Differences in State Governance Model

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ucjc20

Community College Journal of Research and Practice

ISSN: 1066-8926 (Print) 1521-0413 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucjc20

Typology of State-level Community College Governance Structures

Jeffrey A. Fletcher & Janice Nahra Friedel

To cite this article: Jeffrey A. Fletcher & Janice Nahra Friedel (2017) Typology of State-level Community College Governance Structures, Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 41:4-5, 311-322, DOI: 10.1080/10668926.2016.1251355

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2016.1251355

Published online: 02 Dec 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1373

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Typology of State-level Community College Governance Structures Jeffrey A. Fletcher and Janice Nahra Friedel

School of Education, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA

ABSTRACT Despite having a well-documented history about community colleges across the United States, relatively few discussions have covered state-level governance structures. To understand the typology of state community college governance structures, it must first be recognized that community college governance is characterized as a complex web of relationships and arrangements that have evolved over time. There is a myriad of ways in which states can structure their higher education systems. Changes, emerging issues, and taxonomies that currently exist in the literature are becoming out-of-date and less precise. The purpose of this study was to develop a national landscape of state-level com- munity college governance structures and to provide an updated categorization of state-level community college governance structures. This study identified common themes, patterns, and emerging developments regarding state-level community college governance. The results of this study about state-level community college governance structures is beneficial for state-level commu- nity college governance leaders across the country to stay current and informed on changes and trends, and an opportunity to gain a better understanding about other states’ power-structures, governance, and administration over com- munity colleges.

Background of the study

From their very origins, community colleges have demonstrated a commitment to their founding principles of access, affordability, and quality. However, after President Obama gave a speech in 2009 with a call for action to have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020, the priority of community colleges has shifted to a completion agenda. This national agenda has posed increased challenges and opportunities for state-level community college systems across the nation. As a union of 50 states, there is no common type of state-level community college (CC) governance structure. In fact, we are very unique as there are a myriad of ways in which states can structure their higher education system. Our nation’s history demonstrates different types of state-level CC governance practices and patterns. To understand the typology of CC governance structures across the country, it must be recognized that CC governance is characterized as a complex web of relationships and arrangements that have evolved over time (Schuetz, 2008). Lovell and Trouth (2002) explained about governance:

. . .it is decision-making authority for an organization, which is typically controlled by boards. Governing boards usually appoint the chief executive of the institution or system, establish policies and approve actions related to faculty and personnel, ensure fiscal integrity, and perform other management functions. (p. 91)

Coordination is another important piece in the state-level CC governance puzzle. As Lovell and Trouth (2002) described, state-level coordination is “. . .the formal mechanism that states use to organize higher education. The responsibilities of coordinating boards include state-wide planning

CONTACT Jeffrey A. Fletcher [email protected] Iowa State University, School of Education, 2302 Osborn Dr., 220 MacKay Hall, Ames, IA 50011. © 2017 Taylor & Francis

COMMUNITY COLLEGE JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 2017, VOL. 41, NOS. 4–5, 311–322 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2016.1251355

and policy leadership; defining the mission for each postsecondary institution in the state; academic program review and approval; resource allocation. . .and etc.” (p. 92).

It is a state-by-state choice, and variations include state versus local control, elected versus state or locally appointed board members, taxing authority versus no taxing authority, voluntary shared governance versus mandated shared governance, and a variety of combinations in-between (Schuetz, 2008). This state-by-state choice is one characteristic that makes higher education in the United States so unique; however, what it also does is make it much more difficult for researchers to categorize the structures into a taxonomy. Development of the taxonomy allows for quick comparisons between the state-level CC governance structures of the 50 States. Taxonomy research can also be used as a policy tool to educate agents of change enabling them to make informed decisions.

