| State policy makers in the United States have become more involved in their relationship with public, higher education governing boards. The purpose of the study was to identify indicators that define effective governing boards to reflect this new circumstance.;A qualitative inquiry was employed using an elite interview method to collect the data. The study identified ten states in which to conduct interviews based on educational quality, geography, political balance, and population. Three "elite" individuals were interviewed in each state including the chair (or vice-chair) of a governing board, a key legislator, and a key staff person in the governor's office. A focus group of seven local experts was used to validate the interview results.;The study categorized indicators into two groups--functional indicators (what a board does) and structural indicators (what a board is). A frequency matrix was used to prioritize indicators into three levels of significance. Tier I indicators, or those found in all three groups and validated by the focus group, were suggested by the study as the most important indicators of an effective board. Tier I functional indicators were: a clear and focused mission, presidential-board communication, long-term strategic planning, resist micro-managing, and presidential selection. Tier I structural indicators were: diversity of perspective on board, importance of board chair, minimize partisanship in selection process, and diversity of characteristics. Finally, the study offered an example of a "21st Century board" drawing upon the most effective functional and structural indicators. |
