New Directions for Higher Education 2007: Index & Table of Contents

2007·0.64 MB·English

Index
Academic program cost-effectiveness Business Higher Education Forum, 31, 38
measures, fl Cabrini College (Philadelphia), informa¬
Accountability: active listening and, 6, 9; tion technology infrastructure at (case
assessing performance and, 6, 9; clari¬ example): academic IT collaborations
fying goals and, 6, 9; to constituent and, 115-116; background, 112-113;
groups, 6-7; costs of, 7; definition of, financial benefits and, 118-110;
6- 7; financial statement audits and, improvements in, 117-118; institu¬
7- 8; initiatives for, 31; institutional cul¬ tional culture differences and, 116-117;
ture and, 9; leadership/govemance and, as model for other academic-lT
9; quality and efficiency and, 8; stew¬ alliances, 118, 120; partnership with
ardship and, 6; strategic thinking and, Drexel University and, 113-120
6, 9; student learning and, 24-26; tech¬ Carnevale, D., 124, 128
niques for defining, 6, 8-9. See also Center for Academic Transformation, 31
Middle States Commission on Higher Changing Directions project, 31
Education, assessment standards of; Chronicle of Higher Education, 127, 128
University System of Maryland, institu¬ College Board, 78, 81, 82, 85
tional transformation at (case example) Colvin, G., 30, 38
Administrative cost reductions, examples Commonfund, 105, 107, 110
of, 9-10 Competition: models of, 97; quality and,
Application service provider (ASP), 31; among providers, 5
113-114 Constituencies, 6-7. See also Shareholders
Assessment: of institutional effectiveness, Customers: discriminatory knowledge
16-24; of student learning, 16, 24-26. and expectations of, 5
See also Middle States Commission on
Higher Education, assessment stan¬ Dakota roundtable initiative, 35-37
dards of Deil-Amen, R., 127, 128
Attainment: higher education response Dickinson College, tuition/aid policies
to, 30-31; increased expectations of, of (case example): background, 87;
29-30; quality issues in increasing, 30 benchmarking data and, 90; program
Attainment/quality/productivity, in higher branding and, 93; data analysis and,
education. Sec Institutional quality/ 89-90; data on student characteristics
effectiveness improvement and, 88; decision support and, 88-91;
Audience, targeting of, 92-93 identifying the audience and, 92-93;
institutional vision/mission and, 97;
Baldridge National Quality Award Pro¬ logistical regression enrollment pro¬
gram, 63, 73 jection model and, 88-89, 95; mar¬
Barak, R.J., 51, 53, 61 keting the program and, 91-92;
Baum, S., 31, 38, 78,81,85 organizational vision and, 91; pricing
Beebower, G., 102, 110 and aid strategies and, 93-96; pro¬
Berdahl, R. O, 29, 38 gram results and, 96-98; Sinha tutor¬
Blumenstyk, G., 121, 125, 128 ial and, 89; strategic planning and,
Branding, institutional characteristics 96-97; student life surveys and, 90;
and,93 Tuition Plan 11 and, 96
Breneman, D. W., 121, 128 Dowd, A. C., 52, 61
Brinson, G., 102, 110 Dressel, P., 15, 18
Brown, J. S., 114, 120 Drucker, P., 30, 38
139
140 Strategic Financial Challenges
and, 76; long-term perspective and,
Edler, F. H. W., 13 82-83; merit-based vs. need-based, 44;
Education Commission of the States, Oklahoma Promise scholarship pro¬
126,127, 128 gram and, 34-35; political and eco¬
Efficiency and Effectiveness Program nomic agenda and, 75; short-term vs.