Problem statement and purpose of the study

Prior to embarking on this “big-picture” research, discussion with the members of the National Council of State Directors of Community Colleges (NCSDCC), an affiliate council of the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), indicated a high need for an updated study about state-level governance structures. In several states, the legislature had mandated a state study. This research would provide the foundation by which state directors would be able to identify states with comparable governance structures. Moreover, taxonomy literature about state-level CC governance structures is out-of-date; the most recent study was carried out in 2001 by Richardson and de los Santos.

The purpose of this study is to develop a 2015 national landscape and categorization of state- level CC governance structures utilizing the Katsinas (1996) taxonomy. Using a mixed-method approach (document analysis and the 2015 NCSDCC survey about state-level community college governance structures), this study’s results are triangulated with other sources of data. Many states have experienced change since 2000, and having this information is beneficial for state- level CC leaders across the country to stay current and informed about changes, patterns, and trends. The results will also assist state policy makers and governors to have a better under- standing about other states’ power-structures, governance, and administration over CCs.

Research questions

Two questions guided this research study.

(1) How do state systems differ in the design and function of their state-level community college governance structures?

(2) What factors have driven change in the state-level governance of community colleges?

Limitations

A single-body, the NCSDCC, was used as survey participants in this case-study research to categorize the state-level CC governance structures of the 50 states. As a result, it is a small group of participants and not a traditional quantitative sample; it is a purposive sample. Nearly (90%) of CC state directors responded to the survey (i.e., N = 45 states are represented in this survey).

Issues that influence state-level community college governance

There are a number of issues in higher education that impact state-level governance of community colleges. Some of these issues include board compositions, articulation agreements, collective bargaining agreements, state and federal policies, and the political-historical context related to higher

312 J. A. FLETCHER AND J. N. FRIEDEL

education in each state. For many states, governance structure has remained the same, while in some states change has been the norm.

Board composition

Board composition can have far-reaching consequences for state-level CC governance. Members of both governing/coordinating boards can be appointed or elected. Popular election is practiced in at least 20 states for state CC boards; and for the other states, board members are generally appointed by the governor (Hines, 1997). Davis (2001) also found evidence that governing/coordinating board agendas change whenever a new political party and/or candidate wins the governor’s office.

Articulation agreements

Articulation agreements are another factor that can influence state-level CC governance structures. One of the oldest missions of the CC is to provide the first 2-years of education for students seeking a bachelor’s degree, and states have approached articulation between CCs and other institutions in differing ways (Rifkin, 1998). As Lovell and Trouth (200) have pointed out, “Voluntary articulation agreements put this governance issue in the hands of local boards, while legislative policies place this issue in the hands of state-level boards” (p. 95). It is conceivable that articulation agreements can have an influence in the way that state-level CC governance is structured for each of the 50 states.

Collective bargaining agreements

Another factor that can influence state-level CC governance structures are collective bargaining agreements. These may exist at the college or state-level, but either way, they carry important implications for CC governance. Lovell and Trouth (2002) found that statewide collective bargaining agreements (i.e., encompassing all CCs in the state), have considerable influence over governance systems. As of 2001, unions represented 51% of full-time faculty at public 2-year institutions and 27% of part-time faculty. An argument can be made that state-wide union agreements have an impact on management and control for state governing/coordinating boards; that is, issues could be decided in contract negotiations as opposed to being decided at the board level, and this may result in constraining what policymakers can and cannot do. However, it is possible that collective bargaining agreements may not necessarily influence governance structures, but may do so indir- ectly. For example, labor unions can influence who is elected to local and state boards, but the structure itself may not be impacted much at all.

Historical values and customs

Each state has its own history, values, and prevailing customs that can influence and mold the state- level CC governance structure. As Bowen et al. argued (1998), “Several historical factors—such as the constitutional strength of the governor, the constitutional status of institutions, voter initiatives, and political influences—affect system design and governance structures” (p. 37). Parallel to the United States (U.S.) Federal government, each state has its own constitutional document. Bowen et al. (1998) also found that state systems “. . .differ in the way they link institutions to one another and to state government, and the way they use the key work processes” (p. 51). As Bowen et al. (1998) found:

No underlying logic seems to have guided the historical evolution of. . .state systems. Each system came to be what it currently is more as a consequence of geography, political culture, and historical accident than through any systematic or consistent effort to follow a particular set of design principles. (p. 53)

COMMUNITY COLLEGE JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 313

Literature explains that the history and make-up of state government has an influence on choice of state-level CC governance structure and the way it functions (Bowen et al., 1998). Historical and contextual factors, such as the relative strength of the governor, the presence of a strong private higher education sector, constitutional status for public institutions, voter initiatives, and so on, are all important to the way states structure their CC governance (Bowen et al., 1998).

