Conceptualizing State Re-Engagement with Public Higher Education
Saved in:
| Title: | Conceptualizing State Re-Engagement with Public Higher Education |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Barrett J. Taylor (ORCID |
| Source: | Educational Policy. 2024 38(5):1200-1228. |
| Availability: | SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 29 |
| Publication Date: | 2024 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Higher Education Postsecondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Higher Education, Public Colleges, Educational Trends, Policy Formation, State Policy, Educational Legislation, Federal Legislation, Investment, Accountability, Racial Factors, Educational Change, Graduation Rate, African American Students, White Students, Budgets |
| Laws, Policies and Program Identifiers: | Higher Education Opportunity Act 2008 |
| DOI: | 10.1177/08959048231198815 |
| ISSN: | 0895-9048 1552-3896 |
| Abstract: | Three trends have characterized state policymaking for higher education in the 21st century: divestment, accountability, and race neutrality. These policy agendas are often justified as an attempt to optimize system efficiency and performance by making institutional actors (agents) responsive to the demands of state officials (principals). In this manuscript, we present quantitative evidence that these three policy initiatives have not achieved their stated purpose. We use contemporary social theory to explain why this is the case. Finally, we call for deeper re-engagement of states and their higher education systems in place of transactional and technocratic models. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2024 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1427587 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | Three trends have characterized state policymaking for higher education in the 21st century: divestment, accountability, and race neutrality. These policy agendas are often justified as an attempt to optimize system efficiency and performance by making institutional actors (agents) responsive to the demands of state officials (principals). In this manuscript, we present quantitative evidence that these three policy initiatives have not achieved their stated purpose. We use contemporary social theory to explain why this is the case. Finally, we call for deeper re-engagement of states and their higher education systems in place of transactional and technocratic models. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0895-9048 1552-3896 |
| DOI: | 10.1177/08959048231198815 |
