Governor Leroy Collins called for the first statewide study on
higher education in 1956, resulting in the Brumbaugh and Blee
Study focusing on the expansion of higher education in Florida.
As a result of this study, the Legislature authorized significant
expansion of higher education, including the creation of a state
community college system. The report also identified issues of
quality, concentration and research at upper-division universities,
and emphasized the need for access and equity in the new community
college system.
In the following two decades, six new universities were established,
four of them initially designated as upper-division institutions.
(The tenth campus in the Florida State University System will
open in Fall 1997.) The older institutions under this structure
maintained their designation as upper-division institutions. The
Board of Control over the universities was retained into the 1960s.
One university administrator told us that remnants of the Board
of Control language are still present in the minutes of the Regents'
agendas today. He told us, for example, that university presidents
have limited authority to approve contracts, a remnant from the
Board of Control regulations.
As in many other states, the 1960s was a decade of rapid growth
for higher education in Florida. In 1965, the Legislature, acting
on the belief that greater coordination over the universities
was important, abolished the Board of Control and established
a nine-member Board of Regents. The Regents were given specific
powers to govern, regulate, coordinate and oversee the institutions
and agencies, including the power to appoint university presidents.
In 1968, the executive branch of state government was reorganized
and the Board of Regents became a unit of the Department of Education,
reporting through the commissioner of education to the state Board
of Education. This centralization diminished the autonomy of older
institutions and led to the consolidation of university operating
and building budgets. The chancellor and his staff became the
chief advisors to the Regents in these areas. In 1969 the Regents
of the new system approved a "Comprehensive Development Plan"
for the State University System that provided a framework for
system development.
While the expansion of higher education in Florida continued in
the 1970s, it did so at a time when overall institutional operating
budgets were being reduced. In the late 1970s the Legislature
responded to concerns about the quality of the University System
and aspired to national recognition in several areas. To achieve
their goals, the Legislature created and funded "Centers of Excellence"
for universities to gain national distinction in their research
programs. In 1979 the Legislature strengthened the autonomy of
individual campuses under the Board of Regents, focusing the Regents'
authority on: adoption of systemwide rules and procedures; planning
for the future; reviewing and evaluating campus institutional,
research and service programs; selecting presidents; and monitoring
fiscal performance. The focus on developing the research capacity
of the universities was continued throughout the 1980s. In 1989,
the University System successfully competed for and won the National
High Magnetic Field Laboratory-with the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT) as its chief competitor-through the assistance
of the Legislature, the Governor's office and university officials.
According to one elected official, "We had a lot of money. We
said we didn't care what MIT put on the table, we'd match it."
The same official later stated that it is not likely that Florida
could make the same commitment today.
According to a state historical document, the continuing debate
about the shared authority between the campuses, the Regents and
the Legislature led to the establishment of the Postsecondary
Education Planning Commission (PEPC). The original proposal for
the commission included language that gave it significant authority
over higher education. The bill was eventually vetoed by Governor
Bob Graham; instead, the Governor created PEPC by executive order.
PEPC was administratively housed in the office of the commissioner
of education and was charged to prepare and submit to the state
Board of Education a master plan for postsecondary education.
In addition, the executive order further reduced the authority
of the Regents by focusing their responsibilities on policy development
rather than on the details of daily campus administration.
The number of board members was increased from 9 to 13 by the 1981 Legislature in an attempt to end the perception of allegiance of each regent to a single university. Currently, members of the Board of Regents are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate to six-year rotating terms.
The state Board of Education, which in Florida is composed of
the elected cabinet, is the chief policy and coordinating body
for public education. The board must approve all rules adopted
by the Regents. Although the board also adopts and transmits the
SUS legislative budget request, one state official called the
Board of Education's role in the budget a "rubber stamp."
The chancellor's office develops and manages its own statewide
data base for higher education. Most of the information needed
by the Legislature comes from the chancellor's office. A state
official expressed general satisfaction with the quality of data
produced by the system office and the time it takes to fulfill
requests for information. Legislators involved in the recent study
of credit hours disagreed. One legislator asserted that the most
significant drives to adopt performance-based budgeting for the
University System were the result of inadequate data on which
to base decisions.
