COLLEGES ARE NOT CLOCKS

Transcription

1 COLLEGES ARE NOT CLOCKS BETTER ASSUMPTIONS FOR PLANNED CHANGE Amy Kline, Accreditation Officer and Senior Administrator, Graduate School of Education, Bank Street College of Education Jackson Kytle, Senior Advisor to the President, Bank Street College of Education Virginia Roach, Dean, Graduate School of Education, Fordham University

2 Our purposes today 2 Address sensitive topics in self-study, drawing upon experience with eight self-studies at five colleges for three regional associations Share lessons learned about positive as well as negative consequences of self-study Challenge the image of a college as a clock-like machine underestimates resistance to change in human culture obscures leverage points for change Share a handful of concepts to help leaders manage the creative tensions in planned change Try to move campus reaction to self-study from emotive resentment to pragmatic adaptation

3 Three parts to our presentation 3 1. Policy Context and Accreditation Pressures 2. Colleges are not Mechanical Entities that Respond to Hyperrationalized Change 3. Implications for Self-Study Design and Implementation

4 I--Policy Context and Accreditation Pressures 4 Middle States has two accreditation functions: Improvement of its member institutions Compliance to standards, both internal and external to the association External political forces have been pressuring the regional associations and colleges for increased specificity on an increasing number of elements Middle States, staff and teams are caught in the middle Focus on compliance and assessment metrics pushes aside critical inquiry, self-improvement and authenticity all core values of the academy! Metric Madness--focusing on easy-to-measure variables like course satisfaction but neglecting hard-to-measure ones like character

5 Policy is a blunt instrument 5 Regional accreditation is a policy strategy Over time, regulatory policy has moved to the business of consumer protection (Anderson, 2011) Regulatory policy has increasingly moved to an accountability system that puts colleges in a defensive posture

6 II--Colleges are not Mechanical Entities that Respond to Hyper-rationalized Change 6 Colleges are not mechanical clocks built of interlocking gears and wound springs Colleges are human cultures that behave as loosely coupled systems (Weick, 2009) or worse, silo farms College as a living culture, a human creation that is messy, imperfect, and all too human as Nietzsche put it Inaccurate assumptions of institutional rationality (Allison, 1999; Bolman & Deal, 2008) Assumptions that are expressed in MSCHE standards

7 Colleges are organizational cultures 7 All have good intentions and want to live in a noble world Built of many separate systems, over many years, that may not connect well All are vulnerable to losing track of certain functions and values Self-study can stimulate hard questions but also stimulate shoring up

8 Educators love rubrics. Imagine this one 8 1. Self-study as nuisance 2. Self-study as a public relations drill 3. Self-study as artful compromise 4. Self-study as lever for deep change

9 Too busy to change 9

10 10 III--Implications for Self-Study Design and Implementation Self-study as a unique opportunity for deep reflection to stimulate change Not easy to find time or political will to look at hard, deep challenges, especially those tied to a college s values Even the best colleges have challenges and blind spots, and can be improved Self-study as a tough-minded, broad conversation about values, structures and outcomes

11 Negative outcomes of self-study 11 Defensiveness and resistance to change in work teams and/or the administration that wants positive verbiage Self-study as a missed opportunity Self-study as a false positive where a self-congratulatory report is received uncritically by team, commission and community but no progress on hard problems Inadequate self-study triggers increased oversight and the nontrivial costs of new reports and site visits

12 Erosion of candor and authenticity 12 Before our several publics like faculty and staff, political figures, the press, other institutions, business leaders Self-studies that focus on metrics and compliance fuel cynicism among faculty colleagues, especially in the humanities Regionals like Middle States are aggressive and self-serving in marketing their brand in competition with other accreditors Threats to the credibility of regional associations and colleges

13 Better assumptions for planned change 13 To move self-study toward improvement, look for levers Surface and honor organizational history, culture and core values Use of frequent feedback loops with diverse constituencies To increase faculty, student and staff involvement To increase presidential, cabinet and board involvement Open dialogue about institutional expectations for real change Manage the tempo of self-study and improvement over a year or more

14 14 Navigate the creative tensions of planned change Positive attributes Unintended consequences Authentic self-improvement and critical inquiry Self-absorption and uneven response to standards Focus on compliance and standards Structure helps, but too narrow foci; little place for discovery Data collection and assessment strategy that is meaningful and thorough Risk of relying on costly consultants and other external sources that are not sustainable

15 More creative tensions 15 Positive attributes Unintended consequences Continuous strategic planning Devolves into tactical firefighting and drift Strong leadership & clear vision Disempowers other actors and groups Shoring up function Overwhelms staff & loss of strategic vision Robust evaluation and assessment linkages Institutional research gets politicized

16 Concluding comments 16 Self-study as a bridge between Middle States standards and compliance, and the messy culture of a college Manage the creative tensions from start to finish! Covering up cultural messiness can cover over institutional strengths (Murray, 2009) Where is the energy and commitment to structural change? A new president can use the self-study to understand the institution and drive change

17 Comments and questions? 17

18 References 18 Allison, G. & Zelikow, P. (1999). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis (2 nd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson. Anderson, James, E. (2011). Public policymaking: An introduction (7 th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth. Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (5 th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Morgan, G. (2006). Images of Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Murray, F.B. (2009). An accreditation dilemma: The tension between program accountability and program improvement in programmatic accreditation. New Directions for Higher Education, 145, doi: /he.335 Weick, K.E. (2009). Making sense of the organization: Volume 2: The impermanent organization. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

19 Thank you! 19 Comments welcome to: Bibliography included on CD!