|
|
Policy Brief |
|
Governance
(Postsecondary) |
|
700 Broadway, Suite 1200 Denver, CO 80203-3460 303.299.3600 Fax: 303.296.8332 www.ecs.org |
Reflections on Postsecondary
Governance Changes
Aims C. McGuinness
July 2002
Viewing Changes from
a Long-Term Perspective
The last 25 years of the 20th century witnessed fundamental changes in
state postsecondary education structures. These changes reflect broader
societal trends, including shifting economic conditions, as well as movements
in the prevailing views about the role of government in domestic policy.
Notwithstanding these changes, though, certain policy issues appeared
consistently in the debates about governance throughout this period.
Changes Reflecting
Broader Societal Trends
A few states established statewide governing or coordinating structures
in the first half of the 20th century, but the most dramatic increase in states
with these structures occurred in the 1960s. Two forces spurred these changes:
§
§
Pressures
to manage proliferation of institutions and programs, and to curb unnecessary
duplication as states responded to dramatic enrollment increases
§
§
The
prevailing public management approaches of the time emphasizing rational
planning and quantitative analysis.
By 1971, all but four states (Delaware, Michigan, Nebraska and Vermont)
had established either statewide governing boards encompassing most, if not
all, their public institutions or statewide coordinating boards.
A requirement in the federal Education Amendments of 1972 that states
establish postsecondary education planning commissions in order to be eligible
for planning and other categorical grants spurred a number of states to revise
their structures. Later in the 1970s, severe economic conditions led states to
turn more to regulatory policies such as mission definition and program review
in efforts to get institutions to contain costs and eliminate unnecessary
duplication.
As the economy improved in the early 1980s, a shift occurred in the
prevailing views about the role of government in not only postsecondary
education but also other dimensions of state responsibility. Reflecting what
later became known as the neo-liberal approach to public policy, political
leaders began advocating decentralization, deregulation and privatization
balanced by increased reliance on performance measures and incentive funding to
ensure responsiveness of institutions to public purposes. These trends were reflected in changes in the
statutory mandates of state higher education agencies as illustrated in Figure
1.
Figure 1: Changes in Underlying Assumptions About the
State Role in Postsecondary Education
|
A SHIFT FROM: |
TO: |
|
Rational planning for
static institutional models |
Strategic planning for
dynamic market models |
|
Focus on providers,
primarily public institutions |
Focus on clients,
students/learners, employers and governments |
|
Service areas defined by
geographic boundaries and monopolistic markets |
Service areas defined by
the needs of clients served by multiple providers |
|
Tendency toward centralized
control and regulation through tightly defined institutional missions,
financial accountability and retrospective reporting |
More decentralized
management using policy tools to stimulate desired response (e.g.,
incentives, performance funding, consumer information) |
|
Policies and regulation to
limit competition and unnecessary duplication |
Policies to “enter the
market on behalf of the public” and to channel competitive forces toward
public purposes |
|
Quality defined primarily
in terms of resources (inputs such as faculty credentials or library
resources) as established within postsecondary education |
Quality defined in terms of
outcomes and performance as defined by multiple clients (students/learners,
employers, government) |
|
Policies and services
developed and carried out primarily through public agencies and public
institutions |
Increased use of
nongovernmental organizations and mixed public/private providers to meet
public/client needs (e.g., developing curricula and learning modules,
providing student services, assessing competencies, providing quality
assurance) |
During the recession of the late 1980s and early 1990s, some states
reverted to the more regulatory approaches reminiscent of the recession in the
1970s, but as the economy recovered, the basic trends begun in the 1980s
reemerged.
Recurring Policy
Issues
Governance changes often occur because of – or are heavily influenced
by – societal trends, as summarized above. But throughout the past
half-century, remarkably similar policy issues have triggered most significant
reorganizations.
Changes
in Political Leadership
Newly elected governors often propose state government reorganization
for both substantive and symbolic reasons. Since the mid-1980s, governors have
played an increasingly aggressive role in shaping postsecondary education
policy and reorganization to improve public accountability and efficiency. Less
frequently, reorganizations are triggered by changes in party control in the
state legislature or at the initiative of legislative leaders.