State and federal policies

Federal and state policies also affect state-level CC governance structures. State-level CC governing/ coordinating boards must work within state and federal laws, rules, and regulations when shaping policy. One policy area that has far-reaching effects is state funding. For example, while CCs in many states still collect revenue through local taxes, usually property taxes, the funding trend for the past three decades has been a reduction in local support and a shift to a greater proportion of the general operating funds for CCs coming from state general aid (Lovell & Trouth, 2002). This raises a question as to whether there will be a shift away from local governance and control toward greater state-level governance/coordination for CCs. Since the recent recession, state support per full-time equivalent (FTE) has not reached prerecession levels, and the burden of meeting the state cost of higher education continues to shift to the student via increases in tuition and fees (Katsinas et al., 2016).

Tollefson (1996) found that while authority rested with state boards, much of that authority had been delegated to local CCs. While some CCs have retained their local control and governance, there is no guarantee that states will continue to delegate such authority.

Emerging issues impacting state-level community college governance structure

Understanding some key issues related to state-level CC governance allows one to better understand the typology/taxonomy of state-level CC governance structures.

State-level boards

From 1963 to 1989, there were major changes in the types of state-level boards for CCs. Included were an increase from 38 to 49 states with state-level CC systems and an increase from six to 22 states with separate boards specifically for CC governance (Tollefson, 1996). Since 1996, a number of states have made changes; Florida provides a good example of reorganization. In 2000, the Florida legislature eliminated most of the state’s postsecondary boards, including the state’s Board of Community Colleges, in favor of one board of education for the entire educational system in Florida (Lovell & Trouth, 2002). The purpose of this reorganization was to, “. . .redefine the educational system in Florida as one seamless K–20 system” (Lovell & Trouth, 2002, p. 97). Why do states reevaluate and consider changing their state-level governance systems for postsecondary education? As Lovell and Trouth (2002) argued, “Changes are usually intended to improve the effectiveness and responsiveness of state systems” (p. 97).

Seamless K–16 systems

Another emerging policy issue that poses a challenge to CC governance structures is the rise of seamless K–16 systems. As Lovell and Trouth (2002) argued, “Many states are calling for a seamless K–16 educational system to better prepare and serve their citizens and the states’ needs” (p. 97). As states consider creating seamless K–16 systems, such changes could have far-reaching consequences with state-level governance and structure of CCs. For example, the integration of K–12 and postsecondary systems could require states to reconsider the traditional “separation” and governance of K–12 and higher education institutions (Boswell, 2000). Florida’s reorganization has already eliminated this separation. Is this change working in Florida? Will more states follow?

314 J. A. FLETCHER AND J. N. FRIEDEL

Technology

An additional issue that poses a challenge to state-level CC governance structure is technology. For instance, as access to technology increases, students may choose a CC on the basis of cost and range of offerings rather than geographical proximity (Mingle & Ruppert, 1998). Or, students might choose programs that are offered exclusively online. It is reasonable to expect that technology will pro- foundly affect CCs, as they are generally dependent on students from their local geographical area. For instance, the interconnection of state CCs online may increase the trend away from local governance and toward greater state governance and coordination. As geographical boundaries of CCs erode, it is harder to define the constituency of the college; therefore, it is harder to establish a governing body reflecting its constituency (Lovell & Trouth, 2002).

