How does performance differ among state systems of higher education in relation to their choice of governance structure?
Our research suggests that differences in governance structures do influence the performance of higher education systems, including system responsiveness to state priorities. Elected leaders in Illinois, Texas, Georgia, and Florida identify and communicate priorities to their higher education systems. Not surprisingly, these systems are perceived to be more responsive than those in New York and Michigan, where elected leaders rely primarily on market influences and the budget to shape institutional priorities. In Florida, the absence of balanced attention to institutional and professional values contributes to stalling and other forms of subsystem resistance to legislatively determined priorities. Both the absence of market influences and a 36-year-old Master Plan that insulates public subsystems from each other and from state government produce a system in California that is notably non-responsive to external influences. The seven states exhibit four ways of responding to contextual c