Long-standing “Irritants” in the
Politics of the State Postsecondary Education System
These irritants tend to be long-standing problems that may fester for
years but then, especially at points of changes in political leadership or
severe economic downturns, they trigger debates, lead to special study
commissions and often eventually result in full-scale reorganization. Examples
of several of the most common issues are:
§
§
Access to high-cost graduate
and professional programs. In most states, regional economic, political and
cultural differences present serious challenges to state policymakers. These
regional stresses are amplified and played out in conflicts within the states’
postsecondary education systems. A common scenario begins with pressure from a
growing urban area to have accessible graduate and professional programs.
Subsequent local campaigns and state lobbying efforts to expand these
initiatives from a few courses to full-scale programs and then new campuses
lead to opposition from existing universities and other regions. The same
scenario often plays out when isolated rural areas struggle to gain access to
programs for place-bound adults. Local and regional end-runs to the governor or
legislature to get special attention either to advance or block such
initiatives usually spark political struggles that inevitably lead to major
restructuring proposals.
§
§
Conflict
between the aspirations of two institutions (often under separate governing
boards) in the same geographic area. Again, conflicts tend to be over which institution should offer high-cost
graduate and professional programs. Major reorganization proposals, usually
mergers or consolidations, frequently occur after years of other efforts to
achieve improved cooperation and coordination.
§
§
Political
reaction to institutional lobbying. As governors and
legislators face politically difficult and unattractive choices to curtail
rather than expand programs, intense lobbying by narrow, competing
institutional interests can spark demands for restructuring. Political leaders
seek to push such battles away from the immediate political process by
increasing the authority of a state board, with the hope that the board will be
able to resolve the conflicts before they get to the legislature. The reverse
situation also occurs frequently. A state board will act to curtail an
institutional end-run and then face a legislative proposal, frequently
stimulated by the offending institution, to abolish the board. Short-term
victories gained through end-running the established coordinating structures
usually lead to greater centralization.
§
§
Frustrations
with barriers to student transfer and articulation. Cumulative evidence that student transfer
between institutions is difficult, or the number of credits limited, often
leads to proposals to create a “seamless” system. Before the mid-1990s, most of
the reorganization proposals were limited to postsecondary education (e.g.,
consolidating institutions under a single governing board), but an increasing number
of states are debating proposals to create P-16 (primary through postsecondary
education) structures.
§
§
Concerns
about too many institutions with ill-defined or overlapping missions. At issue may be
small, isolated rural institutions or institutions with similar missions in
close proximity to one another. The governance debates often emerge from proposals
to merge, consolidate or close institutions or to make radical changes in
institutional missions. The intense lobbying and publicity by persons who
oppose the changes often lead to proposals for governance changes. In some
cases, the proposals are to abolish the board that proposed the changes. In
other cases, just the opposite is proposed – to increase the board’s authority
out of frustration with its inability to carry out a recommended closure or
merger.
§
§
Lack of regional coordination among institutions (e.g., community
colleges, technical colleges, branch campuses) offering one- and two-year
vocational, technical, occupational and transfer programs. Many states have
regions or communities where two or more public institutions, each responsible
to a different state board or agency, are competing to offer similar one- and
two-year programs. In the worst situations, this may involve a postsecondary
technical institute, a community college and two-year lower-division university
branches competing for an overlapping market in the same region.
§
§
Concerns
about the current state board’s effectiveness or continuing relevance to state
priorities. Reorganizations
often result from efforts to change leaders or leadership styles. As
illustrated by the brief summary of changes over the past 25 years, state
leaders tend to see the importance of statewide coordination in times of severe
fiscal constraints, but when the economy is strong and these leaders face fewer
difficult choices among competing priorities, the relevance of state agencies
is less evident. Common triggers for change include:
●
●
A sense that a board, or its
staff, is ineffective or lacks the political influence or judgment to address
critical issues facing the state, which are often one or more of the other
perennial issues. They may be perceived as unable to resolve problems before
they become major political controversies, or they may have handled difficult
issues poorly in the past.
●
●
A desire to change leadership
style or underlying philosophy of the state role. This may be a reaction to
aggressive, centralized leadership and an effort to shift to a more passive,
consultative leadership approach – or the reverse. The change may be to move
from a focus on administrative, regulatory or management issues internal to
postsecondary education to a focus on policy leadership relative to a broader
public agenda.
●
●
State leaders also may propose
reorganization not because the structure has problems but simply to change the
leadership or personalities involved in the process.
