Reorganization of Public Higher Education in Massachusetts
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 1-1-1982 Reorganization of public higher education in Massachusetts : prelegislation opinion on select issues by state legislators, segmental boards of trustees, special commission staff, faculty and administrators compared with actual legislation. James J. Pasquini University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1 Recommended Citation Pasquini, James J., "Reorganization of public higher education in Massachusetts : prelegislation opinion on select issues by state legislators, segmental boards of trustees, special commission staff, faculty and administrators compared with actual legislation." (1982). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 3834. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/3834 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. REORGANIZATION OF PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION IN MASSACHUSETTS PRELEGISLATION OPINION ON SELECT ISSUES BY STATE LEGISLATORS, SEGMENTAL BOARDS OF TRUSTEES, SPECIAL COMMISSION STAFF, FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATORS COMPARED WITH ACTUAL LEGISLATION A Dissertation Presented By JAMES J. PASQUINI Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION February 1982 Education REORGANIZATION OF PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION IN MASSACHUSETTS: PRELEGISLATION OPINION ON SELECT ISSUES BY STATE LEGISLATORS, SEGMENTAL BOARDS OF TRUSTEES, SPECIAL COMMISSION STAFF, FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATORS COMPARED WITH ACTUAL LEGISLATION A Dissertation Presented By JAMES J. PASQUINI Approved as to style and content by: ’’ - ) v £.1--'-^, /) G. Ernest Anderson, Jr., Chairperson John W. Lederle, Member Charlotte Rahaim, Member Mario D. Fantini, Dean James J. Pasquini 1982 All Rights Reserved ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was undertaken in an effort to better understand the political and educational decision process involved in the reorgani- zation of Massachusetts public higher education and to assist others to do the same. The opportunity to work with the State Legislature as an advisor to the Special Commission has been very rewarding to me both personally and professionally. The experiences gained in that position have given me as an educator a better understanding of the State politi- cal structure. Thanks for this venture must go to many, especially those who served as Committee Members. I want to express my deepest gratitude to the Chairman of my Committee, Dr. G. Ernest Anderson, Jr., who provided suggestions and worked closely with me through the writing of this dissertation. My sincere appreciation goes to Dr. John W. Lederle whose wise counsel provided a valuable insight to the state politics involved in education. A special thanks must go to Dr. Charlotte Rahaim who urged me to undertake the doctoral work and was always available when I required support and assistance. My thanks to Dr. Jonathan Daube, President of Berkshire Community of Administrative Serv- College, and Dr. Pasqualino Capeci , Jr., Dean ices, for their support and encouragement throughout this doctoral at Berkshire Community process. I also must thank my immediate staff their College who understood and did not complain as they carried responsibilities and mine over the months it has taken to complete this dissertation. Finally, I wish to express my deepest love and appreciation to my wife, Joanne, for her understanding, encouragement and patience to carry all the parental responsibilities allowing me time to get through this process. ABSTRACT REORGANIZATION OF PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION IN MASSACHUSETTS: PRELEGISLATION OPINION ON SELECT ISSUES BY STATE LEGISLATORS, SEGMENTAL BOARDS OF TRUSTEES, SPECIAL COMMISSION STAFF, FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATORS COMPARED WITH ACTUAL LEGISLATION (February, 1982) James J. Pasquini, A.S., Berkshire Community College B.S., North Adams State College, M.Ed., North Adams State College M.B.A., Western New England College, Ed.D., University of Massachusetts Directed by: Professor G. Ernest Anderson, Jr. This study examines the problems and possible solutions in Massachusetts Public Higher Education prior to and during the 1980 reorganization. The opinions and attitudes of state legislators, segmental boards of trustees, public college faculty and administrators were used as a data source. Then, it was necessary to assess the enacted legislation to determine to what extent the expectations of the survey group regarding reorganization were met, and what possible legislative revisions could be recommended to make the system function better. The procedures used to administer and analyze the data were two questionnaires. The prelegislative survey was forwarded to four hundred and forty-four people in the field of public higher education and higher legislators, to determine their input on select issues in public one education. The post-legislative questionnaire was administered to vi hundred and fifty people who participated in the first survey. Sixty percent of the select population responded to the prelegislative survey and seventy-four percent responded to the post-legislative question- naire. The post-legislative survey attempted to determine the opinions on select issues of the same select group of people, now that reorganiza- tion is being implemented. It was also a tool to see whether the input and expectations of respondents were utilized in reorganizing the public higher education system in the Commonwealth. The following summary statements represent the more significant areas uncovered in the prelegislative survey and the post-legislative survey: 1. The data revealed that the majority of the respondents do not be- lieve that each institution should have its own local board of trustees. 2. A significant number of respondents disagreed that the five sepa- rate segmental boards of trustees should be structured under one single board. 3. The respondents indicated that public higher education should not be organized into geographic regions. opposed to 4. The study revealed that a majority of respondents are private the appointment of board members who are employed by higher education making decisions for public higher education. 5. A majority of the respondents agreed that there should be a screening and selection process similar to that utilized in the judicial system when appointing board members. 6. The data indicated that if the public universities, state colleges and community colleges were merged under one board, respondents feel that the institutions would lose their own individual identities. 7. The study revealed that the legislative and executive branches are perceived to have too much input in the operation of public higher education institutions. 8. The data revealed that the respondents did not see the Secretary of Education's department performing an important function in the coordination of public higher education. 9. An overwhelming majority of respondents indicated that one agency should coordinate all program development for public higher education. 10. The findings indicated that the respondents agreed that upon receipt of the annual appropriation, institutions should have the autonomy to allocate their funds without legislative or executive control the 11. The study indicated that the respondents disagreed with public statements that faculty and presidents at institutions of higher education are overpaid. vii i 12 . In analyzing all occupational categories, the majority of the respondents indicated that there should be no institutional representation with voting privileges, on the Board of Regents or the local boards of trustees. However, the statistics did show that the category "Legislator" and "Faculty" did support institutional representation. 13. The study revealed that the Board of Regents should have approval over all institutional budgets, but not be involved in the daily management of institutions. 14. The findings indicate that the Regents' authority with respect to personnel should only be to coordinate , and to leave personnel management to the various institutions. 15. The data showed that students should have a member on the local Board of Trustees at each institution. There are additional opinions, attitudes and expectations that were reviewed and presented in this study. ix TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ABSTRACT . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 Background of Study 1 Statement of the Problem 4 Significance of the Study 5 Overview of Methodology and Terminology 6 Limitations 9 Study Procedures 10 II. A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 13 The Evolution of Higher Education 13 The Development of Higher Education in Massachusetts . 18 The Commonwealth Public Higher Education Profile ... 21 State Colleges 22 University of Massachusetts 25 Southeastern Massachusetts University 25 University of Lowell 26 Massachusetts Board of Regional Community Colleges . 27 The Law - Governance and Power 29 Board of Higher Education 30 The Secretary of Educational Affairs 31 The Cry for Reorganization 34 An Emerging Field for Change 47 The History and Development of Educational Governance 50 Governance Today 66 Profile of the State's Higher Education Governance and Coordinating Structures 69