State-level community college governance structure taxonomies

In researching the literature, multiple taxonomies exist on state-level CC governance structures, and these are important for several reasons. First, they can shed light on the complex relation- ships and structures states have in governing their CCs. For example, CCs have been seen at various times as an extension of high school; as the first 2 years of a college system; and as a unique educational enterprise separate from both secondary and higher education (Diener, 1994). Second, as the mission of the CC continues to evolve, so too will state-level governance patterns (Tollefson & Fountain, 1994). Third, by understanding state-level governance structures of the 50 American states, state CC leaders can identify, anticipate, and better understand the strengths and weaknesses of their own systems to meet future challenges. Moreover, Lovell and Trouth (2002) argued that taxonomies help define and identify the placement of CCs within a state system.

Bowen et al. (1998) developed a popular taxonomy that categorizes state higher education systems into four distinct categories: federal systems, unified systems, confederated systems, and confeder- ated institutions. The Education Commission of the States (1997) taxonomy classifies state higher education systems as consolidated governing board states, coordinating governing board states, and planning or service agency states. Tollefson’s taxonomy (2000) classifies state CC systems into five models: a state CC system with responsibility for both CCs and K–12, a state CC system where responsibility for CCs resides in a state higher education board or commission, a state CC system where state-level CC coordinating boards exercise responsibilities for CCs, a state CC system where a state CC governing board has direct control over the CC operations, or a state CC system where a state board of regents is responsible for public universities and CCs. Richardson, Baracco, Callan, and Finney (1998) developed a three-part taxonomy: federal systems, unified systems, and segmented systems. The Richardson and de los Santos (2001) taxonomy posited seven categories: federal- federal, federal-unified, federal-segmented, unified, segmented-federal, segmented-unified, and seg- mented-segmented states.

Katsinas taxonomy

The Katsinas (1996) taxonomy, which is unpublished, encompasses five different, but simply defined, categories of state-level CC governance structure. Despite being the oldest taxonomy listed here, it continues to be easy-to-apply. Models that make up the Katsinas taxonomy include the rational model, defined as a separate state-level CC governing/coordinating board that handles coordination issues and possesses research and public policy capacity; same coordinating board as K–12 model, but separate from universities; same coordinating board as universities model; CC governance underneath a university governing board model; or a no coordinating board model.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 315

Methodology

This study was conducted utilizing two methods: document analysis and mixed-method survey. Bowen (2009) defined document analysis as follows:

. . .a systematic procedure for reviewing or evaluating documents—both printed and electronic (computer-based and Internet-transmitted) material. Like other analytical methods in qualitative research, document analysis requires that data be examined and interpreted in order to elicit meaning, gain understanding, and develop empirical knowledge. (p. 27)

Documents that may be used for systematic evaluation as part of a study take a variety of forms, which may include agendas, meeting minutes, manuals, background papers, books and brochures, letters and memoranda, newspapers, press releases, program proposals, summaries, organizational/ institutional reports, survey data, and various public records (Bowen, 2009). Furthermore, document analysis is often used in combination with other qualitative/quantitative research methods as a means of triangulation—the combination of methodologies in the study of the same phenomenon (Bowen, 2009).

Document analysis

Document analysis was conducted from a selection of resources about state-level CC governance structures (Friedel, Killacky, & Katsinas, 2014; National Center for Higher Education Management Systems [NCHEMS], 2015). The Friedel et al. (2014) textbook is a 50-state compilation of state-wide community college system descriptions provided and written by each of the 50 state directors. The state directors provided a description of their CC governance structure and issues impacting their state. Some state directors also provided a historical narrative. The other resource, NCHEMS, provided descriptions about the higher education sector of each state. The community college data was embedded within the higher education sector descriptions.

