Abstract
American higher education has long been known for its strong degree of autonomy. In contrast to many other countries, the federal government’s role in directing the affairs of universities and colleges has historically been very limited (Gladieux & Wolanin, 1976; Graham, 1984). The state role, in turn, has been seen as one of mainly providing funding and infrastructure. For over a century, state legislatures have only occasionally turned their attention to issues such as university governance or the number and type of institutions needed to serve state needs (Bender, 1983; Hines, 2000).
Elaine El-Khawas, professor of education policy at George Washington University, has written on policy issues in the United States and on comparative aspects of quality assurance and accountability policies. Dr. El-Khawas can be reached at elkhawas@gwu.edu Portions of this chapter are based on analyses found in “The Push for Accountability: Policy Influences and Actors in US Higher Education,” presented at the annual conference of the Consortium on Higher Education Research (CHER), September 2003, Porto
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Albright, B. N. (1997). Of carrots and sticks and state budgets. Trusteeship: The Journal of the Association of Governing Boards of Colleges and Universities (pp. 18–23).
American Association of State Colleges and Universities. (1986). To secure the blessings of liberty: Report of the national commission on the role and future of state colleges and universities. Washington, D.C.: author.
Association of American Colleges (1985). Integrity in the college curriculum. Washington, DC: author.
Banta, T. W., & Fisher, H. S. (1984). Performance funding: Tennessee’s experiment. In J. Folger (Ed.). Financial incentives for academic quality (pp. 29–41). New Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Banta, T. W., & associates (1993). Making a difference: outcomes of a decade of assessment in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Banta, T. W., Rudolph, L. B., Van Dyke, J., & Fisher, H. S. (1996). Performance funding comes of age in Tennessee. Journal of Higher Education, 67(1), 23–45.
Bender, L. W. (1983). States and accreditation. In K. E. Young, C. M. Chambers, H. R. Kells & associates. Understanding accreditation (pp. 270–288). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bogue. E.G., & Brown, W. (1982). Performance incentives for state colleges. Harvard Business Review, 60(6), 123–128.
Bogue, E. G. (2003). Quality and accountability in higher education: Improving policy, enhancing performance. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Borrego, A. M. (2002). Education Department to emphasize retention in the next higher education act. The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 12, A18–20.
Burd, S. (1998). The higher education amendments of 1998: The impact on colleges and students. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Oct. 16, A19.
Burd, S. (2003). Bush’s next target? The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 11, A18–20.
Burke. J. and associates (2002). Funding public colleges and universities for performance. Albany: The Rockefeller Institute Press.
Chambers, C. M. (1983). Federal government and accreditation. In K. E. Young, C. M. Chambers, H. R. Kells & associates. Understanding accreditation (pp. 233–269). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Christal, M. E. (1998). 1997 survey on performance measures. Denver: State Higher Education Executive Officers.
Eaton, J. (2001). Regional accreditation reform: Who is served? Change, 33(2), 38–45.
Eaton, J. (2003). The Value of accreditation: Four pivotal roles. Washington, D.C.: Council for Higher Education Accreditation.
Education Commission of the States (1986). Transforming the state role in improving undergraduate education: Time for a different view. Denver, CO: author.
El-Khawas, E. (1992). Campus trends 1992. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.
El-Khawas, E. (1993). External scrutiny, US style: multiple actors, overlapping roles. In T. Becher (Ed.), Governments and professional education (pp. 107–122). London: SRHE/Open University Press.
El-Khawas, E. (1997). The role of intermediary organizations. In M. W. Peterson, D. D. Dill & L. A. Mets (Eds.), Planning and management for a changing environment (pp. 66–87). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
El-Khawas, E. (1998). Strong state action but limited results: Perspectives on university resistance. European Journal of Education, 33(3), 317–330.
El-Khawas, E. (2001). Accreditation in the United States: Origins, development, and future prospects. Paris: UNESCO/International Institute for Educational Planning.
