Learning Resources

Abstract: Southeast Community College (SCC) applied an integrated framework approach to inform all aspects of its successful comprehensive accreditation review. Following decades of reviews leading to monitoring and focused visits to address opportunities for improvement, SCC managed its most recent comprehensive assessment through integrated planning to ensure the accreditation process coincided with building relationships, aligning divisions and departments, and promoting a culture that is well prepared for change. This structured and focused integrated planning method for comprehensive accreditation review was associated with a successful outcome that involved no monitoring or required follow-up for the first time in the College’s accreditation history.

Abstract: The presidential search process is an opportunity for the institution to plan for and vet potential leaders who will play a pivotal role in the success or failure of diversity initiatives. A key question to ask during searches is whether the growing student diversity on campus is present within the presidential search itself. We advocate for institutional governing boards to commit to creating lasting, cultural change and including DEI efforts in the presidential hiring process.

Abstract: Shared Leadership in Higher Education: A Framework and Models for Responding to a Changing World
Edited by Elizabeth M. Holcombe, Adrianna J. Kezar, Susan L. Elrod, and Judith A. Ramaley
Stylus Publishing: Sterling, Virginia: 2021
256 pages
ISBN: 978-1642672251

Abstract: The global COVID-19 pandemic has fundamentally changed the world of higher education. As institutions look to the future, beyond the end of the pandemic, significant uncertainty exists. There is little question that colleges and universities will have to do a better job at planning, and boards at governing, to flourish in the years ahead. In this article an integrated model centered around three different time horizons, three areas of planning, and three types of governance is presented. The model can serve as a framework to demonstrate how these are all related, self-reinforcing, and usable as an aid for institutional leadership.

Abstract: by Ricardo Azziz, Guilbert C. Hentschke, Lloyd A. Jacobs, and Bonita C. Jacobs
Johns Hopkins University Press
Baltimore, MD 2019
288 Pages
ISBN 9781421432601

Abstract: This article evaluates administrative bloat, the ballooning growth of administrative functions and personnel, in American higher education. This evaluation was undertaken through a review of the available literature describing administrative bloat. Though unintentional, increased spending and government requirements for accountability may have contributed to overall growth and cost in higher education. Similarly, the changing composition of faculty—in terms of tenure-track faculty, annual contracts, and adjunct faculty—may have also played a role in the increased influence that administration has over campus policy and curricular decisions. Strategies to mitigate the cost of administrative bloat and to balance campus decisions between faculty and administration are suggested.

Abstract: Challenging times continue for higher education: calls for more accountability, assessment of outcomes, evidence of institutional performance, relevance for life and careers, and student success. Integrated strategic planning and decision making in this ever-changing environment is critical for campus leadership. To maximize accountability, assessment, analytics, and accreditation, it is imperative for campus leaders to develop an integrated approach that begins with standard metrics, aligns with performance-based goals, and connects with accreditation requirements. Analytics, learning analytics, and learning management systems provide the crucial link to learning standards that support the reporting, monitoring, and improvement of student learning.

Abstract: In 2009 the Arizona University System (supporting over 130,000 enrollments) through its Board of Regents directed its board president and the presidents of Arizona State University, University of Arizona, and Northern Arizona University to create an operational plan that reflected the board’s vision, goals, and strategic directions. A primary objective was to transform the system (or enterprise) vision into concrete goals and outcomes that would directly connect to financial decision making at the system and university level. The backdrop for higher education planning and budgeting expectations included the continuation of severe reductions in state funding, rapidly increasing student tuition and fees, and a call for greater accountability. The planning processes were characterized by the integration of board and presidential discussions, inclusion of constituent debate, identification of strategic choices, and approval of outcomes focused on measuring performance. The integration ran across and within three organizations or levels that included the Arizona Board of Regents, its system administration, and the three universities.