Responsibility for the arena of formal education has been a sometimes contentious matter in American life, and the way it is organized is complex, perhaps as a result. Public schools may be the province of town, county, or unified district, but the state is highly involved in maintaining standards, specifying curriculum, and certifying personnel. In contrast, higher education is a matter of concern for the state, but it has a strong tradition of independence, and the range of direct intervention by the state is limited. The state charters the institutions and funds many of them. Independent institutions are generally allowed to remain so, but state political leaders have become increasingly critical of the efficiency and effectiveness of public higher education, given its increasing costs. They have introduced many initiatives to control and manage public higher education, but the principles of shared governance prevent significant direct state intervention in the undergraduate curriculum. Many decisions have significant indirect impact on what is taught and what is required.

This paper attempts to identify the kinds of decisions that would appear to affect the undergraduate curriculum, and to describe their implications. In this case, the question has value and application only to publicly controlled institutions. The background is drawn from the bibliography and incidental sources. Many of these observations have been confirmed in research. Others are suggested by experience.

Fundamental to the discussion of state involvement in curriculum is the question of why the state subsidizes undergraduate education. The perspective the state has regarding its reasons for providing and encouraging undergraduate education bears directly upon the outcomes it expects from the enterprise. The reasons may be complex and contradictory, but those reasons are likely to influence what the state feels graduates should have experienced. It is possible to define broad categories of the state's interests in supporting higher education, and then examine how decisions in those areas can affect the undergraduate curriculum.

I suggest that higher education is not supported primarily as a value for the individual, but as a value to the state's larger interests. Further, I propose that the state's interest in purpose and content can be broken down into four concerns: economic development, basic skills, citizenship, and values education. Another range of concerns can be grouped under categories of quality and control. Writers and policy analysts have generally accepted the idea that state leaders should not interfere directly with what are essentially academic decisions to be made by academics. The literature repeatedly warns state leaders that such interference is out of bounds, but it does advance ideas that bear on the curriculum.

Purpose and content concerns

The area of overwhelming concern for state leaders is the connection between higher education and the state economy. These issues are usually framed in terms of the need for "a trained and knowledgeable workforce." Leaders are bombarded with rhetoric and data confirming that the only way for the state to remain competitive for business and trade is to have a trained workforce that can function in a highly technological environment. Higher education is assigned the task of developing those workers. One defining moment in American higher education occurred with the Morrill Act, whereby the federal government asked institutions to develop programs in support of agriculture. Since then, state leaders have frequently created programs to serve specific needs. These have included manufacturing, K-12 teachers, and other needs according to the state. More recent concerns in Massachusetts have been technology and medical support.

Not only does the state establish programs, but it also maintains concern that the programs will provide the number of graduates needed to meet estimates. It becomes concerned about the attractiveness of the program, and about retention in the program. These concerns can affect local decisions regarding the rigor of the curriculum and the sequence of subject matter. Concerns for the rate at which a student might move through the program can affect acceptance of transferred courses, and implementation of extended practica.

The second major area is basic skills. Recent years have given rise to anger at the state level about remedial education. State leaders say they are paying a second time for the education that local schools were supposed to provide. Nevertheless, they want to see that a graduate can write, speak, do arithmetic, and think critically with some competence. General education is invoked to serve this challenge. A curious impact of the reduction in remedial courses is that in many cases remediation may be needed but is not addressed. The effective thresholds are adjusted. Courses those students then enter must revise at least the beginning experiences in the course. Revision of sequence in programs may also be required. For basic skills concerns, the primary curriculum impact results from this reduction in remediation, and from occasional outbursts of concern for the abilities of graduates.

A third area of state concern is citizenship. This issue is usually framed as a concern for "an informed voting public." Demands for a strong general education program usually express an important concern for citizenship, and argue for coursework in history, government, and economics. In Massachusetts, all state college graduates must have instruction in the state and federal constitutions. For the most part, however, the concern for citizenship education is rhetorical and is backed by few initiatives.

Fourth is values education. This rhetoric is concerned with "citizens who can make good judgments." While independent colleges and universities can clearly circumscribe the range of values to which they are committed, such focus is not possible at public institutions. There are core values, such as honesty and respect, but other such values may be subject to challenge. The world of public policy is an arena where all the values we hold as a culture compete, coalesce, and diverge. Public institutions of higher education mirror these conflicts, and resist any viable doctrinal stance in terms of values. State leaders may lament a lack of concern for values, but there is little potential for agreement on exactly whose values should be taught. Beyond occasional outbursts of concern, there is little lasting policy directed at values education.

