This study describes the case of private higher education in Ohio between 1980 and 2006 using Zumeta\u27s (1996) model of state policy and private higher education. More specifically, this study used case study methodology and multiple sources to demonstrate the usefulness of Zumeta\u27s model and illustrate its limitations. Ohio served as the subject state and data for 67 private, 4-year, degree-granting, Higher Learning Commission-accredited institutions were collected. Data sources for this study included the National Center for Education Statistics Integrated Postsecondary Data System as well as database infonnation and documents from various state agencies in Ohio, including the Ohio Board of Regents.
The findings of this study indicated that the general state context for higher education in Ohio during the study time period was shaped by deteriorating economic factors, stagnating population growth coupled with a rapidly aging society, fluctuating state income and increasing expenditures in areas such as corrections, transportation and social services. However, private higher education experienced consistent enrollment growth, an increase in the number of institutions, widening involvement in state-wide planning for higher education, and greater fiscal support from the state in a variety of fonns such as the Ohio Choice Grant. This study also demonstrated that private higher education in Ohio benefited because of its inclusion in state-wide planning and the state\u27s decision to grant state aid directly to students.
Taken together, this study supported Zumeta\u27s (1996) classification of Ohio as having a hybrid market-competitive/central-planning policy posture toward private higher education. Furthermore, this study demonstrated that Zumeta\u27 s model is a useful tool for both policy makers and researchers for understanding a state\u27s relationship to its private higher education sector. However, this study also demonstrated that Zumeta\u27s model is less useful when applied over an extended time period. Additionally, this study identifies a further limitation of Zumeta\u27s model resulting from his failure to define \u22state mandate\u22 and the \u22level of state mandates\u22 that allows for inconsistent analysis of this component