State Coordinating Boards and accountability measures - Essay Example

Running Head: COORDINATING BOARDS And ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES COORDINATING BOARDS And ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES Name : HighEd 610 Abstract This paper discusses the problem of accountability of School Coordinating Boards and examines the conflicts that arises between the issues of autonomy and accountability. It also discusses the recent decentralization measures that have been undertaken by the Government and the need to redefine the role of the State Coordination Boards so that it can reflect accountability and autonomy in equal measure. State Coordinating Boards and Accountability Measures Introduction: Increasing globalization and the advent of technology have placed new demands upon higher education. For most Western democracies, higher education has become the critical link to future economic success[Alexander, 2000, p 413]. In order to enhance competitiveness in the international marketplace, Governments are increasingly focusing on the need to improve the quality of human capital that is the product of higher educational institutions. Therefore, there is an accountability that is being demanded of these organizations, through the use of external evaluation and performance measures to assess the quality of the education that is being imparted and the effectiveness of policy outcomes. These moves are posing a threat to academic freedom, which gives an individual the right to “study and teach whatever he or she wants to without threat of sanction” [Tierney, 1998, pp 41], even if this course of study may be such that it does not contribute to maximizing economic returns for the public dollars that have been funneled into education. Educational institutions have traditionally functioned with autonomy because that makes them more “flexible and responsive, given their relative freedom from command and control by centralized Government…..[The result] is higher levels of organizational innovation and more variety within national systems of higher education” [Dee, Henkin and Chen, 2000, p 204]. However, increasing economic pressures leading to the corporatization of higher education are impinging upon the autonomy of educational institutions [Bok, 2003] and pose a serious threat to the achievement of true academic goals [Kirp, 2003]. The conflict between maintaining academic autonomy while simultaneously persevering policy accountability is an ongoing one, in which State Coordinating Boards are faced with the greatest difficulties in defining their role and achieving the right balance between autonomy and accountability. Function of State Boards: The State Boards function as the agency that coordinates the interaction between two entities with differing aims – the Government, which aims to maximize its returns on public education funding through greater economic productivity and the Universities and colleges, that seek to propagate the cause of learning. The State Coordinating Board is expected to retain a degree of individuality in promoting academic values and serve institutional interests in buffering them from political activity, yet it is also expected to guide institutions according to policies laid down by policy makers. However, its function as an intermediary between institutions and policy makers is slowly being transformed into a more intrusive role as the demand for accountability increases in the form of “increasingly intrusive bureaucratic control mechanisms such as policy mandates.” [Mills, 1978, p 673]. Public dissatisfaction with current educational systems has increased the demand for greater equality through access to education and economic productivity [Karabell, 1998, pp 414]. While the public demands more accountability from State Boards, the state appropriation receipts are declining [Barak and Knicker, 2002]. The increasing massification of education with the student base expansion in the last fifteen years coupled with decreasing availability of public funds [Karabell, 1998, p 415] and political pressures has impacted upon the regulatory functions of State Boards, which are increasingly being forced to redefine their role. Resources are limited and public funds need to be allocated for other purposes such as law enforcement and health care which are competing with education, therefore the State Boards are placed in the position of having to justify expenditures in terms of economic productivity. Autonomy vs. Accountability: A theory has been defined as “a set of well developed concepts related through statements of relationship, which together constitute an integrated framework that can be used to explain or predict phenomena.” [Strauss and Corbin, 1998, p 15]. In order to explain the concept of accountability versus autonomy, the theory of loose coupling states that people and organizations can be responsive and thus be accountable to external forces while simultaneously retain their separateness and thereby preserve their autonomy.[Weick, 1976]. Thus, autonomy and accountability are not viewed as disparate elements that can never co-exist. Rather, the theory of loose coupling creates a conceptual framework within which both these elements can exist, with the degree of flexibility resting in the hands of the organization itself. The system of loose coupling has the advantages of creating a buffer that prevents the spread of problems, enhances organizational capability, enables self actualization and permits higher levels of innovation and experimentation [Weick, 1976]. Hence it is particularly suited to the higher educational framework, in a “typical” university, where there is a flatter hierarchy with fewer organizational levels between the faculty and the chief executive of the organization [Birnbaum, 1998, p 21]. The organization of the University is characterized by less specialization in work activities, since the essential activity in that of teaching. There is a greater specialization by area of expertise, since a member of faculty who has specialized in one discipline is unlikely to be able to take over the functions of another faculty member who has specialized in another discipline. [Birnbaum, 1998, p 21]. There is also a lower degree of dependence between the various parts and most academic departments are interdependent [Birnbaum, 1998, p 21]. The State Board functions under the legislative branch of Government and coordinates the activities of Universities, colleges and community colleges. However, the State Board functions only as a regulator of educational activity while academic activities and policies to be followed by colleges are generally left in the hands of the college authorities. They do not exert excessive control over educational policies such as admission policies, fees, course content, etc and most such matters are left up to the authorities of the colleges themselves. Therefore, the