s would be t h e s i t u a t i o n .

F a c u l t y a g re e d a t th e

h i g h e s t l e v e l (90%), a d m i n i s t r a t o r s (81%), board chairmen (79%),
and board members (78%).
greater costs.

With g r e a t e r d i v e r s i t y undoubtedly comes

This o p i n io n a g r e e s w ith t h e o t h e r s t h a t r e s o u r c e s

a r e going t o be more d i f f i c u l t t o a c q u i r e i n t h e f u t u r e and t h a t
g r e a t e r demands w i l l be made by s o c i e t y .
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s w i t h i n c r e a s e d e x p e r i e n c e in h i g h e r
e d u c a t i o n tended t o be l e s s in agreement t h a t t h e f u t u r e holds
g r e a t e r d i v e r s i t y o f programs f o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n .

T h is p o s i t i o n

may c o rre sp o nd w i t h o p i n io n s t h a t r e s o u r c e s may be more d i f f i c u l t t o

119

a c q u i r e and b a r g a i n i n g may be more r i g i d in t h e f u t u r e ; c o n s e q u e n t l y ,
i n s t i t u t i o n s may f i n d f l e x i b i l i t y to a llo w f o r d i v e r s i t y , a d i f ­
f i c u l t goal to a c h i e v e .

T oday's e x p e r i e n c e in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n may

be p o i n t i n g in t h i s d i r e c t i o n .
0. I n c r e a s e d Respect by P u b lic
(39% Agreeing)
When i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n ts were asked t h e q u e s t i o n ,
w i l l t h e r e be i n c r e a s e d r e s p e c t f o r h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n by t h e p u b l i c ,
b o a rd members d i f f e r e d in t h e i r l e v e l o f agreement c o n s i d e r a b l y from
o th e r respondents.

Board members were a t t h e 50% l e v e l o f a g r e e ­

ment, w ith f a c u l t y a t t h e lo w e st (24%), and board chairmen and
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a t 38% and 45%.

I t would appear t h a t t h e f a c u l t y and

board chairmen a r e more in agreement t h a t t h e f u t u r e does n o t hold
more r e s p e c t f o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , compared with board members and
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s who b e l i e v e t h a t i t might.

I t would be i m p o r t a n t a t

some f u t u r e d a t e t o t r y t o a s c e r t a i n why t h e wide d i f f e r e n c e i s
r e p o r t e d i n t h e l e v e l s o f o p i n io n between board members and f a c u l t y .
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s , a nalyzed by t y p e s o f i n s t i t u ­
t i o n s , showed only two groups in agreement t h a t t h e r e would be
increased re s p e c t f o r higher education:

p riv ate graduate i n s t i t u ­

t i o n s and u n i v e r s i t i e s a t 59%, and p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s a t 65%.
Respondents o f p r i v a t e community c o l l e g e s r e p o r t e d t h e lo w e st l e v e l
o f agreement (27%) on t h i s q u e s t i o n .
Both t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l res p o n d e n t s w ith l e s s t h a n t e n y e a r s
and t h o s e w i t h more t h a n t e n y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e i n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n
showed no d i s c e r n i b l e p a t t e r n o f res ponding to t h e q u e s t i o n on

120
i n c r e a s e d r e s p e c t f o r h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n by t h e p u b l i c .

I t is

i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s with l e s s than t e n y e a r s
r e p o r t e d a t 32% and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s w i t h more than t e n y e a r s r e p o r t e d
a t 50%.
P. Higher E ducation P r e p a r in g
S t u d e n ts f o r Job Market
(56% Agreeing)
1.

I n s t i t u t i o n a l Respondents
Hypothesis XXIV
There w i l l be a m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l
re s p o n d e n t s who w i l l a g re e t h a t M ic h ig a n 's
p u b l i c h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n i s e f f e c t i v e l y p r e p a r i n g
s t u d e n t s f o r t h e j o b marke t.
An a n a l y s i s o f r e s p o n d e n t s ' o p i n i o n s , from t h e s t a n d p o i n t

o f p o s i t i o n as well as ty pe o f i n s t i t u t i o n , showed a range of
opinions regarding the e ff e c tiv e n e s s of the p rep a ratio n of stu d e n ts
f o r t h e j o b market by Michigan p u b l i c h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n (44% - 68%).
By t y p e o f i n s t i t u t i o n , t h e range was from 38% by p r i v a t e community
c o l l e g e s , to 75% o f t h e f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e s .

I t a p p e a rs t h a t

t h i s i s a q u e s t i o n o f some importance t o a l l t h e r e s p o n d e n t s w i t h a
wide r an g e o f o p i n io n s e x p r e s s e d .

The h y p o t h e s i s was s u b s t a n t i a t e d

(Appendix A, T ab les 64 and 6 4 a ).
Analyzed by t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , res p o n d e n t s from t h e
p r i v a t e community c o l l e g e s ag re ed a t t h e 38% l e v e l a b ou t t h e
e ff e c tiv e n e s s o f the i n s t i t u t i o n s preparing students f o r the job
m arket.

The h i g h e s t in agreement were from t h e f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c

c o l l e g e s (75%), fo llo w ed by t h o s e from t h e p r i v a t e g r a d u a t e s c h o o l s
and u n i v e r s i t i e s (72%), and from t h e p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s (68%).

The

121

range o f r e s p o n d e n t s ' o p i n io n s toward t h i s q u e s t i o n was wide and
showed a s p l i t i n o p i n io n .
Hypothesis XXV
A g r e a t e r p e rc e n t a g e o f t h e res ponding i n s t i t u ­
t i o n a l p r e s i d e n t s w i l l hold a more f a v o r a b l e
o p i n io n toward t h e r o l e o f c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r ­
s i t i e s i n p r e p a r i n g s t u d e n t s f o r t h e j o b market
than w i l l t h e key f a c u l t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .
The c h i e f f a c u l t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e and t h e p r e s i d e n t o f t h e
i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s held s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t o p i n io n s
r e g a r d i n g p r e p a r a t i o n o f s t u d e n t s f o r the j o b m arket.

Presidents

a gre ed w i t h t h e q u e s t i o n , 74%, compared to t h e f a c u l t y r e p r e s e n t a ­
t i v e s ’ agreement o f 55%.
tively.

The h y p o t h e s i s was su p p o rte d d e s c r i p ­

This was s i g n i f i c a n t s t a t i s t i c a l l y (P < .0 5) (Appendix A,

Table 65 ).
Board members w ith i n c r e a s e d e x p e r i e n c e in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n
showed no a p p r e c i a b l e d i f f e r e n c e from t h o s e w ith l e s s e x p e r i e n c e a t
56% each.

F a c u lt y members w i t h l e s s than t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e

ag reed a t t h e 30% l e v e l t h a t most i n s t i t u t i o n s a r e p r e p a r i n g s t u d e n t s
f o r t h e j o b market w hile t h o s e w i t h more th an ten y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e
a gre ed more s t r o n g l y (49%).

A d m i n i s t r a t o r s in both c a s e s r e g i s ­

t e r e d agreement above t h e 50% l e v e l , t h o s e w i t h l e s s th an t e n y e a r s
e x p e r i e n c e a t 57%, and t h o s e w i t h more than t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e a t
77%.

122

Q. C o l le g e s P r e p a r i n g S tu d e n ts
f o r Job Market (60% Agreeing)
2.

V oter Respondents
H ypothesis XXVI
The m a j o r i t y o f v o t e r s w i l l hold p o s i t i v e o p in io n s
toward t h e r o l e o f Michigan p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and
u n i v e r s i t i e s in p r e p a r i n g s t u d e n t s f o r t h e jo b
m ark e t.
The sampled Michigan r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s held t h e o p in io n

(60%) t h a t t h e p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s were p r e p a r i n g
s t u d e n t s e f f e c t i v e l y f o r t h e j o b m arket.

The v o t e r s ' o p i n io n s were

found t o be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , and t h e h y p o t h e s is was sup­
p o r t e d (P < .002) (Appendix A, T able 66).
When t h e q u e s t i o n r e g a r d i n g M i c h ig a n 's p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and
u n i v e r s i t i e s preparing stu d e n ts s a t i s f a c t o r i l y f o r the p resen t job
market was asked o f sampled Michigan r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s , 60% o f the
group r e p o r t e d t h a t th ey f e l t t h e c o l l e g e s were doing a s a t i s f a c t o r y
j o b , b u t 40% d i s a g r e e d .
Voters who d e f i n e d th em se lv es as belonging t o t h e m i n o r i t y
r a c e s r e p o r t e d c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s in o p in io n when compared
w ith t h o s e v o t e r s who i d e n t i f i e d them selv es as belonging t o t h e
w h ite r a c e (Appendix A, T able 5 8 ).

Voters who were w h ite agreed a t

t h e 42% l e v e l , w i t h both r e p o r t i n g 38% t h a t th ey did no t know how
well t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s were doing in p r e p a r i n g s t u d e n t s f o r t h e jo b
m ark et.

A p p a r e n t l y , m i n o r i t y r a c e s f e e l more o p t i m i s t i c toward t h i s

p a r t i c u l a r fu n ctio n of higher education.

One may assume, w ith t h e i r

i n t e r e s t i n u sin g i n s t i t u t i o n s as a means o f moving i n t o t h e

123
mainstream o f American l i f e , t h a t t h e o p p o r t u n i t y i s most o f t e n
found by a c q u i r i n g t h e s k i l l s i n an i n s t i t u t i o n o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n .
One might draw t h e c o n c l u s i o n from lo ok in g a t t h i s typ e o f
r e p o r t t h a t a g r e a t deal o f e f f o r t should be given t o informing t h e
c i t i z e n s and v o t e r s o f t h e s t a t e on t h e f a c t s co ncern ing th e
e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f c o l l e g e s i n p r e p a r i n g s t u d e n t s f o r t h e j o b market
i f , in f a c t , t h i s i s an im p o r t a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n as t o t h e r o l e and
function of public i n s t i t u t i o n s .
The sampled Michigan r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s responded to t h i s
q u e s t i o n in t h e f o l l o w i n g manner when d i v i d e d i n t o g e o g ra p h ic a l
regions:

t h o s e o f t h e Upper P e n i n s u l a were t h e most o p t i m i s t i c

r e g a r d i n g t h i s q u e s t i o n (60%), fo llo w ed by c e n t r a l Michigan (42%),
t h e w e stern p a r t o f t h e s t a t e (38%), and t h e s o u t h e a s t (33%).
Those o f t h e s o u t h e a s t , a l t h o u g h t h e y i n v o lv e t h e g r e a t e s t number
in t h e m i n o r i t y r a c e s who have i n d i c a t e d t h e i r optimism , a l s o have
t h e g r e a t e s t number o f w h i t e p e o ple l i v i n g in t h e suburban a r e a s
and th ey a g re e l e s s w i t h t h i s q u e s t i o n .
When t h i s q u e s t i o n was asked o f t h e sampled Michigan
r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s , c a t e g o r i z e d by a r e a s o f u r b a n i z a t i o n , t h e most
o p t i m i s t i c were t h e farm and small c i t y r e s p o n d e n t s a t 40% e a c h ,
follo w ed by t h e c e n t r a l c i t y a t 38%, w ith r u r a l and suburban a r e a s
a t 34% each.

124

VIII.

R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f a New S t a t e
Board o f Higher Education

H y p o t h e s i s XXVII

The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s
w i l l s u p p o r t t h e recommendations o f t h e
G o v e r n o r 's Commission r e g a r d i n g t h e makeup,
f u n c t i o n s , r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , and d u t i e s o f a
new S t a t e Board o f Higher E d u ca tion .
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s agre ed w ith t h e h y p o t h e s i s on
th e f u n c t i o n s , r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , and d u t i e s which c ould be assumed
by a new S t a t e Board o f Higher E d u c a ti o n , such a s :

c o l l e c t i o n of

e s s e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n (87% - 97%), c o n tin u o u s p l an n in g and a s s e s s ­
ment (80% - 89%), i t s a d v i s o r y r o l e t o t h e Governor and l e g i s l a t u r e
(87% - 91%), and i t s a s s i s t a n c e in t h e development o f c o o p e r a t i v e
r e l a t i o n s w i t h i n t h e e d u c a t i o n a l community (78% - 93%) (Appendix A,
Tables 67, 68, 69 and 71).
A. C o l l e c t i o n o f E s s e n t i a l
In f o r m a t io n F u n c tio n s
(93% Agreeing)
When t h e r e s p o n d e n t s were asked t h e q u e s t i o n a b o u t c o l l e c t ­
ing e s s e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n and d a ta about p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a ti o n
i f a new S t a t e Board o f E ducation were e s t a b l i s h e d , t h e h i g h e s t in
agreement were t h e f a c u l t y a t 97% and t h e l o w e s t in agreement were
t h e board chairmen a t 87%.
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s , when a n a l y z e d by t y p e s o f i n s t i ­
t u t i o n s , were in agreem ent w i t h t h i s f u n c t i o n .

125

B. P lannin g and Assessment
F u nc tio ns (86% A g r e e i n g T
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s , when asked whether t h e proposed
s t a t e board should conduct comprehensive and c o n tin u o u s p la n n in g
and a sse ssm e n t s t u d i e s o f a l l a s p e c t s o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n ,
g e n e r a l l y a g r e e d , w i t h f a c u l t y a g r e e i n g 89%, a d m i n i s t r a t o r s 88%,
board members 88%, and board chairmen 80%.

I t a p p ea rs t h a t some

board chairmen may p e r c e i v e t h a t t h i s f u n c t i o n i n t r u d e s on t h e
r e s e r v e power o f t h e l o c a l bo ard .
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s , an aly ze d by ty p e s o f i n s t i t u ­
t i o n s , ranged from 59% t o 93% in s u p p o r t o f t h i s f u n c t i o n .

However,

i t i s o f some i n t e r e s t t h a t t h e range i s wide and one might i n f e r
t h a t t h e p r i v a t e g r a d u a t e u n i v e r s i t i e s and f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e s
would n o t p r e f e r t o have t h i s typ e o f i n t r u s i o n i n t o t h e i r board
functions.
C. Advise t h e Governor and
L e g i s l a t u r e : F i n a n c i a l Needs
(89% Agreeing)
When i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s were asked whether t h i s board
should a d v i s e t h e Governor and t h e l e g i s l a t u r e as t o t h e f i n a n c i a l
and o t h e r needs o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n , t h e board members were
h i g h e s t in agreement (91%), t h e f a c u l t y second (89%), w i t h t h e board
chairmen a t 87%, and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a t 88%.
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s , a n a l y z e d by t y p e s o f i n s t i t u ­
t i o n s , f e l l i n t o an i n t e r e s t i n g p a t t e r n , w i t h a l l in high ag reem ent,
e x c e p t f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e s (55%).

Four-year p u b lic co lleg es

f o l lo w t h e i r p a t t e r n o f not r e p o r t i n g o p i n i o n s in as high agreement

126

a s t h o s e o f o t h e r t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e proposed
f u n c t i o n s f o r t h i s board as th ey r e l a t e to l o c a l autonomy.
D. Advise Governor and
L e g i s l a t u r e : Programs
(74% Agreeing)
When i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s were asked whether t h i s
proposed board o f h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n should a d v i s e t h e Governor and
t h e l e g i s l a t u r e on t h e r o l e s and m is sio n s o f i n d i v i d u a l i n s t i t u t i o n s ,
t h e i r e d u c a ti o n programs, and needs f o r new programs, c e n t e r s ,
s c h o o l s o r d e p a r t m e n t s , a l l ag re ed (ranging from 69% t o 81%).

This

may be s i g n i f i c a n t , inasmuch as t h e new board would a d v i s e d i r e c t l y
on some very c r i t i c a l

issu e s w ithin individual i n s t i t u t i o n s .

How­

e v e r , t h e t r a d e o f f s by f a c u l t y or a d m i n i s t r a t o r s or board might be
one rea so n f o r t h i s a c c e p t a n c e .
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s , analyzed by t y p e s o f i n s t i t u ­
t i o n s , were in agreem ent, w ith f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e s once more
follow ing t h e i r trend of l e a s t acceptance.
I n s t i t u t i o n a l res p o n d e n t s w i t h g r e a t e r y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e
in h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n d id n o t a g re e a t t h e ex p ec te d l e v e l .

A tendency

t h a t had been ob se rved i n o t h e r q u e s t i o n s was r e v e r s e d h e r e .

It

would a p p e a r t h a t t h e f a c u l t y , board members, and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
w i t h l e s s e x p e r i e n c e i n h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n a re more concerned w ith
t h i s f u n c t i o n being handled by a s t a t e board than t h o s e w i t h g r e a t e r
experience in higher education.

127

E. Development o f C o o p e rativ e
R e l a t i o n s h i p s (88% Agre eing)
Of i n s t i t u t i o n a l res p o n d e n t s r e a c t i n g to t h e q u e s t i o n
whether t h e b o a r d ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s should i n c l u d e a s s i s t a n c e in
t h e development o f c o o p e r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s among i n s t i t u t i o n s
and among t h e s e c t o r s o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n , f a c u l t y and
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s were t h e h i g h e s t in agreement (93%), follo w ed by
board members (88%), w ith t h e board chairmen lowest (78%).

This

may s u g g e s t a r o l e c l a s h between what i s p e r c e i v e d by t h e board as
i t s f u n c t i o n compared t o s h a r i n g t h i s w ith t h e s t a t e w i d e board.
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s , an alyze d by t y p e s o f i n s t i t u ­
t i o n s , once more r e v e a l e d t h a t t h o s e o f t h e f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c
c o l l e g e s were a t t h e low e st l e v e l o f agreement (74%) on t h i s f u n c ­
t i o n o f t h e s t a t e w i d e b o a rd , compared w ith p u b l i c community
c o l l e g e s ' h i g h e r agreement a t 92%.
F. A p p r o p r i a t e Advisory
Committees (77% Agreeing)
When i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s were asked whether t h i s
board should name a p p r o p r i a t e a d v i s o r y committees and c o u n c i l s ,
they were in g e n e r a l l y lower agreement th a n on o t h e r q u e s t i o n s in
t h i s s e t , w i t h a d m i n i s t r a t o r s h i g h e s t (80%) and f a c u l t y lo w e st (73%).
Analyzed by t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , res p o n d e n t s from p u b l i c
community c o l l e g e s and p r i v a t e g r a d u a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s and u n i v e r s i t i e s
were in h i g h e s t agreement (81% and 83%).

The low e st in agreement

were from t h e f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e s (52%).

128

G. Advice and Counsel Concerning
Higher Education (90% Agreeing)
When i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s were asked whether t h e board
should p ro v i d e from tim e t o time o t h e r a d v ic e and counsel conce rning
h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n as e i t h e r t h e Governor o r t h e l e g i s l a t u r e may
r e q u i r e , t h e p r o p o s i t i o n was a c c e p t e d , w i t h t h e f a c u l t y in h i g h e s t
agreement a t 95% and t h e board chairmen in lo w e st agreement a t 82%.
Once a g a i n t h i s might s u g g e s t a g r e a t e r concern by board chairmen
over l o c a l autonomy in comparison w i t h t h o s e o f t h e o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s .
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s , a n a ly z e d by ty p es o f i n s t i t u ­
t i o n s , r e v e a l e d t h e f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e s t o be lo w e st in
agreement a t 65%, w i t h t h e p r i v a t e and p u b l i c community c o l l e g e s in
h i g h e s t agreement (93% and 94%).
IX.

P u b l i c Community C o lle g es

A. Community C o l l e g e s : Should
Not Grant B a c c a l a u r e a t e Degrees
(75% Agreeing)
Hypothesis XXVIII
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s w i l l
a g re e t h a t Michigan community c o l l e g e s should no t
o f f e r b a ccalau reate degrees.
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , by a m a j o r i t y (64% - 85%),
s u b s t a n t i a t e d t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t community c o l l e g e s sh o uld not
g r a n t b a c c a l a u r e a t e d e g r e e s (Appendix A, T able 74).
When i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s were asked wh ether community
c o l l e g e s should be allo w e d t o g r a n t b a c c a l a u r e a t e d e g r e e s , a l l
c a t e g o r i e s a gre ed t h a t t h i s would n o t be an a p p r o p r i a t e r o l e f o r

129

community c o l l e g e s .

The h i g h e s t in agreement were f a c u l t y and

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a t 85% e a c h , follo w ed by board chairmen a t 67%, and
board members a t 64%.
Analyzed by ty p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , t h e r e s p o n d e n t s agreed
t h a t t h i s approach should n o t be tak e n by community c o l l e g e s , t h e
h i g h e s t being t h o s e o f t h e f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e s a t 91%, f o l ­
lowed by t h o s e from p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s a t 80%, t h o s e from p u b l i c
community c o l l e g e s a t 72%, t h o s e from p r i v a t e g r a d u a t e s c h o o ls and
u n i v e r s i t i e s a t 64%, t h o s e from f o u r - y e a r p r i v a t e c o l l e g e s a t 63%,
and p r i v a t e community c o l l e g e s a t 60%.

Respondents seem t o agre e

f i r m l y w i t h t h e r o l e and f u n c t i o n o f community c o l l e g e s as d e f i n e d
by l e g i s l a t i o n .
B. R e d i s t r i c t i n g o f Michigan
Community C o lle g es (52% Agreeing)
H ypothesis XXIX
The m a j o r i t y o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s o f
r e g i o n a l p u b l i c and p r i v a t e f o u r - t o f i v e - y e a r
i n s t i t u t i o n s w i l l not s u p p o r t r e d i s t r i c t i n g o f
Michigan community c o l l e g e s t o p r o v i d e s e r v i c e s
o f t h e s e i n s t i t u t i o n s e q u a l l y to a l l a r e a s o f
the s t a t e .
R espondents, by ty pe o f i n s t i t u t i o n , s u b s t a n t i a t e d t h e
h y p o t h e s i s t h a t r e g i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s would no t be i n f a v o r o f
t o t a l r e d i s t r i c t i n g o f Michigan community c o l l e g e s .

Four-year

p r i v a t e c o l l e g e s (42%) and f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e s (26%) did no t
s u p p o r t r e d i s t r i c t i n g (Appendix A, T able 7 5 a ).
When i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s were asked w h e th e r r e d i s t r i c t ­
ing o f Michgian community c o l l e g e s should t a k e p l a c e t o p r o v i d e t h e

130

s e r v i c e s of t h e s e i n s t i t u t i o n s e q u a l l y t o a l l a r e a s o f t h e s t a t e ,
bo ard members and f a c u l t y agreed (55% and 58%) and board chairmen
and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a gre ed a t a 48% l e v e l (Appendix A, T able 75).
Responses t o t h e r e d i s t r i c t i n g q u e s t i o n a pp ea r t o r e f l e c t t h e l o c a l
concern o f p o s s i b l e c o m p e ti t io n f o r s t u d e n t s and programs.
Analyzed by t h e i r t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , r e s p o n d e n t s f o l ­
lowed an i n t e r e s t i n g p a t t e r n t h a t could r e f l e c t t h e i n t e r e s t o f
local i n s t i t u t i o n s .

The r e s p o n d e n t s most in d i sa g r e e m e n t w i t h t h i s

p o s i t i o n were from t h e f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e s .

Undoubtedly,

they would be t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s upon which r e d i s t r i c t i n g would have
t h e g r e a t e s t impact in program and s t u d e n t e n r o l l m e n t , e . g . ,
r e d i s t r i c t i n g in and around Northern Michigan U n i v e r s i t y , C e n tr a l
Michigan U n i v e r s i t y , o r Western Michigan U n i v e r s i t y .

The r e s p o n d e n t s

o f f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e s showed t h e l e a s t agreement (26%), t h a t
t h i s should be t h e approach t o t a k e , follo w ed by p r i v a t e g r a d u a t e
i n s t i t u t i o n s and u n i v e r s i t i e s (29%), f o u r - y e a r p r i v a t e c o l l e g e s
(42%), and p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s (46%).

Respondents from p u b l i c com­

munity c o l l e g e s most d i r e c t l y impacted were t h e h i g h e s t i n a g r e e ­
ment (71%).
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s w ith i n c r e a s e d e x p e r i e n c e i n h i g h e r
e d u c a t i o n were, w i t h o u t e x c e p t i o n , by c a t e g o r y more in f a v o r o f
r e d i s t r i c t i n g o f Michigan community c o l l e g e s .

The board members with

l e s s t h a n t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n a g re ed a t 52%,
w h i l e board members having more th an ten y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e a g re e d a t
56%.

F a c u l t y w ith more t h a n t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e were in agreem ent

a t 62% and t h o s e w i t h l e s s th an t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e were a t 57%.

131
A d m i n i s t r a t o r s w i t h l e s s th a n t e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e showed a very
i m p o r t a n t d i f f e r e n c e , with 35% in agreem ent, while t h o s e with more
than t e n y e a r s agre ed a t t h e 56% l e v e l .

I t i s very p o s s i b l e t h a t

t h e newer a d m i n i s t r a t o r s p e r c e i v e t h e r e c e n t growth o f the community
c o l l e g e as a more d i r e c t t h r e a t t o t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s than do t h o s e
who have been in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n f o r a lo n g e r p e r i o d o f time.
C. Community C o l l e g e s : Same
R e l a t i o n s h i p as B a c c a l a u r e a t e
I n s t i t u t i o n s t o Proposed S t a t e
Board o f Higher E ducation
(64% Agr eeing)
When i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s were asked whether community
c o l l e g e s should have t h e same r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e proposed s t a t e
board o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n as b a c c a l a u r e a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s , o p i n io n s
v a r i e d i n an i n t e r e s t i n g p a t t e r n .

F a c u lt y were i n t h e h i g h e s t

agreem ent (67%), f o llo w e d by board chairmen and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a t
62% e a c h , and board members a t 64%.
Analyzed by t y p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , a l l c a t e g o r i e s o f
r e s p o n d e n t s were in agre em e n t, w ith t h e e x c e p ti o n o f t h o s e from
p r i v a t e g r a d u a t e s c h o o l s and u n i v e r s i t i e s a t 47% and t h o s e from
p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s a t 43%.

Respondents from o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s

were in f a v o r o f t h e p r o p o s i t i o n , w ith t h o s e from f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c
c o l l e g e s a t 68% and t h o s e from p u b l i c community c o l l e g e s a t 76%.
I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o no te t h a t p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s do not p e r c e i v e
t h e community c o l l e g e in t h e r o l e o f having t h e same r e l a t i o n s h i p
w i t h t h e proposed s t a t e board o f h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n as do b a c c a l a u r e a t e

132

institu tio n s.

T h is should be a p o i n t o f f u r t h e r i n q u i r y i f a s t a t e

board should e v o lv e .
The n e x t c h a p t e r w i l l deal s p e c i f i c a l l y with an i n t e r p r e t a ­
t i o n o f t h e f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s , and recommendations.
Hypothesi s — S u b s t a n t i a t i on
I . C e n t r a l i z a t i o n v s.
D ecentralization--Statew ide
V o lu n ta r y , Advisory and
Re g ula to ry Boards
A. Approaches t o Governance:
Voluntary (46% Agr eeing)
B. Approaches t o Governance:
Advisory (59% Agr eeing)
Hypothesis I
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s w i l l
s u p p o r t t h e c r e a t i o n o f a s e p a r a t e S t a t e Board o f
E d u c a ti o n , w i t h a d v i s o r y power f o r c o o r d i n a t i o n
and p l a n n i n g .
The range o f o p i n i o n s by i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s
r e g a r d i n g t h e c r e a t i o n o f a s e p a r a t e S t a t e Board o f Higher Education
with a d v i s o r y powers d id s u b s t a n t i a t e t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e r e
would be g e n e ra l s u p p o r t f o r t h i s p o s i t i o n (53% - 68%) (Appendix A,
Table 2 ).
C. Approaches t o Governance:
R e g u la to ry (12% Agreeing)
Hypothesis I I
There w i l l n o t be a m a j o r i t y o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l
r e s p o n d e n t s who w i l l s u p p o r t t h e c r e a t i o n o f a
s e p a r a t e S t a t e Board o f Higher E ducation w i t h
r e g u l a t o r y c o n t r o l f o r c o o r d i n a t i o n and
planning.

133

I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , by p o s i t i o n (68% - 84%) and
by t y p e o f i n s t i t u t i o n (61% - 80%), s t r o n g l y s u p p o r te d t h e p o s i t i o n
t h a t i t would be i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r Michigan t o c r e a t e a s e p a r a t e
Board o f Higher E d u c a tio n , w i t h r e g u l a t o r y c o n t r o l f o r c o o r d i n a t i o n
and p l a n n i n g .

The h y p o t h e s i s was su p p o rte d (Appendix A, Tab les 3

and 3 a ).
D.
S t a t e Board o f E du catio n :
L im i ti n g P r e s e n t F u nc tio ns and
R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s (66% Agreeing)
Hypothesis I I I
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s w i l l
a g re e w ith t h e recommendations o f t h e 1976
G o v e r n o r 's Commission on Higher E ducation r e g a r d ­
ing l i m i t i n g t h e f u n c t i o n s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f
t h e p r e s e n t S t a t e Board o f E du ca tio n.
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s agreed
t h a t t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f t h e p r e s e n t S t a t e Board o f Education
should be l i m i t e d .

The range was from 62% t o 70%, t h e r e f o r e sub­

s t a n t i a t i n g t h e h y p o t h e s i s (Appendix A, Table 4 ) .
II.

Governance

A. C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Ambiguity
(50% Agreeing)
B. C o n s t i t u t i o n a l R e v is io n :
Advisory (60% Agreeing)

134

C. C o n s t i t u t i o n a l R e v is io n :
R e g u la to ry A u t h o r i t y
(15% Agreeing)
Hypothesis IV
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n ts
w i l l n o t s u p p o r t t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a new
S t a t e Board o f Higher Education by c o n s t i t u ­
t i o n a l change w ith r e g u l a t o r y a u t h o r i t y .
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s were in
o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a new s t a t e board by c o n s t i t u ­
t i o n a l change w i t h r e g u l a t o r y a u t h o r i t y f o r g eneral p la n n in g and
coordination.

The h y p o t h e s i s was s u b s t a n t i a t e d (Appendix A,

Table 7 ).
D. S t a t u t o r y Enactment:
C o o r d i n a t i o n and Plannin g
(40% Agreeing)
E. C o n s t i t u t i o n a l R e vision :
C o o r d i n a t i o n and Plannin g
(33% Agreeing)
III.

S ta te w i d e P la n n in g

A. P la n nin g and C o o r d i n a t i o n :
P r e s e n t Approach Not S a t i s f a c t o r y
(54% Agreeing)
Hypothesis V
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l res p o n d e n t s
w i l l a g r e e t h a t t h e p r e s e n t approach t o
p la n n in g and c o o r d i n a t i o n f o r h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n
in Michigan w i l l not meet th e needs o f t h e
future.
The i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , with t h e e x c e p t i o n o f
t h e board members, agreed t h a t t h e p r e s e n t approach f o r t h e

135

p la n n in g and c o o r d i n a t i o n o f h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n in Michigan would n o t
meet f u t u r e needs (43% - 61%).

The h y p o t h e s is was s u b s t a n t i a t e d

(Appendix A, Table 10).
B. Sta te w id e Pla n n in g and
Co o rdin atio n S e p a r a b l e from
Concerns o f I n s t i t u t i o n a l
Governance (45% Agreeing)
Hypothesis VI
There w i l l be no m a j o r i t y agreement among th e
i n s t i t u t i o n a l res p o n d e n t s t h a t c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f
s t a t e w i d e p l a n n i n g and c o o r d i n a t i o n f o r Michigan
h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i s s e p a r a b l e from conce rn s o f
i n s t i t u t i o n a l governance.
This complex q u e s t i o n r e g a r d i n g governance dem onstrate d t h e
wide v a r i a n c e o f o p i n i o n s o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .
There were a few t h a t f e l l in t h e "no o p i n io n " group, emphasizing
o p i n io n s one way o r t h e o t h e r held by i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s
(37% - 49%).

The h y p o t h e s i s was s u b s t a n t i a t e d (Appendix A,

Table 11).
C. P r i v a t e C o l le g e s Involved in
S t a t e C o o r d in a tio n and Pla nn in g
(71% Agreeing)
IV.

I n s t i t u t i o n a l Autonomy

A. Continuance o f Independence
o f t h e Boards o f C ontrol o f
C olle ges and U n i v e r s i t i e s
(79% Agreeing)
Hypothesis VII
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l res p o n d e n t s
w i l l a g r e e t h a t one o f t h e s t r e n g t h s o f h i g h e r
e d u c a t i o n in Michigan i s t h e r e l a t i v e
independence o f t h e board s o f c o n t r o l .

136

The h y p o t h e s i s was s u b s t a n t i a t e d by a l l i n s t i t u t i o n a l
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , ran g in g from 88% approval by board chairmen and
board members t o 59% by f a c u l t y (Appendix A, Table 1 3 ) . '
B. S i n g l e S ta te w i d e Board:
D isc o ntinu a nce o f Local Boards
o f Control — I n s t i t u t i o n a l
Respondents (12% Agreeing)
Hypothesis VIII
There w i l l n o t be a m a j o r i t y o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l
r e s p o n d e n t s o f p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r ­
s i t i e s who w i l l a g re e t h a t t h e p r e s e n t
i n s t i t u t i o n a l board s should be r e p l a c e d w ith
a s i n g l e s t a t e w i d e board.
More r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s a gre ed (94%)
than did p r i v a t e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s (81%), s u b s t a n t i a t i n g
th e p o sitio n of the hypothesis.

The o p i n i o n s o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s , as

r e l a t e d t o agreement and d isa g r e e m e n t by t h e ty pe o f i n s t i t u t i o n
they r e p r e s e n t e d , were s i g n i f i c a n t s t a t i s t i c a l l y

(P < .0001)

(Appendix A, Tables 14a and 15).
Hypothesis IX
The m a j o r i t y o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s w ith
more e x p e r i e n c e i n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n w i l l n o t
favor rep la cin g the p re s e n t i n s t i t u t i o n a l
boards w i t h a s i n g l e s t a t e w i d e board .
The i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s , by l e v e l o f e x p e r i e n c e , were
in s u b s t a n t i a l agreement t h a t t h e p r e s e n t boards should n o t be
r e p l a c e d by a s i n g l e s t a t e w i d e b o ard .

P r o p o r t i o n a t e l y more

r e s p o n d e n t s w ith l e s s th an t e n y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h e i r
d i sa g r e e m e n t with t h e r ep la ce m e n t o f t h e p r e s e n t b oard s th a n did

137
t h o s e w i t h more e x p e r i e n c e .

D e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s d e m o n s tr a te

t h a t t h e h y p o t h e s i s was not u p held .

D i f f e r e n c e s in t h e o p i n i o n s o f

t h e r e s p o n d e n t s , by l e v e l o f e x p e r i e n c e , as r e l a t e d t o a t t i t u d e s
toward repla ce m e n t o f p r e s e n t b o a r d s , were s i g n i f i c a n t s t a t i s t i c a l l y
(P < .05) (Appendix A, T ables 14c and 16).
C. S i n g l e S ta te w id e Board:
D isc o n tin u a n ce o f Local Boards
o f C o n t r o l — R e g i s t e r e d Voters
(33% Agreeing)
Hypothesis X
The m a j o r i t y o f v o t e r s w i l l n o t f a v o r re p l a c e m e n t
o f t h e p r e s e n t c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y board s by
s t a t e w i d e board o f c o n t r o l .
The sampled Michigan r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s s u b s t a n t i a t e d t h e
h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e y would not f a v o r t h e rep la ce m e nt o f p r e s e n t
c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y boards o f c o n t r o l by a s t a t e w i d e b o a rd , w ith
66% opposed t o a change, and only 33% f a v o r i n g t h e s t a t e w i d e board.
The v o t e r s ' o p i n i o n s were s i g n i f i c a n t s t a t i s t i c a l l y (P < .0001)
(Appendix A, Table 17).
D. S i n g l e S t a te w i d e Board:
A dvisor y o r R e g u la to r y —
R e g i s t e r e d Voters (40% A dvisory,
38% R e g u la to r y )
E. S e p a r a t e S t a t e Board:
E d u cation al Community Support
(45% Agreeing)
F. S e p a r a t e S t a t e Board:
L e g i s l a t i v e Support
(16% Agreeing)

138
G. S e p a r a t e S t a t e Board:
E x e c u ti v e Support (27% Agreeing)
H. Not Having S t a te w i d e Board:
Lead t o D u p l i c a t i o n and
C om petitio n (24% Agreeing)
H yp o th e sis XI
There w i l l be no m a j o r i t y agreement among t h e
i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s t h a t t h e absence o f a
s t a t e w i d e board o f c o n t r o l w i l l le a d t o d u p l i c a ­
t i o n o f r e s o u r c e s , un warranted c o m p e t i t i o n , and
lac k o f i n t e r - i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o o p e r a t i o n .
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s agreed t h a t a s t a t e board o f
c o n t r o l was n o t n e c e s s a r y and t h a t t h i s lack o f c o o r d i n a t i o n would
n o t l e a d t o d u p l i c a t i o n o f r e s o u r c e s , unwarranted c o m p e t i t i o n , and
l a c k o f i n t e r - i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o o p e r a t i o n (57% - 75%).

The h y p o t h e s i s

was s u b s t a n t i a t e d (Appendix A, Table 23).
V. Board o f T r u s t e e s :
S a t i s f a c t i o n , S e l e c t i o n , and Size
A. V o te r
Governing
Informed,
S atisfied ,

S a t i s f a c t i o n Level:
Boards (65% Not
22% S a t i s f i e d , 10% Not
3% D on 't Know)

H y po th esis XII
The m a j o r i t y o f v o t e r s w i l l a g r e e t h a t t h e y a r e
uninformed a b o u t p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n .
The sampled Michigan r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s s u b s t a n t i a t e d t h e
h y p o t h e s i s by i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e y were uninformed (65%).

The

p o s i t i o n s h e l d by t h e s e v o t e r s were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t
(P < .0001) (Appendix A, T ab les 24 and 25).

139
B. P o s t-S e c o n d a ry Board o f
T r u s t e e S e l e c t i o n : E l e c t e d on
N o n - P a r t i s a n B a l l o t (59% Agreeing)
C. P o s t-S e c o n d a ry Board o f
T r u s t e e S e l e c t i o n : E le c t e d on
P a r t i s a n B a l l o t (5% Agreeing)
D. P o s t-S e c o n d a ry Board o f
T r u s t e e S e l e c t i o n : Appointment
by Governor (45% Agr eeing)
H ypothesis XIII
The m a j o r i t y o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l res p o n d e n t s o f
p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s w i l l f a v o r
s e l e c t i o n o f p u b l i c c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y
board members t h r o u g h appoin tm ent by th e
Governor, w i t h a d v i c e and c o n se n t o f t h e
S e n a te .
P r o p o r t i o n a t e l y more r e s p o n d e n t s o f p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s
th an p r i v a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s f a v o r e d appointm ent o f board members by
t h e Governor, s u b s t a n t i a t i n g t h e h y p o t h e s i s .

However, both p u b l i c

and p r i v a t e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s de m on stra te d a s t r o n g e r
p r e f e r e n c e f o r s e l e c t i o n by a n o n - p a r t i s a n v ote (Appendix A,
T ables 28 and 2 8 a ).
E. P o s t-S e c o n d a ry Board o f
T r u s t e e S e l e c t i o n P r o c e s s : Voter
Opinions ( N o n - P a r t i s a n — 42%
A g re ein g; P a r t i s a n — 27% Agreeing ;
Appointment by t h e G o v e r n o r 21 % Agr eeing)
H ypothesis XIV
The m a j o r i t y o f v o t e r s w i l l f a v o r s e l e c t i o n o f
p u b l i c c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y boa rd members
thro u g h a p p oin tm ent by t h e Governor, with
a d i v c e and c o n s e n t o f t h e S e n a te .

140
The sampled Michigan r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s fav o re d t h e s e l e c t i o n
o f board members i n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n s by a n o n - p a r t i s a n
e l e c t i o n (42%), r a t h e r than by a p a r t i s a n e l e c t i o n (27%), o r by
a ppointm ent by t h e Governor (21%).

The h y p o t h e s is was not s u p p o r t e d .

However, t h e i r v o t e r o p i n i o n s were found t o be s t a t i s t i c a l l y
s i g n i f i c a n t (P < .0001) (Appendix A, Tab les 29 and 3 0).
F. P o s t-S ec o n da ry Board o f
Control S e l e c t i o n P r o c e s s :
F a c u lt y R e p r e s e n t a t i o n on Own
I n s t i t u t i o n a l Board o f Control
(20% Agreeing)
Hypothesis XV
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n ts
w i l l a g r e e t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s should n o t be
e l e c t e d o r a p p o in t e d t o s e r v e on boards o f
c o n t r o l o f t h e i r own i n s t i t u t i o n .
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s held o p i n io n s t h a t showed them
i n agreement t h a t pe op le should n o t be a p p o in t e d to t h e i r own boards
o f c o n t r o l , wheth er t h e y be f a c u l t y members (9% - 46%), o r s t u d e n t s
(15% - 41%).

They were a l s o in agreement t h a t i t was a p p r o p r i a t e

t h a t t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s be a llow ed t o s e r v e on boards o f c o n t r o l
o t h e r th an t h e i r own, r a t h e r d i r e c t l y answering t h e q u e s t i o n about
t h e i r o p i n i o n s on c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t .
p o r t e d (Appendix A, T ables 31 - 35).
G. P o s t-S ec o n d a ry Board o f
Control S e l e c t i o n P r o c e s s :
S t u d e n t R e p r e s e n t a t i o n on Own
I n s t i t u t i o n a l Board o f Control
(27% Agreeing)

The h y p o t h e s i s was sup­

141

H. Post-S eco n dary Board o f
Control S e l e c t i o n P ro c es s:
F a c u l t y Members on Boards o f
Control Other Than T h e i r Own
(66% Agreeing)
I.
Po st-S eco nd ary Board o f
Control S e l e c t i o n P r o c es s:
A d m i n i s t r a t o r s and S t a f f Members
on Boards o f Control Other Than
T h e ir Own (59% Agreeing)
J . Pos t-S ec o n d a ry Board o f
Control S e l e c t i o n P r o c e s s :
S t u d e n ts Allowed to Serve on
Boards O ther Than T h e i r Own
(54% Agreeing)
K. Community Colle ge Board:
E le c t e d (68% Agreeing)
L. Community C o lle g e Board:
Appointed by t h e Governor
(23% Agreeing)
M. S e p a r a t e Boards o f T r u s t e e s
f o r Community C o lle g e s Now Under
K-12 Boards (69% Agreeing)
N. S t a t e Board o f Higher
Education Membership Appointed
by t h e Governor (58% Agreeing)
0. Members E l e c t e d a t Large
(35% Agreeing)
P. Membership D e l i m i t a t i o n
(85% Agr eeing)
Q. E l e c t i o n o f Board Chief
E x ecu tiv e O f f i c e r (22% Agreeing)

142

R. Appointment o f Board C hief
E xecutive O f f i c e r (66% Agreeing)
S. Board F un c tion s Reviewed
(87% Agr eeing)
VI. P o s t-S ec o n d a ry Education
v s. Higher Education
A.

D e f i n i t i o n (82% Agreeing)
Hypothesis XVI
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s
w i l l have a f a v o r a b l e o p in io n toward t h e
G o v e r n o r 's Commission's d e f i n i t i o n o f p o s t ­
se condary e d u c a t i o n .
Without e x c e p t i o n , t h e surveyed r e s p o n d e n t s h e ld h i g h ly

f a v o r a b l e o p i n io n s r e g a r d i n g t h e a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f
p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n (79% - 85%).

The h y p o t h e s i s was sub­

s t a n t i a t e d (Appendix A, Table 45).
B. P o s t-S ec o n d a ry E du ca tion :
Goals and Purposes C l e a r l y
Defined (26% Agreeing )
Hypothesis XVII
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s
w i l l a g r e e t h a t t h e g o a ls and p urposes o f p o s t ­
se conda ry e d u c a t i o n in Michigan a r e not c l e a r l y
defined.
Those who respo nded from i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n to
t h e q u e s t i o n about c l a r i t y o f g o a ls and purpose s o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y
e d u c a t i o n g e n e r a l l y a g re e d t h a t t h i s was n o t t h e c ase (49% - 64%).
The h y p o t h e s i s was s u b s t a n t i a t e d (Appendix A, Table 4 6 ) .

143

V II. F u t u r e and P r e s e n t
C o n d i ti o n s o f P o s t-S e c o n d a ry
E d ucation
A. E n r o ll m e n t :
(41% A g reeing)

Will S t a b i l i z e

B. E n r o ll m e n t :
(47% A greeing)

Will Decrease

C. E n r o ll m e n t :
(18% A gre eing)

Will I n c r e a s e

H ypothesis XVIII
The m a j o r i t y o f v o t e r s w i l l a g re e t h a t e n r o l l m e n t
w ill in c r e a s e in the f u t u r e , r a t h e r than decrease
o r n o t change.
The sampled r e g i s t e r e d Michigan v o t e r s d id have o p i n i o n s
regarding enrollment tren d s.

T h e i r o p i n io n s were 45% t h a t e n r o l l m e n t

would i n c r e a s e , 22% t h a t t h e r e would be no ch an g e, and 33% t h a t
e n r o l l m e n t s would d e c r e a s e .
ported.

