The deplorable Nevada community college budgets, as presented in the governors budget last week, convinced me its time to talk about the elephant in the room: Eight Points that argue in favor of a community college governance change in Nevada 1) Legal status: On three separate occasions, the Legislative Counsel Bureau has determined that Nevada community college governance is legally a matter of legislative authority and not that of the Board of Regents. (leg.state.nv.us/interim/77th2013/Committee/Studies/CommCollegesGovFund/Other/11-March-2014/VPowers.pdf) 2) History of inadequate bonding with communities: A history of forty-six years for the current community governance model has shown that the development of genuine and effective interaction between Nevadas communities and their constituencies (including employers and K-12 education) cannot occur in the context of a single, statewide board. 3) Structural Ineffectiveness: The Board of Regents has in the same 46 years not proven an effective governance board for its community colleges. Despite regular attempts throughout this history to improve the effectiveness of the system within the current governance model, major weaknesses continue in both the colleges workforce training mission and their university transfer mission . This long-term problem should be seen as structural, and should not be interpreted as a weakness of any given board over the years, which have largely been composed of diligent and sincere citizens who have tried to do their best for their state. 4) Lack of priority for workforce development: In conflicts for resources between community colleges and four year institutions at the undergraduate level, the colleges have consistently lost out to university priorities. Furthermore, Perna and Finney in The Attainment Agenda (Johns Hopkins University Press) report that Nevada spends a higher proportion of its higher education budget on research than most other states. At the same time, the state lacks an emphasis on regionally responsive workforce training opportunities. 5) Inattention to training needs of career and technology students: Jonas Peterson, chief operating officer of the Las Vegas Global Economic Alliance, reports that, among the companies it tries to recruit to Nevada, our high-value companies are telling us loud and clear that the single most important factor in their next location decision is the workforce. But Mark Muro of the Brookings Mountain West states that because your (Nevadas) workers are not optimally trained, you have a drag on growth and a lack of opportunity for people who want the credentials to move into good jobs. The current NSHE governance system has not been able, over time, to address the states serious workforce problem because the energy of the governance board has been largely focused on the needs of the two universities and their students. 6) Lack of appropriate community college funding: The disparity between university and community college funding is likely to continue in the 2015 legislative session, when UNLV must seek 35 million dollars to start a medical school. While the initiative may well have merit, it will detract necessary resources from the four underfunded colleges, which more than ever, need financial resources to help develop workforce for the states growing health care needs and developing manufacturing sector. 7) Tendency toward bureaucratic centralization: The Board of Regents is stretched too thin and cannot govern eight different institutions. In recent years, the single Boards inability effectively to govern and provide oversight to all eight institutions has resulted in too much authority devolving to an NSHE centralized system bureaucracy and away from the individual campuses. This has made it difficult for the campuses to respond effectively and quickly to changing community needs. 8) Endangering state economic development and citizens economic opportunity: Many higher education policy issues, such as ease of transfer from community colleges to universities, rate of tuition increases, and the nature of state financial aid (merit vs. need based) are studied by the governance board through the lens of the university (and its students) goals and not the goals of the community colleges and their more economically needy students. The result is that the public higher education system in the state has not proven effective in two of its most important roles: state economic development and economic opportunity for our citizens.
Posted on: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 06:26:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015