Eckel, Peter D
Email Address
ORCID
Disciplines
relationships.isProjectOf
relationships.isOrgUnitOf
Position
Introduction
Research Interests
Collection
24 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 10 of 24
Publication Redefining Competition Constructively: The Challenges of Privatisation, Competition and Market-Based State Policy in the United States(2007-01-01) Eckel, Peter DIn the United States, the relationship between state governments and public colleges and universities is being redefined with new notions of autonomy and accountability, and with funding policies that are highly market-driven (often referred to as "privatisation") as the centerpieces. Situations and institutional strategies unthinkable only a few years ago are becoming increasingly commonplace. For instance, a few business and law schools at public institutions are moving toward privatisation, distancing themselves from both the states and their parent universities. While American higher education has traditionally been competitive and market driven, emerging state market-based policies, which will clearly benefit some types of institutions over others, are further intensifying the competition with a variety of effects at the institutional and sector levels. Entrepreneurial or commercial activities may provide the additional resources individual institutions need to fulfil their public purpose. However, when all institutions pursue the same set of competitive strategies, no one gains an advantage. Institutions run harder to stay in place. The cumulative effect of competition may also work against important social objectives such as affordability and access. This paper explores the challenges that the current competitive environment creates for institutional leaders in the United States. It acknowledges that the competitive environment will not abate and suggests that by competing in different ways, over different objectives, with different purposes, US higher education might better meet its social objectives of increased access, lower cost and enhanced quality.Publication Counsel on Program Elimination(2003-01-01) Eckel, Peter DThis book has provided case illustrations and discussed the costs and savings of program elimination, the role of leadership, the ability of shared governance to make hard decisions, and the use of criteria. The concluding chapter brings together the findings to provide counsel on program elimination. It presents rationale for why decisions must be defensible; discusses the tradeoffs regarding savings, tenure, and program elimination; and makes suggestions both for campus leaders seeking to eliminate programs and for those seeking to fight off program closures. Additionally, it suggests empirically based modifications to the Association of American University Professors (AAUP) policies concerning program termination and shared governance.Publication What Presidents Really Think About Their Boards(2013-11-01) Eckel, Peter DTakeaways Contrary to many recent headlines of tensions between presidents and boards, the clear majority of presidents report that their boards have a positive impact on the institution, they are satisfied overall with the baord, and they think boards are engaged at the right levels. Understanding higher education better may help to increase board engagement...as well as micromanaging if boards, board leaders, and presidents don't have ongoing conversations about the appropriate role of the board. Presidents and boards must work together to get governance right. Such goals require effort, intentionality, and candor.Publication The Dynamic Nature of Knowledge: Future Challenges and Opportunities for College and University Leaders.(2008-01-01) Eckel, Peter D; Hartley, MatthewPublication Lessons Learned about Student Learning: Eight Test Cases(2014-01-01) Eckel, Peter DTakeaways The progress—and setbacks—of eight institutions that served as test cases have yielded a set of lessons about board oversight of educational quality from which others can benefit: 1 Ensure a sufficient institutional-assessment capacity. 2 Start with what you already have. 3 Make academic quality a priority of the boad and institutional leaders. 4 Attach the effort to other activities. 5 Educate the board on education. 6 Find the right focus. 7 Allow for targeted deeper dives. 8 Develop new board processes and use time differently. 9 Deepen the engagement of the board with faculty.Publication Assessing Change and Transformation in Higher Education: An Essential Task for Leaders(2002-01-01) Eckel, Peter DAn important responsibility of metropolitan university leaders is to provide compelling evidence that their institutions have the ability to change and to articulate how much change has occurred. This paper examines how institutions can develop that capacity and determine the extent to which institutions are different. It defines transformation, describes types of evidence, presents a framework for determining evidence, suggests strategies for collecting evidence, and identifies challenges to determining progress.Publication Navigating the Currents of Change(2001-01-01) Hill, Barbara; Green, Madeleine; Eckel, Peter DColleges and universities are constantly undergoing change of some sort. Each new academic year brings computer software upgrades, fresh scheduling issues, new courses, and an influx of faculty and staff members. But some institutional change is more ambitious, penetrating into the fabric of the institution. Many call this change "transformational"—meaning that it affects culture, structures, policies, attitudes, and behaviors.Publication What to Consider When Closing an Academic Program(2017-11-12) Eckel, Peter DPublication The Dilemma of Presidential Leadership(2005-01-01) Birnbaum, Robert; Eckel, Peter DEvery decade, about five thousand persons serve as college or university presidents. Over a term of office averaging less than seven years, the president is expected to serve simultaneously as the chief administrator of a large and complex bureaucracy, as the convening colleague of a professional community, as a symbolic elder in a campus culture of shared values and symbols, and (in some institutions) as a public official accountable to a public board and responsive to the demands of other governmental agencies. Balancing the conflicting expectations of these roles has always been difficult; changing demographic trends, fiscal constraints, the complexity and diversity of tasks, university dynamics, and unrealistic public expectations make it virtually impossible for most presidents to provide the leadership that is expected.Publication Are They Singing from the Same Hymn Book?(1998) Eckel, Peter DA fact of academic life is that faculty and presidents primarily concern themselves with different institutional tasks, attend different institutional meetings, and pursue different institutional goals. In short, faculty do "faculty things" and presidents do "presidential things." They have different perceptions of institutional life (Peterson and White 1992). Differing perspectives can easily lead to standoffs between the two powers in academe—those who teach and those who administer—and those standoffs happen quite frequently (American Council on Education & Pew Higher Education Roundtable 1996; Schuster et al. 1994). Faculty-administrator differences are not a new phenomenon; examples exist at Williams and Dartmouth Colleges from 100 years ago (Finkelstein 1984).