Eckel, Peter D
Email Address
ORCID
Disciplines
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 10 of 24
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).Publication An International Visitors Guide to Understanding University Governing Boards in the United States of America(2019-02-27) Eckel, Peter DThis document describes the structure and forms of governing boards in the United States. It provides an overview of the related higher education context and then describes board structure, composition, leadership, and scope of work.Publication Core Values and the Road to Change(1998-07-01) Green, Madeleine F; Eckel, Peter D; Hill, BarbaraHigher education draws much of the vocabulary and many of the concepts about change from the corporate sector. Corporations "downsized" and "restructured" in the early 1990s in response to competitive and financial pressures; higher education currently is experiencing similar pressures. Yet change and renewal in higher education are not just about money and becoming more cost-effective. Although these are important objectives, higher education must incorporate changes that improve student learning, foster closer connections with their communities, and adapt to the demands of an increasingly technological society. Reorganizing and cutting costs alone do not suggest how colleges and universities might become more agile as institutions, nor do efficiency measures usually address the core issues of the higher education enterprise.Publication Closing Academic Programs: Pitfalls and Possibilities(2010-01-01) Eckel, Peter DTakeaways 1 Closures of academic programs can have lasting negative fallout and the savings may not be as great as anticipated, but at certain points—and if done well—closures can provide an opportunity to refocus the institution. 2 While campus leaders typically are the primary drivers of the initial decisions to close programs and to craft the processes of doing so, boards of trustees have important roles to fulfill that can advance the efforts. 3 The current economic uncertainties may have shortened the time it takes for some campuses to recognize that the only way forward is to close academic programs and focus their offerings.Publication The Dynamic Nature of Knowledge: Future Challenges and Opportunities for College and University Leaders.(2008-01-01) Eckel, Peter D; Hartley, MatthewPublication 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 The Last 100 Days of a Presidency: What Boards Need to Know and Do(2013-05-01) Johnson, Sandra S; Eckel, Peter DTakeaways It is just as important for a board to plan the transition of the outgoing president as it is to plan the transition of the incoming president. Boards should help departing presidents fashion a to-do list, as well as a not-to-do list. Boards should recognize that the departure of the president can present significant procedural and emotional issues for senior staff members awaiting the arrival of the new president.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 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 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.