D e s c r i p t i v e l y , t h e h y p o t h e s i s was s u p ­

The v o t e r s ' o p i n i o n s were found t o be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f ­

i c a n t (P < .0001) (Appendix A, T able 5 1 ).
D. E n r o ll m e n t : V oter Opinions
(38% I n c r e a s e , 27% Decrease)
H y p o th e sis XIX
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s w i l l
a g r e e on t h e s e f u t u r e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f p o s t ­
se c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n :
(1) i n c r e a s i n g c o s t , (2 )
more s p e c i a l i z e d demands f o r e d u c a t i o n a l s e r v i c e s ,
(3) c o m p e t i t i o n f o r s t u d e n t s , (4) c o m p e t i t i o n f o r
r e v e n u e , (5) i n s t i t u t i o n a l m i s s i o n s more d i f f i c u l t
t o d e f i n e , (6) m ain tena n ce o f q u a l i t y more d i f ­
f i c u l t t o s u s t a i n , (7) c o o p e r a t i v e e f f o r t among
i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n more d i f f i c u l t t o
manage, (8 ) r e s o u r c e s more d i f f i c u l t t o manage,

144

(9) g r e a t e r d i v e r s i t y o f programs o f h i g h e r
e d u c a t i o n , and (10) i n c r e a s e d r e s p e c t f o r h ig h er
e d u c a t i o n by t h e p u b l i c .
The i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s s u pp o rte d t h e h y p o t h e s is
r e g a r d i n g t h e f u t u r e c o n d i t i o n s o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n , as
r e l a t e d t o c o s t s , e d u c a t i o n a l s e r v i c e s , s t u d e n t s , r ev e n u e, m i s s i o n ,
q u a l i t y , c o o p e r a t i o n , management o f r e s o u r c e s , d i v e r s i t y o f programs,
and r e s p e c t f o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n .

Board members were t h e only group

t h a t f e l l below t h e 50% l e v e l , and t h i s was in t h e a r e a o f i n s t i t u ­
tional cooperation.

All o t h e r a r e a s were above 50% by a l l groups

(Appendix A, T ab les 52 - 6 1 ).
E. C osts:
Increasing
(93% Agreeing)
F. S p e c i a l i z e d Demands
(89% Agreeing )
G. Competition f o r S t u d e n ts
(90% Agr eeing)
H. Com petition f o r Revenue
(94% Agreeing)
I . I n s t i t u t i o n a l M ission s
(58% Agreeing)
J . Maintenance o f Q u a l i t y :
Michigan V oters (55% A g r e e i n g ) ;
M in o rity /W h ite V oter P a t t e r n s
(68% t o 58%)
Hypothesis XX
The m a j o r i t y o f v o t e r s w i l l ag re e t h a t t h e q u a l i t y
o f p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s w i l l improve.

145

The sampled r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s h e ld t h e o pin io n t h a t t h e
q u a l i t y o f p u b l i c c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y e d u c a ti o n would improve
(55%), r a t h e r than remain t h e same (30%), o r n o t improve (15%).
The h y p o t h e s i s was s u p p o r t e d .

The o p i n i o n s held were s i g n i f i c a n t

s t a t i s t i c a l l y (P < .0001) (Appendix A, Table 57).
Hypothesis XXI
The m a j o r i t y o f v o t e r s who i d e n t i f y th em se lv es as
b e lo n g in g t o t h e m i n o r i t y r a c e s w i l l hold more
f a v o r a b l e o p i n io n s toward t h e r o l e o f p u b l i c
c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s i n p r e p a r i n g s t u d e n t s
f o r t h e j o b market than t h e v o t e r s who i d e n t i f y
them se lv e s as w h i t e .
The sampled Michigan r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s who i d e n t i f i e d them­
s e l v e s as members o f m i n o r i t y r a c e s h e ld d i f f e r e n t o p i n io n s from
t h o s e who i d e n t i f i e d them se lv e s as w h i t e .

M i n o r i t i e s h e ld a more

f a v o r a b l e o p i n io n toward t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f p u b l i c h i g h e r educa­
t i o n in p r e p a r i n g s t u d e n t s f o r t h e j o b market th an d i d t h e w h ite
v o t e r s , 42% to 36%.

The d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s upheld t h e

h y p o t h e s i s (Appendix A, T able 58).
K. Maintenance o f Q u a l i t y
D i f f i c u l t (62% Agreeing)
Hypothesis XXII
Voter o p i n i o n s r e g a r d i n g Michigan p u b l i c h i g h e r
e d u c a t i o n w i l l show d i f f e r e n c e s a c c o rd in g t o t h e
f o l l o w i n g f o u r Michigan g e o g ra p h i c a l r e g i o n s :
(1) c e n t r a l , (2) s o u t h e a s t , (3) Upper
P e n i n s u l a , and (4) w e s t e r n .
In t h e above q u e s t i o n , as well as i n o t h e r segments o f t h e
m a t e r i a l r e g a r d i n g an a n a l y s i s o f v o t e r s ' o p i n i o n s , a d e f i n i t e d i f ­
f e r e n c e o f o p i n io n was d i s p l a y e d g e o g r a p h i c a l l y a c r o s s Michigan, as

146
r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e wide v a r i a n c e from 60% in t h e Upper P e n i n s u l a t o
33% in t h e s o u t h e a s t s e c t i o n o f t h e s t a t e .

This d i f f e r e n c e i s

found th r o u g h o u t t h e d a t a , v e r i f y i n g t h e h y p o t h e s i s (Appendix A,
Table 6 6 a ).
Hypothesis XXIII
Voter o p i n io n s w i l l va ry a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r
r e s i d e n t i a l p a t t e r n s , such as c e n t r a l c i t y ,
farm, r u r a l , suburban, and small c i t y .
The o p i n i o n s o f t h e sample o f Michigan r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s di d
vary by t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l p a t t e r n s , as seen t h r o u g h o u t t h e d a t a .
The p a t t e r n was c o n s i s t e n t , v a ry in g from a high o f 40% t o a low o f
34%, as d e m o n s tr a te d in t h e t a b l e used.

The h y p o t h e s i s was sub­

s t a n t i a t e d (Appendix A, Table 66b).
L. C o o p e r a tiv e E f f o r t : More
D i f f i c u l t (47% Agr eeing)
M. R eso urces: More D i f f i c u l t t o
Manage (68% Agreeing)
N. D i v e r s i t y o f Programs o f
Highe r Education (82% Agreeing)
0.
I n c r e a s e d R esp ect by P u b l i c
(39% Agr eeing)
P. Higher E ducation P r e p a r i n g
S t u d e n ts f o r Job Market
(56% Agre eing)
Hypothesis XXIV
There w i l l be a m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l
r e s p o n d e n t s who w i l l a g r e e t h a t M i c h ig a n 's p u b l i c
higher education i s e f f e c t i v e l y preparing
s t u d e n t s f o r the j o b m arke t.

147

An a n a l y s i s o f r e s p o n d e n t s ' o p i n i o n s , from t h e s t a n d p o i n t
o f p o s i t i o n as well as t y p e o f i n s t i t u t i o n , showed a range o f
opinions regarding th e e f f e c tiv e n e s s of the p rep a ratio n of students
f o r t h e j o b marke t by Michigan p u b l i c h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n (44% - 68%).
By typ e o f i n s t i t u t i o n , t h e range was from 38% by p r i v a t e community
c o l l e g e s , t o 75% o f t h e f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e s .

I t a p p ea rs t h a t

t h i s i s a q u e s t i o n o f some importance to a l l the r e s p o n d e n t s with
a wide rang e o f o p i n i o n s e x p r e s s e d .

The h y p o t h e s i s was s u b s t a n ­

t i a t e d (Appendix A, T ab les 64 and 6 4 a ).
H yp o th esis XXV
A g r e a t e r p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e res p o n d in g i n s t i t u ­
t i o n a l p r e s i d e n t s w i l l hold a more f a v o r a b l e
o p i n i o n toward t h e r o l e o f c o l l e g e s and
u n i v e r s i t i e s in p r e p a r i n g s t u d e n t s f o r t h e j o b
market t h a n w i l l t h e key f a c u l t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .
The c h i e f f a c u l t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e and th e p r e s i d e n t o f t h e
i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s h e ld s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t o p i n io n s
r e g a r d i n g p r e p a r a t i o n o f s t u d e n t s f o r t h e j o b m ark e t.

Presidents

a g re e d w i t h t h e q u e s t i o n , 74%, compared t o t h e f a c u l t y r e p r e s e n t a ­
t i v e s ' agreement o f 55%.

The h y p o t h e s i s was s u p p o r t e d d e s c r i p t i v e l y .

This was s i g n i f i c a n t s t a t i s t i c a l l y (P < .05) (Appendix A, Table 6 5 ).
Q. C o l le g e s P r e p a r i n g S t u d e n ts
f o r Job Market (60% Agr eeing)
Hypothesis XXVI
The m a j o r i t y o f v o t e r s w i l l hold p o s i t i v e
o p i n i o n s toward t h e r o l e o f Michigan p u b l i c
c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s in p r e p a r i n g
s t u d e n t s f o r t h e j o b m arket.

148

The sampled Michigan r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s held t h e o p in io n
(60%) t h a t t h e p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s were p r e p a r i n g
s t u d e n t s e f f e c t i v e l y f o r t h e j o b m arket.

The v o t e r s ' o p i n i o n s were

found t o be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , and t h e h y p o t h e s i s was sup­
p o r t e d (P < .002) (Appendix A, Table 6 6).
V I I I . R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f a New
S t a t e Board o f Higher E ducation
Hypothesis XXVII
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n ts
w i l l s u p p o r t t h e recommendations o f th e
G o v e r n o r 's Commission r e g a r d i n g t h e makeup,
f u n c t i o n s , r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , and d u t i e s o f a
new S t a t e Board o f Higher E d u ca tio n .
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a gre ed w i t h t h e h y p o t h e s i s on
t h e f u n c t i o n s , r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , and d u t i e s which could be assumed
by a new S t a t e Board o f Higher E d u c a ti o n , such a s :

c o l l e c t i o n of

e s s e n t i a l i n f o r m a ti o n (87% - 97%), c o n ti n u o u s p la n n in g and a s s e s s ­
ment (80% - 89%), i t s a d v i s o r y r o l e t o t h e Governor and t h e
l e g i s l a t u r e (87% - 91%), and i t s a s s i s t a n c e in t h e development o f
c o o p e r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s w i t h i n t h e e d u c a t i o n a l community (78% - 93%)
(Appendix A, Tables 67, 68, 69, and 71).
A. C o l l e c t i o n o f E s s e n t i a l
In fo rm a tio n Functio ns
(93% Agreeing)
B. P lannin g and Assessment
Fu nctio n s (86% Agreeing)
C. Advise t h e Governor and
L e g i s l a t u r e : F i n a n c i a l Needs
(89% Agreeing)

149

D. Advise Governor and
L e g i s l a t u r e : Programs
(74% Agreeing )
E. Development o f C o op erativ e
R e l a t i o n s h i p s (88% Agreeing)
F. A p p r o p r i a t e Advisory
Committees (77% Agreeing)
G. Advice and Counsel Concerning
Higher Education (90% Agreeing)
IX. P u b l i c Community C o lle g es
A. Community C o l l e g e s :
Not Grant B a c c a l a u r e a t e
Degrees (75% Agreeing)

Should

Hypothesis XXVIII
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n ts
w i l l a g r e e t h a t Michigan community c o l l e g e s
should n o t o f f e r b a c c a l a u r e a t e d e g r e e s .
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , by a m a j o r i t y (64% - 85%),
s u b s t a n t i a t e d t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t community c o l l e g e s should not
g r a n t b a c c a l a u r e a t e d e g re es (Appendix A, Table 74).
B. R e d i s t r i c t i n g o f Michigan
Community C o lle g es (52% Agreeing)
Hypothesis XXIX
The m a j o r i t y o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s o f
r e g i o n a l p u b l i c and p r i v a t e f o u r - t o f i v e - y e a r
i n s t i t u t i o n s w ill not support r e d i s t r i c t i n g of
Michigan community c o l l e g e s t o p r o v id e s e r v i c e s
of these i n s t i t u t i o n s equally to a l l areas of
the s t a t e .
Respon dents, by t y p e o f i n s t i t u t i o n , s u b s t a n t i a t e d t h e
h y p o t h e s i s t h a t r e g i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s would n o t be in f a v o r o f t o t a l

150

r e d i s t r i c t i n g o f Michigan community c o l l e g e s .

Fo u r - y e ar p r i v a t e

c o l l e g e s (42%) and f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e s (26% di d not s u p p o r t
r e d i s t r i c t i n g (Appendix A, Tai)le 75 a).
C. Community C o l l e g e s : Same
R e l a t i o n s h i p as B a c c a l a u r e a t e
I n s t i t u t i o n s t o Proposed S t a t e
Board o f Higher Education
(64% Agreeing)

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary and C onclusions
One o f t h e key i s s u e s f a c i n g Michigan p o s t - s e c o n d a r y
e d u c a ti o n i s t h e p r o c e s s by which i n s t i t u t i o n s and t h e s t a t e w i l l
view and r e a c t t o t h e i s s u e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l autonomy and t h e need
f o r s t a t e w i d e p l a n n i n g and c o o r d i n a t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e Michigan
higher education stands a t the c ro ssro a d s.
As has tak e n p l a c e n a t i o n a l l y , a number o f s t u d i e s have been
completed in Michigan r e g a r d i n g t h e q u e s t i o n o f c o o r d i n a t i n g p o s t ­
se conda ry e d u c a t i o n .

However, w ith t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h e s t u d y com­

p l e t e d in 1974 by t h e G o v e r n o r 's Commission on Higher E d u ca tio n ,
t h e r e have been few s t u d i e s made on t h i s q u e s t i o n in t h e l a s t
se v e r a l y e a r s .

The r e p o r t by t h e commission p o i n te d o u t t h a t t h e r e

i s a need t o de te rm in e t h e o p i n io n s o f t h e v o t e r s o f t h e s t a t e o f
Michigan and key r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n a l
i n s t i t u t i o n s toward changes in s t a t e w i d e p l an nin g and c o o r d i n a t i o n ,
i n s t i t u t i o n a l autonomy, and o t h e r i s s u e s in p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n .
Governor Mil l i k e n s t a t e d i n h i s 1978 " S t a t e o f t h e S t a t e "
a d d re s s t h a t t h e s t a t e o f Michigan must c a r e f u l l y review t h e r o l e ,
f u n c t i o n , and system o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n in Michigan.

151

152

The Governor and t h e commission f u r t h e r e x p re ss ed t h e d e s i r e
t h a t t h e o p i n io n s o f th e p e o p le , both d i r e c t l y and i n d i r e c t l y
i n v o lv e d in p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n , should be determined and
analyzed.
Through t h i s s t u d y , t h e w r i t e r a tte m p te d t o f u l f i l l t h e
e x p r e s s e d d e s i r e o f t h e Governor and t h e commission.

I t was a l s o

hoped t h e stu dy w i l l help them, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , t h e Department o f
E d u ca tio n , and Michigan by a n a l y z i n g v o t e r s ' o p i n io n s o f key
i n d i v i d u a l s in p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a ti o n and sampled Michigan v o t e r s
r e g a r d i n g t h e recommendations o f t h e Commission on Higher E d uca tio n.
To accomplish t h i s , t h e s t u d y used t h e mail and te l e p h o n e
survey methods.
Two q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were developed from a c a r e f u l a n a l y s i s
o f t h e f i n a l r e p o r t o f t h e G o v e r n o r 's Commission and t h e Commis­
s i o n ' s minutes and background p a p e r s .

The f i r s t q u e s t i o n n a i r e was

m ailed to key e d u c a t i o n a l o f f i c i a l s , i . e . , gove rning board chairmen,
board members, c h i e f f a c u l t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , and p r e s i d e n t s o f
Michigan p r i v a t e and p u b l i c h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n s .

A

second q u e s t i o n n a i r e was developed f o r use in a t e l e p h o n e su rve y o f
a sample o f r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s o f t h e s t a t e o f Michigan.

Four

hundred s i x t y - t w o mail q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were r e t u r n e d , f o r a r e t u r n
r a t e o f 69%.
The t e l e p h o n e surv ey was conducted by t h i r t e e n i n t e r v i e w e r s ,
u sin g a system t h a t a llow ed f o r 92% o f Michigan households w ith
t e l e p h o n e s t o be c o n t a c t e d ; a 96% c om pletio n r a t e was ach iev e d f o r
t h i s group.

153

The o b j e c t i v e o f t h e s e su rv e y s was t o s tu d y t h e fo llo w in g
questions:
What, t h e n , i s t h e n a t u r e and p a t t e r n o f o p i n io n s held by
Michigan v o t e r s , board o f t r u s t e e s ' chairmen, board members, key
f a c u l t y l e a d e r s , and p r e s i d e n t s o f p u b l i c and p r i v a t e tw o-y ear
i n s t i t u t i o n s , f o u r - and f i v e - y e a r i n s t i t u t i o n s , and p r o f e s s i o n a l
g r a d u a t e s c h o o ls and u n i v e r s i t i e s toward t h e recommendations o f t h e
r e p o r t o f th e G o v e r n o r 's Commission on Higher Education and t o what
e x t e n t do t h e s e o p i n io n s d i f f e r ?
S p e c i f i c a l l y t h e stud y f o c u s e s upon and a n a l y z e s t h e f o l l o w ­
ing problem a r e a s emphasized in t h e r e p o r t o f t h e G o v e r n o r 's Commis­
s i o n on Higher E d u catio n:
1.

The d e g re e to which key i n d i v i d u a l s i n v olve d in Michigan

h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n d i f f e r o r hold s i m i l a r o p i n i o n s o f M i c h ig a n 's
h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n r e g a r d i n g :

C e n t r a l i z a t i o n v s. D e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n —

S ta te w id e V o l u n t a r y , A d visory , and R e g u la to r y Boards; Governance;
S ta te w id e P l a n n in g ; I n s t i t u t i o n a l Autonomy; Board o f T r u s t e e s - S a t i s f a c t i o n , S e l e c t i o n , and S i z e ; P o s t-S ec o n d a ry Education vs.
Higher E ducation; F u t u r e and P r e s e n t C o n d i ti o n s o f P o s t - s e c o n d a r y
E ducation ; R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f a S ta te w i d e Board o f Higher E ducation ;
and P u b lic Community C o l l e g e s .
2.

The d e g re e to which demographic and psychogra phic c h a r a c ­

t e r i s t i c s ( p o s i t i o n , ty pe o f i n s t i t u t i o n , o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r b a r g a i n i n g
p u r p o s e s , e x p e r i e n c e in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n ) a r e s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s
a s s o c i a t e d with o p i n i o n s c o n ce rn in g i s s u e s i n t h e r e p o r t o f t h e
G o v e rn or's Commission on Higher E du ca tio n.

154

3.

The de gre e o f d i f f e r e n c e t h a t r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s '

o p i n i o n s d i s p l a y toward s e l e c t e d im p o r ta n t i s s u e s o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y
education.
The f o r e g o i n g problem a r e a s were i d e n t i f i e d w i t h i n t h e
h i s t o r i c a l framework o f th e s t a t u s o f h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n i n Michigan.
Since t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f i t s f i r s t c o l l e g e t h e S t a t e
o f Michigan has had a system f o r p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n .

Due to

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and l e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t s , t h e r e always has been i n v o l v e ­
ment by t h e s t a t e .

As i s a p p r o p r i a t e in a r e p u b l i c , t h e s t a t e has

had a predominant r o l e in d e te r m in in g what e d u c a t i o n a l s e r v i c e s
should be in both t h e p u b l i c and p r i v a t e s e c t o r s .
M ic h ig a n 's t r a d i t i o n has been t h a t q u a l i t y i s based on
involvement and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y a t t h e l o c a l l e v e l , whether t h i s be a
secondary school board or t h e board o f c o n t r o l o f an i n s t i t u t i o n o f
higher education.

This approach has been c h a l le n g e d and t e s t e d from

many d i r e c t i o n s as t h e needs o f t h e s t a t e and t h e p eople have
changed.
P r i o r t o t h e 1860's p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a ti o n was meant f o r a
few and on a s e l e c t e d b a s i s , both eco no m ic ally and a c a d e m i c a l l y .

As

t h e pace o f tec h n o lo g y i n c r e a s e d d u rin g t h e 1 8 0 0 's , more s o p h i s t i ­
c a t e d d e l i v e r y systems were needed f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l and p r o f e s s i o n a l
competence in t h e a r e a s o f b u s i n e s s , i n d u s t r y , government, and t h e
professions.

The r o l e o f our u n i v e r s i t i e s and c o l l e g e s changed.

With t h e r a p i d growth o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n t h e i n c r e a s e d need
f o r t r a i n e d t e c h n i c i a n s , and t h e changing r o l e o f r e l i g i o n in o ur
s o c i e t y , a d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n emerged.

Some o f our

155

p r i v a t e l i b e r a l a r t s c o l l e g e s and t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan were
r e c o g n i z e d n a t i o n a l l y in t h e l a t e 1800's f o r t h e i r l e a d e r s h i p .

With

t h e M o r r i l l Act and t h e i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n o f a g r i c u l t u r e , t h e land
g r a n t c o l l e g e movement e v o lv e d , and Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y was
e s t a b l i s h e d , t h e f i r s t o f i t s kind in t h e United S t a t e s .
The base f o r e d u c a t i o n a l s e r v i c e s expanded during t h e e a r l y
1 9 0 0 's .

The dream o f o p p o r t u n i t y based on m e r i t and t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y

o f p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s began t o emerge so t h a t t h e young people o f
Michigan were g iven t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o a t t e n d and advance a cc o rd in g
t o t h e i r co m p e te n cie s.
I n t o t h e 4 0 ' s t h i s t r e n d grew, and h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , p a r t i c ­
u l a r l y p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s and c o l l e g e s , a cc ep ted t h e r o l e s o f
r e s e a r c h , p u b l i c s e r v i c e , and s c h o l a r s h i p .

With t h e advent o f t h e

Second World War and i t s a f t e r m a t h , t h e r e was an e x p lo s io n in t h e
need f o r t e c h n o l o g i c a l competence and a r a p i d l y changing a s p i r a t i o n
l e v e l on t h e p a r t o f c i t i z e n s th ro u g h o u t t h e s t a t e .

P o s t -s e c o n d a r y

e d u c a t i o n ' s doorway opened wider and became t h e pathway f o r a c a r e e r ,
h i g h e r income, and a more s a t i s f y i n g l i f e .

The G .I . B i l l made pos­

s i b l e t h e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r r e t u r n i n g servicemen t o a v a i l them selv es of
post-secondary education.

A whole new segment o f our s o c i e t y began

to p a rtic ip a te .
D is c u s s io n and d e b ate began on u n i v e r s a l a c c e s s t o p o s t ­
se con d a ry e d u c a t i o n , along w i t h a s e n s i t i v i t y t o and c o n c u r r e n t
evolvement o f l i f e l o n g e d u c a t i o n .

I t a p p ea rs t h a t t h e 8 0 ' s a g a in

w i l l be a time f o r major changes in p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n .
t h e 4 0 ' s , t h e r e seemed t o be a g e n eral consensus on t h e r o l e o f

During

156

higher education.

However, t h e 8 0 ' s w i l l m i r r o r our s o c i e t y and

t h e r e w i l l be c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s consensus than in t h e 4 0 ' s and 5 0 ' s
as t o t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n i n Michigan
and t h r o u g h o u t t h e w orld.
At t h i s time o f p o l a r i z a t i o n and la c k o f consensus p o s t ­
seconda ry e d u c a t i o n i s being impacted f o r t h e f i r s t time w i t h the
p o t e n t i a l o f an e x t e n s i v e e n r o l l m e n t d e c l i n e .

The t e n d e n c i e s o f t h e

8 0 ' s app ear t o be f o r s t a b i l i z a t i o n o r d e c r e a s e d e n r o l l m e n t ; r a d i c a l
change in t h e age o f t h e s t u d e n t s a t t e n d i n g ; g r e a t e r emphasis on
e d u c a ti o n as a l i f e t i m e p r o c e s s ; and, w ith t h e development o f
m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a s , r e l o c a t i o n o f c o l l e g e campuses t h a t today may be
s i t u a t e d in l e s s than e f f e c t i v e l o c a t i o n s t o d e l i v e r n e c e s s a r y educa­
tional services.

Many o f t h e s e campuses were b u i l t on t h e assumption

t h a t t h e major g o a ls o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n were t o s e p a r a t e young
people from s o c i e t y , e d u c a te them, and f o u r y e a r s l a t e r have them
emerge ready f o r t h e i r r o l e in t h e w o rld .

The European u n i v e r s i t y

evolved as p a r t o f a c i t y , b u t in t h i s c o u n t r y i t was developed
o r i g i n a l l y as p a r t o f a r e l i g i o u s - r u r a l t h r u s t , w ith t h e s t u d e n t s
removed from t h e i r homes w h i l e t h e y gain ed t h e i r e d u c a t i o n .

It

a p p ea rs t h a t we have come f u l l c i r c l e , w i t h t h e need f o r t h e p o s t ­
seconda ry e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n to be in t h e m id st o f t h e p o pu lated
areas.
With t h e changes in s o c i e t y t a k i n g p l a c e so r a p i d l y , s o ,
t o o , have t h e r e been changes in supply and demand f o r s t u d e n t s and
th e ir train in g.

For example, a few s h o r t y e a r s ago t h e r e was a

s h o r t a g e o f t e a c h e r s , b u t t od ay t h e r e i s a s u r p l u s .

The same mode

157

pervades e v ery p r o f e s s i o n a l f i e l d , which l e a d s t o r a p i d changes in
demand and c a r e e r plac em en t.

Conse quently, t h e r e i s an e r o s i o n o f

s o c i e t y ' s c o n f i d e n c e in t h e economic v a lu e o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y
education.
M ic h ig a n 's system o f governance f o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n has
follo w ed t h e t r e n d s and needs o f i t s p o p u l a t i o n .

The f o u r - y e a r

c h u r c h - r e l a t e d i n s t i t u t i o n s , t h e complex p r o f e s s i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n ,
t he land g r a n t c o l l e g e , t h e t e c h n i c a l i n s t i t u t e s , and t h e evolvement
o f t h e j u n i o r c o l l e g e i n t o a comprehensive community c o l l e g e system
are a ll p a rt of t h i s evolutionary process.
Michigan has t r i e d many approaches t o governance:

having

s e v e r a l o f i t s p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s under one b oard , o p e r a t i n g t h e
U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan under both e l e c t e d and a p p o in t e d b o a r d s , and
e v o lv i n g a r o l e r e g a r d i n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l autonomy confirmed by both
t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n and t h e c o u r t s .
Some a r e a s o f t h e c o u n tr y have had a t r a d i t i o n o f p r i v a t e
e d u c a t i o n being dominant; o t h e r s have had a p u b l i c syste m , w ith
v a ry in g d e g re es o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y by l o c a l boards o f c o n t r o l .

The

Michigan system has m a i n t a i n e d r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f
t h e s t a t e f o r h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n and i t s f u n d i n g , always a p p e a ri n g t o
move i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f g r e a t e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and autonomy f o r i t s
p u b l i c and p r i v a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s .
During t h e 6 0 ' s , a p e r i o d o f r a p i d growth, and t h e 7 0 ' s ,
w i t h e n r o l l m e n t s t a b i l i z e d a c r o s s t h e c o u n t r y , l e g i s l a t o r s n oted
t h a t i t was time t o f i n d a more d e f i n i t i v e system f o r t h e a l l o c a t i o n
of resources f o r post-secondary education.

Michigan has p a r t i c i p a t e d

158

in t h i s development and now, on t h e t h r e s h o l d o f t h e 8 0 's » i s con­
s i d e r i n g t h e c o u rs e t o t a k e in t h e f u t u r e .
Our s t a t e has one o f t h e b e t t e r systems o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y
e d u c a ti o n in t h e Un ited S t a t e s , w i t h a more formal typ e o f s t a t e w i d e
governance th an i s o f t e n r e c o g n i z e d .

The p r e s e n t system u n d e r g i r d s

i t s e l f w i t h t h r e e m a j o r , i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y r e c o g n iz e d f l a g s h i p p u b l i c
u n i v e r s i t i e s and a number o f o u t s t a n d i n g s m a l l e r p r i v a t e c o l l e g e s
and u n i v e r s i t i e s t h a t a r e enhanced by a system o f p u b l i c c o l l e g e s
and u n i v e r s i t i e s and community c o l l e g e s t h a t s e r v e most o f t h e
s t a t e making f o r a d i v e r s i f i e d and comprehensive system.
Because t h e Michigan system o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n ranks as one
o f t h e l e a d e r s in t h e United S t a t e s , t h e n e c e s s i t y o f d e te r m in in g
what new d i r e c t i o n s t a t e w i d e governance w i l l t a k e i s c r i t i c a l .

It

a p p e a rs from s t u d i e s made o f s t a t e s which have e x p e r i e n c e d c e n t r a l i z a ­
t i o n t h a t t h i s t y p e o f g o ve rna nce , promising i n c r e a s e d e f f i c i e n c y ,
c o s t r e d u c t i o n , and l e s s c o m p e t i t i o n between i n s t i t u t i o n s , has n o t
a c h ie v e d t h e s e g o a l s t o t h e d e g re e a n t i c i p a t e d .

However, t h e 8 0 ' s

promise t o sharp en t h e a r e a s o f concern w i t h i n t h e Michigan p o s t ­
se conda ry system.

T h e r e f o r e , i t i s n e c e s s a r y t h a t t h e r e be s t u d y

and involvement on t h e p a r t o f i n s t i t u t i o n s and c i t i z e n s r e g a r d i n g
s t a t e w i d e c o o r d i n a t i o n and p l a n n i n g .
S t a t e government r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , a s w e ll a s i n s t i t u t i o n a l
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , r e c o g n i z e t h a t a more formal system undoubtedly w i l l
have to emerge.

C o o r d i n a t i o n does t a k e p l a c e through v o l u n t a r y

e f f o r t s , t h e gu id an c e o f s o p h i s t i c a t e d s t a f f a t t h e e x e c u t i v e and
l e g i s l a t i v e l e v e l s , and w i t h t h e c o n t i n u i n g i n t e r f a c e o f l e g i s l a t o r s

159

and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n .

This i s a new

emergence o f a n o t h e r n a t u r e t h a t has not been p r e s e n t in t h e p a s t .
Many groups n o t found in th e normal l i n e o f checks and b a l ­
ances o f l o c a l o r s t a t e w i d e l a y c o n t r o l have developed.

There has

been a move from formal d em o cratic c o n t r o l toward p r i v a t e power.
For example, t h e r e has been a growth in p o l i t i c a l and f i s c a l power
on t h e p a r t o f t e a c h e r s ' u n i o n s , t e s t i n g s e r v i c e s , s o p h i s t i c a t e d
l e g i s l a t i v e and e x e c u t i v e a g e n c i e s , and many o t h e r p r e s s u r e groups
representing special i n te r e s ts .

These groups a r e o u t s i d e t h e normal

l i n e s o f a c c o u n t a b i l i t y , as found with e l e c t e d and a p po in ted boards
o f c o n t r o l and o f f i c i a l s .

This i s an a r e a o f "shadow gove rn a nce ,"

an im p o r ta n t i n g r e d i e n t in t h e de c isio n - m a k in g p r o c e ss f o r our
state.
Modern t ec h n olog y i s f a c i l i t a t i n g r a p i d communication as
well as i t s s t o r a g e , a s s i m i l a t i o n , and a n a l y s i s .

Influences are

being e x e r t e d by p r e s s u r e groups such as s t u d e n t s , f a c u l t y , and
o th er organizations throughout so c iety .
I t a p pea rs t h a t t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s o f t h i s study
were s e n s i t i v e t o t h e s e changing p a t t e r n s .

I t i s w ith t h i s backdrop

t h a t th ey reviewed t h e 1974 Report o f t h e G o v e r n o r 's Commission on
Higher Education and Governance, and gave t h e i r o p i n i o n s .
The f i n d i n g s o f t h i s s tu d y a r e h i g h l i g h t e d h e r e .
The i s s u e o f c e n t r a l i z a t i o n and d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n follo w ed a
p a t t e r n t h a t c o n c u r r e d with t h e recommendations o f t h e G o v e rn o r's
Commission s t u d y which recommended an a d v i s o r y appro ach.

160

I n s titu tio n a l rep resen tativ es f e l t strongly th a t a regula­
t o r y approach would n o t meet t h e needs o f t h e f u t u r e w ith o nly 12%
s u p p o r t i n g t h i s c o n c e p t.
appro ach.

They fa v o r e d a v o l u n t a r y and a d v is o r y

They i n d i c a t e d , however, t h a t t h e p r e s e n t v o l u n t a r y

approach might not meet t h e needs o f t h e f u t u r e , and t h e r e i s a need
f o r a s e p a r a t e s t a t e w i d e a d v i s o r y board f o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , which
could d i s s e m i n a t e i n f o r m a ti o n and s e r v e as a f o c a l p o i n t f o r i s s u e
r e s o l u t i o n and lo n g - r a n g e p l a n n i n g .

When asked wh ether t h e p r e s e n t

S t a t e Board o f E ducation should c o n t i n u e i t s r o l e and r e l a t i o n s h i p
t o p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n , t h e answer was " n o ."

I t was noted t h a t

t h e board should l i m i t i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o primary and secon da ry
education.
A m a j o r i t y o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s agreed t h a t t h e p r e ­
s e n t Michigan c o n s t i t u t i o n , g u a r a n t e e i n g autonomy f o r many p u b l i c
i n s t i t u t i o n s , was ambiguous when d e a l i n g w i t h t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e
r o l e o f t h e p r e s e n t S t a t e Board o f E du ca tio n.

There was a w i l l i n g ­

ness t o have t h i s changed by c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e v i s i o n , i f t h e c o o r d i n a ­
t i o n and p l ann ing o f a new s t a t e board would c e n t e r on an a d v i s o r y
r a t h e r than a r e g u l a t o r y app ro ach.

The i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s

in p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n a c c e p t e d t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p r e s e n t
approach t o p l an nin g and c o o r d i n a t i o n w i l l not meet t h e needs o f t h e
f u t u r e and t h a t t h e r e w i l l have t o be change.

How s t a t e w i d e p lann ing

and c o o r d i n a t i o n a r e s e p a r a b l e from t h e c o ncern s o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l
go vern ance, however, remained t h e c r i t i c a l i s s u e .

The very e sse n c e

o f t h e r o l e o f a s t a t e w i d e board and t h e r e s e r v e power o f a l o c a l
board d i v i d e s on t h i s q u e s t i o n .

S p e c i f i c a l l y , what would a s t a t e

161

b oa rd, a d v i s o r y o r n o t , do i n r e l a t i o n t o l o c a l autonomy?
f o r co o rd in a tio n i s recognized.

The need

Concern runs high as t o t h e con­

sequences o f l o c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .
Both p r i v a t e and p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s concu rred t h a t they
should be in v o lv e d in any program f o r t h e p l an nin g f o r p o s t - s e c o n d a r y
e d u c a ti o n and t h e development o f a new S t a t e Board f o r Higher Educa­
tion.

I n s t i t u t i o n a l autonomy i s c h e r i s h e d , and t h e r e a r e many d e f i n i ­

tions for i t .

One could ask a s t u d e n t , a f a c u l t y member, a l e g i s l a ­

t o r , o r t h e Governor t o d e f i n e t h i s autonomy and t h e i r answers
undoubtedly would v a r y .

I t i s more a se n se o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l commit­

ment than an e x p l i c i t f a c t .

Yet, t h e r e was no doubt in t h e minds o f

t h o s e respo n din g t o t h e q u e s t i o n s t h a t t h e independence o f t h e boards
o f c o n t r o l o f c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s i s a key f a c t o r i n t h e q u a l ­
i t y o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i n Michigan.
N e i t h e r t h e v o t e r s o f t h e s t a t e n or t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l respo n ­
d e n t s f e l t t h e r e should be a d i s c o n t i n u a n c e o f t h e l o c a l boards o r
t h a t a s i n g l e s t a t e w i d e board should e v o lv e and d i r e c t t h e i r p o s t ­
secondary syste m.

T h i s , i n a s e n s e , f o l l o w s what i s happening

n a t i o n a l l y w i t h t h e r e a l i z a t i o n , in many s o c i a l programs, t h a t cen­
t r a l i z a t i o n has n o t n e c e s s a r i l y changed t h e l e v e l o f competence
regarding d e c is io n s .

In f a c t , c e n t r a l i z a t i o n may have d im inish ed t h e

s e n s i t i v i t y and r e a c t i o n tim e needed f o r an i n s t i t u t i o n t o meet t h e
needs o f i t s c o n s t i t u e n c y .
However, v o t e r s did say by a v ery narrow margin t h a t an a l l encompassing s t a t e w i d e board should be a d v i s o r y .

The f e e l i n g emerges

t h a t v o t e r s a n t i c i p a t e d i t would become r e g u l a t o r y , emphasizing t h e

162

f a c t t h a t once a system has evolved and t a k e s on funding r e s p o n ­
s i b i l i t y i t a l s o w i l l have t o have commensurate r e g u l a t o r y a u t h o r ­
ity .
The i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s then were asked, i f no change
i s made in our p r e s e n t system , would we have more d u p l i c a t i o n and
c o m p e ti t io n in t h e f u t u r e ?
would n o t be t h e c a s e .

The f e e l i n g g e n e r a l l y was t h a t t h i s

The o p i n i o n s were t h a t p r e s e n t c o o r d i n a t i o n

e v o lv e s r a t h e r c a r e f u l l y thro ugh v o l u n t a r y a c t i o n s , overviewed by
t h e s t a f f s o f t h e G o v e r n o r 's o f f i c e , f i s c a l a g e n c i e s of t h e l e g i s l a ­
t u r e , and by t h e Governor and l e g i s l a t o r s t h e m se lv e s.
In t h e o p i n io n o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s , t h e e x t e n t o f
approval by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e o r t h e e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e f o r t h e c r e a t i o n
o f a new S t a t e Board o f Higher E ducation was mixed.

Close to f i f t y

p e r c e n t o f t h e e d u c a t i o n a l community would s u p p o r t i t , b u t o nly a
few f e l t , a t t h i s t i m e , t h a t t h e r e i s l e g i s l a t i v e o r e x e c u t i v e sup­
p o r t f o r t h i s change.

A g r e a t number o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s s a i d th ey

a r e u n c e r t a i n o r do n o t know.
One o f t h e on- going conce rn s in a democracy, and i t i s a
complex one, i s t h e d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h e e l e c t o r a t e s .
When v o t e r s were asked a bo u t t h e i r knowledge o f t h e a c t i o n s o f t h e
governing boards o f p u b l i c p o s t - s e c o n d a r y i n s t i t u t i o n s o f Michigan,
most o f them s a i d t h e y a r e n o t informed.

Of t h o s e who were informed,

c l o s e t o o n e - f o u r t h s a i d t h e y were s a t i s f i e d with t h e s e b o a r d s , and
ten p e r c e n t s a i d t h e y a r e n o t .

163
The f u t u r e needs o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a ti o n in Michigan
and changes t h a t a r e now and w i l l be t a k i n g p l a c e need t o be pub­
l i c i z e d , i f l o c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and autonomy a r e t o c o n t i n u e in
our t r a d i t i o n .

I f n e c e s s a r y changes do n o t ta k e p l a c e in p o s t ­

se co n da ry e d u c a t i o n , t h e r e a c t i o n s o f t h e people could be s e v e r e and
a demand may be made t o c e n t r a l i z e because i n s t i t u t i o n s have not
been a b l e t o make t h e n e c e ssa r y changes i n r o l e and f u n c t i o n , s t a f ­
f i n g , and programs t o meet t h e economic and s o c i a l needs o f t h e
future.
When i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s were asked t h e i r o p i n ­
ion s about t h e s e l e c t i o n o f p u b l i c p o s t - s e c o n d a r y board s o f
t r u s t e e s , th ey f e l t t h a t t r u s t e e s should be e l e c t e d on a non­
p a r t i s a n b a l l o t , 59% a g r e e i n g ; l e s s th an f i v e p e r c e n t f e l t t h i s
sh o u ld be done on a p a r t i s a n b a l l o t .

Close t o a m a j o r i t y s a i d t h a t

a ppointm ent by t h e Governor w i t h a d v ic e and c o n s e n t o f t h e Senate
would be a c c e p t a b l e .

Voters took a d i f f e r e n t s t a n c e , c o n c u r r i n g

t h a t a n o n - p a r t i s a n approach was t h e most a c c e p t a b l e .

They i n d i c a t e d

t h a t a p a r t i s a n v ote would be a second c h o i c e , follo w ed by t h e
appoin tm ent o f t r u s t e e s by t h e Governor w i t h a d v ic e and c o n s e n t o f
t h e S e n a te .
When i n s t i t u t i o n a l res p o n d e n ts were asked whether f a c u l t y
and s t u d e n t s should s e r v e on t h e i r own bo ard s o f c o n t r o l , a l l con­
c u r r e d t h a t t h i s should n o t t a k e p l a c e .

Comments made on t h e q u e s­

t i o n n a i r e p o i n t e d o u t they c o n s i d e r t h i s a c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t .
There was l i t t l e o p p o s i t i o n t o having s t u d e n t s , f a c u l t y , o r

164

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s s e r v e on boards o f c o n t r o l o f i n s t i t u t i o n s o t h e r
t h a n t h e i r own.
Because community c o l l e g e s evolved as p a r t o f t h e K-12
system o f Michigan, t h e y pred om in an tly have had boards t h a t gave
d i r e c t i o n both t o t h e community c o l l e g e and t h e p u b l i c school s y s ­
tem.

Most community c o l l e g e s s e r v e broad m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a s , and

school d i s t r i c t s encompass a much s m a l l e r p o p u l a t i o n b a s e .

As a

r e s u l t t h e r e have been conce rn s a b ou t d i s t r i c t and n o n - d i s t r i c t
s t u d e n t t u i t i o n and t h e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r t o t a l community p a r t i c i p a ­
t i o n in gov ern an ce.

The i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , t h r o u g h o u t

p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n , c o n c u r r e d t h a t t h e community c o l l e g e s p r e ­
s e n t l y b e in g d i r e c t e d by K-12 systems should s e p a r a t e from them and
form new d i s t r i c t s , w i t h s e p a r a t e bo ard s o f c o n t r o l .
With t h e a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e prem ise t h a t a new Board o f
Higher E d ucation should e v o l v e , i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s were
asked how i t s members should be s e l e c t e d .

The recommendations were

58% t h a t a pp oin tm ent should be by t h e Governor w ith t h e a d v ic e and
c o n s e n t o f t h e S e n a t e , w ith 35% i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e y should be
elected a t large.

I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s agre ed t h a t the

new b o a r d ' s membership, as recommended in t h e r e p o r t o f t h e Gov e rno r's
Commission, sh ou ld be l i m i t e d t o a r an ge o f seven t o f i f t e e n and i t s
c h i e f e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e r sh o uld be a p p o in t e d by t h e b o a rd , no t
elected.

There was s t r o n g c o n c u r r e n c e t h a t t h i s b o a r d ' s f u n c t i o n s

sh ould be reviewed p e r i o d i c a l l y .
In t h e mid 4 0 ' s and 5 0 ' s c o n c u r r e n c e on t h e r o l e o f h i g h e r
e d u c a t i o n i n Michigan was much na rrow er and a p peare d t o have g r e a t e r

165

c o n sen s u s.

The recommended d e f i n i t i o n o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n

by t h e G o v e r n o r 's Commission i s a broad and comprehensive s t a t e m e n t ,
bu t t h e r e a p p ea rs to be wide a c c e p t a n c e f o r t h e changes t h a t have
taken p l a c e in p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n , t h e needs f o r a new d i r e c ­
t i o n , and t h e a c c e p t a n c e o f a new d e f i n i t i o n .
When asked a bo u t t h e g o a ls and purpose s o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y
e d u c a t i o n , t h e r e was r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t t h e y a r e n o t c l e a r l y s p e l l e d
out.

Undoubtedly, t h i s was based on t h e f a c t t h a t changes a r e

n e c e s s a r y in f u n d i n g , d e l i v e r y s y s te m s , and s t a f f i n g .

There i s a

need f o r s t a t e w i d e d i s c u s s i o n i n v o l v i n g a l l segments o f t h e p opula­
t i o n w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e f u t u r e o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n in Michi­
gan.

These conce rns undoubtedly would be o f high p r i o r i t y f o r a new

S t a t e Board f o r Higher E du ca tio n.
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n d e n t s and v o t e r s were q u e s t i o n e d a bo u t
fu tu re conditions of post-secondary education.

In g e n e r a l , t h e r e

was a high degre e o f s h a r i n g o f c o nce rns on both p a r t s .

In stitu ­

t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s f e l t t h a t e n r o l l m e n t would d e c r e a s e or
s t a b i l i z e , and o n ly a few f e l t t h a t i t would i n c r e a s e .
o p i n i o n s , however, i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t would i n c r e a s e .

Voters'
This d i f ­

f e r e n c e o f o p i n io n a b o u t t h e f u t u r e i s i n d i c a t i v e o f t h e need f o r a
g r e a t e r exchange o f i n f o r m a t i o n a b o ut t h e f u t u r e o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y
e d u c a t i o n between t h o s e who o p e r a t e t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s and t h o s e who
s h a r e in t h e s u p p o r t o f them.
I n s titu tio n a l re p re se n ta tiv e s feel t h a t costs will increase
and t h e r e w i l l be g r e a t e r demand f o r s p e c i a l i z e d s e r v i c e s along w ith
a g r e a t e r c o m p e t i t i o n f o r s t u d e n t s and r e v e n u e s .

They a l s o

166

c o n c u r r e d t h a t t h e m i s s i o n s o f t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s would pro b ab ly be
more d i f f i c u l t t o c l e a r l y d e l i n e a t e .
There was a sha rp d i f f e r e n c e o f o p in io n between v o t e r s and
i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s on t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e m ain ten­
ance o f q u a l i t y in e d u c a t i o n a l s e r v i c e s .

The v o t e r s f e l t s t r o n g l y

t h a t t h e q u a l i t y o f h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n would remain t h e same o r
improve.

This was f u r t h e r emphasized by a s t r o n g e r e x p r e s s i o n on

t h e p a r t o f m i n o r i t y v o t e r s than w h i t e v o t e r s .

However, t h e

o p p o s i t e was found t o be t h e c ase on t h e p a r t o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , who i n d i c a t e d t h a t maintenance o f q u a l i t y would be
more d i f f i c u l t in t h e f u t u r e .
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s e x p re s s e d t h e i r con cern t h a t
c o o p e r a t i v e e f f o r t might n o t e a s i l y t a k e p l a c e , t h a t r e s o u r c e s
would be more d i f f i c u l t to manage, and t h a t a g r e a t e r d i v e r s i f i c a ­
t i o n o f s e r v i c e s would be r e q u e s t e d .