State leaders are much more frequently concerned about the values that are taught than those that are not. They will sometimes object to specific content or materials used in particular courses. Very recent controversies in the New York state university system arose over sensational content at a women's studies conference. States have passed codes that require students to be warned about content that would challenge their values_a confrontation many faculty believe to be at the heart of education. Public school curriculum guides have been destroyed by concerns for too much or too little diversity or Euro-centric content, and higher education has not escaped the rhetorical pressures on these issues regarding its curricula. Occasionally there is an initiative at the state level reflecting partisan concerns about such value-laden content as abortion, environment, free enterprise/capitalism, evolution/creationism, parapsychology, and similar matters. Usually educators respond with a reaffirmation of academic freedom.

Qualitative issues

States typically express a concern that their institutions have a reputation for quality. In recent years they have taken a more proactive stance, and have begun looking at methods for encouraging and measuring quality. Implicit in the concern are four rationales: a) students are not getting as good an education as they did in the past, b) students aren't getting as good an education as they might, c) students aren't getting as good an education as they will need to succeed, and d) students aren't getting as good an education as other students are. The fourth proposition differs from the other three in its relativity and its evasion of an objective standard. At the state level, it is the most frequently invoked rationale, and is the underlying motive for benchmarking. It seems probable that resistance by educators to externally imposed standards forces states to adopt such relative goals.

The argument for a standard of quality is often couched in cost-effectiveness terms. The state does not want to pay for bad education. At another level, some leaders see a connection between educational standards and citizen contribution to the economy. Well-educated people are better able to contribute immediately, while others may need more supervision and orientation.

Among state initiatives that affect curriculum on matters of quality are standards for admission and graduation. Some states mandate admission criteria at some institutions. The idea is to improve the environment for learning and allow more demanding courses at four-year schools, as well as to force other schools (local schools and community colleges) to deal with remediation. Graduation standards are less broadly or directly imposed than admission standards, but they are of concern to state leaders. States are beginning to look at whether students really do learn. They are looking at comparative measures, such as pass rates on professional exams and other national assessments. In many programs the state also serves as accreditor, which allows it to implement its concerns for quality through accreditation. Less formal pressure comes in frequent pleas for "enhanced and more demanding curricula." The cumulative effect of these concerns on curriculum can be to adjust the sequencing of courses, alter the rigor of courses, and implement other curriculum accommodations to improve student scoring.

Control issues

States are very concerned about controlling their public institutions of higher education. The intent is to find an optimal balance of quality and cost. While they can and do exercise control on a case-by-case basis, states would prefer to manage by mission control. They would prefer that their public colleges and universities develop narrow and specifically focused institutional mission statements. To the degree that these statements emphasize one area of the curriculum over another, there is an impact upon the missions of departments and, by extension, their curricula. One common initiative is to reduce the number of state institutions offering programs in the same fields. The impact of such decisions has to do with which programs are made available to which students. Although it is offered as a qualitative concern, states have suggested institutions identify and concentrate upon three to five programs of excellence, theoretically allowing others to fallow. Combined with initiatives to eliminate programs with few graduates, these efforts often reflect concerns more for cost than quality, although concentration of resources is recognized as more effective and efficient than actions across the board.

Concern for excessive time in school has led some states to consider redefining degrees, and to cap the number of credits for which students may pay in-state tuition. These moves are deliberate attempts to force curricular change in those fields that may be seen as requiring an excessive number of credits.

Other control initiatives reinforce sector definition, sharpening the distinctions between the state's community colleges, its comprehensive state institutions, and its research universities. The distinctions of concern to curriculum between the advanced tiers are largely at the graduate level, but the overlap between the community colleges and four-year schools is problematic for the undergraduate curriculum. Encouragement for community college attendance in preference to the first two years at a four-year school means many curricula must be adjusted to fit constricted time frames, and some accommodation must be made for transferred coursework.

When community college attendance and excessive degree credit requirements collide, the state becomes concerned about transferability. Many states have long insisted that some formal arrangement or "transfer compact" be in place to make the transfer process as fluid as possible. Some states have programs whereby students are admitted to a community college and a four-year school simultaneously. Some states have implemented a standard basic core, taught everywhere and universally transferred for full value within the state system. These initiatives have obvious curriculum impact, requiring a certain level of standardization in packaging of educational content.

