|
The differing histories of higher education systems, coupled with variations in social, political, and economic state contexts, has led to greater diversity in the structure of higher education systems (Johnstone, 1999). A review of state coordination of higher education indicates that the level of authority, whether exercised through a governing, coordinating, or advisory or planning agency model, constitutes restrictions and pressures on higher education systems. Given the varied histories of higher education systems and the particular state context leading to their formation, no single governance model is ideal for systems. McGuinness (2013) suggests that the interplay between states and higher education systems suggests that classifications of systems are static and hence, evolving as state priorities shift. Still, the collective impact of higher education systems to address state needs through an alignment of institutional goals and objectives can alter how we deliver education in the coming decades.
Zimpher (2013) defines systemness as “the ability of a system to coordinate the activities of its constituent campuses so that, on the whole, the system behaves in a way that is more powerful and impactful than what can be achieved by individual campuses acting alone” (p. 27). Despite advantages of articulation and transfer mechanisms, shared services that reduce costs and effectively channel more resources, as well as system
alignment with state priorities, the collective impact of higher education systems is fraught with criticism. In particular, criticism of higher education systems centers on efficiency and bureaucratization of systems, reduced institutional autonomy, tensions between the system and respective campuses in multicampus systems, and competition among campuses within a multicampus system.
The tensions paramount in multicampus systems, as well as competition among campuses within a system stems from the different functions of the system and campuses. King (2013) outlines principles for the division of administrative governance functions within multicampus higher education systems. Governance of higher education systems includes two tiers – one tier comprised of system administration and one tier comprised of campus administration. King highlights that because the system administration works with the state board, it is more influenced by, and subject to, state politics. As Marcus (1997), McLendon and Ness (2009), and Tandberg (2013) reveal, politics is central to state coordination of higher education. Because the system is a buffer between the campuses and the state board, the system shields the campuses from political influence.
Though, because campuses are not aware of this buffer, they blame the system for the result of politics and governmental decisions, resulting in mistrust between the system administration and campuses.
Moreover, while pressures on the system are generally political and associated with a public agenda, pressures on the campuses are primarily related to personnel or academics. According to King (2013), the differences between the functions of the system and campus tiers of governance result in differing priorities and approaches to issues. King suggests the governance principle of subsidiarity is important to effectively
distribute functions between the system and campuses. The principle of subsidiarity posits that administrative functions should be handled and decisions made by the lowest or least centralized authority: “the best level of governance for decisions to be made is where there is the most direct information about the body or bodies affected, with sufficient awareness of the various relevant policies and organizational factors (p. 4).
Thus, subsidiarity results in more informed decision making and less remoteness of governance.
Johnstone (1999) further discusses degrees of institutional or campus autonomy from the state board and system administration. Using principles he set forth in previous publications as president of the National Association of System Heads, decisions of multicampus systems include: (a) determining, reinforcing, or changing the mission of the system and campuses; (b) hiring, evaluating, and firing the system chief executive officer and campus chief executive officer; (c) advocating system priorities to the state;
advocating to the campuses the priorities of the state; (e) allocating resources and missions to the campuses; (f) serving as a mediator between the state and campuses; (g) mediating disputes over missions and programs of the campuses; (h) fostering cooperation and collaboration to eliminate expenses and ensure student access and success; and, (i) evaluating programs and services to maintain accountability.
Despite variations in organizational structure across higher education systems, systems are designed to align resources and advance a singular mission for constituent campuses so that collectively, the system is more powerful than the individual campuses. Still, systems are faced with challenges associated with differing functions between the
system and campuses that causes tension. These differing functions lead to distinct sources of pressure on the system and colleges.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