Less than a m a j o r i t y o f t h e

i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s f e l t t h a t t h e p u b l i c d id no t have as
much r e s p e c t f o r p u b l i c e d u c a ti o n as t h e y have had in t h e p a s t .
When asked whether i n s t i t u t i o n s were p r e p a r i n g s t u d e n t s
well f o r t h e j o b m a r k e t, f o r t y - f i v e p e r c e n t o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l
r e p r e s e n ta tiv e s said "yes," but s i x t y percent of the v o ters f e l t
t h e j o b was b ein g done.
These p e r c e p t i o n s a r e c o n s i d e r a b l y d i f f e r e n t .

The need i s

g r e a t f o r a b e t t e r exchange o f i n f o r m a t i o n because t h e f u t u r e holds
e x tr e m e l y d i f f i c u l t tim e s f o r p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n .

I f the

p u b l i c i s n o t g iv en more s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n a b ou t t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s

167

ahead and an o p p o r t u n i t y to p a r t i c i p a t e in d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g ,
r e a c t i o n s could be s e v e r e .
F u r t h e r , v o t e r s a r e a n t i c i p a t i n g r e s p o n s i b l e a c t i o n s on
th e p a r t o f p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s , because t h e y a r e i n v e s t i n g perso n al
funds as well as t a x funds t o a c q u i r e t r a i n i n g t h e y a n t i c i p a t e w i l l
l e a d to c o n ti n u e d o r improved c a r e e r o p p o r t u n i t i e s , as well as a
broader education.

As has been t h e c ase in t e a c h e r e d u c a ti o n when

t h e market p l a c e did n o t a d j u s t q u i c k l y enough, t h e r e a c t i o n o f the
p u b l i c w i l l be quick and c r i t i c a l .

Problems w i t h t e a c h e r e d u c a ti o n

appear to be d u p l i c a t i n g th em selv es in o t h e r d i s c i p l i n e s , i n c l u d i n g
th e h e a l t h f i e l d s .
I f t h e r e i s t o be a new S t a t e Board o f Higher E d u c a tio n ,
what r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s would t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s be
w i l l i n g t o have i t a c c e p t ?

This once more probed f o r an answer to

t h e q u e s t i o n o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l autonomy v e r s u s s t a t e w i d e p lan n in g
and c o o r d i n a t i o n .
There a p peare d t o be a s t r o n g s e n t i m e n t on t h e p a r t o f the
i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s t h a t t h i s new board should c o l l e c t
in f o r m a ti o n and p r o v i d e f o r i t s d i s s e m i n a t i o n .

An assumption could

be made t h a t t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a r e sa y in g t h a t by
g a t h e r i n g and d i s s e m i n a t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n and info rming t h e p u b l i c ,
i n a p p r o p r i a t e i n s t i t u t i o n a l a s p i r a t i o n s would be more d i f f i c u l t to
achieve.

Today t h e s e a s p i r a t i o n s a r e being an aly ze d through c a r e f u l

s tu d y and p a r t i a l l y s e t t l e d th ro ug h power p o l i t i c s a t t h e e x e c u t i v e
o f f i c e and l e g i s l a t i v e l e v e l s .

168

There was c on cu rren c e t h a t t h e new board should do a g r e a t
deal o f p la n n in g and ass essm ent and a d v i s e t h e Governor and
l e g i s l a t u r e on f i n a n c i a l need s.

There was agreement by we ll over a

m a j o r i t y , 74%, t h a t i t should g iv e a d v ic e t o t h e Governor and the
l e g i s l a t u r e on programs.

There was a c c e p t a n c e but a l s o concern

because t h i s i s t h e a r e a t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n s need more c o n t r o l ove r to
c a r r y o u t l o c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and d e l i v e r programs t o t h e i r c o n s t i ­
tuencies

and t o plan f o r t h e f u t u r e .
The proposed

board c e r t a i n l y

would have no d i f f i c u l t y in

assuming

t h e r o l e o f de velopin g c o o p e r a t i v e

r e l a ti o n s , appropriate

advisory

committee s, and in o f f e r i n g a d v ic e

and counsel t o a l l

i n s t i t u t i o n s of post-secondary education.
S p e c i f i c a l l y , when t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s were r e q u e s t e d to look
a t t h e e v o lv i n g community c o l l e g e s and t h e i r r o l e s , t h e r e was st r o n g
c o n cu rren c e t h a t t h e y should not change t o t h e e x t e n t o f o f f e r i n g
baccalaureate degrees.

However, t h e agreement t h a t a l l Michigan

r e s i d e n t s should f a l l in a community c o l l e g e d i s t r i c t b rought con­
c e r n s on t h e p a r t o f f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s and some p r i v a t e
institu tion s.

This undoubtedly was due t o t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f more

i n t e n s e c o m p e ti t io n f o r l o c a l s t u d e n t s .

I f a new S t a t e Board o f

Higher Education i s d e v e l o p e d , community c o l l e g e s sho u ld be a p a r t
o f t h i s approach in t h e same f a s h i o n as o t h e r segments o f p o s t ­
se co n da ry e d u c a ti o n a r e i n c l u d e d .
L. William Seidman, Chairman o f t h e G o v e r n o r 's Commission on
Higher E d u ca tio n , emphasized t h a t t h e commission had narrowed i t s
p r i o r i t i e s t o making s p e c i f i c recommendations, w i t h t h e hope o f

169

f a c i n g t h e i s s u e s t h a t would b r i n g consensus and t h e g r e a t e s t
o p p o r t u n i t y f o r im plem enta tio n by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e and t h e people o f
Michigan.

The makeup o f t h e commission was a c r o s s - s e c t i o n o f t h o s e

i n t e r e s t e d and knowledgeable o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n .

I t con­

s i s t e d o f one r e p r e s e n t a t i v e from t h e h e a l t h f i e l d , t h r e e from
b u s i n e s s , two from p r i v a t e c o l l e g e s and i n s t i t u t e s , one from a g r i ­
c u l t u r e , one from a community c o l l e g e , two from l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n s ,
one from a p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t y , f o u r s t u d e n t s , t h r e e t e a c h e r s , a
j u d g e , a p u b l i c school r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , two a t t o r n e y s , a r e p r e s e n t a ­
t i v e o f t h e S t a t e Board o f E d uca tio n , t h r e e l a y c i t i z e n members, and
two r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from i n d u s t r y .
The major emphases made by t h e commission were:

the e sta b ­

l is h m e n t o f a s t a t e w i d e a d v i s o r y board f o r p u b l i c h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n
w ith c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y f o r p la n n in g and c o o r d i n a t i o n , and
l i m i t a t i o n o f t h e S t a t e Board o f Education t o r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and
a u t h o r i t y f o r primary and se condary e d u c a t i o n .

The commission f e l t

t h a t t h e r e was a need f o r g r e a t e r c l a r i t y i n t h e s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n
because o f t h e a m biguity r e g a r d i n g t h e r o l e o f p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and
u n i v e r s it i e s v i s - a - v i s the c o n s t i t u t i o n 's provisions fo r the S ta te
Board o f Education and i t s d u t i e s .
Because t h e commission a n t i c i p a t e d r a p i d and c o n s i d e r a b l e
change in p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n in t h e 8 0 ' s , i t was e m p h a t i c a l l y
p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e p r e s e n t approach f o r p l a n n i n g and c o o r d i n a t i o n
would n o t meet t h e needs o f t h e f u t u r e .

The members f e l t t h a t t h e

p la n n in g and c o o r d i n a t i o n o f s t a t e w i d e e d u c a t i o n were s e p a r a b l e from
i n s t i t u t i o n a l gov ernance.

They f u r t h e r recommended t h a t t h e

170
ind ep e n d en t p o s t - s e c o n d a r y i n s t i t u t i o n s be r e s p o n s i b l e t o t h e new
S t a t e Board f o r Higher E d u ca tio n .

In a d d i t i o n , th ey recommended

t h a t p u b l i c and p r i v a t e c o l l e g e s should remain in dependent and
t h e r e should no t be a s i n g l e s t a t e w i d e r e g u l a t o r y board o f c o n t r o l
f o r p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n in Michigan.
S e l e c t i o n o f board members f o r t h e t h r e e major u n i v e r s i t i e s
t h a t now have e l e c t e d b o a r d s , t h e y f e l t , should be by appointment
by t h e Governor, w i t h a d v i c e and c o n s e n t o f t h e S e n a te .

They a l s o

recommended t h a t f a c u l t y n o t s e r v e on t h e i r own b o a rd s , b u t s t u ­
d e n ts be g iven t h a t o p p o r t u n i t y .
The members developed a d e f i n i t i o n f o r p o st - s e c o n d a r y
e d u c a t i o n , f u r t h e r p o i n t i n g o u t t h a t t h e g o a ls o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y
e d u c a ti o n need t o be c l e a r l y d e l i n e a t e d .

They were concerned about

t h e f u t u r e r e g a r d i n g e n r o l l m e n t f l u c t u a t i o n s and p r e p a r a t i o n of
s t u d e n t s by i n s t i t u t i o n s f o r t h e j o b m arket.
I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o a n a l y z e how well t h e recommendations o f
t h i s commission—t h a t was a p p o in t e d and, t o some e x t e n t , r e p r e s e n t s
a c r o s s - s e c t i o n o f t h o s e i n t e r e s t e d in p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a ti o n in
Michigan— compare w i t h i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s and t h e v o t e r s
o f Michigan.
When i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s were asked whether a new
s t a t e board should be a d v i s o r y , v o l u n t a r y , o r r e g u l a t o r y , th e
r e s u l t s showed t h a t t h e p r e s i d e n t s f a v o r e d t h e a d v i s o r y approach
fo llo w ed by t h e f a c u l t y , board members, and board chairmen.

G reatest

o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e r e g u l a t o r y approach was e x p r e s s e d by t h e p r e s i d e n t s .
There was some i n d i c a t i o n t h a t f a c u l t y would be more s u p p o r t i v e o f

171

t h i s approach than t h e o t h e r t h r e e resp o nd ing g r o u p s.

When t h e

d a t a were an aly ze d by ty pe o f i n s t i t u t i o n , t h e a d v i s o r y approach
found i t s g r e a t e s t s u p p o r t i n p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s follo w ed by p u b l i c
community and f o u r - y e a r c o l l e g e s .

I f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n ' s f a c u l t y was

u n i o n i z e d , i t ten de d t o be more i n f a v o r o f t h e a d v i s o r y approach.
To s e l e c t r e s p o n d e n t s t h a t would be most s u p p o r t i v e o f t h e a d v i s o r y
a p p ro a c h , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s w ith more than t e n y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e
would be t h e p l a c e t o t u r n .

F a c u l t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s w ith fewer than

ten years of experience in d ic a te d le s s support.
An a n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a t o de te r m in e where t h e g r e a t e s t sup­
p o rt l i e s f o r lim itin g the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the p resent S ta te
Board o f Education t o primary and se co n da ry e d u c a t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h e
l e a d e r s h i p o f t h e f a c u l t y a r e t h e s t r o n g e s t s u p p o r t e r s , 70% a g r e e ­
i n g , and t h e p r e s i d e n t s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s t h e l e a s t s u p p o r t i v e , 62%
agreeing.

By ty p e o f i n s t i t u t i o n , s u p p o r t would come from t h e

p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s , w h ile p r i v a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s would a p p ea r t o be
l e s s concerned about t h e p r e s e n t r o l e o f t h e S t a t e Board o f Educa­
t i o n and l e s s s u p p o r t i v e o f t h e recommended change.
Board members and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s w i t h more th an t e n y e a r s o f
e x p e r i e n c e fa v o r e d l i m i t i n g t h e p r e s e n t S t a t e Board o f E d u ca tio n .
These would be t h e i n d i v i d u a l s t o t u r n t o f o r s u p p o r t , i f t h i s
p o s i t i o n were t o be emphasized as recommended by t h e G o v e r n o r 's Com­
m ission.
The q u e s t i o n o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l am b ig u ity was n o t c l e a r l y
u n d e rs to o d by many, t h e f i n d i n g s showed.

Board chairmen and p r e s i ­

d e n t s , however, c ou ld be r e l i e d on f o r e x p l a n a t i o n , s u p p o r t , and

172

understanding.

P r i v a t e c o l l e g e s , a g a i n , would be a concern i f sup­

p o r t was sought f o r changing t h e r o l e o f t h e p r e s e n t S t a t e Board of
E d uca tio n.
In d i s c u s s i n g how well t h e p r e s e n t g ov ern ing approach w i l l
meet f u t u r e n e ed s, t h e f a c u l t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s and p r e s i d e n t s were
t h e most p o s i t i v e t h a t i t would not be s a t i s f a c t o r y .

Community c o l ­

l e g e s and p u b l i c u n i v e r s i t i e s i n d i c a t e d more c o n c e r n , w i t h p r i v a t e
i n s t i t u t i o n s expressing le s s i n t e r e s t .

The more e x p e r i e n c e d f a c u l t y

and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s s u p p o r t e d t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t M i c h ig a n 's approach
t o c o o r d i n a t i o n and p la n n in g i s n o t s a t i s f a c t o r y .
The i s s u e o f p l an nin g and c o o r d i a t i o n as being s e p a r a b l e
from governance i s e x tr e m e l y complex.

From t h e d a t a , i t a p p ea rs

t h a t t h i s q u e s t i o n w i l l have to be c a r e f u l l y reviewed and s p e c i f i c s
d e t a i l e d p r i o r to any s u g g e s t i o n about t h e o p e r a t i o n o f a new s t a t e
board.

This i s a p i v o t a l q u e s t i o n .

U n til t h e d e t a i l s a r e s p e l l e d

o u t i t c ould be a p o i n t o f o p p o s i t i o n .

There i s l i t t l e o p p o s i t i o n

t o t h e p r i v a t e c o l l e g e s being in vo lv e d w i t h t h e new s t a t e b o a rd .
S t r o n g e s t s u p p o r t comes from t h e f a c u l t y , 78%, and p r e s i d e n t s , 73%.
The f o u r - y e a r p u b l i c c o l l e g e s did n o t s u p p o r t t h i s p o s i t i o n , which
may be i n t e r p r e t e d as p e r c e i v i n g t h e p r i v a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s in a
com petitive ro le .
The i s s u e o f c o n ti n u e d independence o f bo ard s o f c o n t r o l f o r
t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n and t h e a d v i s a b i l i t y o f a s i n g l e
s t a t e w i d e board f i n d s most o f t h e groups a g r e e i n g t h a t in d ep e n d en t
board s should c o n t i n u e and t h a t t h e r e not be a s i n g l e s t a t e w i d e
board o f c o n t r o l .

However, t h e r e were i n d i c a t i o n s from q u e s t i o n n a i r e

173

comments t h a t f a c u l t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s would no t s u p p o r t t h i s p o s i ­
t i o n t o t h e same d e g re e as t h e o t h e r groups because i t a p pea rs t h a t
t h i s approach could have some c o n f l i c t i n g i n t e r f a c e w i t h t h e i r
s t a t e w i d e and n a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s .
When viewing t h e q u e s t i o n o f a s i n g l e s t a t e w i d e board t o
d i s c o n t i n u a n c e o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l b o a r d s , v o t e r s di d not s u p p o r t t h e
e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f t h i s ty pe o f b o a rd , 67%.

M inority v o t e r s were more

in s u p p o r t o f a c e n t r a l i z e d approach than w h ite v o t e r s .

Voters in

t h e Upper P e n i n s u l a and t h e c e n t r a l p a r t o f t h e s t a t e did n o t su p ­
p o r t t h i s ty pe o f s i n g l e s t a t e w i d e board.

Survey r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d

t h a t t h e s o u t h e a s t and w e ste r n p a r t s o f t h e s t a t e might be sup­
p o r t i v e o f a s i n g l e s t a t e w i d e board a lo ng with e l i m i n a t i o n o f l o c a l
board s o f c o n t r o l .

The r u r a l and small c i t y a r e a s o f t h e s t a t e

were t h e most opposed t o a s i n g l e s t a t e w i d e b oa rd, follo w ed by
suburban a r e a s and farm s.

C e n tr a l c i t i e s , on t h e o t h e r hand,

appeare d t o be moving toward a c c e p t a n c e o f a c e n t r a l i z e d approach.
I f a v o te were t o t a k e p l a c e on a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e v i s i o n c a l l i n g
f o r a new S t a t e Board f o r Higher E d u ca tio n , i t would be i m p o r t a n t t o
note t h e a r e a s o f s u p p o r t and p o s s i b l e o p p o s i t i o n .
I f t h e recommendations o f t h e commission's r e p o r t r e g a r d i n g
t h e s e l e c t i o n o f board s o f t r u s t e e s were t o be a c c e p t e d , i n s t i t u ­
t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s would no t s u p p o r t a p a r t i s a n approach.

All

i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s were s l i g h t l y below t h e m a j o r i t y in
f a v o r i n g appoin tm ent by t h e Governor on t h i s i s s u e , f a c u l t y and
a d m in istra tio n s tr o n g e s t in t h e i r support of a no n -p artisan

174

e l e c t i o n , 62%.

Those who would d e s i r e t o implement t h e commission's

recommendations on appoin tm ent by t h e Governor f o r board s e l e c t i o n
would f i n d s u p p o r t c e n t e r e d i n s t i t u t i o n a l l y in t h e p u b l i c f o u r - y e a r
c o l l e g e s and t h o s e u n i v e r s i t i e s t h a t now have boards a p p o in te d by
t h e Governor.

O p p o s it i o n t o t h i s ty p e o f s e l e c t i o n would be from

t h e s t a t e ' s t h r e e major u n i v e r s i t i e s .

P r i v a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s and

p u b l i c community c o l l e g e s would be l e s s s u p p o r t i v e , in g e n e r a l , o f
appointm ent by t h e Governor.
In t h e s t u d y , v o t e r s p r e f e r r e d t h e n o n - p a r t i s a n approach
f o r s e l e c t i o n , with m i n o r i t i e s moving more in t h e d i r e c t i o n o f a
partisan election.

All v o t e r s showed l i t t l e s u p p o r t f o r appointm ent

by t h e Governor w ith a d v i c e and c o n se n t o f t h e S e n a te .

All s e c t i o n s

of t h e s t a t e tended t o s u p p o r t n o n - p a r t i s a n e l e c t i o n s , as c o n t r a s t e d
with s u p p o r t f o r p a r t i s a n e l e c t i o n s o r appointment by t h e Governor.
A review o f t h e d a t a by r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s shows r e s i d e n t s who l i v e
on farms were most s u p p o r t i v e o f appointm ent by t h e Governor, w ith
some i n d i c a t i o n o f s u p p o r t f o r t h i s approach in t h e r u r a l and sub­
urban a r e a s .

G r e a t e s t s u p p o r t among t h e r u r a l , small c i t y , and

suburban a r e a s was f o r t h e n o n - p a r t i s a n e l e c t i o n .
The commission 's recommendation t h a t f a c u l t y and s t u d e n t s
p a r t i c i p a t e on t h e i r own boards was r e j e c t e d by i n s t i t u t i o n a l
representatives.

However, f a c u l t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s ' o p i n io n s were

g e n e r a l l y s u p p o r t i v e o f f a c u l t y being allowed t o s e r v e on t h e i r own
b o a rd s .

There was an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h i s approach would r e c e i v e

l e s s o p p o s i t i o n from p r i v a t e c o l l e g e s .

Board members, f a c u l t y , and

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s w i t h g r e a t e r e x p e r i e n c e s u p p o r te d t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t

175

t h i s would be a c o n f l i c t i n g r o l e f o r f a c u l t y .

Concerning s t u d e n t s ,

i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s were opposed t o t h e recommendation o f
t h e commission.

F a c u l t y and some board members were n o t as opposed

to t h i s approach and a l s o i t may be more a c c e p t a b l e t o p r i v a t e
in stitu tio n s.

Those w ith g r e a t e r e x p e r i e n c e were more s u p p o r t i v e

o f e x c l u d in g s t u d e n t s from p a r t i c i p a t i n g on t h e i r own i n s t i t u t i o n a l
boards.
Primary a r e a s o f concern on t h e p a r t o f t h e commission were
how well Michigan i n s t i t u t i o n s a r e p r e p a r i n g s t u d e n t s f o r t h e jo b
m ark e t, and what i s ahead in r e l a t i o n s h i p t o e n r o l l m e n t p a t t e r n s .
V o t e r s , when compared t o i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , f e l t t h e
i n s t i t u t i o n s were doing a good j o b o f p r e p a r i n g s t u d e n t s f o r t h e
job m ark et.

M i n o r i t i e s f e l t more s t r o n g l y than w h i t e about t h i s ,

and r e s i d e n t s o f t h e Upper P e n i n s u l a were more i n c l i n e d t o respond
p o s i t i v e l y than t h o s e in o t h e r g e o g ra p h i c a l a r e a s fo t h e s t a t e .
There were i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t in sub u rb s and r u r a l a r e a s o f t h e s t a t e
people were u n c e r t a i n as t o how well t h i s j o b was b e ing done.
I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s were most s u p p o r t i v e , i f t h e y were
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and l e a s t s u p p o r t i v e , i f t h e y were f a c u l t y .

Fac­

u l t y and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s w ith more e x p e r i e n c e tende d t o f e e l more
s t r o n g l y t h a t t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s were doing an e f f e c t i v e j o b in p r e ­
p a r i n g s t u d e n t s f o r t h e j o b m arket.
The v o t e r s f e l t t h a t e n r o l l m e n t would i n c r e a s e i n t h e f u t u r e .
However, m i n o r i t y v o t e r s were more p o s i t i v e , 52%,
w h i t e s , 36%.

about t h i s than

Voters in t h e s o u t h e a s t and w e ste r n p a r t s o f t h e

s t a t e were more p o s i t i v e and t h o s e i n t h e Upper P e n i n s u l a were l e s s

176

p o s i t i v e about e n r o l l m e n t i n c r e a s e s .

Those who l i v e in t h e c e n t r a l

c i t i e s and on farms were t h e most p o s i t i v e about e n r o l l m e n t
increases.

Rural and small c i t y a r e a s were most p o s i t i v e t h e r e

would be a d e c r e a s e , and t h e suburban a r e a s were mixed in t h e i r
reactions.
Recommendations
On t h e b a s i s o f t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h i s s t u d y , t h e f o l lo w in g
recommendations a r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e w r i t e r :
1.

The S t a t e Board o f E ducation should a c c e p t a l i m i t e d

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t h a t does not i n c l u d e p l an nin g and c o o r d i n a t i o n f o r
post-secondary education.
2.

The a d v i s o r y approach t o c o o r d i n a t i o n and p la n n i n g f o r

Michigan a p p a r e n t l y i s a c c e p t a b l e t o r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f p u b l i c and
p r iv a te post-secondary educational i n s t i t u t i o n s .

This approach

should be f o s t e r e d and developed.
3.

A r e g u l a t o r y approach t o p l an n in g and c o o r d i n a t i o n shou ld

n o t be advoca ted by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e o r t h e G o v e r n o r 's o f f i c e , beca use
i t does not app ea r t o have s i g n i f i c a n t s u p p o r t o f key r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s
o f post-secondary educational i n s t i t u t i o n s , or the voters of
Michigan.
4.

I t a p p e a rs t h a t t h r o u g h o u t t h e United S t a t e s c e n t r a l i z a ­

t i o n in p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n may have reached i t s high p o i n t in
r e l a t i o n to statew ide planning.

In view o f t h e a p p a r e n t d i f f i c u l t y

e x p e r i e n c e d by some s t a t e s w ith h i g h l y c e n t r a l i z e d systems o f h i g h e r
e d u c a t i o n , i t may be wise f o r Michigan t o develop a system t h a t

177

enhances our t r a d i t i o n s o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l autonomy, but a llo w s f o r
c o o r d i n a t i o n and p la n n in g under an a d v i s o r y r o l e .

This was

b a s i c a l l y t h e recommendation o f t h e G o v e r n o r 's Commission on Higher
E du ca tio n.
5.

The w r i t e r concurs w ith t h i s recommendation.
I t i s a p p a r e n t t h a t p r i v a t e and p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s

d i f f e r in t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e r o l e s o f t h e p r e s e n t S t a t e Board
o f Education and a proposed new S t a t e Board o f Higher E du ca tio n .
T h e r e f o r e , i t i s recommended t h a t i t would be b e n e f i c i a l t o a s c e r ­
t a i n in g r e a t e r d e t a i l t h e d epth o f f e e l i n g o f both groups c o n ce rn ­
ing t h e most a c c e p t a b l e approach.
6.

I t may be i m p o r t a n t t h a t t h o s e s e l e c t i n g p e o p le who

w i l l a t t e m p t t o implement a s e p a r a t e S t a t e Board o f Higher Education
and an a d v i s o r y approach be c o g n iz a n t o f t h e f a c t t h a t t h o s e with
more y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n a r e g e n e r a l l y more
s u p p o r t i v e o f t h i s a p p ro a ch , because e x p e r i e n c e a p p a r e n t l y makes a
d i f f e r e n c e in t h e e x t e n t t o which o p i n i o n s a r e h e ld .
7.

Although f a c u l t y members c o n t a c t e d were key o f f i c i a l s ,

t h e r e were i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t t h e l e a d e r s h i p o f f a c u l t y groups hold
d i f f e r e n t o p i n i o n s r e g a r d i n g c e n t r a l i z a t i o n vs. d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n and
governance th a n o t h e r segments o f l e a d e r s h i p i n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n .
I t i s im p o r t a n t t h a t t h e o p i n io n s o f t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s , a s well as
f a c u l t y a s s o c i a t i o n s and u n i o n s , be taken i n t o acc o un t p r i o r t o a
s u g g e ste d change in governance f o r Michigan.
8.

The c o u r t s and i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , as well as

t h e G o v e r n o r 's Commission on Higher E d u c a ti o n , concur t h a t t h e s t a t e
c o n s t i t u t i o n i s ambiguous r e g a r d i n g p l an nin g and c o o r d i n a t i o n o f

178
Michigan h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n .

I t i s recommended t h a t t h e Governor and

t h e l e g i s l a t u r e d evelop l e g i s l a t i o n t o c l a r i f y t h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
i s s u e by b r i n g i n g i t b e f o r e t h e v o t e r s f o r t h e i r d e c i s i o n ; and
f u r t h e r , t h a t l e g i s l a t i o n be planned t o help implement t h i s change,
assuming i t s e nactm ent.
9.

I t i s recommended t h a t t h e Governor e s t a b l i s h a blue

rib b o n committee o f l i m i t e d s i z e , t h a t th ey work w i t h i n a t i g h t time
framework, and t h a t th ey develop s t r a t e g y t h a t would l a y b e f o r e t h e
p o s t - s e c o n d a r y community a d e t a i l e d approach on t h e r o l e o f a new
S t a t e Board o f Higher Education and how i t s conce rn s f o r c o o r d i n a ­
t i o n and p la n n in g would be s e p a r a b l e from i n s t i t u t i o n a l governance.
10.

There i s a r e c o g n i z a b l e h e s i t a n c e e x p re s s e d by t h e

p r i v a t e c o l l e g e s c o n ce rn in g a new S t a t e Board o f Higher E ducation.
I t i s recommended t h a t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f p r i v a t e c o l l e g e s be con­
t a c t e d f o r t h e i r o p i n i o n s r e g a r d i n g p o s s i b l e a r e a s o f concern
r e g a r d i n g a new s t a t e board and i t s i n t e r a c t i o n w ith t h e i r group.
11.

I t a l s o a p p e a rs t h a t t h e r e may be o p p o s i t i o n by t h e

t h r e e major u n i v e r s i t e s , which s e l e c t t h e i r board members by p a r t i ­
san e l e c t i o n , t o change t h e i r s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s .

There a r e a l t e r n a ­

t i v e s t o appoin tm ent by t h e Governor with t h e a d v ic e and c o n se n t o f
t h e Sena te o r a h i g h l y p a r t i s a n e l e c t i o n , i . e . , a s e l e c t i o n panel
could recommend q u a l i f i e d p eople t o both p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s .

These

i n d i v i d u a l s would be presumed t o be o f high c a l i b e r , w ith demon­
s t r a t e d i n t e r e s t in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , and n o t o v e r l y p a r t i s a n .

In

t h i s way, whoever wins t h e e l e c t i o n , t h e i n s t i t u t i o n i s well s e r v e d .
Because t h i s i s s u e d i v i d e s p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n and a p p a r e n t l y i s

179

o f high concern p o l i t i c a l l y , i t i s recommended t h a t an e f f o r t be
made t o f i n d a compromise w ith t h e G o v e r n o r 's commission's recom­
mendation t h a t s e l e c t i o n o f a l l h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n boards be by
appoin tm ent o f t h e Governor w i t h a d v ic e and c o n s e n t o f t h e S e n a te .
12.

I t i s im p o r t a n t t h a t t h e o p i n i o n s o f t h e l e g i s l a t o r s

and t h e i r s t a f f s , t h e Governor and h i s s t a f f , and o t h e r s w i t h i n
s t a t e government be a n a l y z e d .

There c ould be s t r o n g o p p o s i t i o n on

t h e i r p a r t because o f f e a r s t h a t a new s t a t e board would d im in ish
t h e i r power.

The need f o r t h e i r involvement and i n p u t should be

r e c o g n i z e d f o r t h e i r s o p h i s t i c a t i o n and im pact.

Their support

should be r e c o g n i z e d and s o l i c i t e d .
13.

I t i s recommended t h a t t h e a r e a o f "shadow governance"

be s t u d i e d and r e c o g n i z e d .

Sophisticated s t a f f a t a ll le v e ls --

a g e n c i e s , p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s , u n i o n s , and o t h e r g r o u p s,
through r e s e a r c h and a n a l y s i s , as we ll a s formal and informal
power, a r e d i r e c t l y i n f l u e n c i n g t h e f i n a l d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g groups in
g ov e rn a n ce , p o s s i b l y w i t h o u t a p p r o p r i a t e checks and b a l a n c e s .

This

a r e a f u n c t i o n s , to some d e g r e e , below an o b s e r v a b l e d i r e c t a c c o u n t ­
a b ility level.

I t may help t o b r i n g a bo u t change w i t h o u t having t o

j u s t i f y p o s i t i o n s i n the open marke t plac e o f i d e a s , as do e l e c t e d
and a p p o i n t e d o f f i c i a l s and t h e e d u c a t i o n a l community.

This a re a

sho uld be c a r e f u l l y s t u d i e d and worked w i t h , i f l e g i s l a t i o n r e g a r d ­
ing a new S t a t e Board o f Higher E ducation i s t o be implemented.
T h e i r i n f l u e n c e and s u p p o r t a r e i m p o r t a n t .
14.

I t i s n e c e s s a r y t h a t t h e p r e s e n t s t a t e system o f p o s t ­

se con d a ry e d u c a t i o n be e x p l a i n e d more d i r e c t l y t o t h e p u b l i c .

I t a p p e a r s t h a t because we do no t have a h i g h l y f o r m a l iz e d
s t r u c t u r e f o r s t a t e c o o r d i n a t i o n , t h e assumption i s made t h a t we have
none.

C o nse qu e ntly, our system and i t s s t r o n g and weak p o i n t s a r e

n o t c l e a r l y u nd e rs to o d or e v a l u a t e d .

As a r e s u l t , t h e p r o c e s s i s

e v a l u a t e d , r a t h e r t h a n the r e s u l t s .
15.

The w r i t e r , in stu d y i n g t h e p r e s e n t p o s t - s e c o n d a r y

system o f Michigan, was impressed w i t h the f a c t t h a t t h e r e i s l i t t l e
l o n g i t u d i n a l d a t a r e g a r d i n g p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a ti o n a v a i l a b l e in a
s y n t h e s i z e d form w i t h i n t h e s t a t e .

Conse quently, i t a p p e a rs t h a t

many d e c i s i o n s a r e made on a y e a r - t o - y e a r b a s i s .

The recommendation

by t h e G o v e r n o r 's Commission was t h a t t h e g a t h e r i n g , a n a l y s i s , and
d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n should be an i m p o r t a n t f u n c t i o n o f a
new S t a t e Board o f Higher E du ca tion .

The w r i t e r concu rs w i t h t h i s

recommendation.
16.

I t i s f u r t h e r recommended t h a t l e g i s l a t i o n be d r a f t e d

t h a t p r e c l u d e s f a c u l t y , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , s t u d e n t s , and s t a f f from
s e r v i n g on boards o f c o n t r o l o f t h e i r own i n s t i t u t i o n s , t h u s d i r e c t l y
addressing the c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t issue.
17.

I t i s recommended t h a t community c o l l e g e s now p a r t o f

K-12 d i s t r i c t s be r e q u e s t e d thro ugh l e g i s l a t i o n t o r e o r g a n i z e t h e i r
d i s t r i c t s and t o f u n c t i o n under a s e p a r a t e board o f c o n t r o l .

The

i s s u e o f d i v i d i n g a l l p a r t s o f t h e s t a t e i n t o community c o l l e g e d i s ­
t r i c t s has a r i s e n from time t o t im e .

At p r e s e n t , o v e r 75% o f t h e

p o p u l a t i o n i s s e r v e d w i t h i n community c o l l e g e d i s t r i c t s .

I t a p p e a rs

t h a t t h e time i s ap pro a ch in g when t h i s i s s u e o f d i s t r i c t i n g sh ou ld
once more be f a c e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e and t h e e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e .

A

181
p o s i t i o n should be ta k e n on a l o n g - r a n g e b a s i s t h a t w i l l e v e n t u a l l y
l e a d t o t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f community c o l l e g e d i s t r i c t s s e r v i n g a l l
of the c it i z e n s of the s t a t e .
18.

I t i s recommended, and t h e r e a p pea rs to be l i t t l e

o p p o s i t i o n w i t h i n t h e p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a ti o n f i e l d , t h a t , i f a new
s t a t e board i s e s t a b l i s h e d , i t s members should be a p p o in te d by t h e
Governor w i t h t h e a d v ic e and co n sen t o f t h e S e n a te ; t h a t i t s member­
s h i p should be l i m i t e d t o between seven and f i f t e e n ; and t h a t i t s
c h i e f e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e r should be a p p o in t e d by t h a t board.

Further,

t h e b o a rd , i f e s t a b l i s h e d , should have i t s f u n c t i o n s reviewed
p eriodically.
19.

One o f t h e c r i t i c a l

i s s u e s f a c i n g Michigan as well as

many o t h e r p a r t s o f t h e world i s t h e s e p a r a t i o n between e d u c a ti o n
and t h e world o f work.

Michigan has a number o f d e l i v e r y systems

f o r c a r e e r t r a i n i n g , when viewed from a broad p o s t - s e c o n d a r y
perspective.

Some o f t h e s e systems a r e in i n d u s t r y , b u s i n e s s ,

u n i o n s , and t h e m i l i t a r y , w h i l e o t h e r s a r e in p r i v a t e and p u b l i c
educational i n s t i t u t i o n s .

The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i ­

t u t i o n s f o r l e v e l s o f competency in c a r e e r e d u c a t i o n i s and w i l l
c o n t i n u e to be a key i s s u e .

I t i s recommended t h a t t h i s i s s u e o f

t h e blend o f l i b e r a l a r t s and v o c a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n , and what i t s
r o l e should be in p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n , should be high on t h e
agenda o f a new S t a t e Board o f Higher E d uca tio n.
20.

A new S t a t e Board o f Higher Education o r t h e e x e c u t i v e

o f f i c e should s tu d y c a r e f u l l y and r e p o r t p u b l i c l y where t h e a n t i c i ­
p a te d j o b o p p o r t u n i t i e s w i l l be in t h e near f u t u r e f o r Michigan.

182

F u r t h e r , t h e s tu d y sh ou ld d ete rm in e t o what e x t e n t t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s
o f our s t a t e a r e in s t e p o r o u t o f s t e p with t h e e x p re ss ed needs o f
p eople s e e k in g c a r e e r o p p o r t u n i t i e s .
21.

I t i s i m p e r a t i v e t h a t a new S t a t e Board o f Higher

Education develop an agenda t o deal w ith c o s t s , c o m p e ti t io n f o r
s t u d e n t s , q u a l i t y , r e s o u r c e s , and d i v e r s i t y o f programs, f o r t h e s e
a r e i s s u e s high on t h e agenda o f t h e e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s
throughout the s t a t e .
22.

Those s t u d y i n g t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r a new S t a t e

Board o f Higher Education should be s e n s i t i v e to t h e f a c t t h a t i f
t h i s new board l i m i t s i t s e l f to c o l l e c t i o n o f e s s e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n ,
p lan n in g and a s s e s s i n g , a d v i s i n g t h e Governor and t h e l e g i s l a t u r e ,
and de velo pin g c o o p e r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between i n s t i t u t i o n s , i t
w i l l r e c e i v e s u p p o r t from t h e p o s t - s e c o n d a r y community.

However,

i t s s t y l e and t h e d e g re e t h a t i t s a u t h o r i t y i s s u b s c r i b e d by law
w i l l be t h e p o s s i b l e t u r n i n g p o i n t f o r i t s s u c c e s s .
23.

In t h e p l ann ing f o r a new s t a t e bo ard , i t i s recommended

t h a t community c o l l e g e s be an i n t e g r a t e d p a r t o f t h e new b o a r d ' s
responsibility.
24.

I t i s recommended t h a t community c o l l e g e s ' r o l e in

r e l a t i o n t o b a c c a l a u r e a t e d egre e g r a n t i n g be l i m i t e d .
Speculative R eflections
I f t h e f o r e g o i n g recommendations a r e p u t i n t o a meaningful
p e r s p e c t i v e , i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o develop some s p e c u l a t i v e r e f l e c t i o n s
w i t h t h e 8 0 ' s in mind.

The r e p o r t o f t h e G o v e r n o r 's Commission was

183

completed in 1974, and i t s c o n c l u s i o n s were drawn on t h e views o f
p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n in Michigan and t h e United S t a t e s from t h a t
vanta ge p o i n t .

The f u n c t i o n s and p r o c e s s e s o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y

e d u c a ti o n must be viewed d i f f e r e n t l y tod ay and i n t h e f u t u r e , s i n c e
we a r e on t h e t h r e s h o l d o f t h e g r e a t e s t change i n p o s t - s e c o n d a r y
e d u c a t i o n t h a t t h i s s t a t e o r c o u n tr y have known.
As t h e Governor c a l l e d t o t h e a t t e n t i o n o f t h e commission,
t h e p a s t y e a r s may be viewed as some o f t h e "golden y e a r s " in h i g h e r
education.

The f u t u r e w i l l be d i f f e r e n t , and h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n may

not be t h e number one p r i o r i t y .

For t h e f u t u r e , mentioned in t h e

7 0 ' s , i s h e re t o day.
The pace o f change in t h e a r e a o f l e a r n i n g w i l l a c c e l e r a t e
geom etrically.

P o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n as well as t h e c i t i z e n now

have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r d e l i v e r y o f much l e a r n i n g thro ugh new com­
m u n ic atio n modes.

A g r e a t deal o f t h e l e a r n i n g t h a t has been cen­

t e r e d in t h e cla ssro om w i l l move t o t h e home, i n d u s t r y , b u s i n e s s ,
and o t h e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and i n s t i t u t i o n a l s e t t i n g s .
w i l l no l o n g e r be d e f i n e d by b r i c k s , m o r t a r , and i v y .

The campus
T his r e v o l u ­

t i o n w i l l impact t h e d ecisio n -m a k in g s t r u c t u r e , academic s t a f f s , and
campuses.

E v a l u a t i o n o f competency, r a t h e r t h a n d e g r e e s , w i l l be

d ete rm in ed through c r i t e r i a t h a t p o s s i b l y w i l l be e x t e r n a l t o formal
post-secondary education.
In t h e p a s t , h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n has been t h e funnel which
c i t i z e n s went through t o a c h i e v e t h e i r c r e d e n t i a l s f o r p r e p a r a t i o n
f o r many o c c u p a t i o n s .

With t h e d e l i v e r y systems r a p i d l y e v o lv i n g

t h a t makes l e a r n i n g a v a i l a b l e t o a l l segments o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n ,

184

many groups e x t e r n a l t o h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n w i l l i n v o lv e th em se lv es in
s e t t i n g up new c r i t e r i a f o r c a r e e r p r e p a r a t i o n .

This w i l l r a d i c a l l y

change many segments o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n .
The p r e s e n t s t r u c t u r e o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n and i t s
s t a f f i n g p a t t e r n s f i t t h e p a s t , not t h e f u t u r e .

These s t r u c t u r e s

a r e f o r m a l i z e d in Michigan w i t h r i g o r o u s c o n t r a c t s t h a t have been
n e g o t i a t e d o v e r a p e r i o d o f tim e .

At t h e very time t h a t Michigan

p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n needs to review i t s purposes and o b j e c t i v e s
and t a k e on new d i r e c t i o n s , i t s human, p h y s i c a l , and f i n a n c i a l
s t r u c t u r e i s more t i g h t l y c o n s t r a i n e d th an i t e v e r was i n t h e p a s t .
I f one views c o u n t r i e s o u t s i d e t h e United S t a t e s and
a n a l y z e s where i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h i g h e r l e a r n i n g have produced a
s u r p l u s o f peop le t r a i n e d i n t h e p r o f e s s i o n s , one i s q u i c k l y drawn
t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e very se eds o f r e v o l u t i o n a r y change a r e
sown when many o f t h e p e o p l e ' s o c c u p a ti o n a l a s p i r a t i o n s a r e u n f u l ­
f i l l e d and t h e i r c a r e e r g o a l s a r e f r u s t r a t e d and shunted i n t o an
e x p l o s i v e environm ent o f unemployment o r under-employment.
T h is i s s u e , i f not r e s o l v e d , could have a d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t
n o t o n ly on t h e l i v e s o f i n d i v i d u a l s and on t h e s t r u c t u r e o f i n s t i ­
t u t i o n s , b u t a l s o on s t a t e and n a t i o n a l governments.
At p r e s e n t Michigan p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n i s w i t h o u t s u f ­
f i c i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n about i t s p o s t - s e c o n d a r y system o f e d u c a t i o n .
The system has n o t t a k e n f u l l advantage o f modern tec h n o lo g y f o r
i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g and r e t r i e v a l .

Our s t a t e d e s p e r a t e l y needs a

management i n f o r m a t i o n system in p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n , based not
o n l y on g a t h e r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t would allo w f o r l o n g i t u d i n a l

185

s t u d i e s , b u t a l s o an a n t i c i p a t o r y mode o f d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g .

Change

w i l l be a c c e l e r a t e d and d e c i s i o n s w i l l be f o r c e d on a r a p i d tim e ­
frame b a s i s t h a t w i l l make t h e 6 0 ' s and 7 0 ' s app ea r as a c u r i o u s
past.

In th e p a s t new management t e c h n i q u e s have been i n i t i a t e d by

the executive o f f i c e or the l e g i s l a t i v e f i s c a l agencies.

These

approaches ap pea re d t h e o r e t i c a l l y sound but p r a c t i c a l l y t h e y were
d i f f i c u l t to a d m i n i s t e r b ecause o f t h e g r e a t d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e
i n s t i t u t i o n s of post-secondary education.
I f we a r e t o manage our f u t u r e , r a t h e r th an be c o n t r o l l e d
by i t ,

i t i s time t h a t many o f t h e s e i s s u e s be fac ed and t h a t t h e

management t e c h n i q u e s and t e c h n o lo g y a r e made a v a i l a b l e t o d e te rm ine
t h e pathways we wish t o t r a v e l .

However, i t i s i m p o r t a n t t h a t a

t o t a l involvement o f t h e s t a f f s o f p o s t - s e c o n d a r y i n s t i t u t i o n s
p a r t i c i p a t e i n a s t e p - b y - s t e p im ple m e n ta tio n o f an a c c u r a t e d a t a
base f o r p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n .
The p o s t - s e c o n d a r y i n s t i t u t i o n s o f Michigan have a g r e e d ,
through t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n s and a n a l y s i s o f t h e i r o p i n i o n s , t h a t
t h e y a r e w i l l i n g t o p a r t i c i p a t e in an a d v i s o r y approach f o r c o o r d i n a ­
t i o n and p la n n i n g and g a t h e r i n g o f d a t a .

I t i s j u s t as i m p o r t a n t

t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n t a g e n c i e s o f s t a t e government reach an agreement
on how t h e y w i l l c o o p e r a t e i n t h e development o f an approach and be
held a c c o u n t a b l e .

T his p r o c e s s w i l l e n s u r e t h a t r e s o u r c e s and

t r e n d s o f our p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n system w i l l meet t h e needs o f
o ur s t a t e in a most s e n s i t i v e and e f f i c i e n t manner.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

186

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books
American Academy o f A r t s and S c i e n c e s . A F i r s t Report: The
Assembly on U n i v e r s i t y Goals and Governance. Cambridge:
The American Academy o f A r t s and S c i e n c e s , 1971.
B e r d a h l , Robert 0. S t a te w i d e C o o r d i n a t i o n o f Higher E d u c a t i o n .
Washington, D.C.: American Council on E d u c a tio n , 1971.
C a l i f o r n i a . C o o r d i n a t i n g Council f o r Higher E d uca tio n . The
C a l i f o r n i a Mast er Plan f o r Higher E ducation in t h e
S e v e n t i e s and Beyond: Maste r Plan f o r Higher E d u c a t i o n .
Sacramento: C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e C o o r d i n a t i n g Council f o r
Higher E d u c a ti o n , November, 1972.
C a l i f o r n i a . J o i n t Committee. Report o f t h e J o i n t Committee on t h e
Master Plan f o r Higher E d u c a t i o n . Sacramento: S t a t e Capi­
t o l , September, 1973.
Ca rnegie Commission on Higher E d uca tion . The C a p ito l and t h e
Campus: S t a t e R e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r Post-S ec on d a ry E d u c a t i o n .
Highstown, New J e r s e y : McGraw-Hill, 1971.
_________. P r i o r i t i e s f o r A c tio n : Final Report o f t h e Carnegie
Commission on Hiqher E du ca tion . New York: McGraw-Hill,
1973.
Carn eg ie Council on P o l i c y S t u d i e s in Higher E d uca tio n . The Federal
Role in P o s t s e c o n d a ry Education: U n f in ish e d Business 19751980. San F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s , I n c . , 1975.
C a rnegie S e r i e s in American E d u ca tio n. The Technical I n s t i t u t e i n
America. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.
Chambers, M. M. High er Education and S t a t e Government, 1970-1975.
D a n v i l l e , I l l i n o i s : The I n t e r s t a t e P r i n t e r s and P u b l i s h e r s ,
I n c . , 1974.
C i t i z e n s Committee on Higher E d ucation. Report o f C i t i z e n s Commit­
t e e on Hiqher Education in Michigan^ "R eports o f t h e Six
Study Committees" and "A C o n s o l i d a t e d and Summary S ta te m e n t
o f Find in g s and Recommendations." Smith, Harold T . ,
E xecutive D i r e c t o r , Kalamazoo, March, 1965.
187

188
C o n n e c t i c u t . Commission f o r Higher E d u ca tio n. Master Plan f o r
Higher E d ucation in C o n n e c tic u t 1974-1979: Q u a l i t y and
E q u a l i t y . H a r t f o r d : Commission f o r Higher E d u ca tio n ,
J a n u a r y , 1974.
Corson, John J . Governance o f C o lle g es and U n i v e r s i t i e s .
McGraw-Hill, 1960.