Recent Significant
Changes in State Structure
In the five-year period from 1997 to 2002, eight states enacted
significant changes in state-level postsecondary education structure, with
“significant” defined as eliminating, establishing or changing the authority of
state-level boards. These states were Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Utah and West Virginia.
Several other states made less far-reaching but nonetheless important
changes in governance or the roles of state-level boards or systems. These
included Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, North Dakota and Texas. In the previous
five-year period, roughly from 1992 to 1996, four states enacted significant
changes. These states were Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska and New Jersey.[1][1]
Four major categories of change occurred in the 1997-2002 period:
§
§
Comprehensive
reforms linked to a public agenda for the future of the state
§
§
Establishment
of K-16/K-20 structures
§
§
State
structures for community and technical colleges
§
§
Decentralization
and deregulation.
Comprehensive Reforms
Linked to a Public Agenda for the Future of the State
The governance changes in Kentucky and West Virginia were elements of
comprehensive reforms intended to achieve long-term improvements in the state’s
economic competitiveness and quality of life. In both cases, changes in state
financing policy were as important as governance changes. The changes in
structure were seen as essential to put in place the capacity to lead and
sustain the reforms.
§
§
Kentucky. Legislation in 1997 replaced the Council on Higher Education with the
Council on Postsecondary Education. The new entity has broader authority to
lead the reform agenda and to affect change through financing policy. The
regulatory emphasis of the previous entity was replaced by a new emphasis on
policy leadership. The reforms also created a new statewide governing board –
the Kentucky Community and Technical College System – to oversee the community
and technical colleges.
§
§
West Virginia. Legislation in
2000 established a new policy leadership/coordinating board – the Higher
Education Policy Commission – to replace the two previous state-level governing
boards – the Board of Trustees for the West Virginia Universities and the Board
of Directors for the West Virginia State Colleges. At the same time, the
legislation created governing boards for each of the public institutions and
established a step-by-step process for establishing independently accredited
community and technical colleges separated from sponsoring four-year
institutions.
§
§
Arkansas. The changes in Arkansas focused more narrowly on the role of the
Department of Higher Education and the state-level board. In 1997, the Higher
Education Coordinating Board replaced the Board of Higher Education.
Establishment of
K-16/K-20 State Structures
Several states established state-level structures for K-16/K-20 policy
coordination between 1997 and 2002, but most of these structures were
established not through formal new legislation but by Governors’ Executive
Orders or other means. With the exception of Florida, no state established a
new K-16/K-20 structure that merged, consolidated or eliminated separate K-12
or postsecondary education state structures. Examples of new statutory
structures that emphasize coordination rather than consolidation include:
§
§
Georgia’s
A-Plus Education Reform Act of 2000 created an independent Office of
Educational Accountability and a new coordinating council for education to
strengthen accountability data and cooperation across educational sectors and
to oversee the new accountability office.
§
§
Indiana’s
Education Roundtable, chaired by the governor, was established to coordinate
education policy across the education sectors.
The most far-reaching reorganization took place in Florida through the
1998 constitutional amendment that replaced the State Board of Education
previously composed of the state’s constitutional officers with a new State
Board of Education appointed by the governor. Sweeping reforms enacted in the
Education Governance Reorganization Act of 2000 defined the responsibilities of
the new state board. In 2001, the legislature enacted the Education
Reorganization Implementation Act that further defined the organizational structure.
Among other points, the legislation abolished the Board of Regents for the
state universities and created separate governing boards for each university
within the overall policy framework of the State Board of Education.
While the scope of the changes in Florida cannot be denied, it is
important to recognize certain aspects of the state’s context that are unique
to that state and not necessarily applicable to other states:
§
§
The
formal jurisdiction of the previous Florida State Board of Education
encompassed the whole Florida education system, including the state
universities, community colleges and the K-12 system. Therefore, the concept of
a unified K-20 system was not new to Florida. The new structure gives that
concept greater focus and coherence.
§
§
The
driving force behind key elements of the reform, especially the abolition of
the Board of Regents and the creation of governing boards for each state
university, was the political controversies related to the Board of Regents’
approval – or disapproval – of new graduate and professional programs. These
issues were unrelated to the theme of creating a K-20 state structure.
