Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
An Historical Survey of Academic Planning Development

An Historical Survey of Academic Planning Development

Ratings: (0)|Views: 0|Likes:
by Larry R. Jones, from Planning for Higher Education v07n5.
by Larry R. Jones, from Planning for Higher Education v07n5.

More info:

Published by: The Integrated and Well-Planned Campus on Jul 02, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/14/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Planning for Higher Education,
7:5 (April, 1979)
21-27
An Historical Survey
of
Academic Planning
Development
by
Larry
R.
Jones
Institutional
Origins
and
Instruments of
Governance
The origins
of
institutions for advanced learning appear
to
lie in the academies
of
ancient Greece. TheSophists taught oratory, grammar, logic and philosophyin schools
as
early
as
the
fifth
century, B.C.1Pythago
reans
researched and taught mathematics, astronomyand metaphysics in formal schools. The theories
of
Empedocles, Anaxagoras, and Democritus anticipatedthe development
of
atomic
theory)
Philosophers Prota
goras
of
Abdera, Gorgias of Leontenium, Hippias
of
Elis
all contributed
to
the tradition
of
formalized transmission
of
knowledge which
was
inherited by the Academy
of
Plato and the Lyceum
of
Aristotle. Platds Academyserved
as
a model
of
what
has
been termed the Oxfordapproach
to
institutional organization and the transmission
of
advanced knowledge, dedicated
to
teaching thehumanities. The schools
of
the Sophists and Pythago
reans
emphasized the teaching
of
applied theory, ideaswhich could be
used
directly
to
enhance practical'success in life" for their students,
an
approach whichled
to
development
of
the tradition
of
professionalschools. The origins
of
academic organization
per
se,
thus
are
found in the intentional design
of
curricula
in
the Greek schools and academies.The origins
of
academic planning may be viewed
to
rest in the development
of
mechanisms for governance
of
colleges and universities establ ished
atthe
end
of
the
Middle
Ages
in Europe. The universities
of
Bologna,Salerno, Salamanca,
Paris,
Oxford and Cambridge utilized different modes
of
governance and planning.
At
the University
of
Bologna, student-faculty guildsplanned curricula, instruction and research. Kerr
des-
cribes the emergence of administrations:The original medieval universities had at the startnothing that could
be
identified
as
a separateadministration,
but
one
quickly
developed. Thegui
Id
of
masters
of
students selected a rector; andlater there were deans
of
the faculties.
At
Oxford
PLANNING
7:5
and Cambridge, there came
to
be
the masters
of
the colleges.3In England, creation
of
the University Grants Committee stimulated the growth
of
an
administrative structure
of
vice chancellors at Oxford and Cambridge whichdealt
with
planning and administration
of
the entireuniversity. The University
of
Paris was
governed andplanned by faculty
peers.
4Hofstadter traces the origins
of
the lay governingboard model, which
has
prevailed in the United States,from seventeenth century Holland.S
With
respect
to
layboards, however, the distinction between governanceand planning must
be
made.
Most
lay boards have
not
engaged in institutional planning to any degree beyondsetting policy priorities. Exceptions
to
this
notion
can
befound among some contemporary community collegelay boards which conduct a significant amount
of
fiscalplanning and,
as
a consequence, impact on institutionalacademic activity.The specialization
of
European universities in theseventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries indicates the degree
to
which institutions sought intentionally
to
satisfy particular objectives in addition
to
reflecting the nature
of
the societies in which theyevolved. The University
of
Bologna became a center
for
study
of
the law; the University
of
Salerno providedspecialized instruction in medicine.Establishment
of
the University
of
Berlin in 1809
is
regarded
as
a significant event in the specialized development
of
the modern university.
At
Berlin, departments consisting
of
faculty teaching specific subjectswere organized. Separate graduate-level instruction andthe research institute
as
part
of
the university werecreated.
At
the University
of
Berlin, institutional planning
was
accomplished
to
prescribe the general nature
of
instruction and research. The conditions under whichmore specific faculty and disciplinary planning wouldoccur also were developed.
21
 