The division of authority between the chancellor's office and
the Legislature appears fairly well understood and has developed
over time. According to one university official, the Legislature
may legitimately tell the system to limit student enrollment,
or conversely, take more entering freshmen than has normally been
state policy. On the other hand, the Legislature is not welcome,
according to this official, to tell the Board of Regents that
a new educational program may or may not be approved and where
it should be located. The chancellor's office gives the university
presidents a fair amount of latitude in establishing the missions
of their institutions. Traditionally, the Florida master plan
provided limitations on the number of research universities in
Florida. State officials told us that the master plan no longer
effectively serves this purpose and the only constraints in changing
institutional mission are systemwide program approval mechanisms
and the amount of money appropriated by the Legislature. Competition
between various programs tends to occur where two institutions
are in close proximity and compete for some of the same programs
(for example, Florida State University and Florida A & M University).
The roles of the campus presidents vis-a-vis the chancellor also
seem to be clear. A number of university administrators emphasized
that the role of the chancellor is to deal "head on" with the
Legislature, whereas the job of the presidents is to run their
campuses. Some presidents may complain directly to the Board of
Regents, for example, about the lack of funds; most complaints,
however, go through the chancellor's office prior to the involvement
of the Regents. This may be one reason why the proposal by UF
President John Lombardi caused such concern; the carefully negotiated,
and often unwritten, rules of conduct within the system were violated
in a basic way.
The faculty at the State University System are unionized and the chancellor meets with their representatives several times during the year. The Board of Regents is responsible for negotiating contracts with various unions. If agreement cannot be reached by the Regents, the Legislature becomes the key bargaining agent for the state. The strength of the unions varies by institution, with the more powerful unions located in the urban areas of the state. Several of those interviewed confirmed that Florida is a "weak" union state. One high-level university official stated that from a system perspective, "It is better to have a weak union than no union at all," since a union provides some control over faculty work rules, etc.
Enrollment projections for the SUS and the community college system
are reached through an enrollment estimating conference made up
of representatives from the various education sectors in the state.
PEPC has plans underway to develop an enrollment model that provides
better projections for the state.
Enrollment in the University System has increased steadily since
1988. The system grew by 25 percent between 1988 and 1994 with
a head-count enrollment of about 158,000 in 1988 and 198,000 in
1994. Student enrollment increased every year between 1988 and
1994. There are about twice as many upper-division students as
there are lower-division students in the State University System.
Roughly two-thirds of the upper-division students in the University
System are community college transfers. Campus enrollment levels
vary widely, from about 5,000 students to about 24,000.
Florida is considered a low-tuition state. In 1995-96 the State
University System ranked 47th in the nation in terms of tuition
charged for resident undergraduate students. Tuition has increased
by 36 percent from 1990 to 1996. Tuition for undergraduate resident
students in Florida rose from approximately $838 in 1990 to $1,142
in 1996.
Substantive legislation in the 1991 legislative session authorized
a tuition indexing policy for future years as follows: By December
1 of each year the Board of Regents shall set the resident undergraduate
fees for the subsequent fall term at no more than 25 percent of
the prior year cost of undergraduate programs (capped at a 10
percent increase per year); graduate tuition may be increased
by the same percent as undergraduate fees; non-resident fees are
to be set at a level to cover the full cost of undergraduate education,
but capped at a 25 percent increase per year. Currently the Board
of Regents cannot act unilaterally on setting tuition for the
system. Legislative approval for appropriating tuition dollars
requires compromises to be reached on tuition levels each year.
Legislative resistance to tuition increases has been strong in Florida; one respondent stated that such increases were perceived by the public as tax increases. It appears, however, that legislative concern over raising tuition is abating. Supported by the Business/Higher Education Partnership's proposal for tuition increases to be linked to a percentage of the cost of instruction, legislative leaders approved a seven percent increase in tuition for fall 1996, the first increase in four years.
[ DOWNLOAD | CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT ]