New York:

Drake, Sandra L. A Study o f Community and J u n i o r C olle ge Boards o f
T r u s t e e s . American A s s o c i a t i o n o f Community and J u n i o r
C o l l e g e s , 1977.
D r e s s e l , Paul L . , and F a r i c y , William H. " C oo rdin ating Boards and
S t a t e Sy stem s." Return t o R e s p o n s i b i l i t y : C o n s t r a i n t s in
Autonomy i n Hiqher E d u c a t i o n . San F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s ,
I n c . , 1972.
Florida.

Department o f E du ca tio n. D i v i s i o n o f Community C o l l e g e s .
Repor t f o r P u b l i c Community C o l l e g e s , 1972-73. T a l l a h a s s e :
S t a t e o f F l o r i d a , Department o f E d u ca tio n , n . d .

Gibb, R ichard D. A Master Plan f o r P u b l i c Hiqher Education in South
Dakota. Bismark: South Dakota Regents o f E d u ca tio n ,
December, 1970.
Goldbe.rg, David, and Anderson, A l b e r t . P r o j e c t i o n s o f P o p u l a t i o n and
C o l le g e E nrollm ent i n Michigan, 1970-2000. Ann Arbor:
U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan, P o p u l a ti o n S t u d i e s C e n t e r , J u l y ,
1974.
G r o s s , Edward, and Grambsch, Paul V. U n i v e r s i t y Goals and Academic
Power. Washington, D.C.: American Council on E d u c a ti o n ,
1968.
H a l l , George L. S t a t e Boards o f Community C o l le g e s : An A n a l y s i s of
Concepts and P r a c t i c e s . G a i n e s v i l l e : F l o r i d a , U n i v e r s i t y
I n s t i t u t e o f Higher E d u c a ti o n , March, 1974.
H a r c l e r o a d , Fred A. I n s t i t u t i o n a l E f f i c i e n c y i n S t a t e Systems o f
P u b l i c Higher E d u c a t i o n . Tucson, Arizona: Higher Education
Program, C o lle g e o f E d u c a ti o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f A r iz o n a , Nov­
ember, 1975.
_________ , e d . I s s u e s o f t h e S e v e n t i e s .
I n c . , 1970.

San F r a n c i s c o :

Jossey-Bass,

Henderson, Algo D., ed. Hiqher E ducation in Tomorrow's World.
Arbor: U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan, 1968.

Ann

189

_________. P o l i c i e s and P r a c t i c e s in Hiqher Education: A S ystem atic
E v a l u a t i o n o f To day's Forces and T r e n d s . New York: Harper
and Row, 1960.
I l l i n o i s . A Master Plan f o r Higher E ducation in I l l i n o i s , Phase I I —
Extending E d ucation al O p p o r t u n i t y . S p r i n g f i e l d : Board o f
Higher E d u c a ti o n , December, 1966.
I l l i n o i s . Department o f H e a l t h , E d u c a tio n , and Welfare. O f f i c e o f
E d u ca tion . S t a t e Plan f o r A dult E ducation: Adult Education
Act o f 1969, P u b l i c Law 9 1 -2 3 0 . S p r i n g f i e l d : O f f i c e o f t h e
S u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f P u b l i c I n s t r u c t i o n , 1973.
Indiana.

Commission f o r Higher E d uca tion . The Indiana Plan f o r
P o s t - s e c o n d a r y E du catio n : Phase I : Vol. I . The C u r r e n t
S t a t u s . I n d i a n a p o l i s : Commission f o r Higher Education o f
t h e S t a t e o f I n d i a n a , September 29, 1972.

Indiana.

S t a t e Board o f Vocational and Technical Education. Indiana
S t a t e Plan f o r Vocational E du cation : F i s c a l Year 1975.
I n d i a n a p o l i s : S t a t e Board o f Voc ational and Technical
E d u c a ti o n , 1974.

King, Maxwell C ., and B reuder, Robert L. P r e s i d e n t - T r u s t e e
R e l a t i o n s h i p s : Meeting t h e Challenge o f L e a d e r s h i p .
Washington, D.C.: American A s s o c i a t i o n o f Community and
J u n i o r C o l l e g e s , 1977.
Kish, L e s l i e .
1965.

Survey Samplinq.

New York:

John Wiley and Sons,

K la sse n , Frank H . , and S c h u l t z , Raymond E d ., e d s . Higher Education
and t h e World: P roc ee din gs o f t h e Nationa l For eign P o l i c y
Conference f o r Leaders i n Hiqher E d u c a t i o n . Washington,
D.C.: U nited S t a t e s Department o f S t a t e , May, 1972.
L e s l i e , David W. V a r i a b i l i t y i n F a c u l t y P e r c e p t i o n o f t h e Legitimacy
o f D e cision Making a t Nine Pen n sy lv a n ia I n s t i t u t i o n s . Univers i t y Park: C e n te r f o r t h e Study o f Higher E d uca tio n ,
P e n n sy lv a n ia S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , November, 1973.
Mason, Henry L. C o lle g e and U n i v e r s i t y Government: A Handbook o f
P r i n c i p l e and P r a c t i c e . New O r l e a n s : Tulane U n i v e r s i t y ,
1972 (T ulane S t u d i e s i n P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , Vol. XIV).
Mayhew, Lewis B. The Carnegie Commission on Higher E du catio n : A
C r i t i c a l A n a l y s i s o f t h e Reports and Recommendations. 5ah
F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s , I n c . , 1 s t e d . , 1973.

190

Michigan. Department o f E d u ca tio n . Planning and Management Systems
f o r P u b lic Higher E ducation i n t h e S t a t e o f Michigan.
Lansing: Michigan Department o f E d u ca tio n , 1973.
_________. S t a t e Plan f o r Higher E d ucation in Michigan: P r o v i s i o n a l .
Lansing: Michigan Department o f E d u ca tio n , 1968.
_________. The Common Goals o f Michigan E d u c a t i o n .
Michigan Department o f E d u c a tio n , 1971.

Lansing:

_________. The S t a t e Plan f o r Higher E ducation in M ichigan.
Lansing: Michigan Department o f E d u ca tio n , r e p r i n t e d 1973.
Michigan. G o v e rno r's Commission on Higher E d u ca tio n . B u ild in g f o r
t h e Fu ture o f P o s t s e c o n d a ry Education in Michigan: An
I n t e r i m R e p ort. Lansin g: O f f i c e o f t h e Governor, A p r i l ,
1974.
M i l l s , P e t e r K. A Study o f t h e Community C olle ge Board o f T r u s t e e s
and t h e P ro c e s s o f I n s t i t u t i o n a l Change. New Brunswick, New
J e r s e y : R u t g e r s , The S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , Graduate School o f
E ducation, 1971.
Minnesota. Higher E ducation C o o r d i n a t i n g Commission. Responding to
Change. S t . P au l: Minnesota Higher Education C o o r d in a tin g
Commission, 1973.
Montana.

Commission on P o s t - s e c o n d a r y E d ucation. D r a f t R e p o r t .
Helena: Commission on P o s t - s e c o n d a r y E du ca tio n, 1974.

New Hampshire. P o s t s e c o n d a ry E duca tion Commission. A Plan f o r
Po stsec o n d a ry E ducation i n New Hampshire. Lee, N.H.:
S a c k e t t and A s s o c i a t e s , August, 1973.
New J e r s e y . Board o f Higher E d u c a tio n . Goals f o r Higher Education
in New J e r s e y . Phase I . T r en to n : New J e r s e y Board o f
Higher E d u c a tio n , Ja nuary, 1970.
_________ . A Development Plan f o r Higher Educa tion in New J e r s e y .
Phase I I . T re n t o n : New J e r s e y Board o f Higher E d u c a tio n ,
1974.
New York. S t a t e Education Department. E ducation Beyond High School:
The Regents S t a te w i d e Plan f o r t h e Development o f P o s t seconda ry E d u c a ti o n , 1972^ Albany: The U n i v e r s i t y o f t h e
S t a t e o f New York, The S t a t e Education Department, November,
1972.
Oregon.

Board o f E d u c a tio n . Within Reach: S y s t e m a t i c S ta te w id e
Planning f o r Oregon Community C o l l e g e s . Salem: Oregon
Board o f E d u c a ti o n , 1973.

191

Orwig, M. D. , e d . F inancing Hiqher Education: A l t e r n a t i v e s f o r t h e
Fe dera l Government. Iowa C i t y , Iowa: The American College
T e s t i n g Program, 1971.
P e n n s y l v a n ia . Board o f E du ca tio n. The Master Plan f o r Hiqher
Education in P e n n s y l v a n i a . H a r r i s b u r g : Pen n sy lv a n ia S t a t e
Board o f E d u c a tio n , 2nd p r i n t i n g , December, 1971.
Romine, Stephen. Colorado L e g i s l a t o r s and C o l l e g i a t e T r u s t e e s
Respond t o S e l e c t e d I s s u e s in Higher E d u c a t i o n . Boulder:
Colorado U n i v e r s i t y High Education C e n t e r , December, 1972.
S c h r i e r , Fred T. Modern Marketing Research: A Behav ioral Approach
(Blemont: Wadsworth P u b l i s h i n g C o ., 1963), p. 198.
South C a r o l i n a . Commission on Higher E ducation. Goals f o r Hiqher
Education t o 1980: Vol. 1, D i s c u s s io n and Recommendations.
Columbia: South C a r o l i n a Commission on Higher E d u ca tio n ,
J a n u a r y , 1972.
_________. Goals f o r Higher Education t o 1980: Vol. I I , Reports
Submitted by Committees Appointed by t h e Commission.
Columbia: South C a r o l i n a Commission on Higher E d u ca tio n ,
J a n u a r y , 1972.
Texas C o lle g e and U n i v e r s i t y System. The C o o r d i n a t i n g Board. Texas
Higher E d u ca tio n 1968-1980: A Report t o t h e 64th Texas
L e g i s l a t u r e , J a n u a r y , 1975. A u s ti n : U n i v e r s i t y o f Texas,
1975.
_________. The Development o f Community J u n i o r C o l le g e s in T e x a s .
A u s ti n : U n i v e r s i t y o f T ex as, December, 1969.
United S t a t e s Department o f H e a l t h , E duca tion and W elfare . O f f i c e
o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y f o r P lannin g and E v a l u a t i o n .
Toward a Long-Range Plan f o r Federal F i n a n c i a l Support f o r
Higher Education: A Report t o t h e P r e s i d e n t . Washington,
D.C.: United S t a t e s Department o f H e a l t h , E ducation and
W elfare , 1969.
_________. O f f i c e o f E du ca tion . Repor t on Hiqher E d u c a t i o n .
Washington, D.C.: United S t a t e s Department o f H e a l t h ,
Education and W e lfare , 1971.
U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan. The U n i v e r s i t y and t h e Body P o l i t i c :
P roceedings from a Major Conference Commemorating t h e
S e s q u i c e n t e n n i a l o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan, J u l y 12-14,
1967.

192

V i r g i n i a S t a t e Council o f Higher E ducation. The V i r g i n i a Plan f o r
Higher E d u c a t i o n . Richmond: S t a t e Council o f Higher
E ducation f o r V i r g i n i a , J a n u a r y , 1974.
Washington. Council on Higher E ducation. Recommendations f o r t h e
Development o f P o s t - s e c o n d a r y Education in Washington:
Report o f t h e Council on Higher E d u c a t i o n 's Advisory Com­
m i t t e e on Educational GoalsT Olympia: Council on Higher
E d u c a tio n , S t a t e o f Washington, May, 1974.
Wilson, Logan, ed. "Form and Function in American Higher E d u c a ti o n ."
Emerging P a t t e r n s in American Higher E d u c a t i o n . Washington,
D.C.: American Council on E d u ca tio n , 1965.
Wisconsin. Board o f V o c a t i o n a l , Technical and A dult E du ca tio n.
S t a t e Plan f o r Vocational Education in Wisconsin 1976-80.
Madison: Wisconsin Board o f V o c a t i o n a l , Technical and
A dult E d u c a ti o n , 1975.
Witman, Shepherd L.
E ducation.

I n t e r - I n s t i t u t i o n a l Coo peratio n and I n t e r n a t i o n a l
New York: Education and World A f f a i r s , 1969.

Zwingle, J . L . , and M a y v i ll e , William V. C olle ge T r u s t e e s : A
Question o f L e g i t i m a c y . Washington, D.C.: Repo rt No. 10,
ERIC/Higher E duca tion C l e a r in g h o u s e , 1974.
Periodicals
Angel, Dan. " C r i t i c a l I s s u e s Facing Michigan Higher Education
1978." Lansin g , Mich.: Michigan House Republican Caucus,
1978.
B e r d a h l , R obert 0 . , ed. " E v alu atin g S ta te w i d e B oa rds." New
D i r e c t i o n s f o r I n s t i t u t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , No. 5 (S p rin g 1975).
Boyer, E r n e s t L. "An Actio n Plan f o r Steady S t a t e . " A.G.B.
R e p o rts XVII, No. 9 (November/December 1 9 7 5 ) : 3 - 8 .
Cosand, Josep h P. "The Community C olle ge in a New P e r i o d o f Change."
R e p r in t e d from A.G.B. Reports XVII, No. 9 (November/
December 1 9 7 5 ) :3 - 1 2 .
Gibson, Cyrus F . , and Nolan, Richard L. "Managing t h e Four Sta g es
o f EDP Growth." R e p r in te d from Harvard Business Review L I I ,
No. 1 ( J a n u a r y / F e b r u a r y 1974 ):7 6 -88 .
Glenny, Lyman. " P r e s s u r e s on Higher E d u c a ti o n . " R e p r in t e d from The
C o lle g e and U n i v e r s i t y J ou rna l XII, No. 4 (September 1973)

193
Kerr, C l a r k . "The T r u s t e e Faces Steady S t a t e . "
(May/June 1 9 7 5 ) :2 -1 5 .

A.G.B. Re po rts

" L e g i s l a t i v e Master P l a n n in g : The C a l i f o r n i a E x p e r ie n c e ." P lannin g
f o r Higher E ducation I I I , No. 1 : 1 / 5 (February 1974).
Michigan. " Im ple m en tatio n P r o g r e s s Report: A summary o f f i r s t y e a r
accomplishments and f u t u r e c h a l l e n g e s —March, 1978."
Lansin g: Michigan E f f i c i e n c y Task F orce, 1978.
M i l l e t t , John D. "Governance and L ead ership in Higher E d u c a ti o n ."
Management Forum I I I , No. 9 (December 1974).
M i l l i k e n , William G. "Michigan S t a t e o f t h e S t a t e Message."
Lan sin g: G o v e r n o r 's O f f i c e , J a n u a r y , 1977.
_________ . "Michigan S t a t e o f t h e S t a t e Message."
G o v e r n o r 's O f f i c e , J a n u a r y , 1978.

Lansing:

" Im p le m en tation o f Continuous P lannin g and C o o r d in a tio n o f P o s t ­
s e condary E du ca tio n : Within t h e Michigan Department o f
E d u c a ti o n . " With c o v e r memo from John W. P o r t e r , S u p e r i n ­
t e n d e n t o f P u b l i c I n s t r u c t i o n , t o t h e S t a t e Board o f Educa­
t i o n , April 3, 1973.
Michigan Council o f S t a t e C o lle g e P r e s i d e n t s .
May 19, 1970."

" R e s o l u ti o n adopted

Michigan. Higher Education P lannin g and C o o r d i n a t i o n S e r v i c e s .
"Summary o f F in d in g s and Recommendations: T i t l e VI, P a r t A,
P u b l i c Law 89-229. Higher Education Act o f 1965, Categor y I ,
L a b o r a to r y and Other S p e c ia l Equipment and M a t e r i a l s .
Lansing: Michigan Department o f E d u ca tio n , 1973."
Michigan. G o v e r n o r 's Commission on Higher E d u ca tion . Council o f
S t a t e C o l le g e P r e s i d e n t s , p r e s e n t a t i o n , May 23, 1973.
_________ . S t a f f r e p o r t s :
" C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Conc erns, Febru ary 21, 1973."
"General Problems and I s s u e s in Michigan Higher E d u c a ti o n ,
P a r t I I , Ju ne 20, 1973."
"General Problems and I s s u e s in Michigan Higher E d u c a tio n ,
P a r t I I , J u l y 18, 1973."
"Recent S t u d i e s o f Higher E d u ca tio n , F e bruary 20, 1973."
" S t r u c t u r a l Review o f Higher Education in Michigan, Fe b ru ary
21, 1973."
" S t u d e n t Advisory Committee r e p o r t . "
19, 1973.

Lansing:

September

194

_________. "Task Force on Governance and C o o r d i n a t i o n . "
n.d.

A report,

Michigan. O f f i c e o f Governor. " G o ve rno r's Message and Charge t o
t h e Commission on Higher E d u c a ti o n . " Lansin g: O f f i c e o f
t h e Governor, Ja n u ary 24, 1973.
_________. "The 1976-77 E xecu tiv e Budget Recommendations:
of H i g h l i g h t s : Budget B r i e f i n g , F e b r u a r y , 1976."

Summary

M i l l e r , James L . , J r .
"General Comments on S t a t e Plannin g and
C o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h Some S pecia l Re ference t o Michig an."
Ann Arbor: U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan, C e n te r f o r t h e Study o f
Higher E d u c a ti o n , April 23, 1973.
_________. "Types o f S t a te w i d e Boards and Agencies f o r Higher Educa­
t i o n . " L e t t e r t o Paul D r e s s e l . Ann Arbor: U n i v e r s i t y o f
Michigan, C e n te r f o r t h e Study o f Higher E d u ca tio n , May 2,
1973.
N ationa l C e nte r f o r Higher E ducation Management Systems. "The
NCHEMS F ive-Y ear P lan :
I d e n t i f y i n g Need and Implementing
Response." Hiqher Education Management I I I , No. 2 (May
1975).
N atio nal Education A s s o c i a t i o n p u b l i c a t i o n , O c tob er, 1978.
"9 Themes o f Report on U n i v e r s i t y Goals and Governance." R e p r in t e d
from The C h r o n i c l e o f Higher E d u c a t i o n , J a n u a r y 18, 1971.
Van Dyne, L a r r y . "The S t a te w i d e Board: Hope o r T h r e a t . " A.G.B.
Reports XVII, No. 4 ( J a n u a r y / F e b r u a r y 1 9 7 5 ) : 4 4 - 4 7.
V a s c o n c e l l o s , Jo h n , and C a l l e n , P a t r i c k M. " L e g i s l a t i v e Master
P l a n n in g : The C a l i f o r n i a E x p e r i e n c e ." Plannin g f o r Hiqher
Education 3 (F e b r u ar y 1974).
W a tte n b a r g e r , James L . , and Bender, Louis W., e d s . "Improving
S t a t e w i d e P l a n n i n g . " New D i r e c t i o n s f o r Higher E ducation 8
(Winter 1 9 7 4 ) : 7 - 1 8 .
W atte n b a r g e r , James L . , and Hansen, Dean M. "C o o peratio n Among S t a t e
A g e n c i e s . " R e p r i n t e d from Community and J u n i o r C olle ge
J o u r n a l ( J u n e / J u l y 1 9 75 ):11 -15 .
Unpublished M a t e r i a l s
Beckwith, Ge rald C. " I n s t i t u t i o n a l Governance and O ther M a t t e r s . "
Mimeographed l e t t e r t o t h e Task Force on Governance and
C o o r d i n a t i o n . L ansing: O f f i c e o f t h e Governor, J u l y , 1975.

195
B e e rs, R ichard L. "Key Q uestions f o r F u tu re D e l i b e r a t i o n s . " Mimeo­
graphed l e t t e r t o th e Commission on Higher E d ucatio n.
L ansing : O f f i c e o f th e Governor, J u l y , 1973.
D r e s s e l , Paul L. " C o n f l ic t in g P r e s s u r e s f o r C o o rd in a tio n and
Autonomy in Michigan Higher E d u c a tio n ." Michigan S t a te
U n i v e r s i t y , 1977. (Mimeographed.)
Glenny, Lyman. "Trends in Higher E ducation A f f e c tin g S t a t e P la n ­
n in g : A p r e s e n t a t i o n t o : G o v e rn o r's Commission on Higher
E d u c a tio n , May 23, 1973."
H a rc le ro a d , Fred F. " S t a t e C o o rd in a tio n : Promise o r P e r i l ? "
Speech p r e s e n te d a t th e Summer Seminar f o r Community C o lle g e
P r e s i d e n t s o f th e C e n te r f o r th e Study o f Higher E ducation
o f th e U n i v e r s i ty o f Michigan a t N orthw estern Michigan
C o lle g e , T ra v e rs e C i ty , M ichigan, June 28, 1974.
M ishra, V. M. "Mishra Random D i g i t D ia lin g (RDD) System f o r P r o j e c t ­
ing E l e c t i o n Outcome. A R esearch Tool f o r P o l i t i c a l Mass
Communication." E a s t L ansing: Mishra and A s s o c i a t e s , 1976.
R e i t h m i l l e r , G orton.

R eport on th e S t a t e Board o f E d u ca tio n , 1978.
Newspaper A r t i c l e s

"Board Review P u z z li n g ."
s e c . 2.

Lansing S t a t e J o u r n a l , 18 August 1978,

" M illik e n Firm on 2d Board o f E d u c a tio n ."
March 1978.

D e t r o i t Free P r e s s , 30

" M illik e n T e l l s U n i v e r s i t i e s t o Get F in a n c ia l Act T o g e th e r."
L ansing S t a t e J o u r n a l , 9 November 1977.
" P o l i t i c k i n g in E d u c a tio n ."

Lansing S t a t e J o u r n a l , 10 December 1978.

" T a le n te d T r u s te e s i n S p i t e o f System?"
Ja n u a ry 1979.

Lansing S t a t e J o u r n a l , 16

ANALYSIS OF OPINIONS OF VOTERS AND KEY
EDUCATIONAL LEADERS TOWARD GOVERNANCE
OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
IN MICHIGAN
VOLUME II
By
P h i l i p J . Gannon

A DISSERTATION
Subm itted to
Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i ty
in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f t h e re q u ire m e n ts
f o r th e d eg ree o f
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
C ollege o f A d m in is tr a tio n o f H igher E ducation
1979

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume II
Appendix
A.

Page

T A B L E S ....................................................................................................
I.

C e n t r a l i z a t i o n vs. D e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n —S ta te w id e ,
V o lu n ta ry , A dvisory and R e g u la to ry Boards . . .
A.

II.

Approaches to Governance: V o lu ntary
T able 1 through l c .....................................................

2
3
4-7

B.

Approaches to Governance: Advisory
T able 2 through 2 c .............................................................8-11

C.

Approaches to Governance: R e g u la to ry
T able 3 th ro ugh 3 c ...........................................................12-15

D.

S t a t e Board o f E d u ca tio n : L im itin g P r e s e n t
F u n c tio n s and R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
T able 4 through 4 c ...........................................................16-19

G o v e r n a n c e .................................................................................

20

A.

C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Ambiguity
T able 5 through 5 c ............................................................. 21-24

B.

C o n s t i t u t i o n a l R e v isio n : A dvisory
T able 6 thro ugh 6 c ............................................................. 25-28

C.

C o n s t i t u t i o n a l R e v isio n : R e g u la to ry
A uthori t y
T ab le 7 th roug h 7 c .............................................................29-32

D.

S t a t u t o r y Enactment: C o o rd in a tio n and
P lanning
T able 8 th roug h 8 c .............................................................33-36

E.

C o n s t i t u t i o n a l R e v is io n : C o o rd in a tio n and
Planni ng
T able 9 th rou gh 9 c .............................................................37-40

ii

Page

Appendix

III.

IV.

S ta te w id e Planning

............................................................

41

A.

P la n n in g and C o o rd in a tio n : P r e s e n t
Approach Not S a t i s f a c t o r y
T ab le 10 through 1 0 c .................................................... 42-45

B.

S ta te w id e P lann ing and C o o rd in a tio n
S e p a ra b le from Concerns o f
I n s t i t u t i o n a l Governance
T able 11 throug h 1 1 c .................................................... 46-49

C.

P r i v a t e C o lle g es Involved in S t a t e
C o o rd in a tio n and Planning
T able 12 throu gh 1 2 c .................................................. 50-53

I n s t i t u t i o n a l Autonomy

......................................................

54

A.

C ontinuance o f Independence o f t h e Boards o f
C ontro l o f C o lleg es and U n i v e r s i t i e s
T able 13 throug h 1 3 c .................................................. 55-58

B.

S in g le S ta te w id e Board: D isc o n tin u a n c e o f
Local Boards o f Control — I n s t i t u t i o n a l
Respondents
T ab le 14 throu gh 1 6 .................................................. 59-64

C.

S in g le S ta te w id e Board: D isc o n tin u a n c e o f
Local Boards o f C o n tro l— R e g is te r e d V o te rs
T able 17 th rou gh 1 8 c .................................................. 65-69

D.

S in g le S ta te w id e Board: A dvisory o r
R e g u la to ry — R e g is te r e d V o ters
T able 19
through 1 9 c ...................................................70-73

E.

S e p a ra te S t a t e Board: E d u ca tio n a l
Community Support
T able 20 throug h 2 0 c ...................................................74-77

F.

S e p a ra te S t a t e Board: L e g i s l a t i v e S u p p o rt
T able 21
thro ugh 2 1 c ...................................................78-81

G.

S e p a ra te S t a t e Board: E x ec u tiv e S u p p o rt
T able 22
thro ugh 2 2 c .................................................. 82-85

H.

Not Having S ta te w id e Board:
D u p lic a tio n and C om petition
Table 23
through 23c .

iii

Lead t o
86-89

A ppendix

V.

Page

Board o f T r u s t e e s : S a t i s f a c t i o n , S e l e c t i o n and
S i z e .............................................................................................
A.
B.

90

V oter S a t i s f a c t i o n L ev el: Governing Boards
Table 24 thro ugh 2 5 ..............................................

91-95

P o st-S ec o n d a ry Board o f T r u s te e S e l e c t i o n :
E le c te d on N o n -P a rtisa n B a ll o t
Table 26 through 2 6 c .......................................

96-99

C.

P o st-S ec o n d a ry Board o f T r u s te e s S e l e c t i o n :
E le c te d on P a r t i s a n B a l l o t
T able 27 th roug h 2 7 c .............................................. 100-103

D.

P o st-S ec o n d a ry Board o f T ru s te e S e l e c t i o n :
T able 28 th roug h 2 8 c .............................................. 104-107

E.

P o st-S eco n d ary Board o f T r u s te e S e l e c ti o n
P ro c e s s : V oter O pinions
T able 29 throug h 30
.........................................

108-112

F.

P o st-S ec o n d a ry Board o f Control S e l e c t i o n
P ro c e s s : F a c u lty R e p r e s e n ta tio n on Own
I n s t i t u t i o n a l Board o f Control
T able 31 th roug h 3 1 c .................................................113-116

G.

P o st-S ec o n d a ry Board o f C ontrol S e l e c t i o n
P ro c e s s : S tu d e n t R e p r e s e n ta tio n on Own
I n s t i t u t i o n a l Board o f Control
T able 32 through 3 2 c .................................................117-120

H.

P o st-S ec o n d a ry Board o f Control S e l e c t i o n
P ro c e s s : F a c u lty Members on Board o f
Control O ther Than T h e ir Own
Table 33 throug h 3 3 c .................................................121-124

I.

P o st-S ec o n d a ry Board o f Control S e l e c t i o n
P ro c e s s : A d m in is tr a to r s and S t a f f Members
on Boards o f C ontrol O ther Than T h e ir Own
T able 34 th ro u g h 3 4 c .................................................125-128

J.

P o st-S ec o n d a ry Board o f Control S e l e c t i o n
P r o c e s s : S tu d e n ts Allowed to Serve on
Boards O ther Than T h e ir Own
T able 35 th ro u g h 3 5 c .................................................129-132

K.

Community C ollege Board: E le c te d
T able 36 th rou gh 3 6 c .................................................133-136
iv

Page

Appendix

VI.

V II.

L.

Community C ollege Board: Appointed
by th e Governor
T able 37 throu gh 3 7 c ................................................137-140

M.

S e p a ra te Boards o f T ru s te e s f o r Community
C o lle g es Now Under K-12 Boards
T able 38 through 3 8 c ..............................................141-144

N.

S t a t e Board o f Higher Education
Membership Appointed by th e Governor
Table 39 throug h 3 9 c ..............................................145-148

0.

Members E le c te d a t Large
T able 40
through 4 0 c ..............................................149-152

P.

Membership D e lim ita tio n
T able 41 thro ugh 4 1 c .................................................153-156

Q.

E le c t i o n o f Board C hief E x ecu tiv e O f f i c e r
T ab le 42 th rou gh 4 2 c ................................................. 157-160

R.

Appointment o f Board C hief E x ecu tive
O ffi c e r
T ab le 43 th ro ugh 4 3 c .................................................161-164

S.

Board F u n c tio n s Reviewed
T able 44 thro ugh 4 4 c ................................................. 165-168

P o st-S ec o n d a ry E ducation v s. Higher
E d u c a t i o n .........................................................................

169

A.

D e fin itio n
T able 45 through 4 5 c ................................................. 170-173

B.

P o st-S ec o n d a ry E d u ca tio n : Goals and
Purposes C le a r ly Defined
T able 46 th ro ugh 4 6 c .................................................174-177

F u tu re and P r e s e n t C o n d itio n s o f P o s tSecondary E d u c a t i o n .....................................................

178

A.

E n ro llm e n t:
Will S t a b i l i z e
T able 47 th rou gh 4 7 c .................................................179-182

B.

E n ro llm e n t:
Will Decrease
T able 48 th ro u g h 4 8 c .................................................183-186

C.

E n ro llm e n t:
Will I n c re a s e
T able 49 th ro u g h 4 9 c .................................................187-190
v

Appendix

Page

D.

E n ro llm e n t:
T able 50

E.

C o s ts : I n c r e a s in g
T able 52
through 5 2 c .............................................196-199

F.

S p e c i a l i z e d Demands
T able 53
through 5 3 c .....................................

200-203

C om petitio n f o r S tu d e n ts
T able 54
through 5 4 c .....................................

204-207

C om petition f o r Revenue
T able 55
through 5 5 c .....................................

208-211

G.
H.

V oter Opinions
through 5 1 ................................................... 191-195

I.

I n s t i t u t i o n a l M issions
T ab le 56 through 5 6 c ................................................ 212-215

J.

M aintenance o f Q u a lity : Michigan V o te rs;
M in o rity /W h ite V oter P a t t e r n s
T able 57 through 58

216-220

M aintenance o f Q u a lity D i f f i c u l t
T able 59 throu gh 59c
.

221-224

C o o p e ra tiv e E f f o r t : More D i f f i c u l t
T able 60 through 6 0 c .........................................

225-228

R eso u rces: More D i f f i c u l t to Manage
T able 61 thro ugh 6 1 c .........................................

229-232

D i v e r s i t y o f Programs o f Higher E ducation
T able 62 through 6 2 c .........................................

233-236

I n c r e a s e d R espect by P u b lic
T ab le 63 through 6 3 c ........................................

237-240

H igher E ducation P r e p a rin g S tu d e n ts f o r
Job Market
T able 64 th roug h 65

241-245

C o lle g e s P re p a rin g S tu d e n ts f o r Job Market
T a b le 66 th ro ugh 6 6 b ........................................

246-248

K.
L.
M.
N.
0.
P.

Q.

vi

Appendix

V II I.

Page

R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f a S ta te w id e Board
o f H igher E du cation .....................................................
A.

B.
C.

D.

E.
F.
G.

IX.

249

C o l l e c t i o n o f E s s e n t ia l In fo rm a tio n
F u n c tio n s
T able 67 through 6 7 c ...................................

250-253

P la n n in g and Assessment F un ctio n s
T able 68 through 6 8 c ...................................

254-257

Advise t h e Governor and L e g i s l a t u r e :
F in a n c ia l Needs
T able 69 through 6 9 c ...................................

258-261

Advise Governor and L e g i s l a t u r e :
Programs
. T able 70 thro ugh 70c

262-265

Development o f C o o p erativ e R e la tio n s h ip s
T able 71 through 7 1 c ...................................

266-269

A p p ro p r ia te A dvisory Committees
T able 72 through 7 2 c .................................

270-273

Advice and Counsel Concerning Higher
E d ucatio n
T able 73 thro ugh 7 3 c .................................

274-277

P u b lic Community C o lle g es

.................................

278

Community C o lle g e s : Should Not G rant
B a c c a la u r e a te Degrees
T able 74 throug h 7 4 c .................................

279-282

R e d i s t r i c t i n g o f Michigan Community
Col le g e s
T able 75 through 7 5 c ..................................

283-286

Community C o lle g e s : Same R e la ti o n s h ip
as B a c c a la u r e a te I n s t i t u t i o n s t o
Proposed S t a t e Board o f Higher
E d ucatio n
T able 76 th roug h 7 6 c ..................................

287-290

B.

QUESTIONNAIRE AND LETTER ATTACHMENTS.......... .........................

291

C.

LIST OF MICHIGAN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE STUDY . . .

307

A.

B.

C.

vi i

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
TABLES

2

I.

CENTRALIZATION VS. DECENTRALIZATION—STATEWIDE,
VOLUNTARY, ADVISORY AND REGULATORY BOARDS

3

TABLE 1
QUESTION 1:

For Michigan, the voluntary approach fo r governance and coordination fo r higher
education i s appropriate (Part 1, Q-6).

POSITION

Position

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opi ni on

Board Chairman

14%

36%

50%

39%

4%

43%

2%

5%

Board Member

16%

36%

52%

28%

3%

31%

6%

11%

Faculty

11%

25%

36%

43%

10%

53%

5%

6%

Administrator

18%

28%

46%

38%

4%

42%

8%

4%

Other

TABLE 1
QUESTION 1:

For Michigan, the voluntary approach fo r governance and coordination fo r higher
education i s appropriate (Part 1, Q-6).

POSITION

Position

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Board Chairman

14%

36%

50%

39%

4%

43%

2%

5%

Board Member

16%

36%

52%

28%

3%

31%

6%

11%

Faculty

11%

25%

36%

43%

10%

53%

5%

6%

Adm inistrator

00

28%

46%

38%

4%

42%

8%

4%

Other

TABLE la
QUESTION la :

For Michigan, the voluntary approach fo r governance and coordination fo r higher
education i s appropriate (Part 1, Q-6).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type of
I n s t i tu t i o n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

P rivate Community College

13%

44%

57%-

31%

6%

37%

—

6%

Public Community College

15%

34%

49%

31%

5%

36%

6%

9%

Four-Year P riv ate College

12%

35%

47%

36%

3%

39%

7%

7%

Four-Year Public College

10%

32%

42%

45%

3%

00
^1-

No
Opinion

P riv a te Grad, and Univ.

28%

28%

56%

28%

—

28%

11%

5%

Public U niversity

25%

25%

50%

34%

6%

40%

4%

6%

—

Other

10%

TABLE lb
QUESTION lb :

For Michigan, the voluntary approach fo r governance and coord ination fo r higher
education i s appropriate (Part 1, Q-6).

ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING
Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

Strongly
Agree

No

14%

Yes

16%

A
a

Total

Disagree
a

“ ron^y
Disagree

Total

"°.
Opinion

Other

35%

49%

32%

3%

35%

10%

6%

32%

48%

34%

5%

39%

4%

9%

TABLE l c
QUESTION l c :

For Michigan, the voluntary approach fo r governance and coordination fo r higher
education i s appropriate (Part 1 , Q-6).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

Board Less Than 10 Years

15%

35%

50%

33%

3%

36%

5%

9%

Board More Than 10 Years

15%

36%

51%

CVJ

**

Years o f Experience in
Higher Education

4%

31%

6%

12%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

13%

30%

43%

30%

9%

39%

9%

9%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

10%

26%

36%

46%

10%

56%

3%

5%

Admin. Less Than 10 Years

14%

25%

39%

32%

7%

39%

11%

11%

Admin. More Than 10 Years

21%

27%

48%

44%

2%

46%

6%

No
Opinion

Other

—

TABLE 2
QUESTION 2:

For Michigan, the advisory approach fo r governance and coord ination fo r higher
education i s appropriate (Part 1 , Q-7).

POSITION
Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

21%

4%

25%

14%

8%

55%

17%

.4%

21%

12%

12%

46%

59%

24%

2%

26%

9%

6%

60%

68%

20%

3%

23%

6%

3%

Position

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Board Chairman

5%

48%

53%

Board Member

9%

46%

13%
8%

Faculty
Administrator

Di sagree

Other

TABLE 2a
QUESTION 2a:

For Michigan, the advisory approach fo r governance and coord ination fo r higher
education i s appropriate (Part 1, Q-7).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type o f I n s t i tu t i o n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

P riv a te Community College

13%

44%

57%

25%

Public Community College

n

53%

60%

Four-Year P riv a te College

6%

44%

Four-Year Public College

13%

P riv ate Grad, and Univ.
Public University

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

—

25%

12%

6%

16%

5%

21%

8%

11%

50%

23%

2%

25%

18%

7%

45%

58%

25%

—

25%

11%

6%

n%

44%

55%

28%

—

28%

11%

6%

17%

49%

66%

15%

5%

20%

8%

6%

TABLE 2b
QUESTION 2b:

For Michigan, the advisory approach fo r governance and coordination fo r higher
education i s appropriate (Part 1, Q-7).

ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES
Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

Strongly
Agree

fl
a

T

,
a

Strongly
Disagree

No
Opinion

„

No

7%

40%

47%

24%

1%

25%

20%

8%

Yes

9%

52%

61%

18%

4%

22%

8%

9%

TABLE 2c
QUESTION 2c:

For Michigan, the advisory approach fo r governance and coord ination fo r higher
education i s appropriate (Part 1 , Q-7).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Strongly
Di sagree

Total

20%

4%

24%

10%

11%

54%

15%

4%

19%

15%

12%

61%

22%

—

22%

4%

13%

8%

51% ' 59%

23%

3%

26%

13%

2%

Administrator Less Than 10 Years

4%

53%

57%

21%

4%

25%

14%

4%

Administrator More Than 10 Years

10%

65%

75%

19%

2%

21%

2%

2%

Years of Experience
in Higher Education

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Board Less Than 10 Years

8%

47%

55%

Board More Than 10 Years

9%

45%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

22%

39%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

Disagree

No
Other
Opinion

TABLE 3
QUESTION 3:

For Michigan, a reg u la tory approach fo r governance and coordination fo r higher
education i s appropriate (Part 1, Q-8).

POSITION
P osition

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Chairman

—

14%

14%

39%

38%

77%

5%

4%

Board Member

3%

8%

11%

37%

37%

74%

5%

10%

Faculty

3%

13%

16%

27%

41%

68%

5%

11%

Administrator

1%

5%

6%

39%

45%

84%

4%

6%

TABLE 3a
QUESTION 3a:

For Michigan, a regu latory approach fo r governance and coord ination fo r higher
education i s appropriate (Part 1 , Q-8).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type of I n s t i tu t i o n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

P riv ate Conmmity College

—

19%

19%

56%

19%

75%

Public Community College

2%

6%

8%

33%

43%

76%

7%

9%

Four-Year P riv ate College

3%

11%

14%

39%

36%

75%

4%

7%

Four-Year Public College

3%

16%

19%

39%

36%

75%

—

P riv ate Grad, and Univ.

—

11%

11%

33%

28%

61%

11%

17%

Public U niversity

3%

8%

11%

37%

43%

80%

1%

8%

—

6%

6%

TABLE 3b
QUESTION 3b:

For Michigan, a r egu lato ry approach fo r governance and coordination fo r higher
education i s appropriate (Part 1, Q-8).

ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

W

-T n g W

S l

Xlfy

™

D®

T 0 ta l

O p in io n

No

2%

10%

12%

39%

33%

72%

7%

9%

Yes

2%

9%

11%

36%

41%

77%

4%

8%

TABLE 3c
QUESTION 3c:

For Michigan, a r eg u latory approach fo r governance and coordination fo r higher
education i s appropriate (Part 1, Q-8),

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Years o f Experience
in Higher Education

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Board Less Than 10 Years

1%

10%

11%

42%

35%

77%

4%

8%

Board More Than 10 Years

4%

10%

14%

30%

40%

70%

6%

10%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

—

13%

13%

35%

43%

78%

—

Faculty More Than 10 Years

5%

10%

15%

26%

38%

64%

8%

13%

Administrator Less Than 10 Years

—

7%

7%

43%

39%

82%

7%

4%

Adm inistrator More Than 10 Years

2%

4%

6%

36%

50%

86%

2%

6%

Other

9%

TABLE 4
QUESTION 4:

The fu n c tio n s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f the present S ta te Board o f Education should be
lim ite d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y to le a d e r s h ip , general s u p e r v isio n , planning and coordina­
t io n fo r elementary and secondary education only (Part 1, Q-26).

POSITION

P osition

SA g ? efy

Agree

Total

Disagree

Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Chairman

18%

47%

65%

13%

4%

17%

16%

2%

Board Member

20 %

48%

68 %

15%

2%

17%

8%

Faculty

30%

40%

70%

10%

2%

12%

Administrator

29%

33%

62%

22 %

4%

26%

7%

5%

TABLE 4a
QUESTION 4a:

The fu n c tio n s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f the present S ta te Board o f Education should
be lim ite d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y to le a d e r s h ip , general s u p e r v is io n , planning and
coord ination fo r elementary and secondary education only (Part 1, Q-26).

Type o f I n s t i tu t i o n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

P riv ate Conmmity College

13%

33%

46%

Public Community College

29%

44%

Four-Year P riv a te College

8%

Four-Year Public College
P riv ate Grad, and Univ.
Public U niversity

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

33%

—

33%

7%

14%

73%

13%

1%

14%

8%

5%

50%

58%

16%

4%

20%

14%

8%

42%

26%

68%

16%

7%

23%

3%

6%

6%

29%

35%

35%

6%

41%

6%

18%

31%

49%

00
o

TYPE OF INSTITUTION

6%

2%

8%

9%

3%

Di sagree

TABLE 4b
QUESTION 4b:

The fu n c tio n s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f the present S ta te Board o f Education should be
lim ite d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y to le a d e r s h ip , general s u p e r v is io n , planning and coordina­
tio n fo r elementary and secondary education only (Part 1, Q-26).

ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES
Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

Strongly
Agree

.
rtgree

T . ,
10tai

Di<;aarpp
uisa9ree

Strongly
Disagree

_
,
lotai

No
Opinion

Other

No

9%

4135

50%

27%

6%

33%

8%

9%

Yes

27%

45%

72%

12%

1%

13%

9%

6%

®

TABLE 4c
QUESTION 4c:

The fu n c tio n s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f the p resen t S ta te Board o f Education should be
lim ite d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y to le a d e r s h ip , general s u p e r v isio n , planning and coordina­
tio n fo r elementary and secondary education only (Part 1, Q-26).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Years of Experience
in Higher Education

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Othei

Board Less Than 10 Years

19%

47%

66%

16%

2%

18%

9%

7%

Board More Than 10 Years

21%

50%

71%

12%

1%

13%

12%

4%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

31%

39%

70%

17%

—

17%

4%

9%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

28%

38%

66%

8%

3%

11%

13%

10%

Adm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

25%

29%

54%

29%

3%

32%

11%

3%

Administrator More Than 10 Years

33%

36%

69%

17%

4%

21%

4%

6%

II.

GOVERNANCE

20

TABLE 5
QUESTION 5:

The 1963 Michigan c o n s t it u t io n i s ambiguous regarding th e a u th o r ity o f the S ta te Board
o f Education and the boards o f pu b lic baccalaureate i n s t i t u t i o n s regarding planning
and coord ination (Part 1, Q-32).

POSITION
P ositio n

Agree

Agree
3

Total

Disagree
3

^ ron91*
Disagree

Total

Opinion

n f. „
Other

Board Chairman

7%

44%

51%

9%

2%

11 %

20%

18%

Board Member

8%

38%

46%

10%

3%

13%

18%

23%

Faculty

11%

35%

46%

8%

3%

11%

16%

27%

Administrator

10%

45%

55%

11%

19%

TABLE 5a
QUESTION 5a:

The 1963 Michigan c o n s t it u t io n i s ambiguous regarding the a u th o r ity o f the S tate
Board o f Education and the boards o f p u b lic baccalaureate i n s t i t u t i o n s regarding
planning and coordination (Part 1, Q-32).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type of I n s t i tu t i o n
P riv ate Community College

Strongly
Agree
—

Agree

Total

Disagree

60%

60%

7%

Strongly
Disagree
—

Total

No
Opinion

Other

7%

7%

26%

Public Community College

9%

45%

54%

7%

1%

8%

17%

21%

Four-Year P riv a te College

5%

38%

43%

2%

2%

4%

20%

33%

Four-Year Public College

16%

26%

42%

16%

16%

32%

7%

19%

P riv a te Grad, and Univ.

