Management of Higher Educational Institutions - Term Paper Example

? Management of Higher Educational s affiliation Management of Higher Educational s I. IntroductionHigher educational institutions are significant institutions in the society. Their significance and importance could not be replaced by any other institution. For this reason, many changes have been effected to make the institution more society viable (Salman & Mayle, 2009). Additionally, these changes are implemented to make the society benefit from the services offered in these institutions. In an argument by Pedler (2010) higher educational institutions requires numerous changes in their systems to handle and contain the increasing society demand. Demands from the society surpass the educational requirements. The society relies on the services on higher educational institutions to develop future generations of responsible persons. Minus the services of higher educational institutions, the society would be filled with persons with low professional and social portfolios (Brown & Katz, 2009). For this reason, governments have put in place strategies that make the access of the services of higher education much easier. Over the years, the ease of access of higher educational have been made easier. These can be analyzed in terms of the number of higher educational institutions created and the reduced prices of servicing the institutions for educational purposes. In the United Kingdom, the situation is the same. The number of educational institutions in the U.K has increased significantly to cater for the rising demand (Howell, 2012). Additionally, the institutions have made it easier for the public to access the services. Government and educational bodies have also played a major role in creating a more accessible higher education sector. There have been measures in the United Kingdom that have ensured that higher educational institutions quote reasonable prices as fees (Andy, Jon & Robert, 2010). II. Thesis This paper will analyze the major changes, opportunities and difficulties faced by higher education institutions. The paper will also highlight major barriers that limit change in these institutions. Additionally, the paper will provide change management tips that should be embraced by university leaders in order to ensure smooth transitions of changes. For this paper the main focus will be made in regards to the changes experienced by the Higher education Institutions in the United Kingdom. The major change in the U.K. is the mandatory requirement by the institutions to reduce their charges on the tuition fees. III. The case From September, 2012 universities across the United Kingdom are allowed to raise their tuition fees up to ?9,000 annually. This change was protested by many educational bodies and stakeholder but at the gain of higher educational institutions. However, after the creation of these changes challenges started to arise on how this change could be managed. This is because students would aim to go to schools with the cheapest offering. In an argument by Levin (2012) the high demand on education limits the way in which institutions price their tuition fees. The author further points out that tuition fees in the United Kingdom would be fluctuated differently in each institution in order to maintain the competitiveness in the market (Levin, 2012). Additionally, due to the high fees the government will offer bursaries to students. For this reason, institution with the lowest fee quoted will be required to expand to cater for students who could not afford expensive institution. Institutions would also be required to quote cheaper tuition fees in order to capture the attention of the government in enabling them to acquire students benefiting from bursaries. Many institutions are now aiming at expanding their institutions by putting place mechanisms that would please both the government and the student population. However, other institution in the United Kingdom remain reluctant to quote cheaper tuition fees arguing that quality offered requires more funds when compared to other institutions. IV. Changes, opportunities and difficulties a. Changes The main change experienced by higher education institution in the United Kingdom is the fact that institutions have been provided a choice between enrolling more students and taking advantage of the raised maximum tuition fee range. Additionally, the change is also experienced as institutions have been required to increase their sponsoring funds in order to enable students afford their services. In an argument by Andy, Jon & Robert (2010) institutions lacking sponsoring systems would be required to create them in order to improve their chances of getting students t enroll. Institutions are also faced with a new challenge of reviewing their tuition fees. However, this is dictated by the claim that the government would force institutions charging more that ?7,500 to cut on their enrolment. Simkovic (2011) points out that the fact that the government increased the maximum tuition fee range; it provided ultimatums to institution in order to limit the way in which institutions would increase their tuition fee charge. b. Opportunities The decision by the government to raise the maximum fee range in the United Kingdom provided an opportunity to institution to raise their fees. High education institutions in the United Kingdom differ in the quality of services they offer to students. For this reason, there is a need to have a difference in the price range provided in each institution. The new changes have made it easier for institution to increase their tuition fees and still maintain their competitiveness in the market (Cottrell, 2010). Additionally, an opportunity is presented for institutions to come up with strategies that would enable them to acquire a greater competitive advantage. For instance, Peddler (2008) points out that institution offering sponsorships and bursaries will be opted by a majority of students. Additionally, some institutions have held meeting with the government to enable them get more students at the return of reducing the quoted tuition fees. Educational institutions would be likely to take advantage of the fact that the fee limit does not provide specific provisions of either international or local students. An institution may analyze their student population and then generate data that show their largest student population. Depending on the largest student population, an institution may be required to raise fees on either its local or international students (Levin, 2012). For instance, if an institution has a low population of international students it may raise the international students tuition fees wit less challenged expected in terms of losing on its student population. c. Difficulties In terms of difficulties, institution with fewer funds will have significant problem in trying to implement these changes. Levin (2012) argues some institutions are greatly dependent on the high student population. After increasing their tuition fees the number of students would decrease significantly. The situation is made worse by the fact that these institutions are not wealthy enough to support bursaries and sponsorship options for their students. Such institutions maybe required to retain a flat tuition fee rate. This would generate loss since the cost of education is increasing in the United Kingdom and institutions may be required to raise their fees and at the same time expand the quantity of their student population. In an argument by Howell (2012) the new changes in tuition fees may limit the enrollment of international students. The argument is supported by Levin (2012) who points out that, higher education institutions in the United Kingdom are home to many international students who find their fees pocket friendly. The author further points out that the new changes in the United Kingdom may reduce the number of