University of Colorado - Research Paper Example

? of Colorado Case Study Analysis I. Introduction and Purpose The of Colorado, Boulder is the hub of dynamic population of scholars as well as learners established in one of the most extravagant campuses of the United States (US). Among the 34 US public institutions falling within the jurisdiction of the Association of American Universities (AAA), the only university in the Rocky Mountain region exposits a prestigious and proud tradition of unparalleled academic excellence. The university has expanded in size as well as in quality with its establishment in the year 1877 with the attraction of sophisticated faculty, workaholic staffs and great students engaged in different programs in science, engineering, business, law, arts, humanities, education, music and many other multifaceted curriculums. The notion of the university is the targeted elevation of academic standards and reaching the heights of one of the comprehensive public universities of the modern world and also striving for serving the people of Colorado with their engagement with the world of excellence delivered through its teaching, research creative work and continual flow of services (About CU-Boulder, n.d.). The university with its prime agenda on the development of the academic scenario has implemented several strategy implications among which the voucher system is one of the noteworthy issues. In 2004, the university passed a legislation which introduced the nation’s first voucher-based approach for the purpose of financing the higher education. It was introduced in the name of College Opportunity Fund (COF). The strategy formulation of the policy and the implications of the same came through the hands of the educational leaders which altered the traditional approach of subsidizing the public higher education scenario through the direct expropriation with a combination of vouchers and “procurement contracts” for educational services. The policy makers believed that the introduction of the voucher system will lead to the boosting up of the access of students from the minority sections of the society including the poor and the male students and thus making the investment of state more transparent and will provide challenges to the students for flourishing academically and also a drive to make the educational institutions become more entrepreneurial in nature and throttle those institutions into a market driven paradigm (Prescott, 2010). The purpose of the paper is to analyze the role of several players or agents in the effective management of the voucher system which includes the macroeconomic factors like political system, structural system, human resource management and on the microeconomic factors including the Planning, organization, staffing policies, focus and the control mechanism in order to develop an insight which will provide us with the conclusion that to what extent this system has been successful in the enriching the educational set up and the enrolment of the students from the lower stratum of the society. Critical analysis will be exercised discussing the strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats encountered by the organization through the introduction of the system. Finally recommendations will be discussed with new improved strategies for attaining more development in the academic platform and also of restructuring strategies if necessary. The paper will highlight on the development process of the Colorado College Opportunity Fund (COF) to evaluating its performance and suggesting recommendations for the future optimistic performance of the plan. II. Investigative Analysis The system of educational voucher system is generally an education finance system where the students are provided with tuition certificates that can be used for attaining the private or the public schools. There are varied forms of vouchers that can be paid by the government or other private corporation funds. Each of the funds can be used for addressing the needs of varied students and understanding their distinct priorities. The vouchers are primarily meant for the low income students and to the students failing in the schools. The publicly funded voucher systems usually utilize funds given directly to the public schools and then allocated to the parents for the decision on which they will be spent on the child’s future .The publicly funded education vouchers help the families in chalking out private decisions regarding the way in which the tax-payer money should be spent. A voucher program generates an educational market where the institutions must compete for the students. The supporter of the voucher system claim of the market benefits which includes choice, innovation and improvement in education. Those who are in opposition to this system propose that it will generate greater degrees of inequality and the loss of civic preparation (Education Vouchers, n.d.). Similarly, the policy makers of the Colorado Opportunity Fund (COF) who at that time were in control of the state government estimated that the vouchers would likely boost the number of access to the college especially among the poor minority and the male students. The analysis will be based on the lines of four frame models structured by Bolman and Deal. The model usually assumes the various schools or the organizational thoughts and generally categories the perspectives into four frames in order to characterize various points. The frames are sought to be the windows on the world which help in the filtering out of some things while allowing other elements to pass through it in an easy fashion. The frames also help in to order the world and to make certain decisions about the actions that have to be taken. In the organizations every managers possess a personal frame or image of the organization which directs in the gathering of the information, making judgment as well as the execution of the jobs. The proper