NCSDCC mixed-method survey

The 2015 survey was developed specifically for this study, and it was informed by the document analysis. The survey was found to be exempt and did not require Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. The survey was distributed and collected at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the National Council of State Directors of Community Colleges (NCSDCC) on July 26–29, 2015. The NCSDCC provides a forum for the exchange of information about development, trends, and problems in state systems of CCs (NCSDCC, 2015) (see http://www.statedirectors.org/copy_of_statedirectors/direc tors/ncsdcc.htm for an official list of members). For those who were not able to attend the annual meeting, an e-mail with a link to the survey (using Qualtrics) was sent to the NCSDCC e-mail list. This survey incorporates 10 questions, with a few open-ended questions that allowed the opportunity for themes and trends related to state-level CC governance to emerge. State directors were surveyed because of their knowledge, experience, and perspectives regarding state-level governance and other issues in the larger context of a rapidly changing state policy environment. Responses were received from 45 (90%) of NCSDCC members (or their designees). It is a purposive sample, and the document analysis informed the development of the survey. The following questions were used to answer research questions one and two: Possible responses for question #1 were adapted from the Katsinas (1996) taxonomy. Qualtrics licensed software was used for the distribution and compilation of all results and tables.

(1) Which of the following categories best describes your state-level community college govern- ance structure? (a) “Coordinating/governing board” for community colleges separate from K–12 &

Universities.

316 J. A. FLETCHER AND J. N. FRIEDEL

(b) Same “coordinating/governing board” as K–12, but separate from universities. (c) Same “coordinating/governing” board as universities. (d) Coordination for community college governance falls beneath a university “coordinat-

ing/governing” board. (e) No state-level “coordinating or governing” board.

(2) In practice, what body coordinates the collective action of the state’s community colleges (i.e., lobbying, advocacy, development of legislative agenda)? (a) State governing board. (b) State coordinating council. (c) Association of community college presidents. (d) Association of community college trustees. (e) Combination of any of the above. (f) Other, please specify.

(3) What types of factors have driven change for your state’s community college governance structure?

(4) How much authority does your state-level community college coordinating/governing board have? (a) A great deal. (b) Some. (c) A little. (d) None.

Results and analysis

Document analysis results

Document analysis results, using the Katsinas (1996) taxonomy, categorizes the 2014 national landscape in Table 1. The documents used for analysis encompass years 2011–2014. These docu- ments are the Friedel et al. (2014) textbook and the NCHEMS (2015) database. Analyzing Table 1, the most prevalent model of state governance structure is the rational model at n = 23. The least prevalent model in 2014 at n = 4, is the same coordinating board as K–12 (but separate from universities) model.

Mixed-method survey results

In all, 45 states participated in the 2015 survey. Participants were state-level CC directors (or their designee), who are also members of the NCSDCC. Repeated attempts were made, but five states did not complete this survey: Alaska, Arizona, North Dakota, New York, and Vermont.

Analyzing Table 2, 19 respondents indicated that their state-level community college governance structure is best described as a coordinating/governing board that is separate from K–12 & universities. The least prevalent, at two states, best described their state-system as having a same coordinating/governing board as K–12, but separate from universities model.

Table 3 groups the states into different types of coordinating/governing bodies that coordinate the collective action of the state’s community colleges.

Analyzing Table 4, we see that a majority of respondents have a state-level CC coordinating/governing board with a great deal of authority and responsibility in state-level community college governance.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 317

Table 1. Document analysis results—State-level community college governance structures (2011–2014).

“Rational” Model: coordinating board for community colleges separate from K–12 & universities (23)

Community colleges same coordinating board as K–

12, separate from Universities (4)

Community colleges same coordinating board as universities

(12)

Coordination for community colleges under a university governing board (5)

No state coordinating board (6)

California Alabama Arkansas Alaska Arizona Colorado Iowa* Idaho Hawaii Indiana Connecticut Michigan* Illinois Maine New Jersey Delaware South Dakota Kansas Minnesota New Mexico Florida Missouri New York Pennsylvania Georgia Montana Washington Kentucky Nebraska* Louisiana Nevada Maryland North Dakota Massachusetts Ohio Mississippi** Oklahoma* New Hampshire Utah North Carolina Oregon Rhode Island* South Carolina Tennessee Texas Vermont Virginia West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming*

*State where community college’s governing board acts as a coordinating board. Wisconsin has the U-Wisconsin Centers and an area and vocational technical system.

