The topic of the involvement of state governments in higher education in the United States is surprisingly one of the most unpopular issues surrounding higher education despite having profound impacts in the context of financing and management. However, This unpopularity of the state government’s role results from the vast and comprehensive set of issues surrounding higher education, which makes it challenging to bring all issues to the limelight, and this becomes one of the most ignored topics, if not the most. When issues of financing and management pop up in higher education, it is undeniably true that the federal government’s role is what comes up automatically, proven by the endless research studies that have been carried out on the subject (Druker & Robinson, 1994). Notably, the role of state governments in higher education in recent decades has become as important as that of the federal government, and even more so today, given the various dynamics of funding and managing higher education institutions and the current economic circumstances. This paper holds that financing and control in higher education is among the most debated topics today, and it is essential to study the role of state governments and their relevance in controlling and managing higher education. State governments today play significant roles in funding, managing, governing, supervising, and controlling higher education institutions, and therefore, the relationship between state governments and higher education institutions has become more critical than ever.
For the most part, in the entire history of higher education in the United States, post-secondary education institutions have enjoyed a sense of self-governance based on autonomy without much external control and influence. Critical decision-making, whether in financial circumstances or management, always lies in the hands of the individual institution’s administration and faculty. During this period of external non-intervention, higher education institutions continuously operated on significant accountability on the side of the administrators and the faculty until recently, when external forces took over the most power of organizational control in higher education. It is, therefore, undeniably true that studying higher education institutions as organizations continues to become a complicated affair since the locus of control tends to shift significantly in recent years as external control continues to increase (Druker & Robinson, 1994). Among the most external actors who have had considerable power and influence over higher education is the state governments, and therefore, studying their role in higher education becomes an interesting concept, notably because it has yet to be over-studied and continues to be overlooked by scholars.
Although little literature exists concerning the relationship between state governments and higher education institutions, several studies have closely studied the development of state government intervention and how it developed into what it is today. Scholars and experts in higher education unanimously agree that higher education and state governments have mostly ignored each other for the most part in the history of their existence, which gave institutions control of their matters (Glenny & Schmidtlein, 1980). Moreover, state governors and legislators in the 19th century supported retaining the historic independence of higher education in the United States. However, this phenomenon of state governments’ principle of non-intervention in matters concerning higher education has gradually eroded as political and social dynamics increasingly changed the climate in 20th-century higher education, leading to external government involvement, and among the interested parties were the state governments (El-Khawas, 2005). Consequently, according to some scholars, state governments’ gradual interests in higher education were the genesis of the erosion of historic self-governance as regulations and restraints from state legislation increased.
Considerable active involvement of state governments in higher education began post-World War II, especially in the 1960s, given higher education’s popularity in the United States. This new development raised concerns and interests regarding state governments’ involvement in higher education affairs, which they did with burning desires. Therefore, the state government’s role in higher education started in earnest in the second half of the 20th century, although not on a considerable scale, through control apparatus known as governing and coordinating boards established by state legislators to oversee the operations of institutions (Druker & Robinson, 1994). Since this period, state governments have been increasing their grip on higher education affairs, courtesy of these governing and coordinating boards that were primarily meant for establishing order and accountability among the leaders in the management of higher education institutions. Scholars, however, posit that the coordinating and governing boards imposed by state governments in higher education instead turned into top-level political patrons. Hence, higher education became a new frontline for political processes (Glenny & Schmidtlein, 1980). Since then, concerns in higher education have raised debates among scholars and experts in higher education affairs over the impacts of state government’s involvement on the historic autonomy and accountability that existed in institutions.
Notably, the relationship between the state governments and higher education has yet to be widely known since it is a considerably new phenomenon, which makes the role of state governments become overlooked. This relationship, which developed through the increased involvement of state governments, has been deemed by various researchers on higher education issues as one of the most incredible human “paradoxes” (Archibald & Feldman, 2006). It is essential to acknowledge that states have only chosen to ignore higher education for years, given that the federal constitution has always allowed state governments to have influence and control over higher education institutions, but only over some issues. Various commissions also reinforced this position in the second half of the 20th century, such as the famous Carnegie Commission on Higher Education of 1971, which held that states were not limited to exercising control and influence over matters such as the effective use of resources, and new endeavors (Archibald & Feldman, 2006). It is essential also to note that these commissions clearly outlined that states and their legislations could not have any control and influence on courses, their content, and means of instruction, which are blatantly left at the hands of the faculty, among the issues that the state governments have had considerable influence over in higher education since the 1970s include financial and budgeting policies, social justice, establishment and review of new programs with high skills and new knowledge, and human resources among others (El-Khawas, 2005).
Financial and budgetary matters in higher education are among the top issues that state governments have concerned themselves with in recent decades. State governments have continued to vie for increased funding in higher education and have become among the major funders of post-secondary public institutions. States use various approaches to funding higher education based on their interests. The most preferred approach by most states remains incremental funding used by over 40 states, including the District of Columbia (Glenny & Schmidtlein, 80). Other states use formula funding and performance funding depending on their goals. A report released by the National Centre for Higher Education Statistics, which included reviews of state governments’ funding in higher education in the United States since the 1980s, illustrates that public institutions of higher education received an increment of 125% of revenues from 1980 to the mid-1990s (Glenny, & Schmidtlein, 1980). Notably, it is also a matter of concern among researchers concerning the long-term effects of state governments on higher education, given that the cost of tuition and fees increased tremendously, almost by 300%, despite increased state funding.