international students enrolling in the higher educational institutions in the U.K. This may be a difficulty mostly in institutions which have a high number of international students. V. Barriers to change With the increasing level in the quality education provided by higher education institution in the U.K it is mandatory requirement that tuition fees be raised. This change is positive change in the educational system in the nation (Andy, Jon & Robert, 2010). However, the transition to implement this change has faced numerous setbacks as stakeholders are reluctant to embrace the change. For instance, after the announcement on the decision to increase tuition fees to a maximum of ?9,000 per year here were protect challenging this decision. This was the start of major setbacks on implementing the change. Higher education institution however, welcomed the change as they set to increase their annual fees. However, there was a barrier created to limit the level at which institutions would raise their fees. The government also decided to provide bursary to students who would later pay back the loaned amount. However, Simkovic (2011) argues that this was made in line with terms and conditions that required institutions not to exceed their fee extension past ?7,500 to face being cut off. This is great hindrance to change. The government could have provided bursary options to students who could then attend institutions of their choice since they will be required to pay back the loaned amount. Middlehurst (2004) argues that institutions may also be reluctant to embrace the new recommendations. This can be attributed to the fact that the new change may be exposed an institution to risks. For instance, an institution may record few enrolments if they raise the tuition fees. Additionally, it may be more risky if the institution may not be able to create sponsorship option in their systems. With a less student population an institution may have limited access to funds that would sustain their activities and provisions in the curriculum (Ashley, 2006). Altbach (2005) argues that the interference of the government in the institutions’ system may also be a barrier to change. After issuance of bursaries to students, the government has required for higher education institution to follow up on a student after their graduation and provide information on their job description and the salary the student gets. According to Levin (2012) this may limit the extent at which institutions may be willing to collaborate with the government to provide affordable education services to institutions. When dealing with the issue of government interference may be dealt with by negotiation and dialogue. In an argument by Spillane (2004) leaders are required to offer dialogue options as a way of generating solutions. In this case, the government may dictate the contents of the new changes in the educational system. However, through dialogue higher education institutions may be able to develop a working formulae that would be make their position comfortable after implementing new changes (Montanna & Bruce, 2008). For instance, higher educational institution met with government official to request for the expansion of their educational institution and in turn quote low prices in the annual fees. VI. Managing change in the higher educational sector Considering the fact that change is inevitable in this particular sector, Howell (2012) argues that leaders in the sector should consider putting in place mechanism that would ensure smooth transitions through the changes (Miner, 2005). As a first recommendation, leaders in the sector should recognize the rise in the value of education and at the same time the rise on its demand. This would enable them to make the sector more accommodating and more society significant. Leaders should consider taking part in negotiation and dialogue with the involved stakeholders (Worthington & Britton, 2009). In this particular case, higher educational leaders in the United Kingdom should consider these recommendations to make their position comfortable. The change in the fee quotation is a sensitive issue in the sector and leaders in the sector should consider bother their condition and the condition of the students (O’Connor, 2005). Institution should consider rising their annual fees in a reasonable manner. This would ensure the government would consider expansion and at the same time record high enrolment rates. In case of any misunderstanding, leaders in the sector should negotiate the requirements of the new change by both the governments and the parents. This would make the transition to the new change more comfortable. Sporn (2003) argues that agreement by all involved parties prior to change is a basic requirement in terms of managing change. Managing change in the higher educational sector should be done with the aim to maintain a normal handling of the sector. For instance, the sector should manage changes without minimizing the number of students accessing the sector for educational services. Additionally, an educational institution should not operate on a low budget, to ensure this a manger should make sure the number of students in an institution are sustainable. The sustainability of the sector makes the sector more significant and student friendly (Lussier & Achua, 2010). Another recommendation in managing change in the sector would be ensuring that the provisions by the government are strictly adhered to. This would limit any form of confrontation with the government legal battles (Beerd, 2009). References Altbach, G.P. 2005. "Patterns in Higher Education Development. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Andy, A., Jon, T. & Robert, W. 2010. "Is higher education in the UK becoming more competitive?” International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23 (6) 578 – 588. Ashley, R. 2006. Improving your Employability. London: Teach Yourself. Beerd, A.C. 2009. Leadership and Change Management. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Brown, T. & Katz, B. 2009. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. New York: Harper Business. Cottrell, S. 2010. Skills for Success: The Personal Development Planning Handbook. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Howell, P. 2012. Snapshots of Great Leadership. London: Taylor and Francis. Levin, G. 2012. "Embrace and Exploit Change as a Program Manager: Guidelines for Success". London: Project Management Institute. Lussier, R.N., & Achua, C.F. 2010. Leadership, Theory, Application, & Skill Development. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Middlehurst, R. 2004. “Changing Internal Governance: A Discussion of Leadership Roles and Management Structures in UK Universities.” Higher Education Quarterly, 58 (4) 258-279. Miner, J. B. 2005. Organizational Behavior: Behavior 1: Essential Theories of Motivation and Leadership. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe. Montana, Patrick J. & Bruce H. 2008. Management. New York: Barron's Educational Series, Inc. O’Connor, A. 2005. Choice and Change: The Psychology of Personal Growth. Upper Saddle River: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Pedler, M. 2008. Action Learning for Managers. London: Gower. Pedler, M. 2010. A Manager's Guide to Leadership: An Action Learning Approach. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. Salman, D.P. & Mayle, D. 2009. Change Management. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. Simkovic, M. 2011. Risk-Based Student Loans. Washington and Lee Law Review, 70 (1) 527. Spillane, J. 2004. "Towards a theory of leadership practice". Journal of Curriculum Studies 36 (1): 3–34. Sporn, B. 2003. "Convergence of Divergence in International Higher Education Policy: Lessons from Europe." Publications from the Forum for the Future of Higher Education. Worthington, I. & Britton, C. 2009. The Business Environment . New York: FT Prentice Hall. Read More