**Mississippi: has an independent agency.

Table 2. Survey results—State-level community college governance structures by state (2015).

Coordinating/governing board for CCs separate from K–12 & univ.(19)

Same coordinating/ governing board as K–12, but separate from univ. (2)

Same coordinating/

governing board as univ. (17)

Coordination for CC governance falls beneath a univ. coordinating/governing

board (3)

No state-level coordinating or governing board (4)

Alabama Iowa Arkansas Idaho Maryland California Florida Connecticut Indiana Michigan Colorado Hawaii Montana Pennsylvania Delaware Kansas South Dakota Georgia Massachusetts Illinois Minnesota Kentucky Missouri Louisiana Nebraska Maine Nevada Mississippi New Mexico New Hampshire Ohio New Jersey Oklahoma North Carolina Oregon South Carolina Rhode Island Virginia Tennessee Washington Texas West Virginia Utah Wisconsin Wyoming

318 J. A. FLETCHER AND J. N. FRIEDEL

Summary and implications for practice and research

Summary

The purpose of this study was to examine and categorize state-level CC governance structures into a national landscape utilizing the Katsinas (1996) taxonomy. This study utilized document analysis and a mixed-method survey that was sent to the NCSDCC (2015).

Having an up-to-date taxonomy of state-level CC governance structures will allow CC leaders across the country to have a better understanding about the profiles of other states’ power-structures, CC

Table 3. Type of community college coordinating/governing body by state.

State governing board (14)

State coordinating council (1)

Association of community college

presidents (6)

Association of community college trustees (3) (3)

Combination of any of the above

(6) Other, please specify (15)

Alabama West Virginia Arkansas Nebraska California Delaware Colorado Idaho Tennessee Georgia Florida Connecticut Massachusetts Wyoming Kentucky Illinois Hawaii Maryland Ohio Iowa Indiana Missouri Oregon Kansas Louisiana Pennsylvania South Carolina Michigan Maine Minnesota Nevada Mississippi New Hampshire Montana North Carolina New Jersey Rhode Island New Mexico Utah Oklahoma Virginia South Dakota Washington Texas

Wisconsin

Table 4. Level of authority for community college governing/coordinating board by state.

A Great Deal (26) Some (11) A Little (4) None (4)

Alabama California Arkansas Maryland Colorado Florida Missouri Michigan Connecticut Iowa Nebraska Pennsylvania Delaware Massachusetts Texas South Dakota Georgia Mississippi Hawaii New Jersey Idaho New Mexico Illinois Ohio Indiana Oregon Kansas South Carolina Kentucky West Virginia Louisiana Maine Minnesota Montana Nevada New Hampshire North Carolina Oklahoma Rhode Island Tennessee Utah Virginia Washington Wisconsin Wyoming

COMMUNITY COLLEGE JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 319

policymaking making process, governance, and administration of CCs. Analysis of the study’s data clearly demonstrates variance that could be due to time at which the documents were written and responses obtained directly from the state directors. Data was gathered using a survey that was first distributed in- person at the annual NCSDCC conference in July 2015; and afterwards it was adapted into Qualtrics and electronically distributed to members who were not able to attend the NCSDCC Annual Conference. The following questions framed this research: How do state systems differ in the design and function of their state-level community college governance structures? What factors have driven change in the state-level governance of community colleges?

Conclusions

The respondents’ answers to the first question (Which of the following categories best describes your state- level community college governance structure?) exhibited somewhat anticipated results, but there were differences in the survey results compared to the document analysis. Table 5 illustrates states that definitively changed their state-level CC governance structure within the last 2 years, 2014–2016. They are Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Washington. Cross-analysis of the document analysis data and survey data demonstrates change. Eleven (24%) of the responding states had a change in their state-level CC governance structure between 2014 and 2015. As shown in Table 5, we see a trend of states moving away from the rational model “coordinating/governing board” for community colleges that is separate from K–12 and universities.