State Board’s functioning thus far has been one with less accountability, characterized by an administrative hierarchy that is less involved in directing activity. “Clarity and agreement on organizational mission are usually considered a fundamental principle for establishing systems of accountability” (Birnbaum, 1998, p 10-11). However, in the atmosphere of higher education, the defining of a common set of objectives is more difficult, as is the defining of a vision that will encompass the goals of all educational institutions that are regulated by one State Board. There is no short list that can be drawn up that will apply equally to all institutions within a particular regional area. The purpose of education after all, is not the mere generation of graduates who will contribute to economic productivity, but rather to enhance the cause of learning, research and a spirit of enquiry and reason. Performance based planning and funding by Government that arises out of the measurement of outcomes in order to monitor the effectiveness of colleges, is nothing more than a desire to extract accountability from State Boards [Layzell, 1998, 104]. In fact, many of the proponents of reduced Government funding for education assert that it is a necessary measure to ensure that institutions of higher education become more efficient in their operations [Gumport, Iannozzi, Shaman and Zemsky, 1997]. The advances in technology have played a crucial role in this increasing demand for accountability, since the various sectors of higher education are increasingly being viewed by State Governments as the means to enhance worker skills in the use of technology to strengthen the state’s economic position and contribute to increased productivity. [Alexander, 2000, p 412]. Increasingly, there is competition from other sources for the use of Government funds and in view of this increasing pressure from other public needs in the areas of health, housing, etc, the burden of funding higher education is gradually shifting to students. The issue of student fees is a politically contentious subject and has resulted in more stringent measures being applied by the Government to regulate and control higher educational institutions [Gumport et al, 1997, p 419] thereby demanding more accountability and delegating less autonomy. This accountability is being measured through performance evaluation of students. Traditional methods that were applied to measure performance based on peer review and market choice, which were a function of the expression of institutional autonomy, are now being questioned in view of the perceived shortcomings in educational output vis a vis the public funds that are being pumped into these educational institutions [Alexander, 2000, p 414]. With increasing enrollment combined with decreasing availability of public funds, educational institutions are being placed under increasing pressure to satisfy performance based evaluation criteria in order to be eligible for a share in the limited public funding now available for education and more accountability is being demanded from State Coordinating Boards. However, the salient problem with establishing accountability of State Boards lies in the fact that it is difficult to arrive at a universal agreement on the organizational mission of higher educational institutions. The traditional methods of student selections made on the basis of merit lead to exclusivity, but in the present day and age, higher education is being made universal through massification [ Alexander, 2002, p 413]. College universities are increasingly offering wider choices in their curriculum through the development of specialized courses, more universities are diverse and cater to a wider base of educational needs, more universities function as a part of other institutions that may include religious organizations and in view of this diversity, the definition of one common mission that will suit every educational institution becomes difficult. Universities offering higher education are intended to provide a forum for the airing of diverse views, where a spirit of innovation and creativity can contribute to the propagation of learning for the betterment of mankind. a system that sometimes involves tension and conflicts, that are not necessarily destructive. Some say higher education missions could be managed more effectively if missions were clarified but this is impossible in larger organizations – it is easier to redefine management so it can function usefully in a context of conflicting objectives” (Birnbaum, 1998, p 12). Therefore, setting out performance benchmarks and making funding conditional upon a certain level of performance implies that the State Board, by introducing such measures to accommodate the requirement for accountability, will be ignoring intangible aspects of higher education such as the quality of instruction and a campus spirit in its evaluation of colleges. This increases the Board’s sphere of controlling interest over the educational institutions whose activities it is supposed to regulate. Structure and functions of the State Board: The State Coordinating Boards are established by the State Legislature and are responsible for certain policy decisions such as those regarding accreditation, transfer, program approval, administration standards, tuition, performance measures and quality control. However, in all its functions, the nature of its duties is purely that of a regulatory body. It is this factor that provides for independent faculty research and the designing of standards of curriculum that are appropriate to every educational institution. The State Board serves to function as a unified voice for higher education, by reducing redundancy and budget competition among educational institutions and ensuring that the institutions meet the standards of policy that are prescribed. However, the increasing demand for accountability by the Government and the public, in order to make the graduates of the educational system more productive in an economic sense, has placed a strain upon the traditional function of the State Boards. Adopting the theory of loose coupling[Weick, 1976], the question that arises is, which end of the spectrum should the State Coordinating Boards swing towards – accountability, which makes the organization tighter or autonomy, which makes the organization more flexible and creative but could be chaotic? According to Weick’s theory, it is possible for the State Board to function as both an autonomous and an accountable organization, and one is not necessarily mutually exclusive as far as the other is concerned. Organizational structure: A traditional vertical organizational hierarchy functions with a much higher degree of control and in the case of most educational institutions, the system has been vertical rather than horizontal, where there is greater interaction between organizations. The degree of interaction