Review Model (EEPRM); applications
long-term perspective and, 82. See also
of, 54; benefits of, 57; efficiency/effec¬ Dickinson College, tuition/aid policies
tiveness measures and, 59,61; elements
of (case example) . . . ,
of, 57; information ma'rix and, 54, 57; Financial statement audits, institutional
institutional outcomes and, 53; perfor¬
accountability and, 7-8
mance variables and, 54; purpose ol, Floyd, C. E., 121, 127, 128
59; tenets of, 54 For-profit colleges; ability to change ol,
Efficiency, definition of, 6 125; accountability framework lor,
Efficiency improvement: academic pro¬
122-123; advantages of, 122; chal¬
gram cost-effectiveness and, 11; active
lenges for, 126-127; classification ele¬
listening and, 6, 9; administrative cost
ments for, 127; diversity patterns at,
reductions and, 9-10; applications of, 124; economic opportunities and,
9-12; assessing performance and, 6, 9; 124; enrollment/degree patterns at,
clarifying goals and, 6, 9; Effectiveness ^ 23-124; enterprise institutions and,
and Efficiency Initiative (University
122; expanding mission of, 123; fed¬
System of Maryland) and, 44-47; insti¬
eral legislation and, 125-126; finan¬
tutional culture and, 9; leadership/gov¬
cial aid and, 126; financing of, 125;
ernance and, 9; operations and, 6;
fraud at, 123; future study of, 127;
process improvements and, 10; reten¬
health sciences and, 123; increase m,
tion initiatives and, 10-11; strategic
121, 124; lessons for community col¬
thinking and, 6, 9; student success
leges from, 127; multicampus corpo¬
measures and, 11; targeted aid and, 12;
rations and, 122; operating norms of,
techniques for defining, 6,8-9. See also
122; student loan default rate and,
Efficiency and Effectiveness Program
123; studies on, 121; types of, 122
Review Model (EEPRM); Mohave
Foster, A., 124, 128
Community College, institutional per¬
Franchising, 133
formance improvement and (case
Friedman, T., 30, 38
example); Productivity improvement
Furst-Bowe, J., 13
Endowments; advantages of, 99, 105-106;
asset allocation and, 102-104; current
Cinder, S. A., 124, 128
spending vs. accumulation and,
Globalization, and higher education;
108-109; determining expenditures
cost-price squeeze and, 135; costs ol
and, 106-107; institutional quality
global programs and, 137-138; exam¬
and', 109; operating budget and, ples of, 132-133; financial stakehold¬
J04-106; return on investment
ers and, 134; franchising and, 133,
and 100-104; size of, 109; sources of
137' GATT talks and, 134; global edu¬
growth of, 101-102; spending policies
cation goals and, 134; hub-and-spoke
and, 107-109; statistics on, 99-100; distribution model and, 132; institu¬
uses of, 104-107 tional mission and, 135; international
Ewell, P. T., 52, 61 students and, 134; international views
of higher education and, 134; loss ol
Farnsworth, K. A., 127, 128 tuition and, 137-148; outsourced
Financial aid; ability- vs. willingness-to- modularization and, 132; place-based
pay objective and, 83; analytical
institutional identity and, 133, quality
approaches to policies on, 82-85,
control and, 136, 138; rationale lor
changing goals of, 75; distribution of
cross-border activities and, 136, rea¬
aid and, 78, 80; equity vs. efficiency
sons for small impact on, 133-134;
and, 84-85; expenditure vs. discount
research funding and, 135-136; risks
view and, 83-84; historic role of, 75;
of global approaches and, 137; science
student impact of changing policies
shift to Asia and, 135; state support
on, 80-82; increasing financing gap
Index 141
and, 135; twinning and, 132-133; eco¬ and, 51-52; quality issues and, 30;
nomic impact of, 131; international¬ requirements for sustaining progress
ization and, 131-133; production/ on, 37; state policy initiatives (exam¬
distribution process of, 131-132 ples) and, 31-37; strategic planning
Globalization model, of distribution, 132 and, 31, 37-38; transformation of
expectations and, 30; trans-institutional
Hagel,J., 114, 120 perspective and, 37; tuition discount¬
Hanson, D. J., 13 ing and, 31. See also Accountability;