In the United States, the colonial and revolutionaryperiod witnessed establishment of colleges and universities based on the Oxford model.
As
indicated by Kerr,the history
of
institutional governance and planningduring this period
is
the history
of
the development
of
individual institutions.6Thomas Jefferson adopted theelective system at the University of Virginia and developed the campus library
as
a component
of
theinstitution. Planning
at
Virginia, Harvard, Yale,
Michi-
gan
and Brown
was
accomplished by faculty, influenced strongly in some
cases
by institutional founderslike Jefferson.
It
was
not
until after the Civil War
that
U.S. institutions began
to
adopt the organizationally sophisticatedBerlin model
of
university instruction, research andplanning.
Johns
Hopkins University, established in1876,
was
the first American university
to
be
organizedin this manner, emphasizing graduate instruction andresearch. Harvard, Michigan, Columbia, the University
of
California and numerous other institutions soon fol
IQwed
this example in the latter quarter
of
the nineteenth
century}
Veysey describes the ways in which the Americanuniversity planned
and
developed after the Civil War:Since its leaders lacked the 'feel'
of
what the public might be willing
to
accept, new ideas fromEurope could penetrate with fewer impedances.Indeed,
it
was
the luxury
of
widespread publicindifference which permitted
such
a variety
of
abstract conceptions
of
the university
to
blossomimmediately after 1865. In this
fluid
time, before
the
pressure
of
numbers had
irrevocably
descended, entire universities might even befounded
or
reorganized in the
names
of
such particular conceptions. Presidents and professorscould engage in debate among themselves overthe guiding aim of the university
with
the feelingthat their words really mattered.
It
could be hopedthat deeply held convictions would realize them
selves
in institutional structures.8The period prior
to
World War I
has
been characterized
as
the first
Hgolden
age
H
of
American academe.However, this description
masks
the somewhat dire circumstance of American higher education which prevailed until the
1890s.
It
is
only in retrospect
that
thisperiod
is
viewed optimistically
as
one
of
development.Institutional faculty and administrators were not confident that Americans valued higher education duringthis period. In the quarter century after the Civil War,despite a nearly
25%
growth in the nation's population,enrollments in higher education grew
less
than 5%.Americans were not yet imbued
with
the spirit
of
higherlearning.
As
Veysey points out,
Hln
1885
less
than aquarter
of
all American congressmen were collegegraduates,
as
compared with
380/0
ten years earlier.'9
It
was
the emergence of American business and industry
'\
which, along with enactment
of
the Morri
II
Land Grant
Act
of
1862, created the atmosphere in which Ameri
cans
began
to
seek
higher learning
as
a
means
of
socialand economic mobility.
These
developments had a direct impact on academic planning, asserting the demand for professionaleducation in addition
to
the humanities, and the physical and nascent social sciences being taught in American universities. The Morrill
Act
was
specifically written
to elicit
the development
of
Hagriculture and
mechanical' instruction. By
and
large however, untilthe
1890s
universities were able
to
pursue their owndevelopment
without
much public
nt~~ention.
 
The Role
of
the
Executive
Governance
and
planning
of
institutions at the turn
of
the century and for the several decades following
was
carried
out
most directly by institutional presidents andchancellors; Gilman
at
Johns
Hopkins, Eliot
at
Harvard,Hutchins at Chicago, and Wheeler at the University
of
California.
If
it
is
accepted that the initial
phases
of
planning include goal setting, then a first step in theplanning process
is
the expression and examination
of
values
as
a precursor
to
specification
of
goals.
The articulation
of
values by presidents
of
major U.S. universities at the turn
of
the century
was
crucial
to
the development of institutions. Whether the president
was
Upton Sinclair's 'universal father" or whether
he was
the
'initiator' of
James
Morrill, he coalesced
an
interest inthe public, in politicians and in faculty
to
shape theacademic character
of
the institution.
10
Conflicts between populist and academic views
of
the university which arose in this period were evidencedin the different approaches
to
institutional developmenttaken by presidents and their administrators
versus
those
of
the faculty.Academic executives emerged
with
a battlescarred sensitivity
to
the subject
of
publicopinion. Knowing its power, fearing its force,these men could develop an almost obsequioushabit
of
submissiveness
to
it. But, secondly, thevery aloofness
of
many academic concerns frompublic sympathy tended also
to
attract men
to
theuniversity who sought
to
separate themselvesfrom the other elements
of
the society. This
se-
cond kind
of
academic man, more often a professor than a president, relished the distinctiveness
of
the higher learning. He wished
to
bui
Id
theuniversity in
an
almost deliberately unpopularstyle.
While
naturally
he
hoped
to
win the loyalties
of
a certain number
of
students, he assumedthat these students would have
to
meet the stan-
PLANNING
7:52
 