6%

18%

24%

18%

6%

24%

29%

23%

15%

36%

51%

29%

6%

35%

12%

2%

Public U niversity

TABLE 5b
QUESTION 5b:

The 1963 Michigan c o n s t it u t io n i s ambiguous regarding the a u th ority o f the S ta te
Board o f Education and the boards o f pu b lic baccalaureate i n s t i t u t i o n s regarding
planning and coord ination (Part 1, Q-32).

ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

W

*>"»

Total

Disagree

Total

Other

^

No

1%

38%

39%

5%

4%

9%

19%

33%

Yes

11%

40%

51%

11%

3%

14%

16%

19%

8

TABLE 5c
QUESTION 5c:

The 1963 Michigan c o n s t it u t io n i s ambiguous regarding the a u th o r ity o f the S ta te
Board o f Education and the boards o f pu b lic baccalaureate i n s t i t u t i o n s regarding
planning and coordination (Part 1, Q-32).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Years of Experience
in Higher Education

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Board Less Than 10 Years

6%

38%

44%

Board More Than 10 Years

13%

40%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

9%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

11%

2%

13%

19%

24%

53%

8%

3%

11%

17%

19%

31%

40%

4%

4%

8%

17%

35%

13%

36%

49%

10%

2%

12%

13%

26%

Adm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

4%

46%

50%

7%

4%

11%

14%

25%

Administrator More Than 10 Years

15%

46%

61%

13%

10%

23%

4%

12%

Di sagree

TABLE 6

QUESTION 6:

There should be a c o n stitu tio n a l revisio n to allow fo r establishm ent of a new S tate
Board fo r Higher Education i f i t s r e s p o n s i b i li t ie s are lim ited to general planning
and coordination of a l l education beyond the secondary le v e l, with advisory, not
mandatory a u th o rity (P art 1, Q-33).
POSITION

Position

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Board Chairman

14%

49%

63%

13%

4%

17%

11%

9%

Board Member

12%

47%

59%

15%

7%

22%

9%

10%

Faculty

14%

35%

49%

17%

8%

25%

18%

8%

Administrator

22%

45%

67%

11%

5%

16%

10%

7%

Other

TABLE 6a

QUESTION 6a:

There should be a c o n stitu tio n a l revisio n to allow fo r establishm ent of a new State
Board fo r Higher Education i f i t s r e s p o n s i b i li t ie s are lim ited to general planning
and coordination of a ll education beyond the secondary l e v e l, with advisory, not
mandatory a u th o rity (Part 1, Q-33).
TYPE OF INSTITUTION

Type of I n s titu tio n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

P riv ate Community College

7%

53%

60%

20%

Public Community College

19%

50%

69%

8%

Four-Year P rivate College

10%

46%

56%

Four-Year Public College

13%

32%

6%
18%

P riv ate Grad, and Univ.
Public U niversity

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

20%

13%

7%

5%

13%

9%

9%

14%

6%

20%

13%

11%

45%

26%

6%

32%

13%

10%

24%

30%

29%

6%

35%

23%

12%

37%

55%

25%

12%

37%

8%

Disagree

—

Other

—

TABLE 6b

QUESTION 6b:

There should be a c o n s titu tio n a l rev isio n to allow fo r establishm ent of a new S tate
Board fo r Higher Education i f i t s r e s p o n s i b i li t ie s are lim ited to general planning
and coordination o f a ll education beyond the secondary l e v e l, with advisory, not
mandatory a u th o rity (Part 1, Q-33).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

Strongly
Agree

fl
y

,

„f
s

Strongly
Disagree

,

No
Opinion

oth

No

11%

38%

49%

22%

5%

27%

16%

8%

Yes

16%

47%

63%

12%

7%

19%

9%

9%

TABLE 6c

QUESTION 6c:

There should be a c o n stitu tio n a l rev isio n to allow fo r establishm ent of a new S tate
Board fo r Higher Education i f i t s r e s p o n s i b i li t ie s are lim ited to general planning
and coordination of a ll education beyond the secondary le v e l, with advisory, not
mandatory a u th o rity (Part 1, Q-33).
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Years of Experience
in Higher Education

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Disagree

Other

11%

10%
8%

Board Less Than 10 Years

10%

47%

57%

14%

8%

22%

Board More Than 10 Years

18%

47%

65%

15%

5%

o

No
Opinion

CM

Total

7%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

13%

39%

52%

13%

9%

22%

22%

4%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

13%

33%

46%

21%

8%

29%

15%

10%

Adm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

18%

43%

61%

21%

—

21%

11%

7%

Administrator More Than 10 Years

27%

46%

73%

4%

8%

12%

9%

6%

TABLE 7

QUESTION 7:

There should be a c o n stitu tio n a l rev isio n and vote of the people to allow for
establishm ent o f a new S ta te Board fo r Higher Education with re g u la to ry .a u th o rity
f o r general planning and coordination (Part 1, Q-34).
POSITION

Position

Strongly
Agree

Board Chairman

Agree

Total

Disagree

6%

9%

15%

42%

27%

69%

7%

9%

Board Member

5%

11%

16%

39%

31%

70%

5%

9%

Faculty

5%

11%

16%

41%

24%

65%

11%

8%

13%

13%

43%

33%

76%

8%

Administrator

Total

Other

3%

TABLE 7a
QUESTION 7a:

There should be a c o n s t it u t io n a l r e v is io n and vote o f the people to allow fo r
estab lish m en t o f a new S ta te Board fo r Higher Education with regu lato ry a u th ority
fo r general planning and coord ination (Part 1, Q-34).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Strongly
Agree

P riv a te Community College

Strongly
Disagree

No
Opinion

Agree

Total

—

13%

13%

60%

20%

80%

Public Community College

5%

10%

15%

43%

CO
CM

Type of I n s t i tu t i o n

71%

5%

9%

Four-Year P riv ate College

4%

13%

17%

42%

21%

63%

13%

7%

Four-Year Public College

—

16%

16%

32%

42%

74%

3%

7%

P riv ate Grad, and Univ.

6%

23%

29%

29%

24%

53%

12%

6%

Public U niversity

5%

6%

11%

31%

52%

83%

3%

3%

Di sagree

Total

—

Other
7%

TABLE 7b

QUESTION 7b:

There should be a c o n s titu tio n a l rev isio n and vote of the people to allow fo r
establishm ent of a new S ta te Board fo r Higher Education with regulatory a u th o rity
fo r general planning and coordination (Part 1, Q-34).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

Bargaining Purposes?

5Lr S ly
Agree

Agree
na' cc

Total

, u ''a '

Disagree

Disagree

Total
,UI'01

No
Opinion

other

No

1%

16%

17%

44%

23%

67%

11%

5%

Yes

5%

10%

15%

39%

32%

71%

5%

9%

w

TABLE 7c
QUESTION 7c:

There should be a c o n s t it u t io n a l r e v is io n and vote o f the people to allo w fo r
e sta b lish m en t o f a new S ta te Board fo r Higher Education with regu latory au th ority
fo r general planning and coordination (Part 1, Q-34).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Years of Experience
in Higher Education

Agree

Total

Board Less Than 10 Years

4%

10%

14%

38%

31%

69%

6%

11%

Board More Than 10 Years

5%

14%

19%

41%

29%

70%

5%

6%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

4%

4%

8%

39%

18%

57%

18%

17%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

5%

18%

23%

41%

28%

69%

5%

3%

Adm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

—

7%

7%

43%

29%

72%

18%

3%

15%

15%

46%

35%

81%

2%

2%

Adm inistrator More Than 10 Years

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

No
Opinion

Strongly
Agree

Total

Othei

TABLE 8
QUESTION 8:

Coordination and planning fo r higher education should be brought about by s ta tu to r y
enactment (Part 1, Q-31).

POSITION
Position

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Chairman

2%

42%

44%

23%

7%

30%

13%

13%

Board Member

31

33%

36%

26%

8%

34%

15%

15%

Faculty

6%

44%

50%

18%

5%

23%

16%

11%

Administrator

8%

22%

30%

28%

6%

34%

24%

12%

Disagree

TABLE 8a
QUESTION 8a:

Coordination and planning fo r higher education should be brought about by s ta tu to r y
enactment (Part 1, Q-31).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Other

47%

13%

13%

9%

28%

16%

14%

23%

4%

27%

24%

16%

7%

9%
17%

Agree

Total

P riv ate Community College

—

27%

27%

47%

36%

42%

19%

33%

33%

Public Community College
Four-Year P riv ate College

6%
—

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree
—

CM

No
Opinion

Strongly
Agree

k J-

Total

Type of I n s t i tu t i o n

Four-Year Public College

3%

39%

42%

32%

10%

P riv a te Grad, and Univ.

6%

18%

24%

35%

6%

41%

18%

11%

32%

43%

32%

11%

43%

6%

Public University

8%

TABLE 8b

QUESTION 8b:

Coordination and planning fo r higher education should be brought about by
s ta tu to r y enactment (P art 1, Q-31).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

No

-

25%

25%

34%

5%

39%

23%

13%

Yes

6%

36%

42%

22%

8%

30%

14%

14%

TABLE 8c
QUESTION 8c:

Coordination and planning fo r higher education should be brought about by s ta tu to r y
enactment (Part 1, Q-31).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Years of Experience
in Higher Education

Strongly
Agree
.

Agree

Total

35%

38%

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Othei

26%

8%

34%

13%

15%

8%

33%

16%

14%

22%

26%

8%

23%

13%

10%

Disagree

Board Less Than 10 Years

3%

Board More Than 10 Years

4%

33%

37%

25%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

9%

35%

44%

22%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

5%

4925

54%

15%

Administrator Less Than 10 Years

4%

18%

22%

36%

—

36%

28%

14%

Administrator Less Than 10 Years

10%

27%

37%

23%

10%

33%

19%

11%

—

8%

TABLE 9

QUESTION 9:

Coordination and planning fo r higher education should be brought about by
c o n stitu tio n a l change (P art 1, Q-30).
POSITION

P osition

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Chairman

4%

31%

35%

31%

9%

40%

14%

11%

Board Member

5%

33%

38%

29%

11%

40%

14%

8%

Faculty

5%

14%

19%

38%

13%

51%

19%

11%

Administrator

5%

34%

39%

27%

5%

32%

21%

8%

Di sagree

TABLE 9a
QUESTION 9a:

Coordination and planning fo r higher education should be brought about by
c o n s t it u t io n a l change (Part 1, Q-30).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type of I n s t i tu t i o n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

P riv ate Community College

—

47%

47%

27%

7%

34%

6%

13%

Public Community College

8%

32%

40%

23%

10%

33%

17%

10%

Four-Year P riv ate College

2%

29%

31%

34%

8%

42%

20%

7%

Four-Year Public College

3%

19%

22%

48%

7%

55%

16%

7%

Private Grad, and Univ.

6%

29%

35%

29%

6%

35%

12%

18%

Public U niversity

3%

28%

31%

40%

17%

57%

8%

4%

TABLE 9b
QUESTION 9b:

Coordination and planning fo r higher education should be brought about by c o n s t i ­
tu tio n a l change (Part 1, Q-30).

ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES
Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

Strongly
Agree

.

Total
9

Dicaarpp
9

Strongly
Disagree

T

,

No
Opinion

No

2%

34%

36%

32%

7%

39%

16%

Yes

5%

29%

34%

30%

11%

41%

16%

Qth
w

3%

TABLE 9c
QUESTION 9c:

Coordination and planning fo r higher education should be brought about by c o n s t i ­
tu tio n a l change (Part 1, Q-30).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Board Less Than 10 Years

3%

31%

34%

30%

Board More Than 10 Years

6%

35%

41%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

4%

9%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

3%

Administrator Less Than 10 Years
Administrator More Than 10 Years

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

12%

42%

15%

9%

29%

8%

37%

13%

9%

13%

43%

13%

56%

18%

21%

36%

13%

49%

20%

10%

7%

25%

32%

36%

—

36%

18%

14%

6%

40%

46%

21%

29%

21%

4%

Disagree

8%

ro
ro

Years o f Experience
in Higher Education

Other

9%

III.

STATEWIDE PLANNING

41

TABLE 10
QUESTION 10:

The present approach fo r planning and coord ination fo r higher education in
Michigan wi l l meet the needs o f the fu tu re (Part 1, Q-3).

POSITION
Position

5£ g 1y

Board Chairman
Board Member

2%

Faculty

Admi ni s t r a to r

2%

Agree

Total

Disagree

25%

27%

41%

28%

30%

16%

21%

^

Totai

Opinion

11%

52%

11%

37%

6%

43%

15%

17%

48%

13%

61%

8%

14%

23%

51%

8%

59%

13%

5%

10 %

TABLE 10a
QUESTION 10a:

The present approach for planning and coordination for higher education in
Michigan will meet the needs of the future (Part 1, Q-3).
TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

38%

—

38%

6%

12%

24%

43%

13%

56%

10%

10%

20%

23%

37%

7%

44%

21%

12%

3%

23%

26%

42%

6%

48%

3%

23%

P riv ate Grad, and Univ.

—

28%

CM

00

39%

39%

17%

16%

Public University

2%

35%

37%

oo

50%

9%

4%

Type of I n s t i tu t i o n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

P riv ate Community College

—

44%

44%

Public Community College

2%

22%

Four-Year Private College

3%

Four-Year Public College

Disagree

—
2%

TABLE 10b
QUESTION 10b:

The present approach f o r planning and coordination fo r higher education in
Michigan w ill meet the needs of the fu tu re (Part 1, Q-3).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

Strongly
Agree

.
Agree

T t Iotal

Disaaree
Ulsa9ree

Strongly
Disagree

, . ,
Total

No
Op1n1on

Qth
uther

No

3%

23%

26%

32%

3%

35%

27%

12%

Yes

1%

25%

26%

44%

10%

54%

9%

11%

TABLE 10c
QUESTION 10c:

The present approach fo r planning and coordination fo r higher education in
Michigan w ill meet the needs of the fu tu re (P art 1, Q-3).
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Less Than 10 Years

2%

27%

29%

38%

6%

44%

15%

12%

Board More Than 10 Years

2%

28%

30%

37%

9%

46%

12%

12%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

—

22%

22%

35%

17%

52%

4%

22%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

3%

15%

18%

54%

10%

64%

8%

10%

Adm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

—

29%

29%

39%

7%

46%

21%

4%

Adm inistrator More Than 10 Years

2%

15%

17%

58%

8%

66%

11%

6%

Years o f Experience
in Higher Education

TABLE 11
QUESTION 11:

Consideration of statewide planning and coordination for Michigan higher education
are separable from concerns of institutional governance (Part 1, Q-4).
POSITION

Position

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Chairman

9%

36%

45%

30%

19%

49%

2%

4%

Board Member

8%

40%

48%

33%

6%

39%

5%

8%

Faculty

5%

32%

37%

41%

13%

54%

6%

3%

15%

34%

49%

33%

15%

48%

2%

1%

Administrator

TABLE 11a
QUESTION 11a:

Consideration of statewide planning and coordination for Michigan higher
education are separable from concerns of institutional governance (Part 1, Q-4).
TYPE OF INSTITUTION

Type of I n s t i tu t i o n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

P riv ate Community College

6%

38%

44%

44%

Public Community College

7%

38%

45%

Four-Year P riv ate College

10%

38%

Four-Year Public College

26%

P riv ate Grad, and Univ.
Public University

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

—

44%

6%

6%

32%

14%

46%

4%

5%

48%

33%

6%

39%

7%

6%

35%

61%

23%

10%

33%

3%

3%

6%

50%

56%

17%

11%

28%

5%

11%

5%

31%

36%

46%

11%

57%

1%

6%

TABLE 11b
QUESTION lib :

Consideration of statewide planning and coordination for Michigan higher
education are separable from concerns of institutional governance (Part 1, Q-4).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

Sg

Y

*>”

T° t a l

g

*

Total

0; ° 1on

other
-p »

CO

No

11%

38%

49%

33%

3%

36%

7%

8%

Yes

8%

37%

45%

34%

12%

46%

4%

5%

TABLE lie
QUESTION lie :

Consideration of statewide planning and coordination for Michigan higher
education are separable from concerns of institutional governance (Part 1, Q-4).
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

31%

9%

40%

4%

8%

44%

36%

8%

44%

5%

7%

30%

30%

48%

9%

57%

4%

9%

Years of Experience
in Higher Education

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Board Less Than 10 Years

8%

40%

48%

Board More Than 10 Years

8%

36%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

—

Disagree

Other

Faculty More Than 10 Years

8%

31%

39%

36%

18%

54%

7%

—

Adm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

7%

29%

36%

46%

7%

53%

7%

4%

Administrator More Than 10 Years

19%

37%

56%

27%

17%

44%

—

—

TABLE 12
QUESTION 12:

S ta tu tory b a s is should provide fo r in v o lv in g the s t a t e ' s independent c o l l e g e s and
u n i v e r s i t i e s and th e p r iv a te tr a d e , te c h n ic a l and bu sin ess sch o o ls in the o v era ll
planning and coordination process o f t h i s proposed board (Part I I , Q-7).

POSITION
Position

A9ree

n
Opinion

T°t a l

Other

Board Chairman

m

m

64%

9%

9%

18%

11%

Board Member

13%

54%

67%

13%

6%

19%

7%

Faculty

30%

48%

78%

3%

12 %

2%

8%

Administrator

22%

51%

73%

4%

15%

8%

4%

11%

TABLE 12a
QUESTION 12a:

S ta tu to ry b a s is should provide fo r in v o lv in g the s t a t e ' s independent c o l l e g e s and
u n i v e r s i t i e s and the p r iv a te tra d e, te c h n ic a l and b u sin ess sch o o ls in the o v e r a ll
planning and coordination process o f t h i s proposed board (Part I I , Q-7).

Type of I n s t i tu t i o n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Private Community College

20%

73%

93%

Public Community College

14%

61%

75%

9%

6%

15%

5%

5%

Four-Year P riv ate College

25%

47%

ro

TYPE OF INSTITUTION

11%

4%

15%

6%

7%

Four-Year Public College

7%

32%

39%

32%

10%

42%

3%

16%

P riv a te Grad, and Univ.

23%

23%

46%

12%

12%

24%

18%

12%

Public U niversity

15%

46%

61%

11%

8%

19%

15%

5%

Disagree
—

Strongly
Disagree
—

Total

No
Opinion

—

—

Other
7%

TABLE 12b
QUESTION 12b:

S tatu to ry b a s is should provide f o r in v o lv in g the s t a t e ' s independent c o lle g e s and
u n i v e r s i t i e s and the p r iv a te tr a d e , te c h n ic a l and b u sin ess sch oo ls in the o v e ra ll
planning and coord ination process o f t h i s proposed board (Part I I , Q-7).

ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

Disagree

W

No

25%

45%

70%

12%

Yes

16%

54%

70%

11%

.5 %
6%

™ .l

Op^ ion

Other

17%

6%

7%

17%

7%

6%

-

TABLE 12c
QUESTION 12c:

S ta tu to ry b a s is should provide fo r in v o lv in g the s t a t e ' s independent c o lle g e s and
u n i v e r s i t i e s and the p r iv a te tr a d e , te c h n ic a l and b u sin ess sc h o o ls in th e o v e r a ll
planning and coord ination process o f t h i s proposed board (Part I I , Q-7).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
No
Opinion

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

Board Less Than 10 Years

13%

54%

67%

12%

8%

20%

71

6%

Board More Than 10 Years

15%

50%

65%

13%

4%

17%

9%

9%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

30%

52%

82%

9%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

28%

46%

74%

10%

5%

15%

3%

8%

A dm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

18%

43%

61%

11%

7%

18%

14%

7%

Adm inistrator More Than 10 Years

27%

54%

81%

11%

2%

13%

4%

2%

Years of Experience
in Higher Education

—

9%

0th(

9%

—

IV.

INSTITUTIONAL AUTONOMY

54

TABLE 13
QUESTION 13:

One o f the stren g th s o f higher education in Michigan i s the r e l a t i v e independence
o f the boards o f control (Part 1, Q-9).

POSITION

Position

Agree

Aqree
3

Total

Disagree
3

nJcanrlo
Disagree

Total

Board Chairman

43%

45%

Board Member

40%

Faculty
Administrator

fin^n-inn
Opinion

O th e r

88%

12%

-

12%

48%

88%

4%

—

4%

2%

6%

19%

40%

59%

22%

5%

27%

9%

5%

36%

46%

82%

9%

4%

13%

4%

1%

TABLE 13a
QUESTION 13a:

One o f the str en g th s o f higher education in Michigan i s the r e l a t i v e independence
o f the boards o f control (Part 1, Q-9).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Disagree

—

—

—

6%

—

Total

No
Opinion

Other

P riv ate Community College

25%

69%

94%

Public Community College

38%

46%

84%

8%

2%

10%

2%

4%

Four-Year P riv a te College

20%

53%

73%

13%

2%

15%

6%

6%

Four-Year Public College

LTJ

00

29%

87%

10% '

—

10%

—

3%

P riv ate Grad, and Univ.

ro
CO

Type of I n s t i tu t i o n

50%

78%

17%

—

17%

5%

—

Public U niversity

62%

34%

96%

2%

3%

1%

—

1%

TABLE 13b

QUESTION 13b:

One of the stre n g th s o f higher education in Michigan i s the r e l a t i v e independence
of the boards o f control (P art 1, Q-9).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

Strongly
Agree

A
y

T

,
y

Strongly
Disagree

y

,

No
Opinion

„ h
ui

No

21%

60%

81%

6%

2%

8%

5%

6%

Yes

41%

42%

83%

10%

1%

11%

3%

3%

TABLE 13c
QUESTION 13c:

One o f the str en g th s o f higher education in Michigan i s the r e l a t i v e independence
o f the boards o f control (Part 1, Q-9).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Disagree

Board Less Than 10 Years

38%

47%

85%

7%

1%

Board More Than 10 Years

44%

47%

91%

4%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

18%

52%

70%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

21%

33%

Adm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

18%

Administrator More Than 10 Years

46%

Years of Experience
in Higher Education

No
Opinion

Other

8%

2%

5%

—

4%

1%

4%

13%

—

13%

4%

13%

54%

28%

8%

36%

10%

—

61%

79%

7%

3%

10%

11%

- -

38%

84%

10%

4%

14%

—

Total

2%

TABLE 14

QUESTION 14:

Present boards of control fo r public colleges and u n iv e r s itie s should be
discontinued and these colleges and u n iv e r s itie s placed under d ire c tio n of
a sin g le statewide board (P art 1, Q-10).
POSITION

Position

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

13%

13%

18%

68%

86%

1%

—

Other

Board Chairman

—

Board Member

3%

2%

5%

28%

62%

90%

2%

3%

Faculty

6%

14%

20%

30%

40%

70%

5%

5%

Administrator

csd
CO

8%

11%

33%

51%

84%

5%

—

TABLE 14a

QUESTION 14a:

Present boards of control fo r public colleges and u n iv e r s itie s should be
discontinued and these colleges and u n iv e r s itie s placed under d ire c tio n of
a sin g le statewide board (P art 1, Q-10).
TYPE OF INSTITUTION

Type of I n s t i tu t i o n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

13%

13%

Strongly
Disagree

Total

56%

25%

81%

6%

—

Di sagree

No
Opinion

Other

P riv ate Community College

—

Public Community College

3%

3%

6%

20%

71%

91%

1%

21

Four-Year P riv ate College

4%

11%

15%

38%

35%

73%

7%

5%

Four-Year Public College

—

3%

3%

26%

68%

94%

3%

—

P riv a te Grad, and Univ.

6%

22%

28%

56%

11%

67%

—

5%

Public U niversity

2%

2%

4%

15%

80%

95%

—

1%

TABLE 14b

QUESTION 14b:

Present boards o f control fo r public colleges and u n iv e r s itie s should be
discontinued and these colleges and u n iv e rs itie s placed under d ire c tio n of
a sin g le statewide board (P art 1, Q-10).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

T° ta1

pg

T° ta1

Opinion

°^er

No

2%

12%

14%

44%

32%

76%

5%

5%

Yes

3%

5%

8%

23%

65%

88%

2%

2%

2

TABLE 14c

QUESTION 14c:

Present boards o f control fo r public colleges and u n iv e r s itie s should be
discontinued and these colleges and u n iv e r s itie s placed under d ire c tio n of
a sin g le statewide board (Part 1, Q-10).
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Years o f Experience
in Higher Education

Strongly
Agree

Board Less Than 10 Years

No
Opinion

Other

62%

92%

1%

1%

20%

64%

84%

2%

5%

4%

39%

44%

83%

4%

9%

20%

30%

26%

36%

62%

5%

3%

11%

18%

39%

39%

78%

4%

—

6%

6%

27%

61%

88%

6%

Total

2%

4%

6%

30%

Board More Than 10 Years

5%

4%

9%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

—

4%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

10%
7%

Administrator Less Than 10 Years
Administrator More Than 10 Years

—

Strongly
Disagree

Total

Agree

Di sagree

TABLE 15

HYPOTHESIS VIII:

There w ill not be a m ajority of i n s t i t u t i o n a l responses of public colleges and
u n iv e r s itie s who w ill agree t h a t the present i n s t it u t io n a l boards should be
replaced with a sin g le statewide board.
TYPE OF INSTITUTION AND INSTITUTIONAL RESPONDENTS' OPINIONS
TOWARD REPLACEMENT OF PRESENT INSTITUTIONAL BOARDS WITH
A SINGLE STATEWIDE BOARD
ATTITUDES AND OPINIONS TOWARD
A SINGLE STATEWIDE BOARD

Type o f I n s t i tu t i o n

Disagree

Agree

Total

94.62%

5.38%

100%

Public
(N = 264)

(N = 15)

(N = 279)

81.56%

18.44%

100%

(N = 115)

(N = 26)

(N = 141)

Private

X2 = 16.6924

P < .0001

TABLE 16

HYPOTHESIS IX:

The m ajority of i n s t i t u t i o n a l respondents with more experience in higher education
w ill not favor replacing the present i n s t it u t io n a l boards with a sin g le statewide
board.
INSTITUTIONAL RESPONDENTS' LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER
EDUCATION AND THEIR OPINIONS TOWARD REPLACEMENT OF
PRESENT BOARDS WITH SINGLE STATEWIDE BOARD
REPLACEMENT OF PRESENT INSTITUTIONAL BOARDS
WITH SINGLE STATEWIDE BOARD

Level of Experience

Disagree

Agree

Total

86.42%

13.58%

100%

(N = 159)

(N = 25)

(N = 184)

More (10 or more years)

92.85%

7.15%

100%

Less (9 or fewer years)
(N = 221)
X2 = 4.1162

P < .05

(N = 17)

(N = 238)

TABLE 17

HYPOTHESIS X:

The m ajority of voters w ill not favor replacement of the present college and
u n iv e rsity boards by a statewide board o f c o n tro l, ra th e r than favor the
replacement.
MICHIGAN VOTERS' OPINIONS TOWARD REPLACEMENT OF PRESENT INSTITUTIONAL
BOARDS WITH A SINGLE STATEWIDE BOARD FOR
PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
REPLACEMENT OF INSTITUTIONAL BOARDS

Do Not Favor

Favor

Total

66.78 %

33.22%

100%

(N = 197)

(N = 98)

(N = 295)

X2 = 33.2237

P < .0001

TABLE 18

QUESTION 18:

In your opinion, should the present governing board members fo r Michigan public
colleges and u n iv e r s itie s be replaced by a sing le statewide board (Part I , Q-lOb).
SAMPLE MICHIGAN VOTERS' OPINIONS
.

Yes

No

Other
1%

^

Don't Know
26%

No Response
1%

04

TABLE 18a

QUESTION 18a:

In your opinion, should the present governing boards o t Michigan public colleges and
u n iv e r s itie s be replaced by a sin g le statewide board (P art 1, Q-10b)?
SAMPLE MICHIGAN VOTERS' OPINIONS
(BY RACIAL CHARACTERISTICS)

Racial C h a ra c te ris tic

Yes

No

Other

Don't Know

White

22%

51%

1%

25%

Minority

35%

33%

2%

30%

No Response
1%

5

TABLE 18b

QUESTION 18b:

In your opinion, should the present governing board members fo r Michigan public
colleges and u n iv e r s itie s be replaced by a sin g le statewide board (Part 1, Q-lOb).
SAMPLE MICHIGAN VOTERS' OPINIONS
(GEOGRAPHICAL)

Area

Yes

No

Don't Know

Other

No Response

Central

21%

58%

20%

1%

—

Southeast

24%

45%

29%

1%

1%

Upper Peninsula

20%

50%

20%

—

—

Western

27%

45%

25%

1%

2%

TABLE 18c

QUESTION 18c:

In your opinion, should the present governing board members f o r Michigan public
colleges and u n iv e r s itie s be replaced by a sin g le statewide board (Part 1, Q-10b)?
SAMPLE MICHIGAN VOTERS' OPINIONS
(URBANIZATION)

Area

Yes

No

Don' t Know

Other

Central City

31%

38%

30%

1%

Farm

39%

44%

17%

Rural

18%

55%

22%

Small City

21%

53%

25%

Suburb

21%

48%

28%

No Response

5%
1%
1%

2%

TABLE 19

QUESTION 19:

In your opinion, i f Michigan were to have a statewide governing board fo r public
higher education, should i t c en ter i t s a c t i v i t i e s on advice or should i t
reg u la te (P art 1, Q-10c)?

SAMPLE MICHIGAN VOTERS' OPINIONS
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Advise
40%

Regulate
38%

No Opinion
8%

Don't Know
13%

No Response
1%

'■ j

o

TABLE 19a
QUESTION 19a:

In your o p in io n , i f Michigan were to have a statew id e governing board fo r public
higher ed u cation , should i t cen te r i t s a c t i v i t i e s on advice or should i t
r e g u la te (Part 1, Q-10c)?

SAMPLE MICHIGAN VOTERS' OPINIONS
(BY RACIAL CHARACTERISTICS)
Racial C h a ra c te ris tic

Advise

Regulate

No Opinion

Don't Know

No Response

White

43%

35%

9%

12%

1%

Minority

27%

51%

5%

14%

2%

TABLE 19b
QUESTION 19b:

In your opinion, i f Michigan were to have a statewide governing board fo r public
higher education, should i t center i t s a c t i v i t i e s on advice or should i t
reg u late (Part 1, Q-10c)?
SAMPLE MICHIGAN VOTERS' OPINIONS
(GEOGRAPHICAL)
Advise

Regulate

Don't Know

No Response

Central

38%

41%

20%

1%

Southeast

35%

41%

23%

1%

Upper Peninsula

60%

ro
•^4

Area

13%

—

Western

51%

28%

19%

2%

TABLE 19c

QUESTION 19c:

In your opinion, i f Michigan were to have a statewide board fo r public higher
education, should i t center i t s a c t i v i t i e s on advice or should i t
reg u la te (P art 1, Q-10c)?
SAMPLE MICHIGAN VOTERS' OPINIONS
(URBANIZATION)

Area

Advise

Regulate

Don't Know

Central City

35%

46%

17%

Farm

39%

44%

17%

Rural

47%

33%

18%

Small City

39%

39%

22%

Suburb

42%

33%

24%

No Response
2%

2%

1%

TABLE 20
QUESTION 20:

There i s a su b s ta n tia l support in the educational community fo r c re a tio n o f a
separate S ta te Board o f Higher Education with advisory powers (Part 1, Q-27).

POSITION
P osition

W

*

A 9 re e

T o ta l

Disagree

Total

Op^ io(1

Other

Board Chairman

5%

42%

47%

13%

4%

17%

13%

23%

Board Member

6%

27%

33%

15%

6%

21 %

19%

27%

Faculty

11 %

37%

48%

11%

3%

14%

14%

24%

Administrator

20%

32%

52%

13%

1%

14%

10%

24%

TABLE 20a

QUESTION 20a:

There i s a su b sta n tia l support in the educational community fo r cre atio n of a
separate S tate Board o f Higher Education with advisory powers (Part 1, Q-27).
TYPE OF INSTITUTION

Type of I n s t i tu t i o n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

33%

13%

14%

P riv ate Community College

—

40%

40%

33%

Public Community College

11%

38%

49%

11%

4%

15%

14%

22%

Four-Year P riv ate College

5%

29%

34%

10%

2%

12%

20%

34%

Four-Year Public College

10%

32%

42%

29%

10%

39%

3%

16%

P riv ate Grad, and Univ.

—

6%

6%

—

—

—

29%

65%

Public U niversity

15%

19%

34%

32%

19%

15%

23%

—

9%

TABLE 20b

QUESTION 20b:

There is a su b sta n tia l support in the educational community fo r creation of a
separate S tate Board of Higher Education with advisory powers (Part 1, Q-27).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

Bargai ning^Purposes?

W

™

™

O p tio n

No

1%

31%

32%

10%

3%

13%

17%

38%

Yes

11%

31%

42%

15%

5%

20%

16%

22%

TABLE 20c
QUESTION 20c:

There i s a s u b s ta n tia l support in th e educational community fo r c r e a tio n o f a
separate S ta te Board o f Higher Education with advisory powers (Part 1, Q-27).

Years of Experience
in Higher Education

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Disagree

Board Less Than 10 Years

4%

28%

32%

15%

7%

22%

18%

INS
CO
S'S

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Board More Than 10 Years

9%

33%

42%

13%

3%

16%

18%

24%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

13%

35%

48%

22%

—

22%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

10%

36%

46%

5%

5%

10%

18%

26%

Adm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

11%

25%

36%

18%

—

18%

18%

28%

Administrator More Than 10 Years

25%

38%

63%

10%

2%

12%

6%

19%

Total

No
Opinion

8%

Other

22%

TABLE 21

QUESTION 21:

There is su b sta n tia l l e g i s l a t i v e support fo r creation of a separate S ta te Board
of Higher Education with advisory powers (P art 1, Q-28).
POSITION

Position

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Chairman

—

18%

18%

9%

5%

14%

26%

42%

Board Member

2%

15%

17%

11%

3%

14%

25%

44%

Faculty

3%

8%

11%

8%

2%

10%

17%

62%

Administrator

5%

13%

18%

15%

1%

16%

24%

42%

TABLE 21a

QUESTION 21a:

There is su b sta n tia l l e g i s l a t i v e support fo r creatio n o f a separate S tate Board
of Higher Education with advisory powers (P art 1, Q-28).
TYPE OF INSTITUTION

Type o f I n s t i tu t i o n
P riv ate Community College

Strongly
Agree
—

Agree

Total

Di sagree

13%

13%

33%

Strongly
Disagree
—

Total

No
Opi ni on

Other

33%

20%

34%

Public Community College

3%

17%

20%

7%

3%

10%

25%

45%

Four-Year P rivate College

3%

14%

17%

7%

2%

9%

27%

47%

3%

3%

13%

10%

23%

13%

61%

6%

23%

71%

28%

20%

37%

Four-Year Public College

—

P riv ate Grad, and Univ.

—

Public University

3%

—

—

12%

15%

6%
25%

—

3%

TABLE 21b

QUESTION 21b:

There i s su b sta n tia l l e g i s l a t i v e support fo r creation of a separate S tate Board
of Higher Education with advisory powers (P art 1, Q-28).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

Organized fo r Formal
Strongly
.
T . ,
Disaaree
Strongly
, . ,
No
0th
Bargaining Purposes?
Agree
9
9
Disagree
Opinion
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
No

1%

11«

12%

11%

2%

13%

25%

50%

Yes

3%

15%

18%

11%

3%

14%

23%

45%

&

o

TABLE 21c
QUESTION 21c:

There i s su b s ta n tia l l e g i s l a t i v e support fo r c r e a tio n o f a separate S ta te Board
o f Higher Education w ith advisory powers (Part 1, Q-28).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Board Less Than 10 Years

1%

15%

16%

Board More Than 10 Years

3%

15%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

4%

—

Faculty More Than 10 Years

3%

Adm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

—

Administrator More Than 10 Years

8%

Years o f Experience
in Higher Education

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

10%

3%

13%

24%

47%

18%

12%

3%

15%

27%

40%

4%

13%

—

13%

18%

65%

13%

16%

3%

5%

18%

61%

4%

4%

21%

—

21%

29%

46%

19%

27%

12%

2%

14%

21%

38%

Di sagree

2%

TABLE 22
QUESTION 22:

There i s su b s ta n tia l support in the e x e c u tiv e o f f i c e fo r c r e a tio n o f a separate
S ta te Board o f Education w ith advisory powers (Part 1, Q-29).

POSITION
P osition

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Chairman

—

38%

38%

7%

4%

11%

20%

31%

Board Member

4%

20%

24%

8%

2%

10%

25%

41%

Faculty

5%

13%

18%

3%

—

3%

19%

60%

Administrator

5%

22%

27%

11%

—

11%

25%

37%

TABLE 22a
QUESTION 22a:

There i s s u b s ta n tia l support in the e x e c u tiv e o f f i c e fo r c r e a tio n o f a
separate S ta te Board o f Education with advisory powers (Part 1, Q-29).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type of I n s t i tu t i o n
P riv ate Community College

Strongly
Agree
—

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

13%

13%

33%

—

Total

No
Opinion

Other

33%

14%

40%

Public Community College

3%

21%

24%

5%

2%

7%

25%

44%

Four-Year P riv ate College

2%

20%

22%

8%

2%

10%

25%

43%
CVI

Four-Year Public College

m

19%

32%

10%

3%

13%

13%

P riv ate Grad, and Univ.

—

—

—

—

—

—

29%

71%

35%

40%

2%

11%

23%

26%

Public University

5%

9%

TABLE 22b

QUESTION 22b:

There i s su b s ta n tia l support in the executive o ffic e fo r creation of a
separate S tate Board of Education with advisory powers (P art 1, Q-29).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

Organized f o r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

Strongly
Agree

T

,

s

a

Strongly
Disagree

T

,

No
Opinion

Qh
00
-d

No

—

14%

14%

13%

2%

15%

22%

Yes

5%

24%

29%

6%

1%

7%

24%

40%

TABLE 22c

QUESTION 22c:

There i s su b sta n tia l support in the executive o ffic e fo r creatio n of a separate
S tate Board o f Education with advisory powers (Part 1, Q-29).
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Less Than 10 Years

2%

25%

27%

6%

2%

8%

23%

42%

Board More Than 10 Years

4%

21%

25%

11%

3%

14%

25%

36%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

9%

13%

22%

4%

4%

17%

57%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

3%

13%

16%

—

—

—

20%

64%

Administrator Less Than 10 Years

4%

11%

15%

14%

—

14%

28%

43%

A dm inistrator More Than 10 Years

6%

29%

35%

11%

—

11%

23%

31%

Years of Experience
in Higher Education

—

TABLE 23

QUESTION 23:

Not having a statewide board o f control w ill lead to duplication o f resources,
unwarranted competition and lack o f i n t e r - i n s t i t u t i o n a l cooperation (Part 1, Q - ll).
POSITION

P osition

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opi ni on

Other

Board Chairman

2%

20%

22%

34%

34%

68%

7%

3%

Board Member

1%

14%

15%

49%

26%

75%

4%

6%

Faculty

8%

22%

30%

41%

16%

57%

6%

7%

Administrator

5%

24%

29%

37%

21%

58%

8%

5%

TABLE 23a

QUESTION 23a:

Not having a statewide board of control w ill lead to duplication o f resources,
unwarranted competition and lack o f i n t e r - i n s t i t u t i o n a l cooperation (P art 1, Q - ll) .
TYPE OF INSTITUTION

Type of I n s t i tu t i o n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

—

25%

25%

69%

—

69%

6%

—

Public Community College

2%

14%

16%

45%

29%

74%

5%

5%

Four-Year P rivate College

3%

24%

27%

40%

15%

55%

7%

8%

Four-Year Public College

3%

23%

26%

42%

26%

68%

—

6%

P riv ate Grad, and Univ.

6%

28%

34%

44%

6%

50%

11%

5%

Public U niversity

3%

11%

14%

40%

40%

3%

3%

00
o

P riv a te Community College

TABLE 23b

QUESTION 23b:

Not having a statewide board of control w ill lead to duplication of resources,
unwarranted competition and lack of i n t e r - i n s t i t u t i o n a l cooperation (P art 1, Q -ll)
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

Bargaining Purposes?

Sl Z : ? y

Agree

Agree
«y,cc

Total
,u ‘'a '

Disagree
u,3Qy,cc

«Disagree

Total
,VJuai

No
Opinion

Other

„
00

No

2%

20%

22%

51%

11%

62%

Yes

3%

17%

20%

41%

29%

70%

4%

6%

TABLE 23c

QUESTION 23c:

Not having a statewide board of control w ill lead to duplication of resources,
unwarranted competition and lack of i n t e r - i n s t i t u t i o n a l cooperation (P art 1, Q - ll) .
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Board Less Than 10 Years

1%

15%

16%

44%

29%

73%

4%

7%

Board More Than 10 Years

3%

16%

19%

49%

23%

72%

5%

4%

Years of Experience
in Higher Education

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Otht

—

13%

13%

56%

13%

69%

9%

9%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

13%

33%

18%

51%

5%

3%

00
CM

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

41%

Adm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

7%

21%

28%

43%

11%

54%

4%

14%

Administrator More Than 10 Years

4%

25%

29%

31%

27%

58%

11%

2%

V.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES' SATISFACTION,
SELECTION AND SIZE

90

TABLE 24

QUESTION 24:

How well s a t i s f i e d are you with the actions of the governing boards of our public
colleges and u n iv e r s itie s (P art 1, Q-10a)?
SAMPLE MICHIGAN VOTERS' OPINIONS

Well
S a tis f ie d
6%

Moderately
S a tis f ie d

ca+1-cf4DH
^ ls n e a

Not Wel1
S a tis fie d

nicca+ic-fiori
u issa tisn e a

Not
S a tis f ie d

Not
informed

Don,t
Know

16%

22%

8%

2%

10%

65%

3%

TABLE 24a

QUESTION 24a:

How well s a t i s f i e d are you with the actions of the governing boards of our public
colleges and u n iv e r s itie s (Part 1, Q-lOa)?
SAMPLE MICHIGAN VOTERS' OPINIONS
(BY RACIAL CHARACTERISTICS)

Racial
C h a ra c te ris tic

Well
S a tis f ie d

Moderately
S a tis fie d

Not Well
S a tis f ie d

niccaH c«oH

Doesn't
Apply

Don't
Know

White

6%

16%

8%

2%

65%

3%

Minority

4%

17%

7%

2%

67%

3%

ro

TABLE 24b

QUESTION 24b:

How well s a t i s f i e d a re you with the actions of the governing boards o f our public
colleges and u n iv e r s itie s (P art 1, Q-10a)?
SAMPLE MICHIGAN VOTERS' OPINIONS
(GEOGRAPHICAL)

Area

Well
Sati s fi ed

Moderately
Sati s f i ed

Not Well
S a tis fie d

D iss a tisfie d

Don't
Know

Central

24%

40%

20%

8%

8%

Southeast

13%

46%

24%

6%

11%

Upper Peninsula

43%

43%

14%

—

—

Western

14%

55%

21%

3%

7%

TABLE 24c

QUESTION 24c:

How well s a t i s f i e d are you with the a ctio ns of the governing boards of our public
colleges and u n iv e r s itie s (P art 1, Q-10a)?
SAMPLE MICHIGAN VOTERS' OPINIONS
(URBANIZATION)
Well
S a tis f ie d

Moderately
S a tis fie d

Not Well
S a tis fie d

D iss a tisfie d

Don't
Know

Central City

16%

47%

22%

6%

9%

Farm

—

50%

38%

12%

Rural

16%

26%

37%

5%

Small City

19%

66%

6%

Suburb

17%

42%

25%

Area

—

16%
9%

—

8%

8%

TABLE 25

HYPOTHESIS XII:

The m ajority of voters w ill agree th a t they are uninformed about post-secondary
education.
MICHIGAN VOTERS' LEVEL OF INFORMATION ABOUT
PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
LEVEL OF INFORMATION ABOUT PUBLIC
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

Uninformed

Informed

Total

63.11%

36.89%

100%

(N = 260)

(N = 152)

(N = 412)

X2 = 28.3106

P < .0001

TABLE 26
QUESTION 26:

Board members in higher education should be e le c t e d on a non-partisan b a l l o t
{Part I , Q-12).

POSITION
Position

Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

20 %

38%

3%

4%

Di sagree

Board Chairman

23%

32%

55%

Board Member

28%

28%

56%

22 %

16%

38%

3%

3%

Faculty

19%

43%

62%

19%

14%

33%

3%

2%

Administrator

17%

45%

62%

20%

14%

34%

3%

1%

TABLE 26a
QUESTION 26a:

Board members in higher education should be e le c t e d on a non-partisan b a l l o t
(Part I , Q-12).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type of I n s t i tu t i o n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

P riv ate Community College

m

69%

81%

13%

6%

19%

—

—

Public Community College

42%

35%

77%

12%

7%

19%

2%

2%

Four-Year P riv a te College

13%

44%

57%

22%

12%

34%

5%

4%

3%

13%

16%

32%

39%

71%

7%

6%

22%

50%

72%

17%

—

17%

6%

5%

6%

6%

12%

38%

48%

86%

2%

—

Four-Year Public College
P riv ate Grad, and Univ.
Public U niversity

TABLE 26b

QUESTION 26b:

Board members in higher education should be elected on a non-partisan b a llo t
(P art I , Q-12).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

Strongly
Agree

A
y

T

,
a

Strongly
Disagree

T

,

No
Opinion

„ h
^
00

No

16%

52%

68%

16%

9%

25%

4%

3%

Yes

27%

28%

55%

22%

18%

40%

3%

2%

TABLE 26c
QUESTION 26c:

Board members in higher education should be elected on a non-partisan ballot
(Part I, Q-12).
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Less Than 10 Years

23%

33%

56%

23%

15%

38%

4%

2%

Board More Than 10 Years

33%

22%

55%

18%

21%

39%

1%

5%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

18%

00

66%

22%

4%

26%

4%

4%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

18%

41%

59%

18%

20%

38%

3%

—

Adm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

14%

57%

71%

18%

11%

29%

—

—

Adm inistrator More Than 10 Years

21%

35%

56%

21%

17%

38%

4%

2%

Years of Experience
in Higher Education

TABLE 27
QUESTION 27:

Board members in higher education should be elected on a partisan ballot
(Part I, Q-13).
POSITION
Strongly
Agree

Board Chairman

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

53%

CTi
00

P osition

2%

5%

43%

43%

86%

4%

5%

Wo

49%

40%

89%

—

3%

i%

49%

42%

91%

4%

4%

Agree

Total

Di sagree

—

4%

Mo

36%

Board Member

3%

2%

5%

Faculty

3%

5%

Administrator

1%

—

TABLE 27a
QUESTION 27a:

Board members in higher education should be elected on a partisan ballot
(Part I, Q-13).
TYPE OF INSTITUTION

Type o f I n s t i tu t i o n

Strongly
Agree

Di sagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

P riv ate Community College

6%

—

6% '

81%

13%

94%

—

—

Public Community College

1%

2%

3%

41%

49%

90%

3%

4%

Four-Year P riv ate College

—

n

1%

54%

36%

90%

3%

6%

Four-Year Public College

3%

—

3%

32%

48%

80%

7%

10%

P riv ate Grad, and Univ.