Henry, T. C., 53, 61 Attainment; Dickinson College, tuition/
Hentscbke, G. A., 121, 123, 124, 125, 129 aid policies (case example); Efficiency
Hersh, R. H., 13 improvement; Mohave Community
Higher education. See For-profit colleges; College, institutional performance
Globalization, and higher education; improvement and (case example); Pro¬
Higher education market; Institutional ductivity improvement; Quality
quality/effectiveness improvement; improvement; University of Wisconsin-
and by specific institution/topic Stout, institutional quality/effectiveness
Higher Education Act, 15 improvement at (case example); Uni¬
Higher education market: competitive versity System of Maryland, institutional
environment of, 5; complexities of, 5-6; transformation at (case example)
customer expectations/knowledgeabil-
ity and, 5; quality and advancement in, Jansen, P., 108-109, 110
8; revenues and, 6; shareholder goals JBL Associates, 126, 128
in, 6. See also Competition
Hood, L. R., 102, no Kaplan University, 123, 128
Hub-and-spoke model, of distribution, 132 Keller, G., 29, 38
Kelly-Reid,j. E., 124, 128
Information technology (IT); application Kentucky Postsecondary Improvement
service providers and, 113-114; Act, House Bill 1, 32-33
Intemei provision of, 114; financing dif¬ Kinser, K., 121, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127,
ficulties for, 111-112; provider arrange¬ 128
ments and, 113-114. See also Cabrini Knapp, L. G., 124, 128
College (Philadelphia), information
technology infrastructure at (case Lapovsky, L., 31, 38, 78, 85, 90, 96, 98,
example) 99,110
Institutional effectiveness, assessment of. Lingenfelter, P. E., 30, 38
5ee Assessment; Middle States Com¬ Loomis Hubbell, L. W., 90, 96, 98
mission on Higher Education, assess¬
ment standards of Mapping the Global Future, 135, 138
Institutional quality/effectiveness improve¬ Marketing, in higher education, 91
ment: accountability initiatives and, Massa, R. j.,90, 96, 98
31; broad ownership and continuity Mets, L. A., 51,53, 61
and, 37-38; commitment and shared Michael, S. O, 13
rewards and, 38; competition and, 31, Middle States Commission on Higher
37; Dakota roundtable initiative and, Education, 15-17, 28
35-37; federal education initiatives Middle States Commission on Higher
and. 111; higher education reform Education, assessment standards of:
and, 30-31; information system and, accountability and, 27; compliance
37; inputs and, 31; Kentucky Postsec¬ requirements and, 16; faculty teaching
ondary Improvement Act, House Bill 1 loads and, 21-23; follow-up and, 17;
and, 32-33; knowledge economy and, grading practices and, 15, 24; institu¬
30; leadership and, 37; monitoring tional mission and, 16; institutional
and maintenance and, 38; Oklahoma outcome measures and, 23-24; plan¬
Promise scholarship program and, ning and resource allocation and, 17,
34-35; P*Q*P initiative (Illinois) and, 19-21; student learning and, 16,
31-32; program review/management 24-26; student learning assessment
142 Strategic Financial Challenges
measures and, 26-27; student opinion processes and, 51-52. See also Efficiency
surveys and, 17-19 and Effectiveness Program Review
Miller, E., 124, 128 Model (EEPRM)
Mills, K., 52, 61 Pusser, B., 121, 128
Mohave Community College, institutional
performance improvement and (case Quality; definition of, 6, 8; strategic
example); accountability and, 61; back¬ thinking and, 6, 9; techniques for
ground and challenges and, 52-53; defining, 6, 8-9
Efficiency and Effectiveness Program Quality improvement: active listening
Review Model (EEPRM) and, 53-57; and, 6,9; advancement of market posi¬
findings, 57-58; measures, 58-59; ratio¬ tion and, 8; applications of, 9-12;
nale for implementing EEPRM and, 59, assessing performance and, 6, 9; clari¬
61; recommendations, 58-59; research fying goals and, 6, 9; conflicting
projects and, 53; resources and public elements of, 8; educational experience
demand, 52-53; results, 61 and, 8; fiscal ability and, 8; institutional
Mortenson, T., 81, 85 culture and, 9; institutional inputs and
outputs and, 8; leadership/governance