Several themes emerged in the survey’s data. For instance, states whose coordinating/govern- ing board for CCs is separate from K–12 and universities had a greater likelihood of having a great deal of authority with the exception of defining the mission of each higher education sector in the state. Additionally, the most common combination of state-level CC governance structure and state-level CC governing/coordinating body was coordinating/governing board for CC separate from K–12 and universities and state governing board. Another popular combination was same coordinating/governing board as universities and state governing board. It was also discovered that the majority of states across the national landscape have a state governing board with a great deal of authority. Interestingly, it was also found that eight (18%) states have a state-

Table 5. Document analysis (2011–2014) and survey (2015) results: Differences indicating a change in structure.

State (n = 11) Document Analysis (2011–2014) Survey Response (2015)

Alabama Same coordinating/governing board as K–12, but separate from universities

Coordinating/governing board for community colleges separate from K–12 & universities

Connecticut Coordinating/governing board for community colleges separate from K–12 & universities

Same coordinating/governing board as universities

Florida Coordinating/governing board for community colleges separate from K–12 & universities

Same coordinating/governing board as K–12, but separate from universities

Illinois Same coordinating/governing board as Universities Coordinating/governing board for community colleges separate from K–12 & universities

Indiana No state-level coordinating or governing board Coordination for community college governance falls beneath a university coordinating/governing board

Maine Coordination for community college governance falls beneath a university coordinating/governing board

Coordinating/governing board for community colleges separate from K–12 & universities

Michigan Same coordinating/governing board as K–12, but separate from universities

No state-level coordinating or governing board

New Jersey No state-level coordinating or governing board Coordinating/governing board for community colleges separate from K–12 & universities

New Mexico

No state-level coordinating or governing board Same coordinating/governing board as universities

South Dakota

Same coordinating/governing board as K–12, but separate from Universities

No state-level coordinating or governing board

Washington No state-level coordinating or governing board Coordinating/governing board for community colleges separate from K–12 & universities

320 J. A. FLETCHER AND J. N. FRIEDEL

level coordinating/governing board with little to no authority/responsibility in the state-level governance over their CCs. Responses to question three–“What types of factors have driven change for your state’s community college governance structure?”–revealed several themes. Most respondents indicated the following items as drivers of change for state CC governance: student success/completion, affordability, workforce/economic needs, politics, and legislative/politics (i.e., state government). Lastly, it was discovered that there were states making a serious attempt to change their current state-level CC governance structure and/or have very recently done so. They are Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.

Implications for future research

Embedded in a complex array of historic, social, economic, and political forces, are a number of different taxonomies for CC governance structures of all 50 American states. This research presented a brief history and overview on CCs, the different types of state-level governance practices and patterns that exist, and emerging issues that pose a challenge for governance. These topics were followed by a discussion on the typology and different taxonomies of CC governance structures for all 50 states. The research presented in this paper only begins to scratch the surface. Further research is needed on why 11 states changed their CC governance structures since 2014. What is the relationship of state priorities to CC governance structures, that is, as more states integrate increased emphasis on workforce/economic development into the CC mission? Additionally, funding models are another consideration. For example: What is the relationship between state-funding distribution formulas and state-level community college governance structures?

Policy implications

As state legislatures restructure their state-level CC governance, what is the impact on the state priorities for CCs? As states become more engaged in delivering dual/concurrent enrollment with high schools and developing career academies, what is the impact on state-level governance structures for K–12 schools and the community colleges? For example, will state legislatures merge the state board of education (K–12) with the state coordinating/governing board of community colleges? As federal and state initiatives expand the CC workforce development functions, will we see a merger of the state workforce development boards and the community college boards, or could we see a change in the composition of each of these boards? For instance, will the state workforce development board be mandated to have representation from the CC state governing board, and vice-versa? What is the impact of the composition of these boards on programs and services delivered by CCs?