—

—

—

56%

39%

95%

—

5%

Public University

9%

9%

18%

26%

54%

80%

2%

—

Agree

Total

No
Opinion

•

Other

TABLE 27b

QUESTION 27b:

Board members in higher education should be elected on a p a rtisa n b a llo t
(P art I , Q-13).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

No

1%

—

1%

59%

32%

91%

3%

5%

Yes

3%

31

6%

39%

48%

87%

3%

4%

102

Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

TABLE 27c
QUESTION 27c:

Board members in higher education should be elected on a partisan ballot
(Part I, Q-13).
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Years of Experience
in Higher Education

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

2%

Mo

6%

43%

42%

85%

5%

4%

Board More Than 10 Years

n

U

3%

39%

50%

89%

1%

7%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

—

M

M

57%

35%

92%

—

4%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

5%

5%

10%

46%

41%

87%

—

3%

Administrator Less Than 10 Years

A%

—

M

57%

32%

89%

3%

4%

Administrator More Than 10 Years

—

—

42%

50%

92%

4%

4%

—

103

Board Less Than 10 Years

TABLE 28
QUESTION 28:

Board members in higher education should be appointed by the Governor with
advice and consent of the Senate (Part I, Q-14).
POSITION

P osition

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Chairman

20%

25%

45%

27%

18%

45%

6%

4%

Board Member

18%

22%

40%

28%

24%

52%

4%

4%

Faculty

16%

30%

46%

37%

'11%

48%

3%

3%

Administrator

23%

26%

49%

33%

12%

45%

5%

1%

TABLE 28a
QUESTION 28a:

Board members in higher education should be appointed by the Governor with
advice and consent of the Senate (Part I, Q-14).
TYPE OF INSTITUTION

Type o f I n s t i tu t i o n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

P riv ate Community College

7%

13%

20%

53%

Public Community College

9%

16%

25%

Four-Year P rivate College

11%

33%

Four-Year Public College

55%

P riv ate Grad, and Univ.
Public U niversity

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

20%

73%

7%

—

35%

34%

69%

2%

4%

44%

35%

7%

42%

8%

6%

32%

87%

7%

7%

3%

3%

—

41%

41%

35%

12%

47%

12%

—

51%

28%

79%

9%

12%

21%

—

—

—

Other

TABLE 28b
QUESTION 28b:

Board members in higher education should be appointed by the Governor with
advice and consent of the Senate (P art I , Q-14).

901

ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

No

10%

26%

36%

42%

11%

53%

8%

3%

Yes

21%

24%

45%

25%

22%

48%

3%

4%

TABLE 28c
QUESTION 28c:

Board members in higher education should be appointed by the Governor with
advice and consent of the Senate.
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Years o f Experience
in Higher Education

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Board Less Than 10 Years

15%

22%

37%

32%

Board More Than 10 Years

24%

24%

48%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

13%

26%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

15%

Administrator Less Than 10 Years
Adm inistrator More Than 10 Years

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

24%

56%

4%

3%

21%

21%

42%

6%

4%

39%

35%

13%

48%

4%

9%

36%

51%

36%

10%

46%

3%

—

14%

14%

28%

57%

11%

68%

4%

—

30%

31% '

61%

19%

12%

31%

6%

2%

TABLE 29
QUESTION 29:

Of the th ree main ways to s e l e c t governing board members fo r Michigan p u blic
c o lle g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s which o f the th ree do you prefer (Part I , Q-14a)?

SAMPLE MICHIGAN VOTERS' OPINIONS
Method

Percentage

Democratic/Republican B a llo t

27%

Non-Partisan B allot

42%

Governor Appointment with Senate Approval

21%

Other

1%

Don't Know

8%

No Response

1%

TABLE 29a
QUESTION 29a:

Of the three main ways to s e l e c t governing board members fo r Michigan pu blic c o lle g e s
and u n i v e r s i t i e s which o f the th ree do you p re fe r (Part I , Q-l4a)?

SAMPLE MICHIGAN VOTERS' OPINIONS
(BY RACIAL CHARACTERISTICS)
Racial
C h a ra c te ris tic

Democrati c/Republi can
B a llo t

Non-Partisan
B allo t

Governor Appointment
with Senate Approval

Other

White

26%

46%

21%

—

M inority

35%

33%

17%

2%

Don't
Know
7%
10%

No
Response
—

3%

TABLE 29b
QUESTION 29b:

Of the th ree main ways to s e l e c t governing board members fo r Michigan public c o lle g e s
and u n i v e r s i t i e s which o f the th ree do you p refer (Part I , Q-l4a)?

Area

Democrati c/Republi can
B allo t

Non-Partisan
B a llo t

Governor Appointment
w ith Senate Approval

Other

Don't
Know
10%

No
Response

Central

25%

46%

18%

1%

Southeast

26%

42%

23%

—

8%

Upper Peninsula

21%

53%

7%

—

13%

—

Western

33%

44%

18%

—

5%

—

—

1%

O il

SAMPLE MICHIGAN VOTERS' OPINIONS
(GEOGRAPHICAL)

TABLE 29c
QUESTION 29c:

Of the th ree main ways to s e l e c t governing board members fo r Michigan public c o lle g e s
and u n i v e r s i t i e s which o f the th ree do you p refer (Part I , Q-l4a)?

SAMPLE MICHIGAN VOTERS' OPINIONS
(URBANIZATION)
Area

Democratic/Republican
B allot

Non-Partisan
B allo t

Governor Appointment
with Senate Approval

Central City

34%

37%

20 %

Farm

30%

30%

35%

Rural

29%

42%

22 %

Small City

30%

45%

16%

Suburb

20%

49%

22%

o th er

Don't
Know

No
Response
2%

TABLE 30

HYPOTHESIS XIV:

The m ajority o f voters w ill favor se le c tio n of public co lleg e and u n iv e rsity
board members through appointment by the Governor, with advice and consent
of the Senate.
MICHIGAN VOTERS' OPINIONS ABOUT SELECTION PROCESSES OF
PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES BOARD MEMBERS
BOARD SELECTION PROCESSES

Appointment by Governor

P a rtisan

Non-Partisan

Total

22.61%

30.05%

47.34%

100%

(N = 85)

(N = 113)

(N = 178)

(N = 376)

X2 = 36.3341

P < .0001

TABLE 31
QUESTION 31:

Faculty members should be allowed to serve on t h e ir own i n s t i t u t i o n ' s board o f
control (Part I , Q -l5 ).

POSITION
Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

9%

40%

49%

89%

2%

—

m

13%

36%

48%

84%

2%

1%

16%

30%

46%

25%

18%

43%

6%

5%

4%

7%

11%

37%

51%

oo

1%

—

Strongly
Agree

Board Chairman

2%

Board Member

1%

Faculty
A dm inistrator

Agree

Total

7%

CO

Disagree

P o sitio n

TABLE 31a
QUESTION 31a:

Faculty members should be allowed to serve on t h e ir own i n s t i t u t i o n ' s board
o f control (Part I , Q-15).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type of I n s titu tio n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

P riv a te Community College

—

33%

33%

47%

20%

67%

Public Community College

4%

11%

15%

28%

55%

83%

1%

1%

Four-Year P riv a te College

3%

19%

22%

40%

34%

74%

2%

2%

Four-Year Public College

6%

6%

12%

39%

39%

sc
00

P riv a te Grad, and Univ.

—

24%

24%

41%

29%

Public U niversity

6%

2%

8%

42%

46%

No
Opinion

—

10%

—

70%

6%

—

88%

3%

1%

114

—

Other

TABLE 31b

QUESTION 31b:

Faculty members should be allowed to serve on t h e ir own i n s t i t u t i o n 's board
of control (P a rt I , Q-15).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES
Agree

Total

Di sagree

No

1%

18%

19%

44%

Yes

5%

11%

16%

32%

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

32%

76%

3%

2%

48%

80%

3%

1%

115

Strongly
Agree

Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

TABLE 31c
QUESTION 31c:

Faculty members should be allowed to serve on t h e ir own i n s t i t u t i o n ' s board o f
control (Part I , Q-15).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Years of Experience
in Higher Education

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

2%

13%

15%

7%

Board Less Than 10 Years

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

37%

46%

83%

2%

—

7%

36%

51%

87%

4%

2%

Disagree

Other

Board More Than 10 Years

—

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

22%

30%

52%

22%

9%

31%

9%

8%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

13%

31%

44%

26%

23%

49%

5%

2%

A dm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

—

18%

18%

39%

43%

82%

—

—

6%

36%

56%

92%

2%

—

A dm inistrator More Than 10 Years

6%

—

TABLE 32
QUESTION 32:

Students should be allowed to serve on t h e i r own i n s t i t u t i o n ' s board o f control
(Part I , Q-16).

P o sitio n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Board Chairman

2%

13%

15%

42%

43%

00

POSITION

Board Member

3%

31%

34%

30%

29%

14%

27%

41%

32%

3%

16%

19%

38%

Faculty
A dm inistrator

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

—

—

59%

5%

2%

19%

51%

3%

5%

37%

75%

4%

2%

TABLE 32a
QUESTION 32a:

Students should be allowed to serve on t h e ir own i n s t i t u t i o n ' s board o f
control (Part I , Q-16).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type o f I n s titu tio n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

P riv a te Community College

—

53%

53%

20%

20%

40%

7%

—

Public Conmunity College

6%

27%

33%

30%

30%

60%

5%

2%

Four-Year P riv a te College

2%

23%

25%

42%

27%

69%

4%

2%

Four-Year Public College

6%

23%

29%

23%

39%

62%

—

9%

P riv a te Grad, and Univ.

—

18%

18%

29%

47%

76%

6%

—

Public U niversity

6%

23%

29%

31%

38%

69%

2%

—

TABLE 32b

QUESTION 32b:

Students should be allowed to serve on th e ir own i n s t i t u t i o n 's board o f control
(P art I , Q-16).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other
119

No

—

17%

17%

50%

in

77%

5%

1%

Yes

6%

28%

34%

28%

32%

60%

4%

2%

TABLE 32c
QUESTION 32c:

Students should be allowed to serve on t h e i r own i n s t i t u t i o n ' s board o f control
(Part I , Q-16).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Years o f Experience
in Higher Education

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Less Than 10 Years

4%

• 31%

35%

33%

28%

61%

2%

2%

Board More Than 10 Years

1%

22%

23%

30%

38%

68%

7%

2%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

22%

39%

61%

13%

17%

30%

—

9%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

10%

20%

30%

38%

21%

59%

8%

3%

A dm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

—

32%

32%

39%

25%

64%

4%

—

6%

10%

40%

44%

84%

2%

4%

A dm inistrator More Than 10 Years

4%

TABLE 33
QUESTION 33:

Faculty members should be allowed to serve on boards o f control o f i n s t i t u t i o n s
oth er than t h e i r own (Part I , Q-17).

POSITION
P o sitio n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Board Chairman

7%

47%

54%

22%

Board Member

11%

53%

64%

Faculty

25%

51%

A dm inistrator

12%

57%

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

11%

33%

13%

17%

12%

29%

6%

1%

76%

8%

5%

13%

6%

5%

69%

14%

14%

28%

3%

—

Other

—

TABLE 33a
QUESTION 33a:

Faculty members should be allowed to serve on boards o f control o f i n s t i t u t i o n s
oth er than t h e i r own (Part I , Q-17).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type o f I n s titu tio n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

P riv a te Community College

—

73%

73%

13%

7%

20%

7%

—

Public Community College

16%

46%

62%

17%

15%

32%

5%

1%

Four-Year P riv a te College

12%

54%

66%

15%

8%

23%

10%

1%

Four-Year Public College

13%

52%

65%

10%

19%

29%

3%

3%

6%

65%

71%

23%

6%

29%

12%

63%

75%

12%

5%

17%

P riv a te Grad, and Univ.
Public U niversity

—

—

6%

2%

TABLE 33b

QUESTION 33b:

Faculty members should be allowed to serve on boards of control o f in s titu tio n s
oth er than th e ir own (P a rt I , Q-17).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES
Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

No

8%

56%

64%

18%

10%

28%

7%

1%

Yes

14%

52%

66%

15%

12%

27%

6%

1%

123

Strongly
Agree

Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

TABLE 33c
QUESTION 33c:

Faculty members should be allowed to serve on boards o f control o f i n s t i t u t i o n s
other than t h e ir own (Part I , Q-17).

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Less Than 10 Years

13%

56%

69%

14%

11%

25%

5%

1%

Board More Than 10 Years

6%

46%

52%

23%

14%

37%

10%

1%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

26%

52%

78%

4%

4%

9%

9%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

26%

49%

75%

10%

QOf
OJo

18%

5%

2%

A dm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

11%

c_n
—i

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

68%

14%

14%

28%

4%

—

A dm inistrator More Than 10 Years

12%

56%

68%

15%

15%

30%

2%

—

Years of Experience
in Higher Education

—

TABLE 34
QUESTION 34:

Administrators and s t a f f members should be allowed to serve on boards o f control
o f i n s t i t u t i o n s o f higher education other than t h e ir own (Part I , Q-18).

POSITION

Agree

Total

Disagree
a

Board Chairman

38%

47%

25%

11%

36%

15%

Board Member

51%

59%

20 %

10%

30%

9%

63%

21 %

8%

29%

16%

12%

P o sitio n

^A gree^

Strongly
Disagree

T

]

No
Opinion

Qth

125

Faculty

19%

44%

Administrator

13%

55%

3%

TABLE 34a
QUESTION 34a:

Administrators and s t a f f members should be allowed to serve on boards o f control
o f i n s t i t u t i o n s o f higher education other than t h e i r own (Part I , Q-18).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type of In s titu tio n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

P riv a te Community College

—

67%

67%

20%

7%

27%

6%

—

Public Community College

13%

47%

60%

20%

12%

32%

7%

1%

Four-Year P riv a te College

1U

51%

62%

20%

6%

26%

10%

2%

Four-Year Public College

3%

45%

48%

19%

23%

42%

3%

7%

P riv a te Grad, and Univ.

12%

59%

71%

17%

6%

23%

6%

—

9%

48%

57%

20%

9%

29%

12%

Public U niversity

2%

TABLE 34b
QUESTION 34b:

A d m in is tra to rs and s t a f f members should be a llo w e d to serve on boards o f c o n tro l
o f i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h ig h e r e d u c a tio n o th e r than t h e i r own (P a r t I , Q -1 8 ).

ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES
Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

Strongly
Agree

fl
y

T t ,
y

Strongly
Disagree

T

,

No
Opinion

Qth
r\a

No

7%

54%

61%

21%

9%

30%

7%

2%

Yes

12%

48%

60%

20%

10%

30%

8%

2%

TABLE 34c
QUESTION 34c:

A d m in is tra to rs and s t a f f members should be a llo w e d to serv e on boards o f c o n tro l
o f i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h ig h e r e d u c a tio n o th e r than t h e i r own ( P a r t I , Q -1 8 ).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Years of Experience
in Higher Education

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Less Than 10 Years

11%

53%

64%

18%

9%

27%

7%

2%

Board More Than 10 Years

4%

41%

45%

27%

13%

40%

14%

1%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

26%

39%

65%

22%

—

22%

4%

9%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

15%

46%

61%

21%

13%

34%

5%

—

A dm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

11%

53%

64%

18%

11%

39%

7%

—

A dm inistrator More Than 10 Years

15%

56%

71%

15%

12%

27%

2%

—

TABLE 35
QUESTION 35:

S tu d en ts should be a llo w e d to s erv e on boards o f c o n tro l o f i n s t i t u t i o n s o f
h ig h e r e d u c a tio n o th e r than t h e i r own ( P a r t I , Q -1 9 ).

POSITION
P o sitio n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Board Chairman

9%

33%

42%

23%

Board Member

8%

47%

55%

io%

47%

9%

53%

Faculty
A dm inistrator

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

20%

43%

13%

2%

24%

10%

34%

10%

1%

57%

24%

10%

34%

6%

3%

62%

13%

11%

24%

14%

—

TABLE 35a
QUESTION 35a:

S tudents should be a llo w e d to s erv e on boards o f c o n tro l o f i n s t i t u t i o n s o f
h ig h e r e d u c a tio n o th e r th a n t h e i r own (P a r t I , Q -1 9 ).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type o f I n s titu tio n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

P riv a te Community College

—

53%

53%

27%

7%

34%

13%

—

Public Community College

12%

50%

62%

15%

10%

25%

11%

2%

Four-Year P riv a te College

6%

41%

47%

32%

9%

41%

11%

1%

Four-Year Public College

6%

39%

45%

23%

16%

39%

13%

3%

P riv a te Grad, and Univ.

6%

18%

24%

41%

29%

70%

6%

—

Public U niversity

9%

55%

64%

19%

12%

31%

5%

—

TABLE 35b

QUESTION 35b:

Students should be allowed to serve on boards of control of in s titu tio n s of
higher education o th er than th e ir own (P a rt I , Q-19).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?
No

Yes

Strongly
Agree

.

T

,

9

Di<.aarpp
9

Strongly
Disagree

T . ,

No
Opinion

5%

41%

46%

31%

11%

42%

11%

1%

10%

48%

58%

20%

11%

31%

10%

1%

TABLE 35c

QUESTION 35c:

Students should be allowed to serve on boards o f control o f in s titu tio n s of higher
education other than th e ir own (P a rt I , Q-19).
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Years o f Experience
in Higher Education

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Less Than 10 Years

10%

47%

57%

26%

9%

35%

7%

1%

Board More Than 10 Years

5%

42%

47%

21%

15%

36%

15%

2%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

9% '

39%

48%

30%

—

30%

13%

9%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

10%

51%

61%

21%

15%

36%

3%

—

A dm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

11%

46%

57%

14%

11%

25%

18%

—

A dm inistrator More Than 10 Years

8%

56%

64%

13%

10%

23%

13%

—

TABLE 36

QUESTION 36:

Community colleg e boards of control should continue to be e le cted (P a rt I , Q-20).
POSITION

P o sitio n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Board Chairman

31%

40%

71%

13%

7%

20%

7%

2%

Board Member

29%

44%

73%

13%

4%

17%

8%

2%

Faculty

13%

46%

59%

24%

8%

32%

6%

3%

Admi ni s tr a to r

17%

50%

67%

12%

4%

16%

17%

Other

—

TABLE 36a
QUESTION 36a:

Community c o lle g e boards o f c o n tro l should c o n tin u e to be e le c te d ( P a r t I ,

Q -2 0 ).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type o f In s titu tio n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

P riv a te Community College

13%

53%

66%

20%

Public Community College

49%

42%

91%

4%

Four-Year P riv a te College

6%

52%

58%

42%

Four-Year Public College

m

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

20%

14%

3%

7%

1%

1%

24%

3%

27%

12%

3%

52%

13%

16%

29%

16%

3%

—

Other

—

P riv a te Grad, and Univ.

6%

53%

59%

12%

—

12%

29%

—

Public U niversity

5%

38%

43%

26%

14%

40%

15%

2%

TABLE 36b

QUESTION 36b:

Community college boards of control should continue to be ele cted (P a rt I ,
Q-20).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES
Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

No

13%

48%

61%

20%

2%

22%

15%

2%

Yes

28%

44%

72%

13%

6%

19%

7%

21

135

Strongly
Agree

Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

TABLE 36c
QUESTION 36c:

Community c o lle g e boards o f control should continue to be e le c t e d (Part I , Q-20).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Board Less Than 10 Years

28%

44%

72%

Board More Than 10 Years

31%

41%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

4%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

15%

4%

19%

7%

2%

72%

9%

7%

16%

9%

3%

57%

61%

22%

4%

. 26%

9%

4%

15%

41%

56%

28%

10%

38%

3%

3%

A dm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

11%

53%

64%

11%

4%

15%

21%

—

A dm inistrator More Than 10 Years

21%

48%

69%

10%

4%

14%

17%

—

Years of Experience
in Higher Education

Disagree

TABLE 37
QUESTION 37:

Community c o lle g e boards o f control should be appointed by the Governor with
advice and consent o f the Senate (Part I , Q-21).

POSITION
P o sition

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

Board Chairman

6%

15%

21%

29%

36%

65%

9%

5%

Board Member

5%

14%

19%

34%

35%

69%

8%

4%

Faculty

5%

29%

34%

44%

11%

55%

9%

2%

A dm inistrator

5%

12%

17%

46%

22%

68%

15%

No
Opinion

Other

—

TABLE 37a
QUESTION 37a:

Community c o lle g e boards o f control should be appointed by the Governor with
advice and consent o f the Senate (Part I , Q-21).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type of In s titu tio n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

20%

20%

53%

20%

73%

7%

—

Other

P riv a te Community College

—

Public Community College

2%

5%

7%

30%

59%

89%

2%

2%

Four-Year P riv ate College

5%

19%

24%

50%

6%

56%

14%

6%

Four-Year Public College

io%

23%

33%

45%

3%

48%

16%

3%

P riv a te Grad, and Univ.

6%

18%

24%

41%

12%

53%

23%

—

14%

32%

46%

26%

12%

38%

14%

2%

Public U niversity

TABLE 37b

QUESTION 37b:

Community college boards o f control should be appointed by the Governor with
advice and consent of the Senate (P art I , Q-21).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

139

No

3%

17%

20%

47%

14%

61%

14%

5%

Yes

6%

15%

21%

34%

35%

69%

8%

2%

TABLE 37c
QUESTION 37c:

Community c o lle g e boards o f control should be appointed by the Governor with
a dvice and consent o f the Senate (Part I , Q-21).

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

34%

35%

69%

8%

3%

18%

32%

36%

CTl
CO

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Board Less Than 10 Years

6%

14%

20%

Board More Than 10 Years

4%

14%

9%

5%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

4%

26%

30%

52%

4%

56%

9%

5%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

5%

33%

38%

39%

15%

54%

8%

—

A dm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

3%

11%

14%

50%

18%

68%

18%

—

A dm inistrator More Than 10 Years

6%

10%

16%

44%

25%

69%

15%

—

Years of Experience
in Higher Education

Di sagree

TABLE 38
QUESTION 38:

Separate boards o f t r u s t e e s should be e s t a b lis h e d fo r th ose community c o lle g e s
p r e se n tly under K-12 boards (Part I , Q -25).

POSITION
Strongly
Disagree

P o sitio n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Board Chairman

15%

55%

70%

7%

—

Board Member

16%

49%

65%

9%

Faculty

27%

41%

68%

A dm inistrator

20%

53%

73%

Total

No
Opinion

Other

7%

16%

7%

1%

10%

15%

10%

3%

2%

5%

16%

11%

3%

2%

5%

17%

5%

TABLE 38a
QUESTION 38a:

Separate boards o f t r u s t e e s should be e s t a b lis h e d fo r th o se community c o lle g e s
p r e se n tly under K-12 boards (Part I , Q-25).

Type of I n s titu tio n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

P riv a te Community College

13%

33%

46%

20%

Public Community College

33%

46%

79%

Four-Year P riv a te College

5%

55%

Four-Year Public College

6%

P riv a te Grad, and Univ.
Public U niversity

—
8%

Total

No
Opinion

Other

—

20%

ro
o3^

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Strongly
Disagree

14%

6%

2%

8%

8%

5%

60%

7%

—

7%

24%

9%

55%

61%

13%

6%

19%

7%

13%

24%

24%

6%

—

6%

41%

29%

55%

63%'

5%

—

5%

18%

14%

TABLE 38b
QUESTION 38b:

Separate boards o f t r u s t e e s should be e s t a b lis h e d fo r those community c o lle g e s
p r e se n tly under K-12 boards (Part I , Q-25).

ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

No

8%

51%

59%

9%

Yes

20%

49%

69%

6%

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

—

9%

21%

11%

2%

8%

14%

9%

143

Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

TABLE 38c
QUESTION 38c:

Separate boards o f t r u s t e e s should be e s t a b lis h e d f o r th ose community c o lle g e s
p r e se n tly under K-12 boards (Part I , Q-25).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Years o f Experience
in Higher Education

Strongly
Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Othei

1%

12%

16%

11%

Board Less Than 10 Years

13%

48%

61%

11%

Board More Than 10 Years

20%

53%

73%

5%

—

5%

14%

8%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

26%

31%

57%

4%

—

4%

17%

22%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

26%

51%

77%

2%

3%

5%

13%

5%

A dm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

18%

46%

64%

7%

4%

11%

18%

7%

A dm inistrator More Than 10 Years

23%

54%

77%

2%

2%

17%

4%

144

Agree

TABLE 39
QUESTION 39:

Members o f t h i s proposed board should be appointed by the Governor, with advice
and consent o f the Senate (Part I I , Q - l) .

POSITION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Chairman

22%

38%

60%

27%

7%

34%

4%

2%

Board Member

m

39%

58%

25%

9%

34%

11

7%

Faculty

in

32%

53%

33%

8%

41%

—

6%

A dm inistrator

31%

30%

61%

28%

7%

35%

3%

1%

145

P o sitio n

TABLE 39a
QUESTION 39a:

Members o f t h i s proposed board should be appointed by the Governor, with advice
and consent o f the Senate (Part I I , Q - l ) .

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type o f I n s titu tio n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

P riv a te Community College

—

27%

27%

67%

—

67%

Public Community College

14%

34%

48%

33%

13%

46%

1%

5%

Four-Year P riv a te College

16%

44%

60%

26%

4%

30%

2%

8%

Four-Year Public College

58%

29%

f'-.
CO

P riv a te Grad, and Univ.

18%

41%

59%

18%

6%

24%

11%

Public U niversity

46%

29%

75%

14%

9%

23%

2%

3%

—

Total

3%

No
Opinion
—

—

Other
6%

10%
6%
—

TABLE 39b
QUESTION 39b:

Members o f t h i s proposed board should be appointed by the Governor, with advice
and consent o f the Senate (Part I I , Q - l) .

ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES
Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

Strongly
Agree

.
Agree

T ,
lo tal

D isaaree
m sa 9ree

Strongly
Disagree

T ,
lo ta l

No
Opinion

Q.
u th er

No

12%

37%

49%

34%

6%

40%

3%

8%

Yes

25%

36%

61%

25%

9%

34%

1%

4%

£

TABLE 39c
QUESTION 39c:

Members o f t h i s proposed board should be appointed by the Governor, with advice and
consent o f the Senate (Part I I , Q - l) .

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Years o f Experience
in Higher Education

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Less Than 10 Years

16%

38%

54%

24%

12%

36%

3%

7%

Board More Than 10 Years

26%

39%

65%

26%

3%

29%

—

6%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

17%

39%

56%

31%

9%

40%

—

4%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

20%

31%

51%

36%

8%

44%

—

5%

A dm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

21%

21%

42%

43%

7%

50%

4%

4%

A dm inistrator More Than 10 Years

40%

33%

73%

19%

6%

25%

2%

—

TABLE 40
QUESTION 40:

Members o f t h i s proposed board should be e le c t e d a t la rg e (Part I I , Q-2).

POSITION
P o sition

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

Board Chairman

4%

27%

31%

40%

22%

62%

4%

3%

Board Member

8%

24%

32%

CM

16%

58%

2%

8%

11%

32%

43%

37%

14%

51%

—

6%

4%

31%

35%

35%

24%

59%

3%

3%

Faculty
A dm inistrator

No
Opinion

Other

TABLE 40a
QUESTION 40a:

Members o f t h i s proposed board should be e le c t e d a t la r g e (Part I I , Q-2).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type o f I n s titu tio n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Di sagree

P riv a te Community College

—

67%

67%

27%

—

27%

Public Community College

11%

33%

44%

37%

10%

47%

3%

6%

Four-Year P riv a te College

5%

26%

30%

45%

14%

59%

1%

10%

Four-Year Public College

3%

6%

9%

42%

39%

81%

—

P riv a te Grad, and Univ.

6%

18%

24%

41%

18%

59%

12%

Public U niversity

5%

14%

19%

40%

40%

O
CO

Total

No
Opinion
—

1%

Other
6%

10%
5%
—

TABLE 40b
QUESTION 40b:

Members of th is proposed board should be ele cted a t larg e (P a rt I I , Q-2).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

Strongly
Agree

.
Agree

Total
lo ta l

D isaaree
Uisa9ree

Strongly
Disagree

T . ,
Total

No
Opinion

0th
o th er

No

5%

36%

41%

39%

10%

49%

3%

7%

Yes

8%

24%

32%

40%

20%

60%

2%

6%

TABLE 40c
QUESTION 40c:

Members of th is proposed board should be ele cted a t la rg e (P a rt I I , Q-2).
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Board Less Than 10 Years

9%

23%

32%

43%

15%

58%

O/O

oc/

7%

Board More Than 10 Years

5%

26%

31%

41%

20%

61%

1%

7%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

9%

26%

35%

48%

13%

61%

—

4%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

13%

36%

49%

25%

18%

43%

—

8%

A dm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

4%

43%

47%

29%

14%

43%

3%

7%

A dm inistrator More Than 10 Years

4%

25%

29%

42%

27%

69%

2%

—

Years o f Experience
in Higher Education

Di sagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

TABLE 41
QUESTION 41:

Membership o f t h i s proposed board should be lim ite d to no l e s s than seven and no
more than f i f t e e n (Part I I , Q-3).

POSITION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Board Chairman

9%

71%

80%

Board Member

16%

72%

Faculty

14%

A dm inistrator

12%

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

—

2%

2%

13%

5%

88%

1%

—

1%

6%

5%

75%

89%

2%

—

2%

8%

1%

72%

CO

P o sitio n

3%

—

3%

12%

1%

Di sagree

Other

TABLE 41a
QUESTION 41a:

Membership o f t h i s proposed board should be lim ite d to no l e s s than seven and no
more than f i f t e e n (Part I I , Q-3).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type o f I n s titu tio n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

20%

7%

P riv a te Community College

—

73%

73%

—

—

—

Public Community College

14%

74%

88%

1%

1%

2%

6%

4%

Four-Year P riv a te College

10%

76%

86%

2%

—

2%

8%

4%

Four-Year Public College

26%

58%

84%

—

—

—

3%

13%

P riv a te Grad, and Univ.

12%

59%

71%

—

—

—

29%

—

Public U niversity

20%

66%

86%

5%

1%

6%

8%

—

TABLE 41b
QUESTION 41b:

Membership o f t h i s proposed board should be lim ite d to no l e s s than seven and no
more than f i f t e e n (Part I I , Q-3).

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

No

10%

72%

82%

Yes

15%

72%

87%

Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

2%

—

2%

11%

5%

1%

1%

2%

7%

4%

991

ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

TABLE 41c
QUESTION 41c:

Membership o f t h i s proposed board should be lim ite d to no l e s s than seven and no
more than f i f t e e n (Part I I , Q-3).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Years of Experience
in Higher Education

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Less Than 10 Years

13%

74%

87%

1%

1%

2%

6%

5%

Board More Than 10 Years

16%

69%

85%

1%

—

1%

8%

6%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

17%

61%

78%

4%

—

4%

13%

5%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

10%

85%

95%

—

—

—

A dm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

11%

61%

72%

7%

—

7%

A dm inistrator More Than 10 Years

15%

77%

92%

—

—

—

5%
18%
8%

—

3%
—

TABLE 42
QUESTION 42:

The c h i e f e x e c u tiv e o f f i c e r o f the proposed S ta te Board fo r Higher Education
should be e le c t e d (Part I I , Q-4).

POSITION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Chairman

4%

16%

20%

49%

20%

69%

7%

4%

Board Member

4%

17%

21%

47%

17%

64%

6%

9%

Faculty

10%

22%

32%

43%

14%

57%

3%

8%

A dm inistrator

—

16%

16%

51%

26%

77%

7%

—

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

157

P o sitio n

TABLE 42a
QUESTION 42a:

The c h i e f e x e c u tiv e o f f i c e r o f the proposed S ta te Board fo r Higher Education
should be e le c t e d (Part I I , Q-4).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type of In s titu tio n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

P riv a te Community College

—

54%

54%

33%

—

33%

Public Conmunity College

6%

21%

27%

45%

15%

60%

6%

7%

Four-Year P riv a te College

3%

18%

21%

52%

13%

65%

8%

6%

Four-Year Public College

3%

3%

6%

45%

39%

84%

—

10%

P riv a te Grad, and Univ.

6%

17%

23%

41%

12%

53%

12%

12%

Public U niversity

2%

6%

8%

49%

35%

84%

5%

3%

13%

—

I

TABLE 42b
QUESTION 42b: The c h ie f executive o ffic e r of the proposed S ta te Board fo r Higher Education
should be e le cted (P a rt I I , Q-4).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES
Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

No

4%

27%

31%

48%

9%

57%

6%

6%

Yes

4%

15%

19%

47%

21%

68%

6%

7%

159

Strongly
Agree

Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

TABLE 42c
QUESTION 42c:

The c h i e f e x e c u tiv e o f f i c e r o f the proposed S ta te Board fo r Higher Education should
be e le c t e d (Part I I , Q-4).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Agree

Total

Board Less Than 10 Years

5%

17%

22%

49%

Board More Than 10 Years

3%

17%

20%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

9%

26%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

10%

A dm inistrator Less Than 10 Years
A dm inistrator More Than 10 Years

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

15%

64%

6%

8%

44%

21%

65%

8%

7%

35%

43%

9%

52%

4%

9%

21%

31%

46%

15%

61%

—

8%

—

25%

25%

43%

25%

7%

—

—

11%

11%

54%

29%

83%

6%

—

Di sagree

160

Strongly
Agree

S'S
00
lO

Years o f Experience
in Higher Education

TABLE 43
QUESTION 43:

The c h i e f e x e c u tiv e o f f i c e r o f the proposed S ta te Board fo r Higher Education
should be appointed (Part I I , Q-5).

POSITION
P o sition

^flnrpp^
Agree

Agree
3

Total

Disagree
3

nK anrpp
Disagree

Total

nJininn
Opinion

Board Chairman

16%

47%

63%

16%

9%

25%

8%

Board Member

16%

49%

65%

18%

4%

22 %

5%

Faculty

16%

43%

59%

22%

5%

27%

1%

Administrator

15%

63%

78%

16%

1%

17%

5%

Other

13%

TABLE 43a
QUESTION 43a:

The chief executive officer of the proposed State Board for Higher Education
should be appointed (Part I I, Q-5).
TYPE OF INSTITUTION

Type of I n s titu tio n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

P riv a te Community College

—

40%

40%

53%

—

53%

Public Community College

13%

49%

62%

22%

6%

28%

5%

5%

Four-Year P riv a te College

12%

55%

67%

16%

3%

19%

7%

7%

Four-Year Public College

29%

55%

84%

3%

P riv a te Grad, and Univ.

17%

41%

58%

12%

6%

Public U niversity

29%

48%

77%

8%

5%

—

7%

—

—

13%

18%

12%

12%

13%

4%

6%

3%

TABLE 43b
QUESTION 43b:

The c h ie f executive o f f ic e r of the proposed S ta te Board fo r Higher Education
should be appointed (P art I I , Q-5).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES
S trongly
Agree

fl
y

Total

Disagree
a

^ rongly
Disagree

Total

„ No.
Opinion

Other

No

13%

45%

58%

24%

5%

29%

5%

1%

Yes

17%

52%

69%

16%

4%

20%

5%

6%

163

Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

TABLE 43c
QUESTION 43c:

The c h i e f e x e c u tiv e o f f i c e r o f the proposed S ta te Board fo r Higher Education should
be appointed (Part I I , Q-5).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Years of Experience
in Higher Education

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Board Less Than 10 Years

14%

51%

65%

17%

6%

23%

5%

7%

Board More Than 10 Years

19%

46%

65%

17%

4%

21%

7%

7%

35%

52%

35%

4%

39%

—

9%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

Other

Faculty More Than 10 Years

13%

51%

64%

15%

5%

20%

—

14%

A dm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

14%

54%

68%

25%

—

25%

7%

—

A dm inistrator More Than 10 Years

17%

67%

84%

10%

2%

12%

4%

—

TABLE 44
QUESTION 44:

The fu n c tio n s o f t h i s proposed board should be reviewed every f i v e to e ig h t years
(Part I I , Q-6).

POSITION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Board Chairman

29%

54%

83%

—

Board Member

26%

61%

87%

Faculty

27%

62%

A dm inistrator

26%

63%

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

2%

not
ClQ

13%

2%

3%

—

3%

6%

4%

89%

5%

—

5%

1%

5%

89%

4%

—

4%

7%

—

Di sagree

165

P o sitio n

TABLE 44a
QUESTION 44a:

The fu n c tio n s o f t h i s proposed board should be reviewed every f i v e to e ig h t years
(Part I I , Q -6 ).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type o f I n s t i tu t i o n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Disagree

P riv ate Community College

27%

67%

94%

—

—

Public Community College

28%

63%

91%

2%

—

Four-Year P riv ate College

24%

64%

88%

2%

Four-Year Public College

32%

48%

80%

P riv ate Grad, and Univ.

24%

53%

Public University

26%

54%

Total

No
Opinion

Other

—

7%

2%

4%

3%

—

2%

6%

4%

6%

—

6%

3%

10%

77%

—

—

—

18%

6%

80%

8%

2%

10%

11%

—

—

TABLE 44b
QUESTION 44b:

The fu n c tio n s o f t h i s proposed board should be reviewed every f i v e to e ig h t
years (Part I I , Q-6).

ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES
Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

Agree

Total

Di sagree

No

24%

63%

87%

1%

Yes

27%

60%

87%

3%

Total

No
Opinion

Other

—

1%

6%

6%

—

3%

6%

3%

Strongly
Disagree

167

Strongly
Agree

TABLE 44c
QUESTION 44c:

The fu n c tio n s o f t h i s proposed board should be reviewed every f i v e to e ig h t years
(Part I I , Q-6).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Di sagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

r~CO

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Board Less Than 10 Years

27%

60%

2%

1%

3%

7%

3%

Board More Than 10 Years

24%

61%

85%

2%

—

2%

7%

6%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

39%

44%

83%

4%

—

4%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

18%

74%

92%

5%

—

5%

3%

—

Adm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

36%

46%

82%

4%

—

4%

14%

—

Adm inistrator More Than 10 Years

23%

71%

94%

4%

—

4%

2%

—

Years of Experience
in Higher Education

Total

—

Other

13%

VI .

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION VS. HIGHER EDUCATION

169

TABLE 45
QUESTION 45:

Do you f e e l th a t the fo llo w in g d e f i n i t i o n developed by the Governor's Commission
on Higher Education i s appropriate fo r post-secondary education (Part I , Q -l)?

Post-secondary education i s any in s tr u c tio n , research, public service
or other learning opportunity offered to persons who have completed
t h e i r secondary education or who are beyond the compulsory secondary
school attendance age (age 16) and who are p a rtic ip a tin g in any
organized educational program or learning experience administered by
o ther than schools whose primary ro le is elementary and secondary
education.
POSITION
P osition

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Disagree

Board Chairman

15%

68%

83%

7%

—

Board Member

16%

63%

79%

5%

—

Faculty

20%

65%

85%

8%

3%

Administrator

20%

63%

83%

9%

—

No
Opinion

Other

7%

4%

6%

5%

9%

7%

11%

2%

2%

9%

7%

1%

Total

TABLE 45a
QUESTION 45a:

Do you fe e l th at the fo llo w in g d e f i n i t i o n developed by the Governor's Commission
on Higher Education i s appropriate fo r post-secondary education (Part I , Q-l)?

Post-secondary education is any in s tr u c tio n , research, public service
or other learning opportunity offered to persons who have completed
t h e i r secondary education or who are beyond the compulsory secondary
school attendance age (age 16) and who are p a rtic ip a tin g in any
organized educational program or learning experience administrered by
oth er than schools whose primary ro le is elementary and secondary
education.
TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type o f I n s t i tu t i o n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

P riv ate Community College

19%

63%

82%

6%

—

6%

12%

—

Public Community College

22%

66%

88%

6%

1%

7%

2%

3%

Four-Year P riv ate College

17%

61%

00>
r~

10%

1%

11%

7%

4%

Four-Year Public College

10%

74%

84%

6%

—

6%

6%

55%

61%

6%

6%

11%

77%

88%

6%

1%

P riv a te Grad, and Univ.
Public U niversity

—

10%

12%

22%

11%

7%

3%

2%

TABLE 45b
QUESTION 45b:

Do you f e e l th a t the fo llo w in g d e f i n i t i o n developed by the Governor's Commission

on Higher Education is appropriate fo r post-secondary education (P art I , Q-l)?

172

Post-secondary education i s any i n s tr u c tio n , research, public serv ice
or other learning opportunity offered to persons who have completed
t h e i r secondary education or who are beyond the compulsory secondary
school attendance age (age 16) and who a re p a rtic ip a tin g in an
organized educational program or learning experience administered by
other than schools whose primary ro le is elementary and secondary
education.
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES
Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

No

16%

56%

72%

10%

Yes

18%

69%

87%

6%

Strongly
Disagree

1%

Other
10%

12%

6%

7%

2%

4%

TABLE 45c
QUESTION 45c:

Do you f e e l th at the fo llo w in g d e f i n i t i o n developed by the Governor's Commission
on Higher Education i s appropriate fo r post-secondary education (Part I , Q -l)?

Post-secondary education i s any in s tr u c tio n , research, public service
or other learning opportunity offered to persons who have completed
t h e i r secondary education or who are beyond the compulsory secondary
school attendance age (age 16) and who are p a rtic ip a tin g in an
organized educational program or learning experience administered by
other than schools whose primary ro le is elementary and secondary
education.
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Years o f Experience
in Higher Education

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Board Less Than 10 Years

15%

70%

85%

6%

Board More Than 10 Years

17%

63%

80%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

13%

65%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

23%

Adm inistrator Less Than 10 Years
Administrator More Than 10 Years

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opi ni on

Other

—

6%

5%

4%

7%

—

7%

4%

9%

78%

18%

—

18%

4%

—

66%

89%

3%

18%

53%

71%

14%

—

23%

67%

90%

6%

—

5%

—

3%

14%

11%

4%

6%

4%

8%

—

TABLE 46
QUESTION 46:

The g o a ls and purposes o f post-secondary education in Michigan are c l e a r l y
d efin ed (Part I , Q-5).

POSITION
Position

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Chairman

—

30%

30%

48%

6%

54%

91

7%

Board Member

1%

25%

26%

43%

6%

49%

11%

14%

Faculty

—

14%

14%

54%

10%

64%

8%

14%

Administrator

1%

33%

34%

45%

6%

51%

12%

3%

TABLE 46a
QUESTION 46a:

The goals and purposes o f post-secondary education in Michigan are c l e a r l y defined
(Part I , Q-5)?

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type o f I n s t i tu t i o n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

37%

13%

19%

P riv ate Community College

—

31%

31%

37%

Public Community College

1%

23%

24%

50%

8%

58%

8%

10%

Four-Year P riv a te College

—

23%

23%

41%

4%

45%

19%

13%

Four-Year Public College

3%

26%

29%

58%

—

58%

3%

10%

P riv ate Grad, and Univ.

—

22%

22%

44%

11%

55%

6%

17%

Public U niversity

—

35%

35%

42%

9%

51%

6%

8%

—

TABLE 46b

QUESTION 46b:

The goals and purposes of post-secondary education in Michigan are c le a rly
defined (P a rt I , Q-5).

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

No

—

27%

40%

--

40%

16%

17%

Yes

1%

25%

26%

47%

9%

56%

9%

9%

Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

176

Strongly
Agree

ro
c>^

ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

TABLE 46c
QUESTION 46c:

The g o a ls and purposes o f post-secondary education in Michigan are c l e a r l y defined
(Part I , Q-5).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Less Than 10 Years

1%

25%

26%

45%

6%

51%

11%

12%

Board More Than 10 Years

1%

28%

29%

42%

5%

47%

11%

13%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

—

17%

17%

43%

9%

52%

9%

22%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

—

8%

8%

64%

10%

74%

8%

10%

Administrator Less Than 10 Years

4%

36%

40%

32%

4%

36%

21%

3%

Administrator More Than 10 Years

—

34%

34%

50%

8%

58%

6%

2%

Years o f Experience
in Higher Education

VII.

FUTURE AND PRESENT CONDITIONS OF
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

178

TABLE 47
QUESTION 47:

S t a b iliz e d enrollm ent (P art IV, Q - l ) .

POSITION
P osition

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Board Chairman

4%

31%

35%

52%

4%

56%

2%

7%

Board Member

4%

33%

37%

45%

2%

47%

3%

13%

Faculty

6%

44%

50%

45%

—

45%

2%

3%

Administrator

i%

42%

43%

45%

—

45%

4%

8%

Other

179

TABLE 47a
QUESTION 47a:

S t a b iliz e d enrollment (P art IV, Q - l ) .