State Structures for
Community and Technical Colleges
Six states made significant changes in state structure related to
community and technical colleges. These changes reflected the intersection of
two pressures: (1) the drive to create a capacity to improve the
competitiveness of the states’ workforce and (2) the frustration with
long-standing policy disputes about responsibility for states’ two-year
institutions.
§
§
Kentucky. As described above,
a major element of the 1997 reform legislation was the Kentucky Community and
Technical College System, which includes the community colleges formerly under
the University of Kentucky and the technical institutions formerly under the
state Cabinet for Workforce Development.
§
§
Louisiana. Legislation and a
subsequent constitutional amendment in 1998 created the Louisiana Community and
Technical College System, which includes the technical colleges formerly
controlled by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, and community
colleges governed by other public governing boards.
§
§
Indiana. Legislation in 1999
created the Community College of Indiana, a joint undertaking of Vincennes
University and the Indiana Technical Colleges (Ivy Tech).
§
§
West Virginia. As described
above, the comprehensive reform legislation in 2000 (and further refinements in
2001) advanced a decade-long process of creating a community and technical
college system by establishing a timeline for further separation of the
community and technical colleges from sponsoring four-year institutions.
§
§
Kansas. Legislation in 2000
reconstituted the Board of Regents and transferred to the new board the
responsibility for coordinating the locally governed community colleges.
§
§
Utah. Legislation in 2001 resolved a 30-year battle
over the governance of the state’s applied technology centers. The act
reconstituted the five applied technology centers and four regional programs
previously overseen by the State Board of Education as 10 regional applied
technology colleges within the new Utah College of Applied Technology.
Decentralization and
Deregulation
Several states enacted changes that decentralized governance and
deregulated the relationship between the state and postsecondary education. In
all these cases, the changes included provisions for increased public
accountability in exchange for decentralization and deregulation. For example:
§
§
As
described above, the major reform legislation in Florida in 2001 and West
Virginia in 2000 established governing boards for each of the states’ public
institutions (in Florida, each community college already had a governing
board). Each public institution in West Virginia must enter into a compact with
the Higher Education Policy Commission specifying performance goals to be
achieved over a multi-year period.
§
§
North
Dakota enacted legislation in 2000 significantly changing the state’s budgetary
process to emphasize state priorities and granting the institutions increased
flexibility on matters of fiscal and personnel policy.
§
§
Maine
enacted legislation in 2000 creating boards of visitors for each campus within
the University of Maine System.
§
§
Maryland
enacted changes in 1999 granting the institutions within the University System
of Maryland increased fiscal and procedural flexibility.
§
§
Colorado
enacted legislation in 2001 authorizing the Colorado School of Mines to
negotiate a performance agreement with the Colorado Commission on Higher
Education in exchange for increased independence from state oversight. Further
statutory changes in 2002 separated two Colorado public institutions –
Metropolitan State College of Education and Fort Lewis College – from their
systems and established separate governing boards for each institution.
§
§
Voters
in Hawaii approved a constitutional amendment in 2000 to allow the University
of Hawaii to formulate policy and exercise control over its internal operations
without prior legislative approval.
“Public Interest”
States vs. “Regulatory” States
Based upon the formal changes in state structure summarized above, as
well as other more subtle changes in the authority and influence of state
postsecondary education boards taking place, what is increasingly evident is
the distinction between two kinds of states:
§
§
States
in which the state board has made the transition from the regulatory
coordination of the past to a new role of policy leadership in the public
interest – a transition that is recognized and supported by both policy and
postsecondary education leaders.
§
§
States
in which the state board remains mired in the policies and regulatory practices
of the past, and there is little current demand from the state’s policy leaders
for an independent state agency focused on policy leadership in the public
interest. Consequently, these state boards are increasingly irrelevant to state
postsecondary education policy.
States that have successfully made the transition from regulatory
coordination to policy leadership in the public interest share certain
characteristics:
§
§
Policy
leaders (the governor and state legislative leaders) recognize the fundamental
distinction between the public interest in higher education and the interests
of the postsecondary education institutions and sectors. It is not that these
leaders see the public interest and institutional (provider) interests as
necessarily in conflict; in contrast, they recognize the need for an
independent state board focused on ensuring an alignment of the institutional interests with the public interest.
§
§
State
board members insist on a consistent board focus on the public interest, and
understand the distinction between the public interest and institutional
perspectives.
