Differences in State Governance Model
Use attachments t
428 PS • April 2017 © American Political Science Association, 2017 doi:10.1017/S1049096516002961
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
P R O F E S S I O N S Y M P O S I U M
Community Colleges, Shared
Governance, and Democracy
Matthew Reed, Brookdale Community College
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Shared governance is a hotly contested topic through-out higher education in the United States, but the tensions surrounding it are in particularly stark relief in the community college sector. As a prac-ticing community college administrator, I will
suggest here that the tensions around shared governance
and performance funding offer a rare opportunity for fruitful
research.
Community colleges occupy a unique niche in American
higher education. They were born in the twentieth century—
Joliet Junior College in Illinois is generally recognized as the
first, established in 1901—and quickly came to embody multiple
missions that often stand in tension with each other (Cohen
and Brawer 2008). At the time of writing, they enroll approx-
imately 45% of undergraduate students in the United States
(AACC 2016), yet they tend to remain an afterthought in most
policy discussions on higher education.
As with public education generally, community colleges dif-
fer in their governance structures from one state to another.
California has “districts” with “superintendents,” very much
like K-12 public schools. In Pennsylvania, community colleges
draw funding from the budgets of public high schools within
their service areas. In New Jersey, their “districts” are coun-
ties, and the county Boards of Chosen Freeholders (the county
legislatures) set appropriations for their operating budgets.
In Massachusetts, community colleges have neither districts
nor county support; they compete for enrollment very much
as independent colleges do. In Michigan, community colleges
rely on “millages,” or property taxes set by referenda.
Some states, such as Minnesota and Tennessee, have state-
wide Boards of Regents to which each campus president
reports. In others, the presidents are selected locally and
report to local boards. Some boards are elected, as in Arizona,
some are appointed by a governor or a county legislature, and
some are appointed by multiple authorities, with each authority
controlling different numbers of seats on the board.
With such different governance structures and reporting
lines, it should be unsurprising that the political imperatives
faced by colleges vary widely. Still, performance funding
has arisen as a common issue over the last decade that pro-
vides potentially fruitful ground for scholarly inquiry. Many
states have conditioned some or all of their appropriations
for operating funds on various “performance” measures. The
measures generally include graduation rates taken from the
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS),
as well as milestones towards completion and—sometimes—
preferences for certain majors or populations. In Ohio, the
entire operating appropriation for a given community college
is based on performance funding (NCSL 2016).
Community colleges tend to push back on the IPEDS
graduation rate, because the headline rate of this most com-
monly used performance statistic counts only first-time, full-
time, degree-seeking students.1 Yet, on most campuses, the
IPEDS cohort is a distinct minority. Even within that minority,
a student who transfers after a year to a four-year college and
subsequently graduates with a bachelor’s degree shows up in
the community college statistics as a dropout.
Such measurement errors have political consequences:
legislators who don’t know any better may see a 20% gradua-
tion rate as a travesty, rather than a sign that they’re counting
the wrong way. The IPEDS measure is based on the assump-
tion that students are 18-years-old, full-time, and living on
campus; when applied to a much more heterogeneous stu-
dent body, most of whom work thirty hours a week or more
for pay, it leads to distorted readings. For example, a student
who takes twice the “normative” time to degree counts as a
dropout. When a college has a majority of part-time students,
as many community colleges do, that wreaks havoc on the
headline number.
This funding regime also tends to sit uneasily with shared
governance, and it is in looking closely at tensions between
performance funding and shared governance that political
scientists have an important contribution to make. Shared
governance is often understood to refer to collaboration among
the constituencies within a given institution, with each having
its special role. For example, it is generally assumed that fac-
ulty members collectively have primary responsibility for the
academic program of the college, including but not limited to
academic standards, what shall be taught, and in what format.
The administration is generally assumed to be responsible for
the budget and all that goes with it (AAUP 2016).
This is not a perfect model—anyone who thinks that cur-
riculum and budget are easily separable is invited to attend a
discussion of cost-cutting and program prioritization—but it
is generally accepted. It is part of the expectations of regional
accrediting bodies, and it sometimes is a condition for state
licensure. Border skirmishes among the various constituencies
are frequent, but they do not bring the model into question.
The underlying assumption of shared governance is that
everyone agrees about who is sharing. In the context of public
institutions, the state (and/or local funding entity) is assumed
to be a silent partner. But performance funding has recast the
nature of shared governance, with states (and/or local fund-
ing entities) demanding much greater voice in the academic
PS • April 2017 429
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
decision-making of community colleges, even at the level
of curriculum. The new assertiveness of funders can look to
campus constituencies like an attack on shared governance,
because it constrains the choices available. It can also be inter-
preted as an expansion of shared governance to include the
entire polity, with the elected legislative branch representing
the populace’s concerns.
Public higher education has long struggled with the need
to serve two masters: the public at large, and the community
of educated professionals who determine credentials. At a
basic level, it is a tension between expertise and democracy.
“Shared governance” as an ideal attempts to split the differ-
ence between expertise and democracy. It does so by implic-
itly allocating spheres of influence according to presumed
expertise: faculty control over the curriculum, the administra-
tion’s control over the budget, and so on. Expanding shared
governance to include the public at large, via legislatures,
resolves the conflict between expertise and democracy, in
favor of democracy. That can prevent undue insularity, but it
can also lead to decisions made on the basis of demagoguery,
rather than knowledge.
At stake in the battles over shared governance is the pur-
pose of the community-college sector. Are campuses simply
arms of the state, to be deployed to serve broad policy goals?