National Association of College and Uni¬ and, 9; P*Q*P initiative (Illinois)
versity Business Officers (NACUBO), and, 31-32; process results and, 8. See
13,101, 110 also Institutional quality/effectiveness
National Center for Educational Statis¬ improvement; Mohave Community
tics, 29 College, institutional performance
National Commission on Accountability improvement and (case example); Uni¬
in Higher Education, 51, 61 versity System of Maryland, institu¬
National Survey of Student Engagement, tional transformation at (case example)
73
Rawls, j., 84, 85
Oklahoma Promise scholarship program, Rice, G. K., 13
34-35 Rogers, F., 102, 110
O’Malley, M., 81, 85 Rosenbaum, J. E., 13, 127, 128
Ruch, R. S., 126, 128
P*Q*P initiative (Illinois), 31-32
Palmisano, S., 132, 138 Sanders, K. R., 32, 38
Performance improvement: P*Q*P ini¬ Sevier, R. A., 91, 98
tiative (Illinois) and, 31-32. See also Shareholders; accountability and, 6-7;
Mohave Community College, institu¬ goals of, 6. See also Constitutencies
tional performance imprcwement and Sinha, K. W., 89, 98
(case example); Productivity improve¬ Social norm initiatives, and institutional
ment quality/efficiency, 12
Person, A. E., 127, 128 South Dakota Board of Regents, 36, 37
Pricing, of tuition, 96 State Higher Education Executive Offi¬
Process improvements, examples of, 10 cers (SHEEO) 33, 38, 41
Productivity improvement: Effectiveness Strehle, G., 102, 110
and Efficiency Initiative (University Student learning, accountability and,
System of Maryland) and, 44-47; 24-26
P*Q*P initiative (Illinois) and, 31-32. Student learning assessment measures
See also Efficiency improvement; Insti¬ 26-27. See also Assessment
tutional transformation; Performance Student success measures, and institu¬
improvement; University System of tional quality/efficiency, 11
Mar)'land, institutional transformation
at (case example) Targeted aid, and institutional effi¬
Program review: efficiency/effectiveness ciency/quality, 12
and, 52; institutional transformation Taylor, D. C., 13
and, 51; interface with institutional Tierney, "W. G., 121, 123, 124, 125, 129
Index 143
Tuition, pricing of, 96. See also Financial admission model and, 46-47; early
aid college access and, 48; economic chal¬
Tuition discounting, 31, 83-84, 96 lenges and, 41-42; Effectiveness and
Turner, S. E., 121, 128 Efficiency Initiative and, 44-47; fast-
Twinning, 132-133 tracking students and, 48; growth
institutions and, 45; initiative by indi¬
Uniform Prudent Management of Insti¬ vidual institutions and, 45-46; need-
tutional Funds Act, 109, 110 based financial aid and, 44; next phase
University of Wisconsin-Stout, institu¬ of E&E Initiative and, 47-48; perfor¬
tional quality/effectiveness improve¬ mance measures and, 49; public atti¬
ment at (case example): background, tude and, 42; revolutionary systemic
63; Curricular Incubation Center and, change and, 42-43; steps to transfor¬
71; e-Scbolar program and, 71; leader¬ mative change and, 45; student access
ship and, 64; meeting rules and, and, 46; technology-based courses
68-69; participation/communication and, 48; time-to-degree and, 45-46
and, 64-65; performance indicators University System of North Dakota, 35,
and, 69-72; planning readiness and, 36, 39
63; planning/budget process and, U.S. Census Bureau, 76, 85
66-68; polytechnic designation and, U.S. Department of Education, 76, 80, 85
71-72; program outcomes and, 72; U.S. News & World Report, 99, 110
resource principles and, 69; stake¬
holder visioning sessions and, 68; Vaughan, G. B., 53, 61
strategic planning model and, 65-66;
support structure and, 64; university Ward, J., 52, 61
priority template and, 69, 70 fig. Wellman, J. V., 13
University System of Maryland (USM), 41 Wentz, M., 13
University System of Maryland, institu¬ Wilson, H., 126, 128
tional transformation at (case exam¬ Winston, G. C., 13
ple): administrative commitment and, Winston, G., 31, 39
46; collective purchasing and, 45; con¬
densed degree program and, 47; cost- Zemsky, R., 13
effective activities and, 43-45; dual Zumeta, W., 51, 53, 61