§
§
Institutional
leaders recognize the value of advocacy of the public interest in postsecondary
education as a complement to institutional advocacy. While not always
supporting the actions of the state board, these leaders recognize that
effective policy leadership in the public interest is in the long-term interest
of the institutions.
§
§
The
public agenda is focused on the link between postsecondary education and the
needs of the state’s population, and the state’s economy and quality of life.
The state boards most often lead in shaping these agendas, using information to
define the major demographic, education and economic challenges, and building
consensus among the state’s policy, business and education leaders around a set
of long-term goals.
§
§
Willingness
to reach beyond the state’s public institutions to draw on multiple and often
unconventional providers, as well as new modes of provision to ensure the
state’s postsecondary education needs are met.
§
§
Links
between financing policy and other market-oriented incentives and the public
agenda. State boards in these states play central roles in ensuring links
between the budget and the priorities defined in the public agenda.
§
§
Use of
information not only to shape the public agenda, but also to monitor and report
to the public on progress toward goals.
§
§
Consistent
attention to the public agenda over a multi-year period spanning two or more
election cycles. In each of these states, the board has played a role in
shaping an agenda with wide, bipartisan support thereby ensuring leaders from
both parties will sustain the focus on key priorities.
§
§
Partnerships
linking postsecondary education policy to K-12 through K-16/K-20 leadership
groups and networks, as well as ones linking postsecondary education and
economic development/workforce development.
In contrast, in those states that have failed to make the transition,
there is little current demand for postsecondary education policy in the public
interest. The state boards, whether coordinating or governing, remain bound by
statutory mandates and modes of operation defined as long as 25 years ago. In
addition:
§
§
Coordinating
boards in these states remain focused primarily on coordinating public institutions and core staff capacity is focused
on the regulatory tasks of program approval and review, budget analysis and on
administration of state and federal categorical grant programs. Little
attention is given to shaping and building consensus around a public agenda,
few connections are made between public priorities and budget/resource
allocation, and links with K-12 and workforce development are driven more by
externally funded initiatives than by the board’s leadership and priorities.
§
§
State-level
governing boards in these states remain focused primarily on internal system and institutional issues.
Institutional advocacy more than advocacy of the public interest is the highest
priority – especially when the board perceives a threat to institutional
interests. The boards responsible for systemwide collective bargaining find
themselves deeply involved in issues of human resource policy. The weight of
policies and practices built up over many years severely limits the capacity of
these boards to shift to the broader role of policy leadership in the public
interest.
As emphasized by the foregoing summary, the capacity of a state to make
the transition to a state-level structure focused on policy leadership in the
public interest depends fundamentally on the demand for such a transition by
the state’s leaders. A number of trends, however, are working against this
demand, including:
§
§
Growing perception that
postsecondary education is a private good. This perception is
reinforced by the increasing evidence of the individual benefits in terms of
increased lifetime earnings of those with postsecondary education coupled with
the increasingly independent, “private” behavior of public institutions. States
are moving away from their traditional roles as “owner-operators” of public
institutions and, for pragmatic as much as ideological reasons, are moving to
selective subsidy of either institutions or students. This selective subsidy is
linked to a narrower definition of how postsecondary education contributes to
the public good. Examples include subsidy of students for access or performance
or targeted subsidies related to workforce development, regional economic
development, and applied research and technology linked to the state’s economy.
These changes call for an entirely different approach to the state role
in postsecondary education than the one prevailing at the time when most state
coordinating and governing boards were established. Rather than overseeing a
set of public institutions that were perceived as critical to the public
interest, state boards are being called upon to oversee initiatives to ensure
an increasingly “private” system responds to a more sharply defined set of
public priorities.
§
§
Turnover in state government
leadership. State coordination as it evolved in the mid-1900s presumed a degree of
stability in the structure and leadership of state government. A small number
of key leaders in each state were responsible for shaping the structures
established in the 1960s and 1970s. The continuing success of the structures
they shaped depended, at least partially, on the ability of these people to
remind each generation of political leaders about why the structure was formed
and the basic values that should guide state-institutional relationships.
Today, few of the people who shaped the current structures are still in
positions of influence. The influx of many new players makes it difficult to
sustain mandates over time as new players ignore or seek to change their
predecessors’ actions.