The issue of state funding in higher education and increased control on payable fees and tuition for state resident and non-resident students since the 1990s by state governments has become an exciting subject matter for researchers. Since 1980, states increased the amount of funding and investments in higher education on a scale never seen before, and therefore, states came up with fees and tuition increment strategies, as they needed to provide the improvement dollars, which was considerably necessary. This development saw a significant increase in tuition and fees from 1997 to 2001 by around 20%, as reported by the Washington State Higher Education Board, which conducted a review on the issue nationwide (Glenny & Schmidtlein, 1980). As states provided more funding to public institutions of higher education, they consequently gained more control over the financial matters of institutions in their respective states. This is evident as the amount of payable tuition and fees became more pronounced by the state governments, which determined which students paid higher tuition than others, typically on the basis of residency and programs (Archibald & Feldman, 2006). However, it is essential to understand that although states follow the same approach of charging higher tuition and fees for non-resident students compared to their counterparts residents of the states, the amounts vary significantly per state since they are contingent on what individual states decide. This approach states use to control the budgetary and financial matters of public institutions is based on the fact that states increased their commitment to providing student grants on a state level and various aid per program.
As noted earlier, state governments’ rights for involvement are reserved and protected by the federal constitution. As research shows, the mid-20th century saw a growing interest in state governments moving towards active intervention for the first time. Therefore, the issue of governance and supervision became one of the top intervention measures that state governments unleashed in the exercise of their constitutional rights, which they had ignored for the most time in history (Glenny & Schmidtlein, 1980). Therefore, the state governments took on the role of governance in higher education, which they did by establishing various state governing boards and other state organs to participate actively in matters concerning higher education. One of the most significant roles that the state governments play in higher education is state authorization, an accountability oversight role delegated to states by the federal government for effective control and oversight. However, governance and supervision of the state governments on higher education through the selected governing boards became one of the most controversial moves concerning the relationship between the two entities. The state government aimed to establish governing boards to enhance governance and oversight, but only ceremoniously, leaving the critical decisions on considerable institutional matters to the administration and the faculty (Knott & Payne, 2004). Theoretically, these governing bodies were meant to be “professional bodies” that would assist the state governments in shaping, overseeing, and directing the activities of the higher education systems as they continue to grow.
However, the role of state government in governing and supervising higher education institutions through these apparatus, such as the governing boards, continues to strain the relationship between states and higher education institutions. A report was released in 1999, following research conducted on the effectiveness of governing boards on higher education, which stated that political intervention and influence made it extremely difficult for the governing boards to function professionally, which is the main point of contention between state governments and higher education administrators (Natow et al., 2023). Research also shows that state governments tend to prefer effective and governing solid boards that will be able to carry out their responsibilities professionally. There have been growing concerns over the governing and coordination boards of the states in higher education gaining more strength. As researchers have noted, debates have ensued on whether to consolidate various state governing boards. This strategy promises increased effectiveness by ensuring individual boards do not bend easily given the political environments in which they always operate.
Based on research from various sources, it is undeniable that individuals selected for governing board positions for oversight and control in higher education are always competent and take their responsibility seriously. However, their effectiveness and professionalism in oversight and supervision become questionable, as observed following the strained relationship with institutions and the Department of Higher Education as a whole, because they tend to succumb to ensuing political pressures. Actors and administrators of higher education institutions continue to complain that their autonomy of operation is constantly threatened by the state’s involvement through these governing and coordination boards. This claim has been reinforced by various research findings that report that institutions’ faculty and administration are always under increasing supervision and scrutiny exerted by the state governing bodies (Natow et al., 2023). This observation by researchers has resulted in them classifying the state’s governing boards responsible for overseeing and influencing higher education into various categories based on what role they seem to play. These categories include boards that tend to serve the public’s interest, those that negotiate the political stance of the state, and those that attempt to establish and increase the boards’ responsiveness, often being the oversight boards in case a state operates on consolidated boards. Therefore, the state government’s role in higher education continues to prove a complex issue that needs considerable research to uncover many issues that still need to be discovered and largely unknown on why there is always a growing tension between states and institutions of higher education in the United States.
Conclusively, the state government’s involvement in higher education continues to increase, and researchers believe this phenomenon will increase even more in the coming decades. Current research reinforces most of the observations and conclusions from the extant research conducted a few years and decades ago. However, more comprehensive studies on the role of state government in higher education are necessary. One of the most common points of agreement that current research seems to agree with the extant literature on the subject matter wholly is that there is a growing tension between states’ role in policy governance, control, and planning for higher education and the institutions themselves, and which is also predicted to increase. One researcher further refers to the negatives in higher education following the increasing grip of state governance and supervision as “state atrocities” (Glenny & Schmidtlein, 1980). According to the literature, both the existing and the current one on states’ involvement in higher education, the ensuing conflicts that exist between the two entities become even more complicated to study since the objectives of the states on higher education do not align with those of the individual institutions since the latter have unique needs.
References
Druker, M., & Robinson, B. (1994). Implementing retrenchment strategies: A comparison of state governments and public higher education. New England Journal of Public Policy, 10(2), 9.https://scholarworks.umb.edu/nejpp/vol10/iss2/9/
Archibald, R. B., & Feldman, D. H. (2006). State higher education spending and the tax revolt. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(4), 618-644. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2006.11772309
El-Khawas, E. (2005). The push for accountability: Policy influences and actors in American higher education. Reform and change in higher education, 287-303. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/1-4020-3411-3#page=294
Glenny, L. A., & Schmidtlein, F. A. (1980). The Role of the State in the Governance of Higher Education. Program Report No. 80-B16. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED194996
Knott, J. H., & Payne, A. A. (2004). The impact of state governance structures on management and performance of public organizations: A study of higher education institutions. Journal of policy analysis and management, 23(1), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.10176
Natow, R. S., Reddy, V., & Ioannou, V. (2023). State-Level Responses to US Federal Policy on State Authorization for Higher Education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 31(4), n4.https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1383851
write