understanding of the organizations are very much complex when the managers are guided by single and narrow perspectives. The managers in all the organizations can enhance their effectiveness as well as their freedom through the proper use of various vantage points. Getting locked into single and narrow perspectives is likely to generate error and self imprisonment. The managers who understand their own frame are better equipped in the understanding and the management of the complexities of the everyday world of organizations. The four frames are given in the representation below along with their functionalities: FRAMES Structural Frame – emphasizes on the importance of the formal roles and relationships. Structures which are commonly depicted in the organization charts are generally created to fit an environment of the organization and technology. The organizations take part in the allocation of the responsibilities to the participants in creating the rules, policies and management hierarchies for the coordination of diverse activities. Problem generates when the structure does not fit into the situation. At that juncture, reorganization intervenes in neutralizing the mismatch situation Human Resource Frame – Organizations are mainly inhibited by people. The individuals posses needs, feelings and prejudices and they possess skills and limitations. People have the capability of learning and sometimes pose greater capacity in defending the old attitudes and beliefs. From the angle of human resource, the prime driver for the differences is in tailoring the organizations to people and also find an organizational form which will enable the people to get the job done while feeling good about the work they are doing. Political Frame – This frame sees the organizations as platforms where the power and influence are constantly affecting the expected because of the variations in needs, perspectives and life styles among the different individual groups. The bargaining, coercion and compromise are the part of everyday organizational life. Symbolic Frame – The organizations are held together with the help of shared values and cultures rather than goals and policies. Organizations are like drama which engages actors inside and the audience forms the impression based on their actions. Problem and ambiguities arise when the players are not good in their execution. Intervention of the managers is an absolute necessity for the recovery mechanism. Table 1. (Noolan, n.d., pp. 10-11) Planning of the College Opportunity Fund (COF) Colorado’s College Opportunity Fund (COF), exacted in 2004. The public institutions of the Colorado forecasted certain revenue declines due to one of the state’s constitutional revenue provisions known as the Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR). The requirement of TABOR was that it required increase in budgets from the previous year’s budget to be less than or equal to the inflation rate along with the population growth rate. Dynamically, the state budget went down as compared to the personal income. Additionally, the voters adapted an amendment for the legislature in spending a fixed state budget percentage on K-12 education. TABOR made the tax increase unpleasant and the amendment dictated K-12 education spending and also federal matching grants in order to prevent cuts in several discretionary programs. The combination led the legislature in the engagement of a variety of cost-shifting behaviors for the balancing of the budget. The leaders and the allies of the Colorado University devised a platform in May, 2004 which would direct in the provision for the state public institutions with a share of state funding without increasing the limitations of TABOR. They figured out that if a program receives less than 10 percent of its revenues from state government then certain funds could be exempted from TABOR. With this intention they also chalked out that the program could be converted into a public enterprise for which the state fund will not be counted against the TABOR limit. The program College Opportunity Fund (COF) thus came into the forefront which aimed at the removal of the tuition fees as a state budget line item destined for public colleges. The state instead will deliver the tuition vouchers directly to the students. As the tuition constituted only a part of the state aid to the universities the state also led to the provision of a fee-for-service” fund directed to institutions (Shober, 2012, pp. 20-21). Organizing behavior The Act of Colorado State Legislature in May 2004 gave rise to a new way for the state for the provision of the state tax money support for the higher education at the higher levels of educational standards. The state will be no longer appropriating amounts to the institutions for undergraduate education but it will be providing direct funding to the under graduate students by the means of COF. The program was also known as vouchers or the stipends and it is neither a loan nor a financial grant (COF project, n.d.). The state of Colorado expropriates a lump sum amount of the state funding to the Commission of Colorado Higher Education (CCHE) who in turn provides state wide funding recommendations of the higher education to the governor and the legislature on the basis of State funded per student full time equivalents (SFTE) from the governing bodies. Afterwards, the CCHE is engaged in the task of allocation of higher education governing boards which is based upon the formula developed by the CCHE and the boards (Ash, 2011, p. 38). Staffing The implementation procedure of the stipend system required a huge amount of investment for the execution of the tasks ranging from the updates to the information ‘processing applications at all the institutions for tracking down the students’ use of the stipends and the training of the staffs. The staffing system were organized in such a way where there would perfect coordination between College