Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, January 25, 1994 TAG: 9401250262
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JAMES R. MINGLE
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
The best evidence of this consensus is found in the commitment of the nation's governors to the education goals established in 1989 - and the persuasive arguments in such reports as "America's Choice: High Skills or Low Wages!"But these views have by no means been accepted by the broader public, or in many cases by the education community, or even by some of the governors who signed on to the education goals established in 1989 but who so far have given them only lip service.
I see a growing separation between the rhetoric of higher achievement and broader participation, and the reality of public support for higher-education institutions. Declines in financial support are understandable, given the current conditions of state government. But the questioning of the underlying value of higher education by political leaders and some elements of the general public is more troublesome.
Higher education faces three important and interrelated challenges in the decade ahead.
We must build public support for the overall goal of a more effective educational system focused on higher standards for teaching, learning and research.
We must improve the responsiveness of institutions to changing societal needs, especially the need for improving the skills, knowledge and civility of students.
We must find more productive and cost-effective ways of delivering educational services.
Businesses, schools, even governmental agencies, are rethinking how they are organized, and how they might change to respond to the external environment and improve their productivity. David Osborne and Ted Gaebler, in their book, "Reinventing Government," provide examples of how "results-oriented, customer-driven" governmental agencies can meet the needs of citizens and restore faith in these institutions.
The governance and accountability structures built around the higher-education enterprise also are being questioned. Governors and legislators wonder why they cannot get institutions to be more responsive to their concerns. They require more and more information about costs and performance, and develop more and more detailed rules about the operation of the system. This exchange often leaves both parties frustrated.
When frustration reaches the breaking point, legislators or governors propose that the governing or coordinating board be abolished or reorganized, with new and (they hope) more responsive appointees, and new legislative mandates. Much of this type of accountability focuses on the question of who shall lead the system, when in fact the important question is how to lead.
Higher education prides itself as the model of decentralized management, the model that American business is now adopting. But the management model pioneered by Edward Deming, and so successfully adopted by the Japanese, takes a team approach to improving processes at the bottom of the organization while a few strategic decision-makers set overall direction at the top. Typically in a higher-education institution, the producers of instruction, research and service operate in relative isolation from one another. They are not, with the exception of some research and service activities, part of an effective team.
Meanwhile, at the top, the leaders of the institutions - presidents, provosts, deans - are required to gain support and buy-in from a very long list of stakeholders within and outside the institution: faculty, students and groups representing various interests, such as alumni concerned about the athletic program.
The result of this isolation at the bottom and participatory management at the top can be gridlock, with high administrative costs and an undermining of leadership. The accountability devices used today - including rules, mandates, reporting requirements and funding systems - seldom promote quality, at least not a definition of quality that focuses on adding value and meeting customer expectation.
Information and data about the higher-education system pass back and forth between administrators and legislators. Producers (faculty) and customers (students and employers) are left out of the loop. In fact, many faculty see the value of administration primarily as protection from this outside intrusion.
This is not a system designed to promote change. Instead of a debate about accountability between administrators and public officials, we must directly engage students, faculty and the employers of our graduates. This can be done in a variety of ways.
Students need better information about the skills needed to succeed and which institutions can do the best job in helping them gain those skills. In some cases, we may need to give students more choice to purchase the services and programs they most highly value.
Employers should be stronger partners in the design of our curricula and the evaluation of our success. Another customer is the community at large. Does the community at large believe our graduates are contributing to the collective good?
Faculty need incentives to define their priorities in customer terms, rather than solely on their own terms. In many institutions, the academic- management system depends on cooperation from the tenured faculty. Changes in pay and promotion systems can reset the balance between professional autonomy and organizational objectives.
In short, we must put producers and customers in direct contact with each other, and get politicians, administrators and planners focused on broad public-policy issues and strategic direction.
Within administrative structures we should consider ways to make one part of the organization accountable as a customer to other parts. Richard Heydinger of the Alliance for Higher Education Strategies suggests an "unbundled" approach: Separate public corporations might be established for different functions of universities, such as facilities ownership and management; libraries and computing; and counseling, advising and performance assessment.
Each corporation would be responsible for contracting with colleges and universities to meet its needs and the conditions of its charter. The system would promote market mechanisms but would leave important policy decisions in the hands of state boards and legislators.
Peter Drucker has noted that the purpose of all organizations lies outside the organization. This is a powerful idea around which to rethink accountability in ways that can transform colleges and universities. Balancing professional autonomy with customer accountability will be a challenge. But the result will be the public support we need to reach a higher standard of excellencefor the 21st century.
\ James R. Mingle of Denver, executive director of the State Higher Education Executive Officers, wrote this for the Southern Regional Education Board.
by CNB