dards he imposed, not that
he
should have
to
goforward
to
bargain
with
them. The academic lifefor this kind
of
believer in the university, must setits own terms.
11
The means by which faculty sought
to
retain control
of
their disciplines
was
to
organize more carefully
into'scientific
schools"
to
prove that 'science had its own,carefully segregated, place
within
the institution and
that
no wholesale revision
of
curricula needed
to
be
fueled from above.'12The decentralized modern university which emergedafter World War I posed interesting problems forplanning: how
to
hold all this
activity
together
to
form
an
interdependent and cohesive
set
of
relationships?
The
role
of
research in the new university created a newdimension in planning which
was
difficult
to
incorporate
into
the formal ized planni
ng
process
of
universitiesand colleges.
Holding
together the rapidly expandingempire
of
the emerging modern university became theresponsibility
of
presidents and administrators. Responsibility for planning sifted itself
outinto
severalcategories. Presidents articulated broad values and setmajor policies and academic program priorities, such
as
emphasis
of
graduate
instruction
and research.Faculties, on the other hand, divided
into
specializedworking groups, developing their curricular and disciplinary interests.The administrations
of
emerging universities developed under the presidents. They were comprised
of
deans, business staffs and cadres
of
senior professors inwhom the president had trust.
As
Veysey notes,'administration connoted a certain state
of
mind;
it
meant these people in the university community
who
characteristically thought in terms
of
institutional management or organizational planning."13 One
of
theearly practitioners
of
institutional administration
was
Eliot
at
Harvard
who
had a strong concern
for
budgets,and public relations. Eliot's book,
University Adminis-tration
was
published
in
1908,
and a number
of
articleswere published in the
same
vein
soon
thereafter.Typewriters, piles
of
paper, administrative forms keeping records
of
teaching appointments, compilation
of
catalogues, announcements, annual reports, all becamepart
of
the presidents' administrative
aegis
in large universities before and after World War1.Competition between administrators and faculty hadclearly begun
to
grow
as
a natural by-product
of
the
conflict
between presidents and faculty. This type
of
conflict
was
stimulated by the inquisitiveness
of
theadministrator, propelled by his president, and his
sense
of
role.
If
the administrator
had
confined his purview
to
the financial and technical aspects
of
theuniversity, conflict might
not
have appeared. Butsuch restraint on his part would have been
PLANNING
7:5inconceivable,
for
few financial questions lackedsome academic bearing
as
long
as
departmentsbegged for money. The normal need
of
decidingmatters
of
tenure and promotion would havecaused emotions
to
rise, had there
been
no otherform
of
executive interference, for when thesepractical questions presented themselves thedream
of
a 'republic
of
letters" retreated most abjectly
into
the realm
of
theory.
As
it
was,
manyacademic executives claimed the abstract right
to
judgethe
performance
of
professors
quite
comprehensively. Bureaucratic administration
was
the structural device which made possible thenew epoch
of
institutional empire-building wi
thout
recourse
to
specific shared values.
Thus,
while unity
of
purpose disintegrated, a
uniformityof
standardized practices
was
coming
into
being.
14Several
styles
of
academic planning evolved
in
U.S.
universities after the first world war. Planning
was
carried
out
by:
(a)
small, informal groups
of
faculty andadministrators; and (b) the personal aristocracy
of
presidents and administrators.Competition for prestige among American universities had a marked influence on the development
of
"administrative' planning.
As
universities bygan
to
be
ranked according
to
the breadth
of
their curricula, thequality
of
their graduate education, the strength
of
theirlibraries, etc., institutional development could
no
longer proceed
without
notions
of
priority. Creation
of
professional academic societies and organizations (e.g.,The American Association
of
Land Grant Colleges andUniversities in 1887). before and after World War
I
alsoexercised
an
influence on the emergence
of
the planning and administrative functions in colleges anduniversities.The boom in student enrollments, which began inthe
1890s
and continued in the 1920s,exerted considerable pressure for institutions
to
plan. According
to
Henry, student enrollments
in
higher education grewfrom approximately 30,000 in
1870
to
1,100,000 by 1930whi
Ie
institutions grew in number from
500
to
1,400.
15
This growth, coupled with adoption
of
the electivesystem, created a need for curriculum and student-flowplanning. Planning
of
this nature
pressed
the level
of
administrative coordination far beyond Hutchin's view
of
the organization
of
a university
as
departments
with
interconnected heating systems. During this period,wise institutional presidents did not emphasize thebureaucratic nature
of
their institutions
to
the generalpublic or
to
their faculties, for fear
of
provoking reac
tion
against activities which were absolutely necessaryin their
eyes.
In the
1930s,
American higher education encountered a period
of
reduced growth caused by the Great
23

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->