Controversial *policy change in public systems of higher education: The cases of the University of Minnesota and the City University of New York.

摘要

This study examines the processes by which policy change occurred in two public higher education systems. Using a comparative case study, it investigates the conflicts surrounding two controversial policy issues: (1) efforts by the Board of Trustees of the University of Minnesota to revise the university's academic tenure code, and (2) efforts by the Board of Trustees of the City University of New York to curtail remedial education within its four-year institutions.;The study investigates two research questions: (1) How did highly controversial policy proposals emerge from the Boards of Trustees of the University of Minnesota and City University of New York? And (2) Why did they emerge as they did?;Based on focused interviews with individuals involved with the policy controversies and extensive documentary sources, this study discusses the challenges and conflicts of university governance and decision-making, focusing on the current context of "activist" board governance and the unique and change-resistant attributes of higher education institutions. It includes a comparative discussion of the three theoretical perspectives that describe the process of organizational change: the "rational" the "political" and the "loosely-coupled systems/organized anarchy" perspectives.;The study then analyzes these controversial change processes by applying constructs from each of the three perspectives to the two case studies. It demonstrates the unique ways in which each theoretical perspective illuminates the elements of the policy change process, including: How problems arise and are framed; how issues advance and become part of an agenda for change; how policies or solutions are developed; and how decisions or choices get made.;It then looks critically at the similarities and differences between the two cases and considers the implications of the findings for theories and models of organizational change, as well as for board governance and decision-making. The study concludes with observations about the implications of its findings for change, policy-making, and governance in public higher education.