Many CC state directors requested an executive summary of the results of this study. The dissemination of these results will assist state directors in becoming more aware about changes and trends in CC state governance and how the state offices conduct business. The results could also serve as a tool to guide legislative discussions regarding CC governance and policy.

ORCID

Jeffrey A. Fletcher http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6846-9732

References

Boswell, K. (2000). Building bridges, not barriers: Public policies that support seamless K-16 education (Policy brief P-16). Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

Bowen, F. M., Bracco, K. R., Callan, P. M., Finney, J. E., Richardson, R. C., Jr., & Trombley, W. (1998). State structures for the governance of higher education: A comparative study. San Jose, CA: California Higher Education Policy Center.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 321

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. doi:10.3316/QRJ0902027

Davis, G. (2001). Issues in community college governance. (Issue paper for New Expeditions: Charting the Second Century of Community Colleges, an A W. K. Kellogg Foundation Initiative sponsored by the American Association of Community Colleges and the Association of Community College Trustees). Retrieved from www.aacc.nche.edu/ intitiatives/newexpeditions/White_Papers/governancewhite.htm

Diener, T. (1994). Growth of an American invention: From junior to community college. In J. L. Ratcliff, S. Schwarz, & L. Ebbers (Eds.), Community colleges, (ASHE Reader, 2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Education Commission of the States. (1997). State postsecondary structures sourcebook: State coordinating and governing boards. Denver, CO: Author.

Friedel, J., Killacky, J., & Katsinas, S. (2014). Fifty state systems of community colleges: Mission, governance, funding and governance (4th ed.). Johnson City, TN: Overmountain Press.

Hines, E. R. (1997). State leadership in higher education. In L. F. Goodchild, C. D. Lovell, E. R. Hines, & J. I. Gill (Eds.), Public Policy and Higher Education, (ASHE Reader). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Katsinas, S. G. (1996). A typology of community college governance structures. Unpublished manuscript. Katsinas, S. G., D’Amico, M. M., Friedel, J., Adair, J. L., Warner, J. L., & Malley, M. S. (2016). After the great recession:

Higher education’s new normal. Tuscaloosa, AL: Education Policy Research Center, The University of Alabama. Lovell, C., & Trouth, C. (2002). State governance patterns of community colleges. In T. H. Bers, & H. D. Calhoun

(Eds.), Special issue: Next steps for the community college, New Directions for Community Colleges (Vol. 117, pp. 91–100). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mingle, J. R., & Ruppert, S. S. (1998). Technology planning: State and system issues (Policy paper). Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS). (2015). Postsecondary governance structures. Retrieved from http://www.nchems.org/

National Council of State Directors of Community Colleges (NCSDCC). (2015). National council of state directors of community colleges. Retrieved from www.statedirectors.org/index.html

Richardson, R., & de los Santos, G. (2001). Statewide governance structures and two year colleges. In B. K. Townsend, & S. B. Twombly (Eds.), Community colleges: Policy in the future context (pp. 39–56). Westport, CT: Ablex.

Richardson, R. C., Baracco, K. R., Callan, P. M., & Finney, J. E. (1998). Designing state higher education systems for a new century. Westport, CT: Oryx Press.

Rifkin, T. (1998). Improving articulation policy to increase transfer (Policy paper). Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

Schuetz, P. (2008). Key resources on community college governance. In R. C. Cloud, & S. T. Kater (Eds.), Special issue: Governance in the community college, New Directions for Community Colleges (Vol. 141, pp. 91–98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Tollefson, T. A. (1996). Emerging patterns in state-level community college governance: A status report. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED 437076).

Tollefson, T. A. (2000, April). Martorana’s legacy: Research on state systems of community colleges. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Council for the Study of Community Colleges, Washington, DC.

Tollefson, T. A., & Fountain, B. E. (1994). In J. L. Ratcliff, S. Schwarz, & L. Ebbers (Eds.), Community Colleges (ASHE Reader, 2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

322 J. A. FLETCHER AND J. N. FRIEDEL