The turnover in legislators, accelerated in many states by term limits,
has increased the focus on short-term issues and the influence of interest
groups with the political and financial clout to shape legislative agendas.
There are few demands for a long-term agenda spanning more than one election
cycle. In this environment, lobbying by individual institutions for support
from local legislators – always a reality of state postsecondary education
politics – can have far greater impact than an effort by a state board to
advance a long-term agenda for the public interest. In short, there is no audience
for the broader public agenda.
§
§
Development of alternative
sources of analysis. In the 1960s and 1970s when many of the state
postsecondary education agencies were first established, governors and
legislators turned to these entities as sources of independent, objective
analysis and advice. There was a clear understanding among policy leaders that
the unique culture and complexity of postsecondary education required a
capacity for analysis that was unobtainable through executive branch or legislative
staff.
Now, the situation has changed dramatically. Governors’ budget staffs
have specialized competence to review and analyze postsecondary education
issues and legislative staff competence also has increased. Legislative
turnover has strengthened the influence of legislative staff agencies as the
tenure of staff members is often far longer than the elected members. State
postsecondary education boards, especially boards that have not made the
transition to a public interest focus, are often perceived as “just another
interest group,” rather than as sources of objective analysis and
recommendations. Policy leaders are more inclined to turn to their own staffs
or to external consultants than to the state board.
§
§
Increasing challenge of
finding and retaining competent professional leadership for state coordination. A state
board’s strength depends, in part, on its ability to develop and sustain a
long-term agenda over several political cycles and to build a continuing
consensus around the agenda among the state’s leadership. The board’s ability
to conduct objective, independent policy analysis and policymaking is a key
tool in this process. The skills needed to lead a state board today from the
perspective of policy leadership in the
public interest are fundamentally different from those of the past when the
task was primary coordination of
institutions and regulatory oversight.
Yet the capacity of
state boards to attract and retain these leaders is increasingly problematic.
In the period from 1998 to mid-2002, the state higher education executive
officers changed in 29 states. While frequent turnover has always been a
characteristic of these difficult positions, the pace of change has clearly
increased. In some cases, this instability can be attributed to the increased
political involvement in the appointment process. In the 1990s, several states
modified their structures to give governors a more direct role in appointing
either the state board chairmen or the executive officers. The price for increased
responsiveness to public priorities in the short term, however, may be a high
degree of instability as political leaders and priorities change.
A more fundamental
problem is the limited opportunities for a new generation to develop skills
necessary for these positions. Experience at a junior level at a state board
still focused on the coordinating and governing tasks of an earlier time is
unlikely to develop the skills needed for leadership in the new environment. At
the same time, neither experience as an institutional president nor as a
political leader or staff member likely to provide the skills and substantive
background for policy leadership in the public interest.
§
§
Increasing difficulty in obtaining board members with sufficient
influence and background to lead from a public interest perspective. As emphasized
above, those states that have made the transition to policy leadership in the
public interest are characterized by strong policy leaders (governors and state
legislators) who are committed to change and by strong effective board members
who understand the difference between public interest advocacy as opposed to
institutional advocacy. Lacking a clear demand for the public interest
perspective, however, governors tend to make their strongest appointments to
the more prestigious institutional boards.
Conclusion
Viewed from a long-term perspective, changes in state postsecondary
education structures reflect changes in the prevailing views about changes in
the economy, the role of government and the unique political issues facing each
state. The most significant trend over the past 25 years has been a shift in
the basic assumptions about the state role in postsecondary education – from a
focus on oversight and control of public institutions to the use of financing
policy and incentives to meet the needs of the state’s population through
multiple institutions and modes of provision.
The extent to which states have made the transition from coordination of institutions to policy
leadership in the public interest varies significantly across the country.
Many states remain mired in the regulatory and governance modes of the past.
The extent to which states make the transition will depend greatly on the
demand from the public and policy leaders for such a change, and on the
development of a new generation of board members and professionals with the
knowledge, skills and commitment to lead in the new policy environment.
|
© Copyright 2002 by
the Education Commission of the States (ECS). All rights reserved. ECS is a
nonprofit, nationwide organization that helps state leaders shape education
policy. To request
permission to excerpt part of this ECS Policy Brief, either in print
or electronically, please fax a request to the attention of the ECS Communications
Department, 303.296.8332 or e-mail ecs@ecs.org.
|