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type of I n s t i tu t i o n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

P rivate Community College

—

in

27%

60%

—

60%

7%

6%

Public Community College

3%

35%

38%

45%

1%

46%

3%

13%

Four-Year P riv ate College

7%

36%

43%

47%

2%

49%

3%

5%

Four-Year Public College

1%

40%

47%

40%

—

40%

—

13%

P riv ate Grad, and Univ.

—

41%

41%

53%

—

53%

—

6%

Public U niversity

3%

37%

40%

42%

3%

45%

3%

12%

TABLE 47b
QUESTION 47b:

S t a b iliz e d enrollm ent (Part IV, Q - l) .

ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES
Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

Strongly
Agree

.

T . ,
9

Di- a a r„
9

Strongly
Disagree

_

.

No
Opinion

Q.

No

4%

37%

41%

47%

2%

49%

3%

7%

Yes

4%

36%

40%

45%

1%

46%

3%

11%

TABLE 47c
QUESTION 47c:

S ta b iliz e d enrollment (P art IV, Q -l).
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Less Than 10 Years

6%

31%

37%

a-s
00

2%

50%

21

11%

Board More Than 10 Years

2%

36%

38%

43%

1%

44%

4%

14%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

9%

39%

48%

48%

—

48%

—

4%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

5%

47%

52%

42%

—

42%

3%

3%

Administrator Less Than 10 Years

—

43%

43%

36%

—

36%

7%

14%

Administrator More Than 10 Years

21

42%

44%

50%

—

50%

2%

4%

Years of Experience
in Higher Education

TABLE 48
QUESTION 48:

Decreasing enrollment (Part IV, Q-2).

POSITION
Total

No
Opinion

a -s
CM

Position

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Board Chairman

7%

45%

52%

33%

35%

4%

9%

Board Member

3%

42%

45%

39%

----

39%

4%

12%

Faculty

3%

47%

50%

37%

3%

40%

3%

7%

Administrator

3%

37%

40%

49%

1%

50%

2%

8%

Total

TABLE 48a
QUESTION 48a:

Decreasing enrollment (Part IV, Q-2).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type o f I n s t i tu t i o n

Strongly
Agree

P riv a te Community College

7%

Public Community College

Agree

Strongly
Di sagree

No
Opinion

Total

Di sagree

m

54%

40%

—

40%

—

3%

m

43%

43%

2%

45%

3%

9%

Four-Year P rivate College

3%

45%

48%

35%

—

35%

4%

13%

Four-Year Public College

n

30%

37%

47%

—

47%

61

10%

P riv a te Grad, and Univ.

—

36%

36%

47%

—

47%

6%

11%

Public U niversity

3%

51%

54%

32%

1%

33%

5%

8%

Total

Other
65%

TABLE 48b
QUESTION 48b:

Decreasing enrollment (Part IV, Q-2).

ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES
Organized for Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

Strongly
Agree

.

T

,

a

y

Strongly
Disagree

No
Opinion

Other
185

No

4%

36%

40%

42%

—

42%

4%

14%

Yes

3%

44%

47%

39%

1%

40%

4%

9%

TABLE 48c
QUESTION 48c:

Decreasing enrollment (Part IV, Q-2).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Years o f Experience
in Higher Education

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Less Than 10 Years

4%

43%

47%

39%

1%

40%

2%

11%

Board More Than 10 Years

3%

42%

45%

36%

1%

37%

7%

11%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

4%

44%

48%

44%

—

44%

4%

4%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

3%

47%

50%

31%

5%

36%

3%

11%

Administrator Less Than 10 Years

—

29%

29%

54%

—

' 54%

3%

14%

Administrator More Than 10 Years

4%

42%

46%

48%

2%

50%

2%

2%

TABLE 49
QUESTION 49:

In creasing enrollm ent (Part IV, Q-3).

POSITION
Position

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Board Chairman

4%

13%

17%

61%

9%

70%

6%

—

Board Member

3%

20%

23%

56%

5%

61%

5%

11%

Faculty

—

13%

13%

69%

13%

82%

—

Administrator

1%

18%

19%

61%

1%

62%

4%

Other

5%
15%

TABLE 49a
QUESTION 49a:

Increasing enrollm ent (Part IV, Q-3).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type of I n s t i tu t i o n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

P riv ate Community College

—

27%

27%

60%

7%

67%

—

Public Community College

6%

20%

26%

57%

4%

61%

3%

10%

Four-Year P riv ate College

—

12%

12%

63%

8%

71%

6%

11%

Four-Year Public College

—

23%

23%

60%

7%

67%

3%

7%

P rivate Grad, and Univ.

—

29%

29%

59%

6%

65%

—

6%

Public University

—

14%

14%

58%

9%

67%

5%

6%

14%

TABLE 49b
QUESTION 49b:

Increasing enrollment (Part IV, Q-3).

ORGANIZED FOR'FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES
Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

No

1%

19%

20%

59%

5%

64%

5%

11%

Yes

3%

18%

21%

59%

6%

65%

4%

10%

189

Strongly
Agree

TABLE 49c
QUESTION 49c:

Increasing enrollment (Part IV, Q-3).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Board Less Than 10 Years

3%

20%

23%

Board More Than 10 Years

4%

17%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

—

Faculty More Than 10 Years

Years of Experience
in Higher Education

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

58%

7%

65%

4%

8%

21%

55%

4%

59%

6%

14%

22%

22%

65%

13%

78%

—

—

—

8%

8%

68%

13%

81%

—

11%

A dm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

—

21%

21%

57%

—

57%

4%

18%

Administrator More Than 10 Years

2%

17%

19%

65%

67%

4%

10%

Di sagree

2%

Other

TABLE 50

QUESTION 50:

In your opinion, w ill enrollment fo r Michigan public colleges and u n iv e r s itie s
in the next fiv e years: in cre ase, decrease, no change, d o n 't know (P art IV, Q-3a)?
SAMPLE MICHIGAN VOTERS' OPINIONS
ID

Increase
38%

Decrease
27%

No Change

Don't Know

19%

16%

TABLE 50a

QUESTION 50a:

In your opinion, w ill enrollment fo r Michigan public colleges and u n iv e rs itie s in
the next fiv e y ears: in cre ase, decrease, no change, d o n 't know (P art IV, Q-3a)?
SAMPLE MICHIGAN VOTERS' OPINIONS
(BY RACIAL CHARACTERISTICS)
Increase

Decrease

No Change

Don't Know

White

36%

30%

20%

14%

Minority

52%

15%

11%

23%

192

Raci al Characteri s t i c

TABLE 50b

QUESTION 50b:

In your opinion, w ill enrollment fo r Michigan public colleges and u n iv e r s itie s in
the next fiv e years: in cre ase, decrease, no change, d o n 't know (P art IV, Q-3a)?
SAMPLE MICHIGAN VOTERS' OPINIONS
(GEOGRAPHICAL)

Area

Increase

Decrease

No Change

Don't Know

Central

36%

27%

21%

16%

Southeast

39%

28%

16%

17%

Upper Peninsula

11%

40%

20%

13%

Western

40%

25%

22%

13%

TABLE 50c

QUESTION 50c:

In your opinion, w ill enrollment fo r Michigan public colleges and u n iv e r s itie s
in the next fiv e y ears: in cre ase, decrease, no change, d o n 't know (Part IV, Q-3a)?
SAMPLE MICHIGAN VOTERS' OPINIONS
(URBANIZATION)

Area

Increase

Decrease

No Change

Don't Know

Central City

m

23%

14%

17%

Farm

52%

22%

13%

13%

Rural

31%

24%

29%

16%

Small City

32%

30%

21%

17%

Suburb

39%

30%

16%

15%

TABLE 51

HYPOTHESIS XVIII:

The m ajority of voters w ill agree th a t enrollment w ill increase in the fu tu f e ,
ra th e r than decrease or not change.
MICHIGAN VOTERS' OPINIONS TOWARD PUBLIC COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES ENROLLMENT GROWTH
ENROLLMENT PATTERNS

Increase

No Change

Decrease

Total

45.24%

22.19%

32.57%

100%

(N = 157)

(N = 77)

(N = 113)

(N = 347)

X2 = 27.7740

P < .0001

TABLE 52
QUESTION 52:

In creasing c o s t (Part IV, Q-4).

POSITION
P osition

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Board Chairman

31%

61%

92%

2%

Board Member

22%

66%

88%

Faculty

29%

68%

Administrator

30%

65%

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

—

2%

2%

4%

4%

—

4%

3%

5%

97%

2%

—

2%

—

1%

95%

5%

—

5%

—

—

Other

TABLE 52a
QUESTION 52a:

Increasing c o st (P art IV, Q-4).
TYPE OF INSTITUTION

Type of I n s t i tu t i o n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

P riv ate Conmunity College

13%

87%

100%

Public Community College

27%

63%

Four-Year P rivate College

26%

Four-Year Public College

Di sagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

—

—

—

—

—

90%

4%

—

4%

1%

5%

64%

90%

3%

—

3%

3%

4%

27%

63%

90%

7%

—

7%

—

3%

P riv ate Grad, and Univ.

12%

82%

94%

6%

—

6%

—

—

Public University

29%

65% '

94%

3%

—

3%

2%

1%

TABLE 52b
QUESTION 52b:

Increasing c o s t (Part IV, Q-4).

ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

198

No

16%

75%

91%

6%

-

6%

1%

2%

Yes

29%

63%

92%

3%

■ -

3%

2%

3%

TABLE 52c
QUESTION 52c:

Increasing co st (P art IV, Q-4).
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Disagree

Board Less Than 10 Years

25%

66%

91%

3%

—

Board More Than 10 Years

23%

64%

87%

4%

—

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

22%

74%

96%

—

Faculty More Than 10 Years

34%

63%

97%

Administrator Less Than 10 Years

25%

75%

100%

Administrator More Than 10 Years

33%

59%

92%

No
Opinion

Other

CO

Strongly
Agree

Years of Experience
in Higher Education

2%

4%

4%

3%

6%

—

—

—

4%

3%

—

3%

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

8%

—

8%

—

—

Total

TABLE 53
QUESTION 53:

More sp e c ia liz e d demands fo r educational services (P art IV, Q-5).
POSITION

Position

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Board Chairman

6%

76%

82%

2%

—

2%

4%

2%

Board Member

17%

72%

89%

4%

1%

5%

3%

3%

Faculty

21%

74%

95%

—

—

—

2%

3%

Administrator

24%

67%

91%

3%

—

3%

4%

2%

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

200

TABLE 53a
QUESTION 53a:

More s p e c ia l iz e d demands fo r educational s e r v ic e s (Part IV, Q-5).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type of I n s t i tu t i o n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

P riv ate Community College

77

93%

100%

Public Community College

24%

70%

94%

Four-Year P riv a te College

16%

69%

Four-Year Public College

13%

P riv a te Grad, and Univ.
Public U niversity

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

—

—

—

—

1%

1%

2%

1%

3%

85%

5%

—

5%

7%

3%

73%

86%

3%

3%

6%

4%

4%

6%

76%

82%

12%

—

12%

6%

—

17%

74%

91%

3%

—

3%

4%

2%

—

TABLE 53b

QUESTION 53b:

More sp e cia liz ed demands fo r educational services (P art IV, Q-5).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES
Strongly
Agree

.
Agree

,
,
Total

n i - - arpp
Disa9ree

Strongly
Disagree

T . .
Tota1

No
Opinion

0th
0ther

No

12%

73%

85%

5%

—

5%

6%

4%

Yes

20%

71%

91%

2%

1%

3%

3%

3%

202

Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

TABLE 53c
QUESTION 53c:

More sp e cia liz ed demands fo r educational services (Part IV, Q-5).
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Years of Experience
in Higher Education

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Othe

17%

72%

89%

5%

1%

6%

3%

2%

Board More Than 10 Years

15%

74%

89%

2%

—

2%

4%

5%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

13%

78%

91%

—

—

—

—

9%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

26%

71%

97%

—

—

—

—

—

Administrator Less Than 10 Years

14%

75%

89%

—

—

—

7%

4%

Administrator More Than 10 Years

29%

63%

92%

4%

4%

2%

2%

203

Board Less Than 10 Years

TABLE 54
QUESTION 54:

Competition fo r students (P art IV, Q-6).
POSITION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Board Chairman

17%

68%

85%

7%

Board Member

12%

71%

83%

Faculty

23%

72%

Administrator

21%

75%

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Total

—

7%

4%

4%

8%

1%

9%

3%

5%

95%

2%

—

2%

3%

—

96%

1%

—

1%

3%

—

204

Position

TABLE 54a
QUESTION 54a:

Competition fo r students (Part IV, Q-6).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

P riv ate Community College

7%

93%

100%

Disagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

—

—

—

No
Opinion
—

Other

—

Public Community College

m

68%

83%

8%

1%

9%

4%

4%

Four-Year P riv a te College

m

72%

93%

2%

1%

3%

2%

2%

Four-Year Public College

m

77%

90%

7%

—

7%

—

3%

6%

70%

76%

6%

—

6%

18%

—

14%

75%

er>
00

6%

—

6%

2%

P riv ate Grad, and Univ.
Public U niversity

3%

205

Type o f I n s titu tio n

TABLE 54b
QUESTION 54b:

Competition fo r stud en ts (Part IV, Q-6).

ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

12%

77%

89%

5%

-

5%

4%

2%

Yes

16%

70%

86%

6%

1%

7%

3%

4%

206

No

TABLE 54c
QUESTION 54c:

Competition f o r students (P art IV, Q-6).
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opi ni on

Other

Board Less Than 10 Years

14%

71%

85%

9%

1%

10%

1%

4%

Board More Than 10 Years

12%

70%

82%

6%

1%

7%

6%

5%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

18%

74%

92%

4%

—

4%

4%

—

Faculty More Than 10 Years

CM

74%

V i
00
cn

—

—

—

2%

—

Adm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

25%

71%

96%

—

—

—

4%

—

Adm inistrator More Than 10 Years

19%

77%

96%

2%

—

2%

2%

—

207

Strongly
Agree

Years o f Experience
in Higher Education

TABLE 55
QUESTION 55:

Competition fo r revenue (Part IV, Q-7).

Position

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Board Chairman

22%

69%

91%

7%

—

7%

—

2%

Board Member

20%

69%

89%

5%

—

5%

1%

5%

Faculty

37%

61%

00

POSITION
Strongly
Di sagree

—

—

—

2%

—

Administrator

29%

67%

96%

1%

—

1%

3%

—

Total

No
Opinion

Other

208

TABLE 55a
QUESTION 55a:

Competition fo r revenue (P a rt IV, Q-7).
TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Di sagree

P riv ate Community College

27%

53%

80%

13%

Public Community College

26%

66%

92%

3%

1%

Four-Year P riv ate College

21%

70%

91%

5%

Four-Year Public College

23%

63%

86%

P riv ate Grad, and Univ.

12%

76%

88%

Public U niversity

29%

68%

97%

Total

No
Opinion

13%

7%

—

4%

—

4%

—

5%

2%

2%

10%

—

10%

—

4%

6%

—

6%

6%

—

—

3%

—

—

—

—

Other

209

Type of I n s t i tu t i o n

TABLE 55b
QUESTION 55b:

Competition fo r revenue (Part IV, Q-7).

ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

210

No

13%

77%

90%

5%

—

5%

3%

2%

Yes

27%

65%

92%

4%

-

4%

1%

3%

TABLE 55c
QUESTION 55c:

Competition for revenue (Part IV, Q-7).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Board Less Than 10 Years

22%

70%

92%

4%

—

Board More Than 10 Years

18%

67%

85%

8%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

43%

57%

100%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

31%

66%

Administrator Less Than 10 Years

25%

Administrator More Than 10 Years

31%

No
Opinion

Other

4%

—

4%

—

8%

2%

5%

—

—

—

—

—

97%

—

—

—

3%

—

68%

93%

—

—

—

7%

—

67%

00
cr>

Strongly
Agree

Years o f Experience
in Higher Education

2%

—

2%

—

—

Total

TABLE 56
QUESTION 56:

I n s t it u t io n a l m issions more d i f f i c u l t to d e fin e (Part IV, Q-8).

POSITION
P osition

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Chairman

9%

54%

63%

22%

2%

24%

9%

4%

Board Member

4%

47%

51%

31%

1%

32%

12%

5%

Faculty

6%

60%

66%

31%

—

31%

2%

1%

A dm inistrator

8%

42%

50%

40%

1%

41%

9%

—

TABLE 56a
QUESTION 56a:

I n s titu tio n a l missions more d i f f i c u l t to define (P art IV, Q-8).
TYPE OF INSTITUTION

Type of I n s t i tu t i o n
P riv ate Community College

Strongly
Agree
—

Agree

Total

Di sagree

53%

53%

33%

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

—

33%

14%

—

Total

Public Community College

5%

51%

56%

28%

1%

29%

10%

5%

Four-Year P riv a te College

6%

54%

60%

28%

1%

29%

10%

1%

Four-Year Public College

3%

37%

40%

43%

—

43%

10%

7%

P riv ate Grad, and Univ.

6%

41%

47%

47%

—

47%

6%

—

11%

38%

49%

37%

1%

38%

8%

5%

Public U niversity

TABLE 56b
QUESTION 56b:

I n s t it u t io n a l m ission s more d i f f i c u l t to d e fin e (Part IV, Q-8).

ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES
Strongly
Agree

.

- . -

n i „ arpp
9

Strongly
Disagree

T f ,

9

No
Opinion

Q..
214

Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?
No

4%

50%

54%

31%

1%

32%

13%

1%

Yes

7%

48%

55%

31%

1%

32%

9%

4%

TABLE 56c
QUESTION 56c:

I n s titu tio n a l missions more d i f f i c u l t to define (P art IV, Q-8).
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Less Than 10 Years

5%

47%

52%

32%

1%

33%

13%

2%

Board More Than 10 Years

5%

51%

56%

24%

2%

26%

9%

9%

Years of Experience
in Higher Education

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

—

65%

65%

31%

—

31%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

10%

55%

65%

32%

—

32%

3%

—

Administrator Less Than 10 Years

11%

32%

43%

43%

3%

46%

11%

—

A dm inistrator More Than 10 Years

6%

48%

54%

38%

—

38%

8%

—

4%

—

TABLE 57

HYPOTHESIS XX:

The m ajority of voters w ill agree t h a t the q u a lity of public colleges and
u n iv e r s itie s w ill improve.
MICHIGAN VOTERS' OPINIONS TOWARD INSTITUTIONS OF
HIGHER EDUCATION AND PUBLIC COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES QUALITY OF EDUCATION MORE
DIFFICULT TO SUSTAIN
216

QUALITY OF EDUCATION
Remain the Same

Improve

Not Improve

Total

29.94%

54.79%

15.27%

100%

(N = 100)

(N = 183)

(N = 51)

(N = 334)

X2 = 80.00

P < .0001

TABLE 57a
QUESTION 57a:

In your op in io n , w i l l the q u a lit y in Michigan p u b lic c o l l e g e s and u n iv e r s it ie s :
improve, not improve, remain the same, d o n 't know (Part IV, Q-9a)?

SAMPLE MICHIGAN VOTERS' OPINIONS
(BY RACIAL CHARACTERISTICS)
Improve

Not Improve

Remain Same

Don't Know

White

43%

13%

25%

19%

Mi nori ty

58%

7%

18%

17%

217

Racial C h a ra c te ris tic

TABLE 57b
QUESTION 57b:

In your o p in io n , wi l l the q u a lit y in Michigan pu blic c o lle g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s :
improve, not improve, remain the same, d on 't know (Part IV, Q-9a)?

SAMPLE MICHIGAN VOTERS' OPINIONS
(GEOGRAPHICAL)
Improve

Not Improve

Remain Same

Don't Know

Central

51%

13%

23%

13%

Southeast

39%

15%

CVJ

Area

19%

Upper Peninsula

73%

—

Western

47%

9%

7%

20%

22%

22%

TABLE 57c
QUESTION 57c:

In your op in io n , wi l l the q u a lit y in Michigan pu blic c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s :
improve, not improve, remain the same, d on 't know (Part IV, Q-9a)?

SAMPLE MICHIGAN VOTERS' OPINIONS
(URBANIZATION)
Area

Improve

Not Improve

Remain Same

Don't Know

Central City

49%

9%

24%

18%

Farm

6i%

5%

17%

17%

Rural

m

16%

20%

16%

Small City

48%

8%

25%

19%

Suburb

34%

18%

27%

21%

TABLE 58
QUESTION 58a:

Are Michigan's public colleges and u n iv e r s itie s preparing students s a t i s f a c t o r i l y
fo r the present job market (P art I , Q-2a)?
SAMPLE MICHIGAN VOTERS' OPINIONS
(BY RACIAL CHARACTERISTICS)
220

Racial C h a ra c te ris tic

Yes

No

Don't Know

White

36%

26 %

38%

Minority

42%

26 %

38%

TABLE 59
QUESTION 59:

Maintenance of quality more d if f i c u lt to sustain (Part IV, Q-9).
POSITION

P osition

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Board Chairman

11*

51*

62*

50*

Board Member

8%

Strongly
Disagree

Total

32*

4*

36*

—

2*

58%

31*

2*

33*

4%

5*

Disagree

No
Opinion

Other

Faculty

14*

56*

70*

26*

2*

28*

2%

—

Administrator

10*

49%

59*

34*

3*

37*

3%

1%

TABLE 59a
QUESTION 59a:

Maintenance o f q u a lity more d i f f i c u l t to su sta in (Part IV, Q-9).
TYPE OF INSTITUTION

Type o f I n s t i tu t i o n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

—

53%

53%

40%

—

40%

7%

—

Public Community College

10%

45%

55%

35%

3%

38%

2%

5%

Four-Year P riv a te College

7%

62%

69%

22%

2%

24%

5%

2%

Four-Year Public College

13%

40%

53%

40%

—

40%

—

7%

6%

41%

47%

47%

—

47%

6%

—

14%

54%

68%

28%

1%

29%

—

3%

P riv ate Grad, and Univ.
Public U niversity

222

Private Community College

TABLE 59b
QUESTION 59b:

Maintenance of q u a lity more d i f f i c u l t to su sta in (P art IV, Q-9).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES
Strongly
Agree

T
a

,

.
a

Strongly
Disagree

No
Opinion

„ h
223

Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?
No

3%

58%

61%

32%

1%

33%

5%

1%

Yes

11%

49%

60%

31%

2%

33%

2%

4%

TABLE 59c
QUESTION 59c:

Maintenance o f q u a lit y more d i f f i c u l t to s u s ta in (Part IV, Q-9).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Agree

Total

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Board Less Than 10 Years

6%

50%

56%

34%

2%

36%

4%

4%

Board More Than 10 Years

12%

52%

64%

26%

1%

27%

2%

7%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

13%

44%

57%

39%

—

39%

4%

—

Faculty More Than 10 Years

15%

63%

79%

18%

3%

21%

—

—

Adm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

11%

53%

64%

29%

—

29%

7%

—

Adm inistrator More Than 10 Years

10%

46%

56%

38%

4%

42%

—

2%

Di sagree

Other

224

Strongly
Agree

Years of Experience
in Higher Education

TABLE 60
QUESTION 60:

Cooperative e f f o r t among i n s t i t u t i o n s o f higher education more d i f f i c u l t (Part IV,

Q-10).
POSITION
Position

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

Board Chairman

4%

41%

45%

36%

2%

38%

8%

9%

Board Member

3%

37%

40%

43%

2%

45%

10%

5%

13%

42%

55%

34%

3%

37%

5%

3%

5%

41%

46%

45%

1%

46%

8%

—

Administrator

Other
225

Faculty

No
Opinion

TABLE 60a
QUESTION 60a:

Cooperative e f f o r t among i n s t i t u t i o n s o f higher education more d i f f i c u l t
(Part IV, Q -10).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type o f I n s t i tu t i o n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

—

53%

53%

40%

—

40%

7%

—

Public Community College

6%

m

46%

39%

4%

43%

6%

5%

Four-Year P riv ate College

2%

44%

46%

35%

1%

36%

15%

3%

Four-Year Public College

7%

27%

34%

53%

—

53%

7%

6%

P riv ate Grad, and Univ.

6%

35%

41%

35%

—

35%

18%

6%

Public University

5%

31%

36%

55%

1%

56%

3%

5%

226

P riv ate Community College

TABLE 60b

QUESTION 60b:

Cooperative e f f o r t among i n s t i t u t i o n s o f higher education more d i f f i c u l t
(P art IV, Q-10).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

227

No

2%

46%

48%

34%

—

34%

14%

4%

Yes

5%

37%

42%

43%

3%

46%

7%

5%

TABLE 60c
QUESTION 60c:

Cooperative e f f o r t among i n s t i t u t i o n s o f higher education more d i f f i c u l t
(Part IV, Q-10).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Years o f Experience
in Higher Education

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Board Less Than 10 Years

3%

34%

37%

45%

3%

48%

11%

4%

Board More Than 10 Years

3%

45%

48%

37%

—

37%

6%

9%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

9%

44%

53%

35%

4%

39%

4%

4%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

16%

42%

58%

29%

3%

32%

8%

2%

Administrator Less Than 10 Years

—

50%

50%

43%

4%

47%

3%

—

36%

44%

48%

—

48%

8%

—

8%

228

Administrator More Than 10 Years

Other

TABLE 61
QUESTION 61:

Resources more d i f f i c u l t to manage (P art IV, Q -ll).
POSITION
Strongly
Agree

A

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

T t -j

No
Opinion

Qth

Board Chairman

7%

57%

64%

28%

2%

30%

4%

2%

Board Member

3%

57%

60%

27%

1%

28%

6%

6%

Faculty

8%

63%

71%

24%

-

24%

3%

2%

Administrator

8%

67%

75%

19%

1%

20%

4%

1%

229

Position

TABLE 61a
QUESTION 61a:

Resources more d i f f i c u l t to manage (Part IV, Q - l l ) .

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

P riv a te Community College

7%

67%

74%

13%

Public Community College

6%

58%

64%

Four-Year P riv ate College

4%

66%

Four-Year Public College

7%

P riv a te Grad, and Univ.
Public U niversity

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

—

13%

13%

26%

1%

27%

5%

4%

70%

21%

1%

22%

5%

3%

40%

47%

40%

—

40%

3%

10%

6%

53%

59%

23%

—

23%

12%

6%

5%

60%

65%

31%

—

31%

1%

3%

.

Other

—

230

Type o f I n s t i tu t i o n

TABLE 61b
QUESTION 61b:

Resources more d i f f i c u l t to manage (Part IV, Q -ll).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

Strongly
Agree

fl
H

T

,

„f
y

Strongly
Disagree

Tota)

No

5%

71%

76%

16%

-

16%

Yes

5%

57%

62%

28%

1%

29%

No
Opinion

oth
ro

TABLE 61c
QUESTION 61c:

Resources more d i f f i c u l t to manage (P art IV, Q - ll) .
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Total

Board Less Than 10 Years

3%

58%

61%

Board More Than 10 Years

6%

56%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

9%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

28%

1%

29%

6%

4%

62%

25%

1%

26%

4%

8%

61%

70%

22%

—

22%

4.%

4%

8%

66%

74%

24%

—

24%

2%

—

Administrator Less Than 10 Years

7%

54%

61%

21%

4%

25%

11%

3%

Administrator More Than 10 Years

8%

—i
CO
a*

Agree

81%

19%

—

19%

—

—

Disagree

232

Strongly
Agree

Years of Experience
in Higher Education

TABLE 62
QUESTION 62:

Greater d i v e r s i t y o f programs o f higher education (Part IV, Q-12),

POSITION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Chairman

11%

68%

79%

11%

4%

15%

4%

2%

Board Member

10%

68%

78%

11%

—

11%

4%

7%

Faculty

18%

72%

90%

8%

—

8%

2%

—

Administrator

14%

67%

81%

13%

—

13%

3%

3%

Disagree

233

Position

TABLE 62a
QUESTION 62a:

Greater d iv e rs ity of programs of higher education (P art IV, Q-12).
TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

P riv ate Community College

20%

73%

93%

—

7%

7%

Public Community College

15%

67%

82%

1%

9%

Four-Year P riv ate College

7%

71%

78%

2%

Four-Year Public College

10%

63%

73%

P riv ate Grad, and Univ.

—

76%

Public U niversity

14%

69%

Strongly
Disagree

Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

—

—

10%

3%

5%

12%

14%

4%

4%

—

20%

20%

—

7%

76%

—

18%

18%

6%

—

83%

—

9%

9%

5%

3%

234

Type o f I n s t i tu t i o n

TABLE 62b
QUESTION 62b:

Greater d i v e r s i t y o f programs o f higher education (Part IV, Q-12).

ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES
Agree

Total

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

No

8%

71%

79%

1%

12%

13%

4%

4%

Yes

13%

68%

81%

1%

11%

12%

3%

4%

235

Strongly
Agree

Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

TABLE 62c
QUESTION 62c:

Greater d i v e r s i t y o f programs o f higher education (Part IV, Q-12).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Agree

Total

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Board Less Than 10 Years

1135

73%

84%

1%

8%

Board More Than 10 Years

8%

60%

68%

1%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

13%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

18%

Administrator Less Than 10 Years

14%

Administrator More Than 10 Years

15%

No
Opinion

0th<

9%

3%

4%

16%

17%

7%

8%

91%

—

4%

4%

5%

—

68%

86%

—

11%

11%

3%

—

75%

89%

—

11%

11%

—

—

64%

79%

—*

15%

15%

2%

4%

Total

236

Strongly
Agree

CO
3-s;

Years of Experience
in Higher Education

TABLE 63
QUESTION 63:

Incrased r e sp e c t fo r higher education by the p u b lic (Part IV, Q-13).

POSITION

^A gree^

T° ta1

^

" “ S™

D is a ^ e e

T°t a l

O p tio n

0the’

~

38%

38%

40%

4%

44%

15%

4%

Board Member

6%

44%

50%

29%

1%

30%

14%

6%

Faculty

3%

21%

24%

44%

3%

47%

24%

5%

Administrator

7%

38%

45%

33%

1%

34%

13%

8%

237

Board Chairman

TABLE 63a
QUESTION 63a:

Increased r e s p e c t fo r higher education by the public (Part IV, Q-13).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type of I n s t i tu t i o n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

53%

53%

13%

7%

—

27%

27%

—

Public Community College

6%

36%

m

37%

2%

39%

13%

6%

Four-Year P riv ate College

3%

36%

39%

37%

3%

40%

17%

4%

Four-Year Public College

7%

36%

43%

17%

—

17%

30%

10%

59%

59%

35%

—

35%

6%

56%

65%

14%

—

14%

15%

P riv ate Grad, and Univ.
Public U niversity

—

9%

—

6%

238

Private Community College

TABLE 63b
QUESTION 63b:

Increased r e s p e c t fo r higher education by the pu blic (Part IV, Q-13).

ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES
Strongly
Agree

s

Total

Disagree
y

. ^ rongly
Disagree

Total

„ lJ°.
Opinion

Other

No

3%

36%

39%

42%

2%

44%

12%

5%

Yes

6%

40%

46%

30%

1%

31%

17%

6%

239

Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

TABLE 63c
QUESTION 63c:

Increased r e s p e c t fo r higher education by the pu blic (Part IV, Q-13).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Less Than 10 Years

7%

44%

51%

29%

2%

31%

16%

4%

Board More Than 10 Years

3%

41%

44%

33%

1%

34%

14%

8%

26%

26%

43%

—

43%

22%

9%

21%

26%

45%

5%

50%

21%

3%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

—

Faculty More Than 10 Years

5%

Adm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

—

32%

32%

46%

4%

50%

11%

7%

Administrator More Than 10 Years

10%

40%

50%

25%

—

25%

17%

8%

240

Strongly
Agree

Years of Experience
in Higher Education

TABLE 64
QUESTION 64:

Most Michigan higher education i n s t i t u t i o n s are preparing students e f f e c t i v e l y
fo r the job market (Part I , Q-2).

POSITION
P osition

Agree

Total

Disagree

jjtrongly

Total

Othe,

Board Chairman

—

52%

52%

32%

2%

34%

3%

11%

Board Member

3%

55%

58%

26%

4%

30%

4%

8%

Faculty

5%

39%

44%

35%

2%

37%

5%

14%

Administrator

8%

60%

68%

24%

—

24%

7%

1%

TABLE 64a
QUESTION 64a:

Most Michigan higher education i n s t i t u t i o n s are preparing stu d en ts e f f e c t i v e l y
fo r the job market (Part I , Q-2).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type of I n s t i tu t i o n

—

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Agree

Total

Di sagree

38%

38%

50%

—

50%

—

Other
12%

Public Community College

3%

51%

54%

31%

5%

36%

3%

7%

Four-Year P riv ate College

2%

51%

53%

27%

1%

28%

7%

12%

Four-Year Public College

io%

65%

75%

19%

3%

22%

—

3%

P riv ate Grad, and Univ.

—

72%

72%

17%

5%

22%

—

6%

60%

68%

20%

1%

21%

6%

5%

Public University

8%

242

P riv ate Community College

Strongly
Agree

TABLE 64b

QUESTION 64b:

Most Michigan higher education i n s t i t u t i o n s are preparing students e f f e c tiv e ly
fo r the job market (P art I , Q-2).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

Bargainingf purposes?

g

*

^ ee

Total

Disagree

stro n g ly

T„ta1

other
243

No

1%

54%

55%

28%

2%

30%

6%

9%

Yes

4%

53%

57%

28%

3%

31%

4%

8%

TABLE 64c
QUESTION 64c:

Most Michigan higher education i n s t i t u t i o n s are preparing students e f f e c t i v e l y fo r
the job market (Part I , Q-2).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Othei

Board Less Than 10 Years

1%

55%

56%

28%

3%

31%

3%

10%

Board More Than 10 Years

3%

53%

56%

27%

5%

32%

5%

7%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

4%

26%

30%

44%

—

44%

9%

17%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

3%

46%

49%

30%

3%

33%

5%

13%

Administrator Less Than 10 Years

11%

46%

57%

32%

—

32%

11%

Adm inistrator More Than 10 Years

3%

69%

77%

19%

_

19%

2%

—

—

2%

244

Strongly
Agree

Years of Experience
in Higher Education

TABLE 65

HYPOTHESIS XXV:

A g re a te r percentage o f the responding i n s t it u t io n a l p residents w ill hold a more
favorable opinion toward the ro le of colleges and u n iv e r s itie s in preparing s tu ­
dents fo r the job market than w ill the key fa c u lty rep re se n ta tiv e s.
INSTITUTIONAL RESPONDENTS' POSITION IN HIGHER EDUCATION AND
THEIR OPINIONS TOWARD PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
PREPARING STUDENTS FOR THE JOB MARKET
PREPARING STUDENTS FOR THE JOB MARKET
Agree

Disagree

Total

74.29%

25.71%

100%

(N = 52)

(N = 18)

(N = 70)

54.91%

45.09%

100%

(N = 28)

(N = 23)

(N = 51)

President

Faculty

X2 = 4.12

P < .05

245

Position

TABLE 66

HYPOTHESIS XXVI:

The m ajority of voters w ill hold p o sitiv e opinions toward the ro le o f Michigan
public colleges and u n iv e r s itie s in preparing students fo r the job market.
MICHIGAN VOTERS* OPINIONS TOWARD PUBLIC COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES PREPARING STUDENTS FOR JOB MARKET
EFFECTIVE JOB MARKET PREPARATION
246

Yes

No

Total

59.61%

40.39%

100%

(N = 152)

(N = 103)

(N = 255)

X2 = 9.4566

P < .002

TABLE 66a

QUESTION 66a:

Are Michigan's public colleges and u n iv e r s itie s preparing students s a t i s f a c t o r i l y
fo r the present job market (P art I , Q-2a)?
SAMPLE MICHIGAN VOTERS' OPINIONS
(GEOGRAPHICAL)
Yes

No

Central

42%

21%

37%

Southeast

33%

CM

00

39%

Upper Peninsula

60%

13%

27%

Western

38%

23%

39%

Don't Know

247

Area

TABLE 66b
QUESTION 66b:

Are Michigan's p u blic c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s preparing students s a t i s f a c t o r i l y
fo r the present job market (Part I , Q-2a)?

SAMPLE MICHIGAN VOTERS' OPINIONS
(URBANIZATION)
Yes

No

Don't Know

Central City

38%

24%

38%

Farm

40%

30%

30%

Rural

34%

24%

42%

Small City

40%

26%

34%

Suburb

34%

24%

42%

248

Area

VI I I .

RESPONSIBILITIES OF A STATEWIDE BOARD
OF HIGHER EDUCATION

249

TABLE 67

QUESTION 67:

I t should c o ll e c t e sse n tia l information and data about post-secondary education
(P art I I I , Q -l).
POSITION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Chairman

31%

56%

87%

4%

4%

8%

3%

2%

Board Member

22%

72%

94%

1%

1%

2%

2%

2%

Faculty

38%

59%

97%

2%

—

2%

1%

—

Admi ni s t r a t o r

33%

61%

94%

1%

—

1%

4%

1%

250

Position

TABLE 67a
QUESTION 67a:

I t should c o l l e c t e s s e n t i a l information and data about post-secondary education
(Part I I I , Q- l ) .

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type o f I n s t i tu t i o n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

P riv ate Community College

7%

87%

94%

—

—

—

—

6%

Public Community College

29%

67%

96%

1%

2%

3%

—

1%

Four-Year P rivate College

24%

69%

93%

2%

—

2%

3%

2%

Four-Year Public College

32%

55%

87%

3%

—

3%

3%

7%

P riv ate Grad, and Univ.

29%

47%

76%

6%

—

6%

18%

—

Public University

31%

63%

94%

—

1%

1%

5%

—

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

TABLE 67b

QUESTION 67b:

I t should c o ll e c t e sse n tia l information and data about post-secondary education
(P art I I I , Q -l).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES
Strongly
Agree

.

Total
9

ni«.aarpp
9

Strongly
Disagree

T

,

No
Opinion
u p

Other

I II I V I I

Nft
No

91
21%

771%
1 91

Q9V
92%

9<y
2%

_- _

9
¥
2%

M

Yes

29%

65%

94%

1%

1%

2%

2%

2%

252

Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

TABLE 67c
QUESTION 67c:

I t should c o l l e c t e s s e n t i a l information and data about post-secondary education
(Part I I I , Q - l ) .

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Less Than 10 Years

21%

71%

92%

1%

2%

3%

3%

2%

Board More Than 10 Years

29%

66%

95%

2%

—

2%

1%

2%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

39%

61%

100%

—

—

—

—

—

Faculty More Than 10 Years

36%

59%

95%

3%

—

3%

2%

—

A dm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

21%

68%

89%

—

—

—

7%

4%

A dm inistrator More Than 10 Years

m

54%

96%

2%

—

2%

2%

—

253

Strongly
Agree

Years o f Experience
in Higher Education

TABLE 68
QUESTION 68:

I t should conduct comprehensive and continuous planning and assessm ent s tu d ie s
o f a l l a sp e cts o f post-secondary education (Part I I I , Q-2).

POSITION

P o sitio n

Agree

Agree
3

Total

Disagree
3

Disagree

Tota1

nJjn-mn
Opinion

Other

27%

53%

80%

4%

5%

9%

6%

5%

Board Member

20%

68%

88%

5%

1%

6%

2%

4%

Faculty

25%

64%

89%

5%

-

5%

3%

3%

A dministrator

25%

63%

88%

4%

-

4%

7%

1%

254

Board Chairman

TABLE 68a
QUESTION 68a:

I t should conduct comprehensive and continuous planning and assessment s tu d ie s
o f a l l a sp e c ts o f post-secondary education (Part I I I , Q-2).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Strongly
Di sagree

No
Opinion

Type o f I n s titu tio n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

P riv a te Community College

7%

86%

93%

7%

—

7%

Public Community College

26%

65%

91%

3%

2%

5%

2%

2%

Four-Year P riv a te College

22%

69%

91%

1%

1%

2%

3%

4%

Four-Year Public College

13%

61%

74%

13%

—

13%

3%

10%

P riv a te Grad, and Univ.

18%

41%

59%

18%

—

18%

17%

6%

Public U niversity

26%

54%

80%

8%

9%

5%

6%

—

Other

—

255

1%

Total

TABLE 68b

QUESTION 68b:

I t should conduct comprehensive and continuous planning and assessment stu d ies
o f a ll aspects of post-secondary education (P a rt I I I , Q-2).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

256

No

18%

70%

88%

4%

-

4%

5%

3%

Yes

24%

63%

87%

5%

1%

6%

3%

4%

TABLE 68c
QUESTION 68c:

I t should conduct comprehensive and continuous planning and assessment s tu d ie s o f
a l l a sp e cts o f post-secondary education (Part I I I , Q -2).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Board Less Than 10 Years

20%

66%

86%

5%

2%

7%

3%

4%

Board More Than 10 Years

26%

62%

88%

3%

1%

4%

2%

6%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

22%

61%

83%

13%

—

13%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

26%

67%

93%

—

—

—

5%

2%

A dm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

21%

64%

85%

—

—

—

11%

4%

A dm inistrator More Than 10 Years

27%

63%

90%

Years of Experience
in Higher Education

—

6%

No
Opinion

Other

4%

—

4%

—

257

6%

Total

TABLE 69
QUESTION 69:

I t should a d v ise the Governor and the l e g i s l a t u r e as to the fin a n c ia l and other
needs o f post-secondary education (Part I I I , Q-3).

POSITION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Chairman

20%

67%

87%

4%

4%

8%

3%

2%

Board Member

CM

o

71%

91%

4%

1%

5%

1%

3%

Faculty

30%

59%

89%

5%

1%

6%

—

5%

A dm inistrator

21%

67%

88%

4%

1%

5%

7%

—

258

P o sitio n

TABLE 69a

QUESTION 69a:

I t should advise the Governor and the le g is la tu r e as to the fin a n c ia l and other
needs of post-secondary education (P a rt I I I , Q-3).
TYPE OF INSTITUTION

Type of I n s titu tio n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

P riv a te Community College

13%

80%

93%

7%

—

7%

Public Community College

24%

70%

94%

2%

2%

4%

1%

1%

Four-Year P riv a te College

22%

72%

94%

1%

—

1%

2%

3%

Four-Year Public College

13%

42%

55%

26%

3%

29%

6%

10%

P riv a te Grad, and Univ.

18%

65%-

83%

—

—

—

Public U niversity

22%

63%

85%

5%

11%

Total

No
Opinion
—

Other

—

17%
1%

—

3%

259

6%

Strongly
Di sagree

TABLE 69b

QUESTION 69b:

I t should advise the Governor and the le g is la tu r e as to the fin a n c ia l and o th er
needs o f post-secondary education (P a rt I I I , Q-3).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES
Strongly
Agree

A
s

Total

Disagree
y

stro n g ly
Disagree

,

No
Opinion

Qh
260

Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?
No

15%

76%

91%

1%

-

1%

5%

3%

Yes

23%

66%

89%

5%

2%

7%

1%

3%

TABLE 69c

QUESTION 69c:

I t should advise the Governor and th e le g is la tu r e as to the fin a n c ia l and o th er needs
of post-secondary education (P art I I I , Q-3).
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Board Less Than 10 Years

19%

70%

89%

4%

1%

Board More Than 10 Years

21%

71%

92%

4%

2%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

31%

52%

83%

13%

—

Faculty More Than 10 Years

31%

64%

95%

—

A dm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

18%

71%

89%

—

A dm inistrator More Than 10 Years

23%

65%

00
00

Years of Experience
in Higher Education

6%

No
Opinion

Other

5%

2%

4%

6%

—

2%

13%

—

4%

2%

2%

—

3%

4%

4%

7%

—

—

6%

6%

—

Total

TABLE 70
QUESTION 70:

I t should advise the Governor and the l e g i s l a t u r e on th e r o le s and m issio n s o f
ind ividu al i n s t i t u t i o n s , t h e ir education programs, and needs fo r new programs,
c e n t e r s , s c h o o ls , or departments (Part I I I , Q-4).

POSITION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Chairman

16%

53%

69%

13%

9%

22%

7%

2%

Board Member

13%

63%

76%

14%

2%

16%

4%

4%

Faculty

21%

60%

81%

10%

3%

13%

—

6%

A dm inistrator

18%

53%

71%

16%

5%

21%

7%

1%

262

P o sitio n

TABLE 70a
QUESTION 70a:

I t should a d v ise the Governor and the l e g i s l a t u r e on the r o le s and m issions o f
in d iv id u a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , t h e ir education programs, and needs fo r new programs,
c e n t e r s , s c h o o ls , or departments (Part I I I , Q-4).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

P riv a te Community College

7%

73%

80%

—

—

—

Di sagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion
20%

Other
263

Type o f I n s titu tio n

—

Public Community College

m

60%

77%

16%

4%

20%

1%

2%

Four-Year P riv a te College

16%

64%

80%

8%

2%

10%

5%

5%

Four-Year Public College

16%

39%

55%

26%

6%

32%

3%

10%

P riv a te Grad, and Univ.

6%

70%

76%

—

—

—

18%

6%

17%

51%

68%

18%

5%

23%

5%

4%

Public U niversity

TABLE 70b
QUESTION 70b:

I t should a d v ise the Governor and the l e g i s l a t u r e on the r o le s and m issions o f
in d ivid u al i n s t i t u t i o n s , t h e ir education programs, and needs fo r new programs,
c e n t e r s , s c h o o ls , or departments (Part I I I , Q-4).

ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES
Strongly
Agree

A
y

Total

Disagree
a

^ ron^
Disagree
2%

No

10%

66%

76%

6%

Yes

17%

57%

74%

16%

Total

n No.
Opinion

8%

10%

20%

3%

Other
264

Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

6%

TABLE 70c
QUESTION 70c:

I t should ad vise the Governor and the l e g i s l a t u r e on the r o le s and m issions o f
in d iv id u al i n s t i t u t i o n s , t h e i r education programs, and needs fo r new programs,
c e n t e r s , s c h o o ls , or departments (Part I I I , Q-4).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Less Than 10 Years

14%

61%

75%

15%

2%

17%

4%

4%

Board More Than 10 Years

14%

60%

74%

13%

5%

18%

5%

3%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

22%

65%

87%

—

4%

4%

—

9%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

20%

59%

79%

15%

3%

18%

—

3%

A dm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

21%

54%

75%

11%

4%

15%

7%

3%

A dm inistrator More Than 10 Years

17%

52%

69%

19%

6%

25%

6%

—

265

Strongly
Agree

Years o f Experience
in Higher Education

TABLE 71
QUESTION 71:

I t should provide a s s is t a n c e in the development o f c oo p erative r e la t io n s h ip s
among i n s t i t u t i o n s and among the s e c to r s o f post-secondary education (Part I I I ,
Q-5).

