NotesFAQContact Us
Search Tips
ERIC Number: ED039850
Record Type: RIE
Publication Date: 1970-Mar-2
Pages: 3
Abstractor: N/A
Reference Count: 0
Are State Systems of Persuasion, Cooperation, Coordination, or Control Harmonious with or Antithetical to Institutional Autonomy?
Williams, Jack K.
The complexity, cost, and importance of higher education make some form of central coordinative control in each state a necessity and, for this reason, 43 of the 50 states have already established central boards over their colleges and universities. Some of these boards are control boards to which presidents report and through which institutional budgets are actually determined. These boards do limit institutional autonomy. Still more numerous, but losing in popularity, are the coordinating boards which have some degree of carefully moderated authority over some functions of higher education, but no real control over personnel and budgets, thus limiting the effect on institutional autonomy. In order for central boards to be effective, they must engage in master planning, give attention to the role of institutions, and develop criteria for establishing new ones. It is likely that the coordinating board, despite the fact it is the best arrangement, will give way to the central control board for three basic reasons: (1) the difficulty in recruiting and retaining truly qualified and dedicated lay members on the coordinating board; (2) the problems of keeping the coordinating board divorced from politics; and (3) the unwillingness of university administrators and trustees to accept coordinating board decisions. (AF)
Publication Type: N/A
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: N/A
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: American Association for Higher Education, Washington, DC.
Note: Paper presented at the 25th national conference of the American Association for Higher Education, Chicago, Illinois, March 2, 1970