Higher education system governance: an exploratory study of presidential decision making in the kentucky community and technical college system

Higher Education Systems

Higher education has become increasingly varied and complex, necessitating an examination of the structures and functions that guide the behavior of colleges and universities. Of particular interest is higher education systems, which have become the dominant form of governance of public higher education. McGuinness (1991) defines multicampus higher education systems as “…systems in which two or more institutions are governed by a single board and central staff” (p. 1). Similarly, the National Association of System Heads (2015) defines “a public higher education system as a group of two or more colleges or universities, each having substantial autonomy and headed by a chief executive or operating officer, all under a single governing board which is served by a system chief executive officer who is not also the chief executive officer of any of the systems institutions.” Furthermore, Johnstone (1999) describes public multicampus systems as “…groups of public institutions, each with its own mission, academic and other programs, internal governing policies and procedures, and chief executive officer (either ‘president’ or ‘chancellor’), but governed by a single board with a systemwide chief executive officer, generally called ‘chancellor’ or ‘president’ – whichever term is not used for the campus heads” (p. 3). While scholars have offered definitions of higher education systems with some variation, a higher education system consists of two or more institutions, a system chief executive officer and campus

executive officer, and a single governing board. Thus, higher education systems differ from state boards that have some level of authority over higher education in a given state and further differ from a multisite or university structure consisting of a main campus and a number of branch campuses.
McGuinness (1991) provides a categorization of multicampus systems that includes academically integrated multisite institutions, multicampus universities, and multicampus or consolidated governance systems. Academically integrated multisite institutions consist of a main campus and branch campuses that operate as extensions of the main campus. Because the branch campuses are extension sites, academic programs are those of the main campus and in some cases, the chief executive of the main campus is also the head of the branch campuses. Multicampus universities consist of one main research university and one or more four-year or two-year campuses. Whereas academic programs are consistent across all campuses in academically integrated multisite institutions, each campus in a multicampus university is an independent academic unit with its own mission and faculty. Moreover, the chief executive officer of the one main university is not simultaneously the head of the campuses. Instead, each campus is headed by an official appointed by the system chief executive. Finally, a multicampus system consists of multiple institutions having either similar or different missions.
Lane (2013) further classifies multicampus systems as either segmented or comprehensive. A segmented system consists of multiple campuses that are similar in mission and offer the same academic degrees, whereas a comprehensive system includes different types of institutions ranging from community colleges to four-year public institutions. Examples of a segmented system include the University of California,
California State University, and the California Community Colleges, while the State University of New York is an example of a comprehensive system. Despite the classifications, Dengerink (2009) suggests that there are differences in governance among institutions within the three categories of systems, though efficiency, mission differentiation, and external influences lead institutions to their eventual structure.
Moreover, some institutions have characteristics of both multisite and multicampus universities, or of both multicampus universities and university systems.
In a review of the origins, variations, and functions of multicampus systems, Johnstone (1999) discusses comprehensiveness, which refers to the degree to which the system incorporates all of the state public postsecondary institutions, including research universities, four-year institutions, community college, and technical institutions, among others. Similar to centralization and decentralization, comprehensiveness exists on a continuum and the degree of comprehensiveness of a system varies across states. The most comprehensive systems stem from the fact that the state needs one form of authority to create and implement policy, allocate resources, hire and fire system and institutional chief executives, and determine, reinforce, or change system and institutional missions and policies.
Of critical importance is Johnstone’s (1999) discussion of why institutions resist incorporation into a system. For instance, flagship universities resist incorporation because it trumps their elite status and claim to state resources. Their political clout, along with state constitutional status, has allowed them to resist incorporation. For different reasons, community colleges resist incorporation into a system because of their connection to the local communities. Moreover, their open access missions make them
subject to changes in enrollment and budgets, so even when they are incorporated into a larger multicampus system, community colleges may have more autonomy than their four-year counterparts. Finally, technical institutions that award certificates and diplomas resist incorporation because they share a similar mission with community colleges.
Despite resistance to incorporation, the structure of higher education across states may take one of several forms: a single comprehensive governing board for all public postsecondary institutions; a mostly comprehensive board that includes four-year institutions, but not community colleges; a mostly comprehensive board that includes community colleges and technical institutes, but not four-year institutions; a less comprehensive system that reflects regions or sectors of higher education; or, a coordinating board with no system. Thus, the degree of comprehensive of a system varies across states and reflects particular state needs for higher education.
Although higher education systems have evolved in response to new demands and conditions over the last several decades, the role of higher education systems has been to coordinate campuses, allocate funding from the state to the campuses, enact and enforce regulations, represent the common need of the campuses to the state, and further communicate state priorities to the campuses (King, 2013; Lane, 2013; Lee & Bowen, 1971, Millett, 1984). Thus, as Lane (2013) suggests, “the traditional roles of higher education systems are that of allocators, coordinators, and regulators” (p. 11).