Opportunity Fund process and HB1023 compliance. The set up schedules were responsible for the tracking down of the resolving and programming issues of the students. Along with that the tasks include working with the state agencies for the ensuring the college compliances and also making sure of the students who are not in the compliance of using a variety of methods. The other major responsibilities include maintenance of the records of the students related to admission, high school relations, coordination with the Colorado Department of Higher Education staff, working with the student life and Marketing for the development of training and educational materials for assisting students with the registration procedure, processing and compliance of the COF and so on (Colorado Council, Resources, n.d.). Direct focus The COF program sets a platform for the provision of the stipend directed towards the new and continuing in state students entering the college of Colorado. The urge for up lifting the lower stratum of the society can be held the primary reason for the rigid establishment of the program. A point discussed above, it may be also attributed to the movement of more cost effective regime by the university management. For the receipt of the stipend, the students should apply for an also authorize the use of the stipend at their respective institution. The stipend acts as a substitute to the traditional direct legislative appropriations to the state’s colleges and universities. Also without the stipend a student is also responsible for the full amount of tuition which equalizes the in state tuition long with the stipend amount. The primal focus of the COF program lies in spreading the propaganda that the state funds actually helps in the financing of the student’s college education and also points to the improvement in the access with special prominence on the higher education linkages and also directs towards the strengthening of the accountability (COF overview, n.d.). Results From the outset of the COF plan the plan has been subjected to criticisms in the literature of education which was predominantly revealed in the report of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). Overall, the enrollment patterns of the Colorado University can be viewed as in the sharp contrast to the national trends of enrolment. With the introduction of the voucher system, the percentage of enrolment fell by 2.9 in the state public institutions. The decline enhanced while the national under graduate enrolment started to climb up the ladder at a time when the population of the Colorado was increasing (Prescott, 2012). It can be inferred that the access to higher education by the increase in the enrolment declined specially among the in state students as well as underrepresented populations. It was also claimed that the vouchers also failed in the process of creation of incentives for the higher education institutions to achieve a path of innovative and educational services (Poulson, 2010, p.1). Fig. 1 Cumulative Percent Change in Undergraduate Enrollment, 2003–2007 (Prescott, 2012) The above diagram depicts the comparative static analysis of the under graduate enrolment of the US as a whole and the Colorado employment. The Colorado employment showing a decline coupled with a rise in the span of 2006-2007, but the overall US employment showed a continuous increase. Reasons for decline The student services staff at the institutions identified with issues which may be regarded as the causes for the decline. Along with that inconsistent information regarding the size of the voucher whose value was designated at an amount of $4,400 at the initiation of the policy dropped down to around $2,400 by the time of implementation. Real problems ignited when the students found out that the policy instead of reducing their out of pocket expense the new system required them instead of paying the amount they paid before the introduction of the stipend. The stipends were making direct substitution of the direct appropriations and the designers of the COF anticipated that the institutions would elevate their in state tuition prices by an amount equal to the stipend. The COF also generated another pricing level which was the student share of tuition which fuelled more confusion. In this milieu of uncertainty, the staff found themselves in spending of a considerable amount of time in the explanation of the process by which the COF worked. One of the confusion created was regarding the credibility disaster of the institutions (Prescott, 2012). III. SWOT analysis The SWOT analysis of the policy of the college opportunity fund will be analyzed and based on that optimal strategies will be formulated for the future functioning of the program. SWOT stands for S-Strength, W- Weaknesses, O- Opportunities, T-Threat. Strength of COF The COF created a voucher program which has shifted the funding for the public higher education starting from the formula funding to the stipend paid to the colleges on the basis of individual student enrolment. The COF provides a stipend for the new and continuing in state students gaining admission in the Colorado University. It will develop a market oriented incentives which will guide institutional behaviors towards the regime of greater entrepreneurship as well as improved access coupled with efficiency achievement. Again the COF legislation will force the institutions in multiplying the efforts in the dimensions of recruitment and retention (An Evaluation of Colorado’s College Opportunity Fund and Related Policies, 2005, p.5). Weaknesses of COF The COF was introduced with the policy of better access of the students in the college. Different measures provided by the data of NCHEMS (National Center for Higher Education Management Systems) shows that Colorado ranks lower than the other states in the enrolment pattern of different age groups. It can be inferred that although the program was adapted for