States do insist on direct control of some academic and curricular matters. All new programs at both public and independent campuses must be approved in most states. Usually this entails considerable opportunity for comment from competing institutions. Requirements to eliminate programs may accompany approval of new programs. States are concerned for graduation rates, or "program productivity," in individual programs, as well as for program duplication.

Conclusion

In spite of admonitions to stay out of curricular matters, state involvement in curriculum in higher education is substantial. Faculty have the responsibility for definition of the curriculum in detail, but they may not do so without considering state policy. Many decisions at the state level have indirect impact on the curriculum, and others clearly define the limits of curriculum variation. States often insist that higher education is a conservative culture (regardless of the liberality of its members) that is mired in its own self interest. Change tends to work better through innovation, but it can be argued that the greater the control and impact of state decisions on curriculum, the more difficult it is to be innovative. Regulation tends to beget standardization, which resists innovation or diversity.

Nevertheless, the state does have an interest in what is taught to whom, and it has an interest in ensuring effective use of public funds. Public institutions must be accountable for the purposes for which they are given support, and those purposes can be defined largely in terms of education for service in the economy, basic skills, citizenship, and values. In addition, public institutions of all kinds have a responsibility to expend public funds responsibly and state leaders have a right to put controls in place to ensure that. Primarily, controls are the result of legitimate attempts by state leaders to improve quality, control spending, and reduce costs.

Problems often arise because educators and state leaders disagree on the complexity of the issues. In a world in which almost all products of human effort are measurable and quantifiable, educators feel their best work is primarily experiential and only superficially measurable. Educators and state leaders also disagree on the significance of academic freedom. Leaders believe that managerial authority could exist that would not undercut principles of academic freedom, but educators refuse to consider any conversation about such authority, believing it can only jeopardize the practice of academic freedom. All of these issues can play out in the undergraduate curriculum.

[Return to top]

Bibliography

Board of Regents of Higher Education [Massachusetts] (1989, June). The undergraduate experience. Boston, Mass.: Author.

California Higher Education Policy Center. (1995, February). A state of emergency? Higher education in California.. San Jose, Cal.: Author.

Hines, E. (1988). State leadership in higher education. From Higher education and state government: Renewed partnership, cooperation or competition?. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report #5, Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education. In Goodchild, L. et al (eds). (1997). Public policy and higher education. Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster Custom Publishing, pp. 376-409.

Jones, D. & Ewell, P. (1993). The effect of state policy on undergraduate education: State policy and college learning. Education Commission of the States. In Goodchild, L. et al (eds). (1997). Public policy and higher education. Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster Custom Publishing, pp. 578-598.

Kerr, C. (1994). Troubled times for American higher education: The 1990s and beyond. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.

McGuinness, A.C. (1994). The changing structure of state higher education leadership. From Education Commission of the States (1997, June). State postsecondary education structures handbook 1994: State coordinating and governing boards. Author. In Goodchild, L. et al (eds). (1997). Public policy and higher education. Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster Custom Publishing, p. 125-159.

Massachusetts Board of Higher Education (1997, June). Mindpower in Massachusetts: The commonwealth's natural resource. A report on public higher education. Boston, Mass.: Author.

Massachusetts Board of Higher Education (1997, September). Improving the bottom line: An agenda for action and results in Massachusetts public higher education. Background paper. Boston, Mass.: Author.

Mingle, J.R. (1988). Effective coordination of higher education: What is it? Why is it so difficult to achieve? From Issues in higher education (Issue No. 23). In Goodchild, L. et al (eds). (1997). Public policy and higher education. Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster Custom Publishing, p. 410-420.

Minnesota Planning (1997, August). Degrees of excellence. St. Paul, Minn.: Author.

Newman, F. (1987). Choosing quality. From Choosing quality: Reducing conflict between the state and the university. Education Commission of the States. In Goodchild, L. et al (eds). (1997). Public policy and higher education. Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster Custom Publishing, pp. 453-469.

---

All non-original content used by permission.
All original content protected by copyright © 1996-2000 Arthur L. Dirks.
Send comments to Arthur Dirks [adirks@bridgew.edu]
Webdesign by Dirks Designs
Return to Main Site Index
BSC Home