between universities has been limited. However, in most educational institutions, controls have rested within the particular academic departments, which have provided the scope for greater flexibility and innovation in propagating the cause of learning. According to Mintzberg (1994): “We try things and those experiments that work converge gradually into viable patterns that become strategies. This is the very essence of strategy making as a learning process” (p 111). Therefore educational policies must take into account the need for autonomy, in developing effective strategies. Drucker (1998) states: “Bottom specialists will direct themselves” and Mintzberg advocates the emergent model, whereby the activities and goals of a particular unit will determine its objectives, which will then be transmitted upwards in formulating a strategy that is appropriate for the environment in which the organization exists. Traditional models on the contrary, advocate a top down approach, in accordance with the Rational Model, wherein the strategy adopted by an individual unit within an organization will depend upon the dictates handed down by the top management and is therefore indicative of a more controlling organizational framework. Accreditation, for example, functions as a course of self study that has faced a great deal of criticism, with charges that evaluation is not honest. However, in contrast to those that advocate more freedom and flexibility to individual organizations and the development of strategy in accordance with the needs of the individual unit, there are also those who have been questioning the validity of these moves. State Coordination boards have been making moves towards decentralization in recent years [McLendon, 2003, 480] but according to the Carnegie Foundation (1976), this has created a kind of “guerilla warfare” over “what belongs to the institution and what belongs to the State” and the effect of the decentralization initiatives has been that “frustration on both sides grows daily.” (p 18). There has been tension and conflict created between institutions and State Boards. Most decentralization measures have been introduced in a “garbage can” fashion that has contributed to the tension and uncertainties generated by the loss of control of the State Boards. Many of the decentralization initiatives such as the “flexibility legislation” and the creation of “public-private” institutions have only created confusion and increasing tensions between State and campus authorities. Future strategy for State Controlling Boards: In formulating the right strategy for the State Boards, there arises the need to balance the need for autonomy versus the need for accountability in this organization. Education is not a sphere that can be subjected to rigid control since higher education must incorporate a degree of flexibility in order to advance the cause of true learning and the imparting of multi faceted skills in which no uniformity is possible. Nevertheless the decentralization initiatives of Government so far have not been very successful and increasing demands are being made by the public to introduce more accountability into the system. Thus it would appear that adopting a purely centralized approach or a purely decentralized approach are both unsuccessful. The role of the State Coordinating Boards needs to be redefined, in the context of globalization and competition, which have created increasing enrollment at colleges while state funds are correspondingly lower. The increasing need for accountability is a legitimate concern in the light of diminishing availability of State funds, which also need to be allocated for other purposes. The conflicts that arise between the State Boards and the college administrations is another issue that must be taken into consideration and measures must be implemented to resolve these conflicts. Applying the theory of loose coupling, the State coordinating Board and the college administrations need to function with a degree of flexibility accorded to both organizations. However, a careful balance must be achieved between too much control and too little. While the State Coordination Board is purely regulatory in function, it needs to be more active and accept greater accountability in the light of public and political pressures which reflect the general perceptions of the public. However, as Weick’s model indicates, the conceptual framework must be formulated such that there are equal measures of accountability and autonomy maintained in the organization. The key lies in better coordination between the state Boards and the campus authorities, so that there is involvement on the part of the academic fraternity into policy issues and cooperation with Government policy, while simultaneously allowing for State Boards to increase its accountability to the public. A great deal can be achieved through the cooperation between the two regulatory authorities, so that common ground is discovered and policies are framed such that there is some level of accountability, even if it is not to the extent desired. Both autonomy and accountability must co-exist in order to ascertain that the organizational system neither becomes too accountable which would tighten organizational controls to an unacceptable degree, neither becomes too lax, which would bring about lack of coordination and chaos. References cited: * Alexander, King F. (2000). The Changing face of Accountability. Journal of Higher Education, July/August 2000, 71 (4), p 411-432 * Birnbaum, R. (2000). Policy scholars are from Venus; policy makers are from Mars. Review of Higher Education, 23(2), 119–132. * Bok, Derek. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press * Dee, J, Henkin, A and Chen, J. (2000). Faculty autonomy. Perspectives from Taiwan. Higher Education, 40 (2), 203-216. * Gumport, P.J, Iannozzi, M, Shaman S and Zemsky, R. (1997).Trends in higher education from massification to post-massification. Academic reforms in the world: Situation and perspective in the massification stage of higher education. RIHE International seminar Reports, Hiroshima, Japan: research institute for Higher Education. * Kirp, David L. (2003). Shakespeare, Einstein and the bottom line. The marketing of Higher education. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press. * Layzell, D. (1990, 24 October). Most research on higher education is stale, irrelevant, and of little use to policy makers. Chronicle of Higher Education, 37(8), pp. B1, B3. * McLendon, Michael K. (2003). Setting the Governmental agenda for State decentralization of higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(5), p 479-515. * Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. Harvard Business review, 72, 107-114. * Strauss, A and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage. * Weick, K. (1976). Educational Organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly 21, 1-19 Read More