enhancing the enrolment figures it actually under performed in the university itself where it has been employed. This can be inferred from the two tables below. Percent of 18-24 year olds enrolled in College, 2007 Percentage enrolled California 35.4 Colorado 34.6 US 33.9 Oregon 32.5 Idaho 31.0 Washington 29.2 Nevada 26.7 Table 2. (Poulson, 2010, p.2) Six Year Graduation Rates for bachelors Students, 2007 Graduation rates (percent) Washington 63.2 California 62.0 Oregon 56.6 US 56.1 Colorado 52.8 Idaho 42.9 Nevada 38.1 Table 3. (Poulson, 2010, p.2) Opportunities In the year 2004, Colorado Commission on Higher Education rejected the application of the Colorado Christian University (CCU) for the participation in the COF plan on the grounds that it was a pervasively sectarian institution and therefore ineligible under state law. But a recent Supreme Court decision in the favor of CCU will provide the opportunities for the other private institutions in Colorado for the participation in the COF plan (Poulson, 2010, p.7). Threats The constraints posed by TABOR had become an impending threat to the higher education enterprise of the state. Elizabeth Holfman the president of the University of Colorado in 2004 stated that, “we are facing downfall of public higher education in Colorado” (Prescott, 2012). Success in legislation Yet the policy did become a success in the legislature because of the coalition which comprised of a cluster of stakeholders with varied ideological perspective, range of motivations and various competing interests (Prescott, 2012). IV. Alternative The Colorado University could concentrate on the coordination with the legislators in shaping the public college market and lead to the shift of more undergraduates to programs that concentrate more rigorously on the needs of the students whether they are technical, community or public bachelor’s college. The transformation would be a return to an older college market system where the state should fund the research institutes and train the teachers. The strategies should be encircled at the notion of building a comprehensive graduate research institute with selected admission procedure. In the presence of COF several students are exploiting the money and are spending in their own luxurious consumption which can be also attributed to the fall of the participation rate in the colleges (Shober, 2012, p. 5). V. Recommendations Periodical investigations of the predetermined state goals should be monitored with utmost accuracy with the change in time. The failure in including any component in the fee- for- service would signal in the missing of significant opportunities for the performance of the state. Prior consultations should be done for the consideration of the specific state needs which should be cast in the expected outcomes rather in efforts. Redistribution of the fee-for-service should be made transparent. Notion of equality should be maintained along all the institutions. If the institutions are presided by the notion of equality there will be no incentive for any changing behavior for meeting the need of the state. Fee-for-service should be greatly changed. VI. Conclusion The University of Colorado introduced the college opportunity fund with the motive of improved access of the students in the higher educational platform. The introduction of the voucher system has not been pushing its ultimate limits in achieving the goals of moving into the paradigm of improved access. Instead creation of extra burden has been generated for the state institutions and made the finance policy of the higher education in troubled waters. It has been also seen that exploitation has been a cause as well as efficient outcomes has been encountered in other states. The proponents of the COF policy believed that the policy would be moving the institutions of the state towards more strong market forces and generate more efficiency. But resorting to the fee-for-service funding as a balancing mechanism undermined the actual outcome or in other words was neutralized. More focus on the needs of the students will have to be made with limited admission and the fee-for –service policy will have to be changed manifold. These constraints need to be broken down and then only Colorado can expect of reaping more incentives and optimistic results. REFERENCES About CU-Boulder, (n.d.), retrieved on July 23, 2012 from: http://www.colorado.edu/about Ash, K, K. (2011), State funding and enrollment analysis of the Colorado Community College System: Prior to and after the implementation of the Colorado College opportunity Fund (COF), retrieved on July 25, 2012 from: http://digitool.library.colostate.edu///exlibris/dtl/d3_1/apache_media/L2V4bGlicmlzL2R0bC9kM18xL2FwYWNoZV9tZWRpYS8xMTk2Nzc=.pdf COF overview, (n.d.), retrieved on July 25, 2012 from: http://highered.colorado.gov/Finance/COF/ Colorado Council, Resources, (2012), retrieved on July 25, 2012 from: http://www.coloradocouncil.org/resources/jobs.php COF project, (2011), retrieved on July 25, 2012 from: https://www.cu.edu/ums/cof/faq.html Education Vouchers, (n.d.), retrieved on July 23, 2012 from: http://www.ncspe.org/publications_files/Education%20Vouchers-FAQ.pdf Noolan, A, C, (n.d.), DIAGNOSTIC MODELS: AN INTRODUCTION, retrieved on July 25, 2012 from: http://donblake.com/module3/DiagnosticModels.pdf Poulson, B. W. (2010), Colorado’s College Opportunity Fund: A critical appraisal, retrieved on July 25, 2012 from: http://tax.i2i.org/files/2010/12/IP_8_2010_a.pdf Prescott, B. T. (2010), Is Colorado's Voucher System Worth Vouching For?, retrieved on July 23, 2012 from: http://www.changemag.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/July-August%202010/Colorado-voucher-full.html Shober, A. F (2012), Public Schools, Private Agendas: The Future of Large, State-Assisted Research Universities, retrieved on July 25, 2012 from: http://wiscape.wisc.edu/uploads/media/013d02ce-5de3-4657-89d1-2f313d76b491.pdf Read More