El-Khawas, E. (2003). The push for accountability: Policy influences and actors in US higher education, paper presented at the annual conference of the Consortium on Higher Education Research (CHER), September 2003, Porto.
Ewell, P. T. (1985). Assessment: What’s it all about? Change, 17(6), 32–36.
Ewell, P. T. (1993). The role of states and accreditors in shaping assessment practice. In T. W. Banta & associates, Making a difference: Outcomes of a decade of assessment in higher education (pp. 339–356). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ewell, P. T., & Boyer, C. M. (1988). Acting out state-mandated assessment: Evidence from five states. Change, 20(4), 40–47.
Gaither, G., Nedwek, B. P., & Neal, J. E. (1994). Measuring up: The promise of performance indicators in higher education. ASHE/ERIC Research Report. Washington, D.C.: George Washington University.
Gladieux, L. E., & Wolanin, T. R. (1976). Congress and the Colleges. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Gornitzka, A., Kyvik, S., & Stensaker, B. (2002). Implementation analysis in higher education. In J. C. Smart & W. G. Tierney (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 381–423). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Graham, H. D. (1984). The uncertain triumph: Federal education policy in the Kennedy and Johnson years. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Hines, E. R. (1988). Higher education and state governments: Renewed partnership, cooperation or competition? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report. Washington, DC: George Washington University.
Hines, E. R. (2000). The governance of higher education. In J. C. Smart & W. G. Tierney (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 15, pp. 105–156). New York: Agathon Press.
Hutchings, P., & Marchese, T. (1990). Watching assessment: Questions, stories, prospects. Change, 22(4), 12–38.
Kezar, A., & El-Khawas, E. (2003). Using the performance dimension: Converging paths for external accountability? In H. Eggins (Ed.), Globalization and reform in higher education. London: SRHE/Open University Press (forthcoming).
Krotseng, M. (1990). Of state capitals and catalysts: The power of external prodding. In L. R. Marcus & B. D. Stickney, Politics and policy in the age of education. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
McGuinness, A. C. (1981). The federal government and postsecondary education. In P. G. Altbach & R. O. Berdahl (Eds.), Higher education in American society (pp. 157–179). Buffalo: Prometheus Books.
McGuinness, A. C. (1999). Federal/state partnerships in postsecondary education: SPRE as a case study. Boulder, CO: NCHEMS.
Newman, F. (1987). Choosing quality: Reducing conflict between the state and the university. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
Parsons, M. D. (2000). The higher education policy arena: The rise and fall of a community. In J. Losco & B. L. Fife, Higher education in transition: The challenges of the new millennium (pp. 83–107). Westport, CT: Dergin and Garvey.
Ruppert, S. S. (Ed.) (1994). Charting higher education accountability: A sourcebook on state-level performance indicators. Denver: Education Commission of the States.
Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: a critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6, 21–48.
Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Salter, B., & Tapper, T. (1994). The state and higher education. Ilford, Essex: The Woburn Press.
Schmidt, P. (2002) Most States tie aid to performance despite little proof that it works. The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 22, A20.
South Carolina Commission on Higher Education (2001). Performance funding at a glance. Columbia, SC: author.
Spangehl, S. D. (1987). The push to assess: why it’s feared and how to respond. Change, 19(1), 35–39.
Wellman, J. (2003). Do federal spending and regulation produce quality in higher education? In T. R. Wolanin (Ed.), Reauthorizing the Higher Education Act: Issues and options. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Higher Education Policy.
Wolanin, T. R., ed. (2003). Reauthorizing the Higher Education Act: Issues and options. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Higher Education Policy.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Springer
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
El-Khawas, E. (2005). A Changed Policy Environment for US Universities. In: Bascia, N., Cumming, A., Datnow, A., Leithwood, K., Livingstone, D. (eds) International Handbook of Educational Policy. Springer International Handbooks of Education, vol 13. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3201-3_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3201-3_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-3189-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-3201-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)