Higher education institutions are controlled both internally and externally . In this regard, governing boards act as the principal overseers of colleges and universities . Subsequently, the executive administrators and faculty are expected to faithfully implement the mission s and vision s of these institutions as envisioned by the boards (Ricci, 1999). On the one hand, i nternal control is exerted by faculty and staff, led by the president . On the other hand, external control is exerted by local and state boards, state legislatures, the courts, the Congress and a higher education coordinating agency (Davies, 2008; Ricci, 1999). It is the role of the president to link the internal and the external , besides carrying out directions of the board and other government authorities (Davies, 2008 ).
Recently , the faculty and the student fraternity have become key players in college governance. Various circumstances often blur the limits and bounds of the roles and responsibilities of each of these actorscircumstances . These circumstances include political realignments, social upheaval, an enlightened populace, conflict of interest, weak checks and balances, weak leadership resulting from tokenism, failures in accountability as well as changing economic realities . A college has many stakeholders includ ing the student fraternity, the faculty, the nation and the communit y in general. T herefore , the key to effective governance is political legitimacy (Davies, 2008). Diffuse responsibility, continuous change, and human frailty are some of the f actors that make the governance of colleges difficult.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
A notable c riticism of current governance structures includes confusion over who is in charge between the boards, the president, and the student fraternity , or other times due to the conflict between state and local boards or between college boards and the legislature (Davies, 2008). Insufficient trustee education is also to blame for governance failures, mainly resulting in weak boards that allow presidents to overstep their mandate . T he reason cited for this shortcoming is the lack of structures for the orientation of board members (Davies, 2008). Some boards are out of touch with the communities they serve such as students, employers, college staff and the political leadership , leading to a lack of awareness of the public interest. Conflict of interest is another cause of governance failure . This result s from the interests of any one of the stakeholders taking prominence. The other causes include failure to conduct performance appraisals, lack of commitment by some trustees, ethical failures, and failures in governance design.
Some of the recommendations for the improvement of how colleges are governed might include the clarification of roles and responsibilities, restructuring of boards to make them relevant and functional and ensuring that the board understands the public interest and is in touch with the community served by the college . Others include encouraging collaborations and partnerships, re-orientation of trustees, interaction with students and employees, establishing a method of recall, and reporting on performance.
Since the establishment of the first college in colonial America to the modern academy, the historical advancement of academic governance has been influenced by social, political, legal, and cultural forces (Ricci, 1999). Initially , in early American colleges (1636-1850), governance was executed by a Board of Overseers created by legislative acts of the colonial legislature . The Overseers, usually clergymen and magistrates, were under the control of the colonial legislature (Ricci, 1999). The overseers were later reconstituted as a quasi-corporation, and a corporate body began to take shape. The granting of charters gave the effect of transforming these quasi-corporations into fully chartered corporations which were now legal entities consisting of the President, fellows (faculty), and treasurer with the Overseers as trustees (Ricci, 1999). The boards held ultimate power while the corporation remained mainly subordinate . Colleges in t his era we re characterized by these dual governance structures. Standard American college governance came into being and was advanced by Yale college. Subsequently, governance consisted of a board of nonresident trustees, with the President serving as the representative of the governing board (Ricci, 1 999). Various trends continued to shape college governance with the coming into being of provincial and private colleges.
The period between 1850-1945 saw the great expansion of the academy, a period during which larger state-sponsored universities emerged (Ricci, 1999). The Morrill Land-Grant Act of 1862 sparked the growth of state institutions offering curricula in agriculture and the mechanical arts. Various significant trends have affected the governance of colleges and universities since the end of World War II. For instance, owing to the baby-boom, increased numbers of students entered college , particularly during the 1960s. Likewise, the combination of legal and political forces significantly influenced campus governance. The 1960s saw the rise of faculty unions and collective bargaining, especially at public colleges and universities. Subsequently, p rofessors sought increased salaries and benefits, greater control over tenure decisions, academic promotion, research funding, and related professional issues . These dynamics have continued to influence the governing boards of higher education institutions to date.
References
Davis, G. (200 8 ). Issues in community college governance . American Association of Community Colleges.
Ricci, E. A. (1999). College and university governance in the United States: An historical survey.