If so, on what basis can we assume that academic freedom will
be upheld? (To put it another way, to the extent that colleges
are subject to majoritarian control, what is to stop a legisla-
ture from punishing faculty who teach unpopular material?)
Or are colleges freestanding, if subsidized, institutions
subject to the control of local faculty and administration?
In a low-trust external context, the latter can be a hard
sell, but the former tends to lead to tremendous internal
conflict. Does the move to performance funding represent
usurpation, or a (possibly unintentional) move towards greater
democracy?
The “greater democracy” reading is challenged by the
increasing influence of a few large private foundations. In a
context of sustained austerity, a few large private funders have
found fertile ground to wield influence. Gates, Lumina, and
their various offshoots have largely set the national agenda—
what they call the “completion agenda”—and organized polit-
ical pressure around it (Ruark 2013). Private foundations are
tax-exempt, but unelected and politically unaccountable. As
states have disinvested and budget shortfalls have become
chronic, a few people with money wield considerable power.
More often than not, performance funding has been per-
ceived to be punitive. For institutions with high fixed costs—
typically, labor is the lion’s share of a college’s operating
budget—variable funding creates crises of its own. Illinois and
Arizona have recently cut state funding for certain community
colleges to zero, effectively abdicating the state partnership
role, though they have maintained legal control. With cam-
puses increasingly expected to be both economically self-
sufficient and accountable to external legislative authorities,
tensions are inevitable. Those tensions tend to peak during
recessions, when state revenues decline at the same time that
community college enrollments increase.
Budgetary pressures are unlikely to go away, as community
colleges compete with programs like Medicaid and K-12 edu-
cation for funding from tax revenues, and policy makers fre-
quently seek to use tax cuts to stimulate the economy. At this
stage, political responses appear contradictory. At the state level,
where balanced budgets are almost always a legal requirement,
operating cuts (or failures to keep up with costs) are the order of
the day. At the federal level, where deficit spending is an option,
a movement for “free community college” has gained traction.
Assuming sufficient political momentum—which is far from
given—it is unclear how a federal push for free community col-
lege would operate through the diverse and multi-level funding
systems across the country. Nationally, federal support accounts
for about 14% of community college revenues, so a national
push for free community college would mean a dramatic shift in
funding sources and, presumably, reporting lines.
After a history of being largely overlooked in higher edu-
cation, community colleges have received both new attention
and, inevitably, new scrutiny. But the contradictory demands
being placed upon them have not been fully theorized. By
researching the tensions reviewed here, political scientists
could contribute to better policy making in the community-
college sector. n
NOTE
1. For the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, see the website
of the National Center for Education Statistics at https://nces.ed.gov/
ipeds/datacenter/.
REFERENCES
American Association of Community Colleges (AACC). 2016. “2016
Fact Sheet.” http://aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Documents/
AACCFactSheetsR2 .
American Association of University Professors (AAUP). 1966. “Joint Statement
of the AAUP with the American Council on Education (ACE) and the
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) on
the Government of Colleges and Universities.” https://www.aaup.org/
report/statement-government-colleges-and-universities.
Cohen, Arthur and Florence Brawer. 2008. The American Community College,
5th Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). 2015. “Performance-based
Funding for Higher Education.” July 31. http://www.ncsl.org/research/
education/performance-funding.aspx.
Ruark, Jennifer. 2013. “In the Foundation Echo Chamber.” The Chronicle of
Higher Education, July 14. http://www.chronicle.com/article/In-the-
Foundation-Echo/140305/.
Public higher education has long struggled with the need to serve two masters: the
public at large, and the community of educated professionals who determine credentials.
At a basic level, it is a tension between expertise and democracy.
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/
http://aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Documents/AACCFactSheetsR2
http://aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Documents/AACCFactSheetsR2
https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-government-colleges-and-universities
https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-government-colleges-and-universities
http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/performance-funding.aspx
http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/performance-funding.aspx
http://www.chronicle.com/article/In-the-Foundation-Echo/140305/
http://www.chronicle.com/article/In-the-Foundation-Echo/140305/
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.
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
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ucjc20
https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucjc20
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10668926.2016.1251355
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2016.1251355
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=ucjc20&show=instructions
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=ucjc20&show=instructions
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/10668926.2016.1251355
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/10668926.2016.1251355
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/10668926.2016.1251355&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2016-12-02
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/10668926.2016.1251355&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2016-12-02
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/10668926.2016.1251355#tabModule
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/10668926.2016.1251355#tabModule
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.
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 jfletchr@iastate.edu 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
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6846-9732
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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).
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
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
http://www.statedirectors.org/copy_of_statedirectors/directors/ncsdcc.htm
http://www.statedirectors.org/copy_of_statedirectors/directors/ncsdcc.htm
(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.
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
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
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
http://dx.doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/intitiatives/newexpeditions/White_Papers/governancewhite.htm
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/intitiatives/newexpeditions/White_Papers/governancewhite.htm
http://www.statedirectors.org/index.html
- Abstract
Background of the study
Problem statement and purpose of the study
Research questions
Limitations
Issues that influence state-level community college governance
Board composition
Articulation agreements
Collective bargaining agreements
Historical values and customs
State and federal policies
Emerging issues impacting state-level community college governance structure
State-level boards
Seamless K–16 systems
Technology
State-level community college governance structure taxonomies
Katsinas taxonomy
Methodology
Document analysis
NCSDCC mixed-method survey
Results and analysis
Document analysis results
Mixed-method survey results
Summary and implications for practice and research
Summary
Conclusions
Implications for future research
Policy implications
References