Search

In 1998, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) established the DoD Office of the Chancellor for Education and Professional Development. Although achieving its mission requires that the chancellor's office influence the education and professional development providers' behavior, its charter grants it very limited formal authority to exercise such influence. A project was therefore undertaken to give the chancellor's office a clear sense of its available options in pursuing its mission. Research and theories from social psychology, organizational behavior, and sociology were drawn upon to develop a framework for strategic assessment and development of power and influence that includes the following stages: (1) power assessment; (2) power development; and (3) development of influence. The newly developed power assessment process involves consideration of the following key factors: (1) the influencer's objective; (2) relevant characteristics of the target organization and its members; (3) the influencer's power bases and capabilities as an organization and as a collection of individuals; (4) features of the relationship between the influencing organization and its target; and (5) the environment in which the organizations interact. After assessing its potential power, the influencer can evaluate whether its current power bases are sufficient and the extent to which it has been capitalizing on them. (A literature review is appended. The bibliography lists 48 references.) (MN)

A study was conducted to develop tools for describing and evaluating external governance in the U.S. Department of Defense's (DoD's) multiorganizational system of education, training, and professional development. An exploratory conceptual framework and taxonomy for understanding external governance in the DoD context was developed, and the following criteria were used to assess the effectiveness of DoD's external governance: (1) evidence that system outcomes are being defined, measured, and evaluated relative to goals; (2) evidence that providers, intermediaries, and key stakeholders are communicating frequently and transparently; (3) evidence that providers and intermediaries are responsive to key stakeholder guidance; and (4) evidence that key stakeholders are being satisfied. The following recommendations were made to DoD: (1) advocate and facilitate system-level and demand-side governance on the part of key stakeholders within the system; (2) encourage all key stakeholders to undertake a structural analysis of governance as part of their own strategic planning function; (3) engage in system-specific development and pilot testing before performing an implementation audit of governance; (4) perform implementation audits on a case-by-case basis for major subsystems or key stakeholders that have salient problems with responsiveness and effectiveness; and (5) establish a center for development and retention of governance knowledge and evaluation capacity. (Contains 52 references.) (MN)

This report presents the results of qualitative and quantitative analyses of how well the higher education system in Nevada will meet the challenges of the future of current trends and patterns continue. The report contains three parts that present the data analysis, the key issues the Nevada Board of Regents confronts, with possible responses to them, and action items to consider for next steps. Interviews were conducted with key System, business, legislative, and educational leaders in the state, and data were collected from various campuses and the Chancellor's office. Findings suggest that Nevada must make significant changes to meet its goals in the face of rapid population growth. The scenarios reviewed through computer models involve significant increases in spending and significant increases in the performance of existing institutions. It appears that meeting the significant challenges faced by higher education in Nevada through bold changes may in fact be less challenging than attempting to meet them with incremental changes to the current system. Recommendations center on: (1) quality and access; (2) efficiency and accountability; (3) development of an effective assessment of student learning; (4) finance reforms; (5) separation of the funding of research and instruction; (6) refinement of the funding formula; (7) reevaluation of the fee setting structure; (8) changes in student financial aid policies; and (9) establishment of as simple a system of governance as possible. Appendixes describe development of a value-added measurement of undergraduate education, goals and criteria for evaluation, the data and computer simulation methodology of this study. (Contains 1 table and 13 figures.) (SLD)

The Office of the Secretary of Defense supports a vast and complicated system of education and professional development for civilians. The RAND study team from the National Defense Research Institute conducted a broad review of the literature on educational assessment and reviewed the documents of organizations engaged in such assessment, interviewed experts, attended conferences, and conducted site visits to exemplary organizations. This report synthesizes the information from the study and suggests educational and professional development approaches the DoD might use to raise the quality and productivity of the education the Department provides for civilians it trains. The study identified the need for system level assessment and classified approaches into four basic models: (1) use of an intermediary to review the process individual providers use; (2) assessment by an intermediary organization; (3) assessment by the individual providers; and (4) a focus on the certification of student competencies. Models 1, 2, and 3 appear most relevant for the DoD Chancellor's Office, but regardless of the model selected, any assessment must identify the goals of the education activities, measure the outcomes related to these goals, and evaluate whether the outcomes meet the goals. Eleven appendixes contain supplemental information about DoD training programs and assessment approaches of other agencies. (Contains 6 figures, 26 tables, and 248 references.) (SLD)

The basic assumptions built into the governance of higher education obstruct effective responses to problems influencing its decline. University leaders'"donnish" convictions about universality and professionalism hinder their ability to apportion scarce resources among competing missions and academic programs. A more centralized governance structure is needed. (23 references) (MLH)

This report, part of a project called "Redesigning Higher Education", argues that a set of fundamental changes underlies the growing number of critical difficulties faced by higher education in the United States. It finds the governance structures of American higher education inadequate to deal with a changing and increasingly cost-conscious environment, and suggests that the problem within higher education is that policymakers at all levels are focusing on cutting costs without sufficient regard to defining missions, reallocating resources, and making choices among the present activities in which higher education institutions are engaged. In offering guidelines for dealing with this situation, the report suggests first, that improvements in the governance system can neither be top down nor bottom up: they must be interactive. Second, to ensure cooperation by all academic and administrative units in planning and priority setting, all participants must have a role in forming the rules of the process. The planning and priority-setting process must be university-wide with all units participating. Third, the planning and priority-setting process should be conducted to provide as much open information and discussion as possible. Finally, initial recommendations of faculty task forces and central administrators should be public and preliminary so as to allow affected units to rebut and reply, and appeal mechanisms must be put in place to allow units that are affected by tentative recommendations to respond. The report's five chapters are: Introduction; Higher Education in America; The Changed Environment; Resource Allocation in Higher Education, and New Goverance Systems: Guidelines for Change. (Contains 23 references.) (GLR)