POSITION
P o sitio n

Disagree

stro n g ly

5%

^
0thef

12%

6%

4%

4%

4%

Board Chairman

22 %

56%

78%

7%

Board Member

19%

69%

88 %

4%

4%

Faculty

29%

64%

93%

3%

3%

Administrator

26%

67%

93%

3%

3%

4%

4%

266

fOp
l n iinion
ninn

TABLE 71a
QUESTION 71a:

I t should provide a s s is t a n c e in the development o f coo p era tiv e r e la t io n s h ip s among
i n s t i t u t i o n s and among the s e c to r s o f post-secondary education (Part I I I , Q-5).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type o f In s titu tio n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

P riv a te Community College

7%

73%

80%

7%

—

7%

13%

Public Community College

25%

67%

92%

1%

1%

2%

2%

4%

Four-Year P riv a te College

22%

68%

90%

4%

1%

5%

2%

3%

Four-Year Public College

26%

48%

74%

13%

—

13%

3%

10%

P riv a te Grad, and Univ.

12%

65%

77%

6%

—

6%

17%

Public U niversity

17%

68%

85%

6%

1%

7%

5%

Total

No
Opinion

Other

267

—

—

3%

TABLE 71b
QUESTION 71b:

I t should provide a s s is t a n c e in the development o f coo p era tive r e la t io n s h ip s among
i n s t i t u t i o n s and among the s e c to r s o f post-secondary education (Part I I I , Q-5).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

Agree
n s' re

Total
,ul'ai

Disagree
L,,3ay,c c

stro n g ly
Disagree

Total
,ul'ai

No
Opinion

o th er

No

13%

73%

86%

4%

-

4%

7% .

3%

Yes

24%

65%

89%

4%

1%

5%

2%

4%

268

Bargaining Purposes?

Si 2 2 ly
Agree

TABLE 71c
QUESTION 71c:

I t should provide a s s is t a n c e in the development o f coo p era tive r e la t io n s h ip s among
i n s t i t u t i o n s and among the s e c to r s o f post-secondary education (Part I I I , Q-5).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Board Less Than 10 Years

19%

66%

85%

4%

1%

Board More Than 10 Years

20%

67%

87%

5%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

26%

10%

96%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

31%

61%

A dm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

25%

A dm inistrator More Than 10 Years

21%

No
Opinion

Other

5%

5%

5%

1%

6%

3%

4%

—

—

—

—

4%

92%

5%

—

5%

—

3%

64%

89%

4%

—

4%

1%

—

69%

96%

2%

—

2%

2%

—

Total

269

Strongly
Agree

Years of Experience
in Higher Education

TABLE 72
QUESTION 72:

I t should name appropriate advisory committees and c o u n c ils (Part I I I , Q-6).

POSITION

P o sitio n

Agree

Agree
3

Total

Disagree

nDisagree
ican rlo

Tota1

nJin-mn
Opinion

o th er

13%

64%

77%

9%

5%

14%

7%

2%

Board Member

13%

63%

76%

7%

1%

8%

9%

7%

Faculty

16%

57%

73%

9%

—

9%

8%

10%

Administrator

17%

63%

80%

4%

1%

5%

270

Board Chairman

15%

TABLE 72a
QUESTION 72a:

I t should name appropriate advisory committees and c o u n c ils (Part I I I , Q-6).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

P riv a te Community College

7%

67%

74%

13%

—

Public Community College

17%

64%

81%

4%

Four-Year P riv a te College

14%

62%

76%

7%

Four-Year Public College

10%

42%

52%

23%

P riv a te Grad, and Univ.

18%

65%

83%

—

9%

66%

75%

Type o f In s titu tio n

Public U niversity

8%

Total

No
Opinion

13%

13%

2%

6%

7%

6%

1%

8%

10%

6%

—

23%

6%

19%

—

—

17%

3%

11%

12%

Other

—

—

2%

TABLE 72b
QUESTION 72b:

I t should name appropriate a dvisory committees and c o u n c ils (Part I I I , Q-6).

ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES
Organized fo r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

Strongly
Agree

.
Agree

,
,
lo ta l

Disaaree
u isa 9ree

Strongly
Disagree

_
.
lo tal

No
Opinion

g..
u th er

^
ro

No

9%

68%

77%

- 7%

Yes

15%

61%

76%

7%

•

—

7%

12%

4%

2%

9%

9%

6%

TABLE 72c
QUESTION 72c:

I t should name appropriate advisory committees and c o u n c ils (Part I I I , Q-6).

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Board Less Than 10 Years

14%

63%

77%

7%

2%

9%

8%

6%

Board More Than 10 Years

12%

64%

76%

8%

1%

9%

9%

6%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

17%

56%

73%

9%

—

9%

9%

9%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

15%

59%

74%

10%

—

10%

8%

8%

A dm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

14%

50%

64%

7%

4%

11%

25%

—

A dm inistrator More Than 10 Years

19%

71%

90%

2%

—

—

8%

—

Years o f Experience
in Higher Education

Total

No
Opinion

Other

273

TABLE 73
QUESTION 73:

I t should p rovide, from time to tim e, such oth er advice and counsel concerning
higher education as e i t h e r the Governor or the l e g i s l a t u r e may require
(Part I I I , Q-7).

POSITION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Board Chairman

15%

67%

82%

5%

4%

Board Member

16%

74%

90%

2%

Faculty

30%

65%

95%

A dm inistrator

17%

75%

92%

No
Opinion

Other

9%

5%

4%

- -

2%

3%

5%

—

—

—

—

5%

3%

—

3%

5%

—

Total

274

P o sitio n

TABLE 73a
QUESTION 73a:

I t should provide, from time to tim e, such other advice and counsel concerning
higher education as e i t h e r th e Governor or th e l e g i s l a t u r e may require
(Part I I I , Q-7).

TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Type of I n s titu tio n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

P riv a te Community College

7%

86%

93%

Public Community College

21%

73%

94%

1%

1%

2%

1%

3%

Four-Year P riv a te College

18%

74%

92%

2%

—

2%

2%

4%

Four-Year Public College

16%

49%

65%

16%

—

16%

3%

16%

P riv a te Grad, and Univ.

12%

70%

82%

- -

—

—

Public U niversity

15%

72%

00

Disagree

—

2%

2%

Total

No
Opinion
7%

—

18%
4%

8%

Other
275

—

Strongly
Disagree

—

—

1%

TABLE 73b
QUESTION 73b:

I t should provide, from time to tim e, such o th er advice and counsel concerning
higher education as e it h e r the Governor or the l e g i s l a t u r e may require
(Part I I I , Q-7).

ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES
276

No

9%

80%

89%

2%

-

2%

5%

4%

Yes

20%

70%

90%

3%

1%

4%

2%

4%

TABLE 73c

QUESTION 73c:

I t should provide, from time to tim e, such o th er advice and counsel concerning higher
education as e ith e r the Governor or th e le g is la tu r e may re q u ire (P a rt I I I , Q-7).
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Board Less Than 10 Years

16%

71%

87%

2%

2%

4%

4%

5%

Board More Than 10 Years

13%

75%

88%

5%

—

5%

2%

5%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

26%

70%

96%

—

—

—

—

4%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

33%

64%

97%

—

—

—

—

3%

A dm inistrator Less Than 10 Years

18%

68%

86%

3%

—

3%

11%

—

A dm inistrator More Than 10 Years

17%

79%

96%

2%

—

2%

2%

—

Years o f Experience
in Higher Education

Total

No
Opinion

Other

277

IX.

PUBLIC COMMUNITY COLLEGES

278

TABLE 74
QUESTION 74:

Community c o lle g e s should not be allowed to grant baccalaureate degrees
(Part I , Q -23).

POSITION
P o sitio n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

31%

36%

67%

9%

2%

11%

21%

1%

Board Member

24%

40%

64%

16%

3%

19%

11%

6%

Faculty

49%

36%

85%

5%

2%

7%

6%

2%

A dm inistrator

46%

39%

85%

3%

7%

10%

5%

—

279

Board Chairman

TABLE 74a

QUESTION 74a:

Community co lleg es should not be allowed to grant baccalaureate degrees (P a rt I ,
Q-23).
TYPE OF INSTITUTION

Type o f I n s titu tio n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

P riv a te Community College

20%

40%

60%

13%

7%

20%

20%

Public Community College

28%

44%

72%

12%

5%

17%

7%

4%

Four-Year P riv a te College

30%

33%

63%

16%

2%

18%

15%

4%

Four-Year Public College

65%

26%

91%

—

—

—

3%

6%

P riv a te Grad, and Univ.

23%

41%

64%

12%

6%

18%

18%

Public U niversity

40%

40%

80%

6%

2%

8%

9%

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

—

3%

280

—

TABLE 74b

QUESTION 74b:

Community colleges should not be allowed to grant baccalaureate degrees
(P a rt I , Q-23).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES

S

S

i W

S

i

W

*

™

»

T0tal

Opinion

«her

No

23%

37%

60%

16%

3%

19%

18%

3%

Yes

35%

40%

75%

10%

3%

13%

8%

4%

TABLE 74c

QUESTION 74c:

Community colleges should not be allowed to grant baccalaureate degrees (Part I,
Q-23).
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Less Than 10 Years

24%

38%

62%

16%

3%

19%

14%

5%

Board More Than 10 Years

00
CVI

42%

70%

13%

3%

16%

9%

5%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

39%

39%

78%

9%

—

9%

9%

4%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

59%

31%

90%

3%

2%

5%

5%

—

Administrator Less Than 10 Years

29%

54%

83%

7%

7%

14%

3%

—

Administrator More Than 10 Years

54%

34%

88%

6%

6%

6%

—

—

282

Strongly
Agree

Years of Experience
in Higher Education

TABLE 75

QUESTION 75:

R e d i s t r i d i n g of Michigan community colleges should take place to provide the
services of these i n s t i t u t i o n s equally to a l l areas of the s t a t e (Part I , Q-22).
POSITION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

No
Opinion

Board Chairman

15%

33%

48%

14%

5%

19%

24%

9%

Board Member

16%

39%

55%

17%

It

24%

11%

10%

Faculty

25%

33%

58%

8%

10%

18%

10%

14%

Administrator

18%

30%

16%

9%

25%

16%

11%

Other

283

oo
*si-

Position

TABLE 75a

QUESTION 75a:

R e d is tr ic tin g of Michigan community colleges should take place to provide the
services of these i n s t i t u t i o n s equally to a l l areas of the s t a t e (Part I , Q-22).
TYPE OF INSTITUTION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Strongly
Disagree

Total

Pri vate Community College

—

53%

53%

20%

7%

27%

7%

13%

Public Community College

37%

34%

71%

12%

9%

21%

2%

6%

Four-Year Private College

2%

40%

42%

16%

9%

25%

19%

14%

Four-Year Public College

7%

19%

26%

39%

6%

45%

10%

19%

Private Grad, and Univ.

6%

23%

29%

12%

—

12%

41%

18%

Public University

5%

41%

46%

9%

5%

14%

29%

11%

Disagree

No
Opinion

Other

284

Type o f I n s t i t u t i o n

TABLE 75b

QUESTION 75b:

R e d is tr ic tin g of Michigan community colleges should take place to provide the
services of these i n s t i t u t i o n s equally to a l l areas of the s t a t e (Part I , Q-22).
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES
Strongly
Agree

A
a

T

,
a

Strongly
Disagree

T

,

No
Opinion

„th
285

Organized f o r Formal
Bargaining Purposes?
No

4%

39%

43%

16%

6%

22%

21%

14%

Yes

22%

35%

57%

15%

8%■

23%

11%

9%

TABLE 75c

QUESTION 75c:

R e d is tr ic tin g of Michigan community colleges should take place to provide the
services of these i n s t i t u t i o n s equally to a l l areas of the s t a t e (Part I , Q-22).

Agree

Total

Di sagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opinion

Other

Board Less Than 10 Years

13%

39%

52%

19%

8%

27%

10%

11%

Board More Than 10 Years

21%

35%

56%

12%

3%

15%

20%

9%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

22%

35%

13%

—

13%

13%

17%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

26%

36%

62%

5%

15%

20%

8%

10%

Administrator Less Than 10 Years

21%

14%

35%

14%

11%

25%

18%

22%

Administrator More Than 10 Years

19%

37%

56%

17%

8%

25%

15%

4%

Years of Experience
in Higher Education

286

Strongly
Agree

cn
■'•vj

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

TABLE 76
QUESTION 76:

Community c o le g e s should have the same r e la t io n s h ip to the proposed S ta te Board
o f Higher Education as baccalaureate i n s t i t u t i o n s (Part I , Q-24).

POSITION
Position

flgree

Total

Disagree

Strongly

Tota,

Qther

15%

47%

62%

16%

4%

20%

11%

7%

Board Member

12%

52%

64%

12%

2%

14%

13%

9%

Faculty

16%

51%

67%

9%

2%

11%

13%

9%

Administrator

22%

40%

62%

14%

-

14%

16%

8%

287

Board Chairman

TABLE 76a

QUESTION 76a:

Community colleges should have the same re l a ti o n s h i p to the proposed State Board
o f Higher Education as baccalaureate i n s t i t u t i o n s (Part I , Q-24).
TYPE OF INSTITUTION

Type o f I n s t i t u t i o n

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Di sagree

—

60%

60%

20%

Public Community College

29%

47%

76%

7%

Four-Year Priva te College

4%

54%

58%

Four-Year Public College

7%

61%

Private Grad, and Univ.

6%

Public University

5%

Total

No
Opinion

Other

20%

7%

13%

2%

9%

7%

8%

16%

1%

17%

18%

7%

68%

16%

7%

23%

—

9%

41%

47%

12%

—

12%

35%

6%

38%

43%

20%

1%

21%

25%

11%

—

288

Private Community College

Strongly
Disagree

TABLE 76b

QUESTION 76b:

Community colleges should have the same r e l a ti o n s h i p to the proposed State Board
of Higher Education as baccalaureate i n s t i t u t i o n s (Part I , Q-24),
ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPOSES
Strongly
Agree

fl

J

Tot a l

Disagree
a

^ ron9ly
Disagree

Total

. I!'0 .
Opinion

Other

No

5%

57%

62%

11%

1%

12%

18%

8%

Yes

18%

47%

65%

13%

2%

15%

11%

9%

289

Organized for Formal
Bargaining Purposes?

TABLE 76c

QUESTION 76c:

Community colleges should have the same re l a ti o n s h i p to the proposed State Board of
Higher Education as baccalaureate i n s t i t u t i o n s (Part I , Q-24).
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Total

Disagree

Strongly
Di sagree

Total

No
Opi nion

Board Less Than 10 Years

13%

50%

63%

15%

2%

17%

11%

9%

Board More Than 10 Years

12%

52%

64%

10%

3%

13%

15%

8%

Faculty Less Than 10 Years

9%

56%

65%

13%

—

13%

13%

9%

Faculty More Than 10 Years

18%

46%

64%

10%

3%

13%

13%

10%

Administrator Less Than 10 Years

25%

39%

64%

11%

—

11%

18%

7%

Administrator More Than 10 Years

23%

40%

63%

15%

—

15%

14%

8%

Years of Experience
in Higher Education

Other

290

APPENDIX B
QUESTIONNAIRE AND LETTER ATTACHMENTS

291

292

s t a t e

o f

M

ic h ig a n

O F F IC E O F T H E G O V E R N O R

LANSING
W ILLIAM

O.

M ILLIKEN

December 27, 1976

Dear Board Member:
As Governor of the S ta te o f Michigan, I have been concerned about our
planning and coordination system f o r higher education. The tr a d i ti o n s of
our s t a t e have respected the autonomy and independence of the in s ti t u t i o n s
of higher education in Michigan.
The issues of governance are being discussed n a tio n a lly and my Commission on
Higher Education which completed i t s work in October, 1974, made some s p e c if ic
recommendations concerning the fu tu re of Michigan higher education.
One of the commission's charges was to review the question of governance and
cooperation. They completed t h i s ta s k , taking a p o sitio n in t h e i r re p o rt to
me t h a t was s e n s itiv e to Michigan's p ast h isto ry and the needs of p ost­
secondary education. Although the commission s o l i c i t e d opinions regarding
t h e i r work, i t would be of g reat value to have a survey of opinion from key
in div id uals in higher education regarding these issues.
I am pleased t h a t P h ilip J . Gannon, P resident o f Lansing Community College,
has taken i t upon himself to conduct such a survey. P resident Gannon was a
task force member on the Governance and Coordination Committee of my com­
mission and is chairman of the Michigan L ocal-State Relations Subcommittee
L e g is la tiv e Task Force. I wholeheartedly endorse P resid en t Gannon's study
as i t w ill focus on the opinions and a t t i t u d e s of th ree s ig n if i c a n t groups
in our s t a t e - - f a c u l t y le ad ersh ip , college p re s id e n ts, and college board
members
The r e s u l t s of th i s study w ill become public inform ation; however, the
in d iv id u a ls' opinions and t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s w ill be given complete confi­
d en tiality .
May I , th e re fo r e , urge you to p a r t i c i p a t e in the study and extend your
cooperation in the completion of the study.

Governor

293

JCansing Com m unity College
4 1 9 N. CAPITOL AVE , (O X 4 0 0 1 0
LA NSING , M ICHIGA N 4S901

December 27, 1976
Stmnp tHft Hi p M
of Mtch'ffOn

Dear President:
Thank you for your willingness to participate in this
study.
I have prepared for your consideration a very carefully
developed questionnaire on the 1974 report of the
Governor's Commission on Higher Education. The question­
naire will take approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete.
You may want to review the enclosed commission report
prior to or during your completion of the questionnaire.
I hope you will be able to return the questionnaire in
early January so the study completion date of February
can be met. A stamped, return self-addressed envelope
is enclosed for your convenience. May I assure you,
your questionnaire will be handled confidentially in
every respect.
A resume of the study will be mailed to you.
Thanks again for your participation.
Sincerely,

Philip J. Gannon
President

be

294

JCansing Com m unity College
4 1 9 N . CAPITOL A V t.. IO X 4 0 0 1 0
LANSING, M IC H IG A N 4 1901

December 27, 1976
Serving Ih f H##H
o f M ichigan

Dear Faculty Leader:
Thank you for your willingness to participate in this
study.
1 have prepared for your consideration a very carefully
developed questionnaire on the 1974 report of the
Governor's Commission on Higher Education. The question­
naire will take approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete.
You may want to review the enclosed commission report
prior to or during your completion of the questionnaire.
I hope you will be able to return the questionnaire in
early January so the study completion date of February
can be met. A stamped, return self-addressed envelope
is enclosed for your convenience. May I assure you,
your questionnaire will be handled confidentially in
every respect.
A resume of the study will be mailed to you.
Thanks again for your participation.
Sincerely,

Philip J. Gannon
President
be

295

JCansing Com m unity C ollege
41* M. CAHTCX *VE.. LANbNC MCHICAN 41*14

February 7, 1977
ifii H M rr
• # MfcJllgOft

Dear Board Member:
I truly appreciate how busy you are and the number of
questionnaires you receive but your help is needed.
A questionnaire pertaining to the Governor's Commission
on Higher Education, a copy of the Commission report and
a letter from Governor William G. Milliken requesting
your cooperation were mailed to you the first of
January, 1977.
The opinions of Board members are crucial to the quality
of this study. Over 50% of the Board members of Michigan
institutions of higher education have completed the
questionnaire. The topic is of utmost importance at
this time and your input is needed to validate the
Trustees' viewpoints of the issues. I believe this
area of study is critical to your institution and the
results will be of interest to all of us in higher
education.
Time is extremely short if the study is to be completed
on schedule. The result of this study will be mailed
to you hopefully in March.
Receipt of your question­
naire is key to meeting this commitment.
For your convenience, I am enclosing another question­
naire. Again, thank you for your help.

Philip a /. Gannon
President
Enc.

296

JCanting C om m unity College
4 19 N . CAPITOL AVE., LANSING, MICHIGAN 48914

(...VtUlIM J

March 1, 1977
S e rv in g th e Heori
o f M ichigan

Dear Board Member:
Your help is needed to complete the study on State-wide
governance in higher education in Michigan.
A questionnaire pertaining to the Governor's Commission
on Higher Education, a copy of the Commission report and
a letter from Governor William G. Milliken requesting
your cooperation were mailed to you the first of
January, 1977.
The study is nearing completion, with over 90% of the
Presidents, over 80% of the faculty members, and 70% of
the Board members having completed their questionnaires.
Our hope is that we will finish the study this month.
Because of the position of responsibility you hold in
Michigan higher education, your opinion is important.
For your convenience, I am enclosing another question­
naire. Thank you for your help.
Sincerelv.

Philip/# s' Gannon
President
Enc.

297

association of

independent colleges and universities
of michigan
ADMAN COLLEGE
AdftM
ALBION COLLEGE

AlbtP*

ALMA COLLEGE
Aim*
ANDREWS UNIVERSITY
B em ra Spring*
AQUINAS COLLECE
Craftd S i p d i
CALVIN COLLEGE
Crmad Rapid*
CENTER FOR CREATIVE
STU D IES— COLLECE OF
ART AND DESICN
DttRNt
CONCORDIA COLLECE
A n Arbor
DAVENPORT COLLECE
OF BUSINESS
Crand Rapid*
DETROIT COLLECE
OF BUSINESS
DETROIT COLLECE
O F LAW
Detroit
DETROIT INSTITUTE
OF TECHNOLOGY
Detroit
GRAND RAPIDS
BAPTIST COLLECE
Grand Rapid*
GREAT LAKES
BIBLE COLLEGE
HOPE COLLECE
Hoiand
JOHN WESLEY COLLECE
OwOSM
KALAMAEOO COLLEGE
U unU M
LAWRENCE INSTITUTE
OF TECHNOLOGY
Soutklteld
MADONNA COLLEGE
Livonia
MARYGROVE COLLEGE
Detroit
MERCY COLLEGE
OF DETROIT
Det roit
THE MERMLL.PALMER
INSTITUTE
Detroit
MUSGECON BUSINESS
COLLECE
M uihefoc
NAZARETH COLLEGE
AT KALAMAZOO
Naaaretb

OLIVET COLLECE
OUvft
SAINT MART'S COLLECE
Orchard Lake
SHAW COLLEGE
AT DETROIT
Detroit
SIENA HEICIITS COLLECE
Adnao
SPRING ARBOR COLLECE
Spneg Arbor
SUOMI COLLECE
Hanrork
UNIVERSITY O F DETROIT
Detroit
WALSH COl LEGE
OF ACCOUNTANCY AND
Bl'SINE&S ADMINISTRATION
Troy

9 3 0 M ic h . N a t i o n a l T o w tH

P o jr O i r i c i Box lOIdd
LAN hiN O. M i c h i g a n 4 9 9 0 1
T e le p h o n e .
(9 1 7 ; 372*9100

OfficeofthePresident

JOHN L GAFFNEY

March 1, 1977

MEMO TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:

Board Members of Independent Higher
Education Institutions in Michigan
John L. Gaffney
SURVEY ON ISSUES REGARDING THE GOVERNANCE
OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN

The enclosed survey questionnaire regarding the govern­
ance, planning and coordination of postsecondary educa­
tion in Michigan is timely and important b b public
policymakers in Michigan consider various methods for
the planning and coordination of public and independent
educational institutions.
The survey form, which was prepared by Philip J. Gannon,
President of Lansing Community College, has been pre­
viously forwarded to you for your consideration.
I am
hopeful that you will find a few minutes to review the
1974 report of the Governor's Commission on Higher
Education, and complete the enclosed survey.
It seems
to me immensely important that board members of inde­
pendent higher education institutions make a substantial
contribution to the preliminary considerations regarding
the creation of a centralized, state-wide agency which
could have impact on both the independence of independent
institutions and the cooperative relationships they now
enjoy.

298

SURVEY RESEARCH

—

C O N FIDENTIAL Q U ESTIO NN AIRE

Please check th e following seven items as they pertain to you and your institution.
1

POSITION en d /o r TITLE OF INDIVIDUAL COMPLETINO QUESTIONNAIRE
F acu lty _______________________________

2.

A d m in is tra tio n ________________

NUMBER O F YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION AS
B o a rd M em ber____________

3.

4.

B o a rd of C o n tr o l.

F acu lty -------------------

A d m in istra to r.

NUMBER OF YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN YOUR INSTITUTION AS
B o a rd M em b er____________

F acu lty -------------------

A d m in istra to r.

U n d er 3 0 .

50 to 5 9 .

60 and o v e r.

AGE

30 to 49 .
5.

TYPE OF INSTITUTION (C h eck your typ e o f Hiatltutlon)
A.

T w o-year Institutions
(1) C o m m u n ity C o lle g e

P u b lic

(3) P riv a te B u s in e ss J u n io r C o lle g e .

P riv a te ---------

(4) O th e r (S p ecify ) ________________

(2) P riv ate L iberal A rts J u n io r C o lle g e .
B.

C.

6.

Four to Five Year Institutions
(1) P riv ate L iberal A rts C o l l e g e _______

(4) P riv a te B ible C o lle g e o r In stitu te .

(2) P riv a te B u s in e ss C o lle g e

_______

(5) P u b lic C o l le g e ________

(3) P rivate T e c h n ic a l In stitu te

_______

(6) O th e r (Specify) _________________

P rofession al G raduate S c h o o ls an d U niversities
(1) P riv a te Law S c h o o l ________

(3) P u b lic U niversity .

(2) P riv a te U niversity

(4) O th e r (S pecify) _

________

SIZE OF INSTITUTION
F ull-tim e E q u a te d (FTE) e n ro llm e n t for F iscal Y ear 1975-76. D o n o t s h o w c a le n d a r y e a r 1975.

7.

U n d er 500 .

2.500-3.499

.

15 .0 00-19.999.

500-999

3.500-4.999

.

2 0 .0 0 0 -2 4 .9 9 9 .

1 ,0 0 0-1.499.

5.000-9.999

.

2 5 .0 0 0 -2 9 .9 9 9 .

1.500-2.499 .

10 .0 0 0 -1 4 .9 9 9 .

30.000-over

ARE ANY OF YOUR INSTITUTION'S EMPLOYEES ORGANIZED FOR FORMAL BARGAINING PURPO SES?
Y e s _______

N o -------------

If y es. in d ic a te th e a re a s o rg a n iz e d .
C u s to d ia l/M a in te n a n c e ________

P a r a - P r o f e s s io n a l.

C le ric a l/S e c re ta ria l

F acu lty

________

Psps I

A d m in istratio n .

299

PA BTI

For each of th e following statem ents please indicate your opinion by placing a check mark in th e appropriate area
to th e right. Your response will be treated confidentially.
Strongly
Agree

1. Do you feel th at th e following definition developed by the
G overnor's C om m ission on H igher E ducation is ap p ro p riate for
p o st-seco n d ary ed u catio n ?
"P ost-secondary ed u catio n is any instruction, research,
public service or o th er learning opportunity offered to per­
so n s w ho have com pleted th eir se co n d ary education or w ho are
beyond th e com pulsory se co n d ary sch o o l a tten d an ce ag e (age
16) a n d w ho ara participating in an org an ised educational pro ­
gram or learning ex p erien ce adm inistered by o th e r than
sc h o o ls w hose prim ary role is elem entary an d se co n d ary
education."
2. M ost M ichigan higher ed u catio n institutions are preparing
stu d e n ts effectively for th e Job m arket.
3. The p resen t approach for planning an d coordination for higher
education In M ichigan will m eet th e n eed s of the future.
4. C onsideration of statew ide planning an d coordination for
M ichigan higher ed u catio n a re se p ara b le from c o n c e rn s of
Institutional governance.
S. T he goals a n d p u rp o ses of p o st-seco n d ary ed u catio n In M ichigan
a re clearly defined.
6. For M ichigan, th e r o lu n ttry ap p ro ach for g overnance an d co o r­
dination for higher edu catio n Is appropriate.
7. For M ichigan, th e td v ito r y ap p ro ach for g o v arn an ce an d co o r­
dination for higher ed u catio n Is appropriate.
8. For M ichigan, a r tg u lito r y ap p ro ach for governance an d c o o r­
dination for higher ed u catio n is appropriate.
g. O ne of th e stren g th s of higher edu catio n in M ichigan is the
relative In d ep en d en ce of th e boards of control.
10. P reaant b o ard s of control for public colleges an d univarsities
should b e discontinued an d th ese colleges an d universities
plaoad u n d e r th e direction o l a single statew ide board.
11. Not having a statew ide board of control will lead to duplication
of reso u rces, u nw arranted com petition a n d lack of inner insti­
tutional cooperation.
12. B oard m em bers in higher ed u catio n sh o u ld be elected on a n o n ­
p artisan ballot.
13. B oard m em bers in higher ed u catio n sh o u ld b e elected on a
p artisan ballot.
14. B oard m em bers in higher ed u catio n sh o u ld b e ap p o in ted by
th e G overnor w ith advice a n d c o n sen t of th e S enate.
IS. Faculty m em bers sh o u ld b e allowed to serve o n their own
Institution's b o ard of control.
16. S tu d en ts sh o u ld b e allow ed to serve on their ow n institution's
b o ard of control.
17. Faculty m em bers should be allow ed to serve o n bo ard s of
control of institutions of h igher ed u catio n o th er th an their own.
16. A dm inistrators an d staff m em bers should b e allow ed to se rv e on
b o ard s of control of institutions of higher ed u catio n o th e r than
their own.
19. S tu d en ts sh o u ld b e allow ed to serve o n b o a rd s of control of
Institutions of higher ed u catio n o th er th an their own.
20. Com m unity college bo ard s of control sh o u ld co n tin u e to be
elected.
21. C om m unity college bo ard s of control sh o u ld b e ap p o in ted
by th e G overnor with advice an d c o n sen t of th e S enate.
22. Redistricting of M ichigan com m unity colleges sh o u ld take
p lace to provide th e services of th e s e institutions equally to all
a re a s of th e State.
23. Com m unity co lleg es sh o u ld n ot be allow ed to g ran t b a c c a ­
laureate degrees.
P9Q9 2

Agree

No
OgHton

Oleagree

Strongly
Disagree

tec*
tntormstton

300

aironely
Agree

Agree

No
Opinion

Disagree

Strongly
Otseereo

Lack
Information

24 C om m unity colleges should have th e sam e relationship to the
p ro p o sed S ta te B oard of H igher Education a s baccalaureate
institutions
25 S e p a ra te B oards of T rustees sh o u ld b e established for th o se
com m unity colleges presently under K-12 boards
26 T he functions and responsibilities of the p resent S tate B oard
of E ducation should be limited constitutionally to leadership,
g en eral supervision, planning an d coordination for elem entary
an d secondary education only.
27 T here is substantial support in th e aducational com m unity for
creation of a se p a ra te S tate B oard of H igher Education with
advisory pow ers
28. T h ere is a substantial legislatlra su p p o rt for creation of a se p ­
arate S tate B oard of H igher E ducation with advisory pow ers
29. T here is substantial support in theE xecuffve Ottiea for creation of
a se p ara te S tate B oard of H igher E ducation with advisory pow ers
30. C oordination an d planning for higher education should be
brought about by C onstitutional change.
31. C oordination an d planning for higher education should be
brought about by statutory enactm ent.
32. T he 1963 M ichigan C onstitution is am biguous regarding the
authority ol th e S tate B oard of E ducation an d the B oards of public
b acca la u reate institutions regarding planning a n d coordination.
33 T h ere should be a C onstitutional revision to allow for establish­
m ent of a new S tate Board for H igher E ducation if its resp o n si­
bilities are limited to general planning an d coordination of all
ed u cation beyond the se co n d ary level, with advisory an d
racom m andatory, rathar than m andatory, authority.
34 T h ere should be a C onstitutional revision and vote of th e people
to allow tor establishm ent of a new S tate B oard for H igher E d u ca­
tion with m andatory authority for general planning an d co o r­
dination

PART II

What Is your opinion concerning th e following seven statem ents if a new S tate Board of Higher Education were
established?
__________
___________________________
Strongly

April

Agree

No
Opinion

Dieagree

Strongly
Disagree

Look
Inteimotlof

f. M em bers of this p roposed B oard sh o u ld b e app o in ted by the
Governor, with advice an d c o n sen t of th e S enate.
2. M em bers of this p roposed B oard should be elected at large
3. M em bership of this p roposed B oard should be limited to no less
th an seven and no m ore th an fifteen.
4. T he chiel executive officer of th e p roposed S tate B oard lor
H igher E ducation should be elected.
5 T he chief executive officer ol th e p ro p o sed S tate Board for Higher
Education sh o u ld be ap p o in ted
6. T he functions ol this p ro p o sed B oard should be reviewed every
five to eight years
7 S tatutory basis should provide for involving th e S tate's inde­
p en dent colleges an d universities an d th e private trade, te c h ­
nical and b usiness sch o o ls in th e overall planning an d co o rd in a­
tion p ro cess of this proposed B oard

PART III

In your opinion, if a new S tate Board of Higher Education is established, should th e following responsibilities be a
part of its duties?
Strongly
Aqth

1. It should collect essential inform ation an d d a ta about p o st­
se co n d ary ed u catio n in M ichigan
2. It should conduct com prehensive an d c o n tin u o u s planning and
assessm en t stu d ies of all a s p e c ts of p o st-seco n d ary ed u catio n
3

Agrtt

No
Opinion

D h arM

•tronpty
Pltaproi

Lock
information

301

Slronely
Agree

Agree

No
OpIMon

DSasiM

Strongly
Disagree

Lacs
Information

3. It should advise th e Q overnor an d the L egislature a s to th e ti nancial an d o th er n eed s of p o st-se co n d ary education
4. It should advise th e G overnor and th e L egislature on th e roles and
m issions o l individual institutions, their educational program s,
an d n ee d s lor new program s, cen ters, schools or departm ents
5. It should provide assista n c e in th e developm ent ol cooperative
relationships am ong institutions a n d am ong th e se c to rs ot
p o st-seco n d ary education
6. It should n am e appropriate advisory com m ittees and councils
7. It should provide. Irom tim e to time, such o th er advice and
counsel concerning higher edu catio n as either th e G overnor or
th e L egislature may require

PART IV

What is your opinion about th e following thirteen statem ents regarding th e future conditions of post-secondary
education?
Strongly
Agree

Agree

1. S tabilized enrollm ent.
2. D ecreasing enrollm ent
3. Increasing enrollm ent
4. Increasing cost.
S. M ore specialized dem an d s for educational services.
6. C om petition for stu d en ts
7 C om petition for revenue.
S. Institutional m issions m ore difficult to deline.
9. M aintenance of quality m ore difficult to sustain
10. C ooperative effort am ong institutions o t higher edu catio n
m ore difficult.
11. R eso u rces m ore difficult to m anage
12. G reater diversity of program s ol higher educalion
13 In creased re sp e c t lor higher ed u catio n by th e public

COMMENTS:

T H AN K YOU FOR YOUR HELP

Pages

No
Opinion

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Lack
Information

302

PAGE ONE

LEGISLATIVE STUDY ON HIGHER EDUCATION GOVERNANCE
S t a r t i n g Time:

MIN____ SEC

C 1-3 (_______________ ) Case Number
C 4

(

1 ) Card Number

RECORD FROM THE SAMPLE PRINTOUT:
Telephone Number:

C 5 (

)

(_______________ ) (_______________ ) (.
A.C.
C.O.

R e s i d e n t i a l Area:

1.

C e ntra l Michigan

4.

Upper P e n in su la

3.
C 7 (

)

S o u t h e a s t e r n Michigan

2.

C 6 (_____) R e s i d e n t i a l L o ca tio n :

Race:

Small C ity
1 .'

White

4. ____ I n d i a n

5.

Number

3.

Western Michigan

1. _____ C e n tra l C i t y
4.

Farm
2.

5.

Black

2. _____ Suburb
Rural

3.

O riental

Other

C 8 (_____) Sex o f Respondent (RECORD FROM VOICE):
1.

Male

2.

Female

INTERVIEWER:
"H e llo . . . This i s a s t a t e w i d e p o l l .

I am c a l l i n g f o r Dr. Mishra

and A s s o c i a t e s , a r e s e a r c h f i r m l o c a t e d in L ansin g, Michigan,
r e g a r d i n g Michigan v o t e r s ' o p i n io n s toward Michigan p u b l i c c o l l e g e s
and u n i v e r s i t i e s .

I would l i k e to ask you a few q u e s t i o n s t h a t w i l l

o n l y t a k e a few m in ute s o f y o u r t i m e . "
GO TO PAGE TWO . . .

303

PAGE TWO

C 9____(___ )

Q1. Are Michigan p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s
p r e p a r i n g s t u d e n t s s a t i s f a c t o r i l y f o r t h e p r e s e n t jo b
market?
1.
Yes
9.

C 10

(___ )

2.

No

8.

D o n 't Know

No Response

Q2. In y o u r o p i n io n w i l l e n r o l l m e n t f o r Michigan
p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s i n t h e n e x t f i v e
years:
1. ____ I n c r e a s e
4.

C 11

(___ )

2.

Don't Know

Decrease
9.

3.

No Change

No Response

Q3. In your o p i n io n w i l l t h e q u a l i t y o f e d u c a t i o n
Michigan p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s :
1. _____ Improve i n t h e f u t u r e

2.

t h e f u t u r e 3.
Remain t h e same
9.
No Response

in

Not improve in
8.

D o n 't Know

GO ON TO PAGE THREE . . .

PAGE THREE

304

INTERVIEWER:
"Now I am going to ask you a few q u e s t i o n s about how M ic h iga n's
p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s a r e run by t h e i r Boards o f C o n t r o l . "
C 12 (____ )

Q4.

How well do you c o n s i d e r y o u r s e l f informed about

how M i c h ig a n 's p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s a r e
operated?
r*- 1.

Well Informed

2.

Moderately Informed

Not Very Well Informed
Uni nformed
D on 't Know
No Response
INTERVIEWER

IF THE RESPONDENT ANSWERS "WELL INFORMED" OR
"MODERATELY INFORMED" GO ON TO QUESTION FIVE.

C 13 (____ )*■»■ Q5.

How well s a t i s f i e d a r e you with t h e a c t i o n s o f

t h e govern ing boards ( t h e s e a r e s i m i l a r t o y o u r l o c a l
Boards o f Educa tion) o f our p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and
u niversities?
1.
3.
87.

Well S a t i s f i e d

_
_

Moderately S a t i s f i e d

2.

4. ____ D i s s a t i s f i e d
No Response

Not Very Well S a t i s f i e d
D on't Know

9.

D o e s n 't Apply ( I f answered 3, 4, 8, o r 9 t o Q4)

GO ON TO PAGE FOUR . . .

PAGE FOUR
C 14 (____ )

305

Q6.

The t h r e e main ways t o s e l e c t gove rning board

members f o r Michigan p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s
a r e : e l e c t i o n on a Republican o r Democratic b a l l o t ,
e l e c t i o n on a n o n p a rty b a l l o t , and appointm ent by t h e
Governor w i t h approva l o f t h e S e n a te .

Which o f t h e

t h r e e do you p r e f e r most?
1. ____ E l e c t i o n on a Republican o r Democratic b a l l o t
2. ____ E l e c t i o n on a n o n p a rt y b a l l o t
3. ____ Appointment by t h e Governor w i t h approval
t he Sena te
4.
C 15 (____ )

Q7.

Others

8.

D o n 't Know

9.

of

No Response

In y o u r o p i n i o n shou ld t h e p r e s e n t governing

bo ards o f Michigan p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s be
r e p l a c e d by a s i n g l e s t a t e w i d e board?
1.
8.
C 16 (____ )

Q8.

Yes 2.
D o n 't Know

No
9.

3.
Others
No Response

In y o u r o p i n i o n , i f Michigan were t o have a

s t a t e w i d e go vern ing board f o r p u b l i c h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n
should i t c e n t e r i t s a c t i v i t i e s on a d v ic e o r sh ou ld i t
regulate?

INTERVIEWER:

1.

Advise

2.

8.

D o n 't Know

R e g u la te
9.

"I want t o thank you .

3.

No Opinion

No Response

.

. you have been most h e l p f u l . "

Ending Time:

MIN____ SEC

PAGE FIVE

306

PROBLEMS IN TELEPHONING
1. ____ Incomplete

Call — Ring But No Answer - - Call Back

2. ____ Incomplete

Call — Busy Sign al - - Call Back

3. ____ Incomplete

Call - - Ring b u t no R e g i s t e r e d V oter A v a i l a b l e

4. ____ Incomplete

Call —Ring; A v a i l a b i l i t y o f R e g i s t e r e d
D a t e ______________

Voter:

Time______________

5. ____ Incomplete Call — Ring b u t Number Changed
New Number________ _____
A. Code Cent.

_____________
Number

6. ____ Recorded Message — Non-working Number
7. ____ Recorded Message — Number Disconnected
8. ____ Recorded Message — Call Cannot Go Through
9.

Refusal

10.

T erm ina tio n

11.

O ther Problems in Telephoning — S p e c if y __________________

INTERVIEWER'S COMMENTS ABOUT HOW THE INTERVIEW WENT:

APPENDIX C
LIST OF MICHIGAN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE COLLEGES
AND UNIVERSITIES THAT PARTICIPATED IN
THE STUDY

307

LIST OF MICHIGAN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE STUDY
P r i v a t e Two-Year and Four-Year Colle ges
and U n i v e r s i t i e s
P r i v a t e C o l l e g e s , Two-Year L ib e r a l Arts
Concordia Lutheran J u n i o r C o lle g e
Michigan C h r i s t i a n J u n i o r C olle ge
Suomi Colle ge
P r i v a t e Two-Year P r o f e s s i o n a l
Baker J u n i o r C o lle g e o f B u sin e ss
Davenport C o lle g e o f Busine ss
P r i v a t e C o l l e g e s , Four-Year L ib e r a l Arts
Adrian Co llege
Albion College
Alma College
Aquinas Colle ge
Calvin Colle ge
H i l l s d a l e C olle ge
Hope College
John Wesley C o lle g e a t Owosso
Kalamazoo C o lle g e
Madonna College
Marygrove C olle ge
Nazareth C o lle g e
O l i v e t Co llege
Sie na He ights C o lle g e
S p r in g Arbor C o lle g e
P r i v a t e Four-Year P r o f e s s i o n a l
Bi ble
D e t r o i t B i b l e C olle ge
Grace B ible C olle ge
Grand Rapids B a p t i s t C o lle g e and Seminary
G re at Lakes B ib le C o lle g e
Reformed B i b le I n s t i t u t e

309
P r i v a t e Two-Year and Four-Y ear C o l l e g e s
and U n i v e r s i t i e s (C o n tin u ed )

P r i v a t e Four-Year P r o f e s s i o n a l (Continued)
Business
C lea r y Colle ge
Northwood I n s t i t u t e
Walsh C o lle g e o f Accountancy and Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n
Liberal Arts - D iv e rs ifie d
Mercy C o lle g e o f D e t r o i t
Shaw C olle ge a t D e t r o i t
Sp ecia l
C e n te r f o r C r e a t i v e S t u d i e s
Cranbrook Academy o f Art
Technical
D e t r o i t I n s t i t u t e o f Technology
General Motors I n s t i t u t e
Lawrence I n s t i t u t e o f Technology
P r i v a t e Law Schools
Cooley Law School
D e t r o i t C o lle g e o f Law
Private U niversities
Andrews U n i v e r s i t y
U niversity of D etro it
P u b l i c Two-Year and Four-Year C o lle g es
and U n i v e r s i t i e s
Community C o lle g es
Small
Alpena Community C olle ge
Bay de Noc Community Colle ge
Glenn Oaks Community Colle ge
Gogebic Community C olle ge
K i r t l a n d Community Colle ge
Mid-Michigan Community Colle ge
Monroe County Community C o lle g e
Montcalm Community C olle ge

310
P u b l i c Two-Year and Four-Y ear C o l l e g e s
and U n i v e r s i t i e s (C o n tin u ed )

Community C o lle g e s (Continued)
Smal1 (Continued)
North C e n t r a l Michigan Colle ge
S o uth w e ste rn Michigan Co llege
West Shore Community Colle ge
Medium
Highland Park C olle ge
J a ck so n Community C o l le g e
Kalamazoo V a lle y Community C olle ge
Kellogg Community C o lle ge
Lake Michigan Colle ge
Muskegon Community C o lle g e
Northwest ern Michigan C olle ge
S a i n t C l a i r County Community C olle ge
Washtenaw Community Colle ge
Large
D e lta C o lle g e
Grand Rapids J u n i o r Colle ge
Henry Ford Community C olle ge
Lansing Community C o lle g e
Macomb County Community C olle ge
C. S. Mott Community C olle ge
Oakland Community C olle ge
S c h o o l c r a f t C olle ge
Wayne County Community C o lle ge
S p e c i a l i z e d C o lle g e s
F e r r i s S t a t e C o lle g e
Regional C o lle g e s
Grand V a l le y S t a t e C o lle g e
Lake S u p e r i o r S t a t e C olle ge
Saginaw V a lle y C o lle g e

311
P u b l i c Two-Year and Four-Y ear C o l l e g e s
and U n i v e r s i t i e s (C o n tin u ed )

Regional U n i v e r s i t i e s
C e n tr a l Michigan U n i v e r s i t y
E a s t e r n Michigan U n i v e r s i t y
Michigan T ec h n o lo g ic al U n i v e r s i t y
Northern Michigan U n i v e r s i t y
Oakland U n i v e r s i t y
Western Michigan U n i v e r s i t y
Major U n i v e r s i t i e s
Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan
Wayne S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y

(All i n s t i t u t i o n s l i s t e d have a head count o f 100 o r more.)