Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Handbook of Educational Policy pp 101–114Cite as

A Changed Policy Environment for US Universities

  • Chapter

  • 4510 Accesses

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((SIHE,volume 13))

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

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   429.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

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).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Association of American Colleges (1985). Integrity in the college curriculum. Washington, DC: author.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banta, T. W., & associates (1993). Making a difference: outcomes of a decade of assessment in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogue. E.G., & Brown, W. (1982). Performance incentives for state colleges. Harvard Business Review, 60(6), 123–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogue, E. G. (2003). Quality and accountability in higher education: Improving policy, enhancing performance. Westport, CT: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borrego, A. M. (2002). Education Department to emphasize retention in the next higher education act. The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 12, A18–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burd, S. (1998). The higher education amendments of 1998: The impact on colleges and students. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Oct. 16, A19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burd, S. (2003). Bush’s next target? The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 11, A18–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke. J. and associates (2002). Funding public colleges and universities for performance. Albany: The Rockefeller Institute Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christal, M. E. (1998). 1997 survey on performance measures. Denver: State Higher Education Executive Officers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eaton, J. (2001). Regional accreditation reform: Who is served? Change, 33(2), 38–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eaton, J. (2003). The Value of accreditation: Four pivotal roles. Washington, D.C.: Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Education Commission of the States (1986). Transforming the state role in improving undergraduate education: Time for a different view. Denver, CO: author.

    Google Scholar 

  • El-Khawas, E. (1992). Campus trends 1992. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • El-Khawas, E. (1998). Strong state action but limited results: Perspectives on university resistance. European Journal of Education, 33(3), 317–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • El-Khawas, E. (2001). Accreditation in the United States: Origins, development, and future prospects. Paris: UNESCO/International Institute for Educational Planning.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewell, P. T. (1985). Assessment: What’s it all about? Change, 17(6), 32–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewell, P. T., & Boyer, C. M. (1988). Acting out state-mandated assessment: Evidence from five states. Change, 20(4), 40–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gladieux, L. E., & Wolanin, T. R. (1976). Congress and the Colleges. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, H. D. (1984). The uncertain triumph: Federal education policy in the Kennedy and Johnson years. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hines, E. R. (1988). Higher education and state governments: Renewed partnership, cooperation or competition? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report. Washington, DC: George Washington University.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchings, P., & Marchese, T. (1990). Watching assessment: Questions, stories, prospects. Change, 22(4), 12–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuinness, A. C. (1999). Federal/state partnerships in postsecondary education: SPRE as a case study. Boulder, CO: NCHEMS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, F. (1987). Choosing quality: Reducing conflict between the state and the university. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruppert, S. S. (Ed.) (1994). Charting higher education accountability: A sourcebook on state-level performance indicators. Denver: Education Commission of the States.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salter, B., & Tapper, T. (1994). The state and higher education. Ilford, Essex: The Woburn Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, P. (2002) Most States tie aid to performance despite little proof that it works. The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 22, A20.

    Google Scholar 

  • South Carolina Commission on Higher Education (2001). Performance funding at a glance. Columbia, SC: author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spangehl, S. D. (1987). The push to assess: why it’s feared and how to respond. Change, 19(1), 35–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolanin, T. R., ed. (2003). Reauthorizing the Higher Education Act: Issues and options. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Higher Education Policy.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. George Washington University, USA

    Elaine El-Khawas

Authors
  1. Elaine El-Khawas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, ON, Canada

    Nina Bascia , Alister Cumming , Kenneth Leithwood  & David Livingstone , ,  & 

  2. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Amanda Datnow

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation