Você está na página 1de 10

The school shall be the heart of the formal education system.

It is where children
learn. Schools shall have a single aim of providing the best possible basic education
for
all
learners.
Governance of basic education shall begin at the national level it is at the regions,
divisions, schools and learning centers herein referred to as the field offices - where
the policy and principle for the governance of basic education shall be translated into
programs, projects and services developed, adapted and offered to fit local needs.
he State shall encourage local initiatives for improving the quality of basic education.
The State shall ensure that the values, needs and aspirations of a school community
are reflected in the program of education for the children, out-of-school youth and
adult learners. Schools and learning centers shall be empowered to make decisions on
what is best for the learners they serve.
Section 2. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared the policy of the State to
protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality basic education and to make
such education accessible to all by providing all Filipino children a free and
compulsory education in the elementary level and free education in the high school
level. Such education shall also include alternative learning systems for out-of-school
youth and adult learners. It shall be the goal of basic education to provide them with
the skills, knowledge and values they need to become caring, seIf-reliant, productive
and patriotic citizens.
) To provide the framework for the governance of basic education which shall set the
general directions for educational policies and standards and establish authority,
accountability and responsibility for achieving higher learning outcomes;
(b) To define the roles and responsibilities of and provide resources to, the field offices
which shall implement educational programs, projects and services in communities
they
serve;
(c) To make schools and learning centers the most important vehicle for the teaching
and learning of national values and for developing in the Filipino learners love of
country
and
pride
in
its
rich
heritage;
(d) To ensure that schools and learning centers receive the kind of focused attention
they deserve and that educational programs, projects and services take into account
the
interests
of
all
members
of
the
community;
(e) To enable the schools and learning centers to reflect the values of the community
by allowing teachers/learning facilitators and other staff to have the flexibility to serve
the
needs
of
all
learners;
(f) To encourage local initiatives for the improvement of schools and learning centers
and to provide the means by which these improvements may be achieved and
sustained;
and
(g) To establish schools and learning centers as facilities where schoolchildren are able
to learn a range of core competencies prescribed for elementary and high school
education programs or where the out-of-school youth and adult learners are provided
alternative learning programs and receive accreditation for at least the equivalent of a
high school education.
2.

Leaders across the higher education space are under more pressure than ever before
to do more with less. After all, student expectations and needs are growing, as are
external expectations for the performance of higher education institutions. However,
the operating budgets for institutions across the country are dwindling.
Improving operational efficiency and streamlining outdated processes are emerging as
silver bullets for the long-term viability of colleges and universities, but what does it
take to make efficiency effective?
Operational efficiency in higher education can prove to be beneficial on both the backend, operational side and on the front-end, academic side of the institution.
Without adequate access to data on existing programs notionally designed to be
pipelines to the academy, institutions dont have the tools they need to efficiently
reach out to students who would be well suited to their programs.
For-profit institutions learned the lessons of continuing education units and applied
those customer-centered, highly-efficient practices to the entire postsecondary
industry.
Understanding the differences between CE and the rest of the institution and bringing
in new efficiency-creating tools is critical for CE units to reduce their operating costs
and improve their service.
Partnering on periphery services, in addition to keeping costs down and improving
efficiency, allows institutions to focus on delivering their core mission.
Campus leaders who want to balance operational efficiency and access scalability
with educational effectiveness should look to their distance education units for best
practices
Though efficiency is central to a strong student experience, it can be challenging to
implement strategies that may be seen to impact faculty innovation.
How to Overcome Resistance to Educational Delivery Changes
Sue Dietrich | Associate Vice President of Adult, Online and Graduate Consulting
Services, Noel-Levitz
Re-inventing the educational model to allow students to earn degrees more quickly,
without a drop-off in quality, will be critical for institutions that want to grow in the
coming years.
AUDIO | Culture and Past Success Blocking Efficiency-Minded Changes
Joni Finney | Director of the Institute for Research in Higher Education, University of
Pennsylvania
Its critical that higher education leaders recognize the shifting dynamics of todays
postsecondary marketplace and begin to focus on reducing operating costs without
impacting quality.
3.
One major emphasis in the educational arena in the early 21st century has been the
continuing demand for greater accountability to increase student performance.
National and state expectations require schools to ensure that all students achieve
mastery of curriculum objectives, and local schools focus on implementing those
requirements to the best of their ability. As a result, leading instructional efforts in a
school has evolved into a primary role for school principals.
In order to meet the challenges associated with national and state expectations,
principals must focus on teaching and learningespecially in terms of measurable
student progressto a greater degree than heretofore. Consequently, today's
principals concentrate on building a vision for their schools, sharing leadership with
teachers, and influencing schools to operate as learning communities. Accomplishing
these essential school improvement efforts requires gathering and assessing data to
determine needs, and monitoring instruction and curriculum to determine if the
identified needs are addressed. This chapter summarizes existing research related to

instructional leadership and methods principals use to exhibit and harness that
leadership to meet their school goals. In particular, we focus on the following goals:
Building and sustaining a school vision
Sharing leadership
Leading a learning community
Using data to make instructional decisions
Monitoring curriculum and instruction
Effective principals make student success pivotal to their work and, accordingly, pay
attention to and communicate about instruction, curriculum, and student mastery of
learning objectives, and are visible in the school. Learning needs to occur throughout
an organization, and principals need to become participants in the learning process in
order to shape and encourage the implementation of effective learning models in their
schools. To illustrate, effective principals don't just arrange for professional
development; rather, they participate in staff training provided to their staffs.
Additionally, good principals foster the idea of working together as a valuable
enterprise because they understand that this kind of collaborative learning community
ultimately will build trust, collective responsibility, and a schoolwide focus on
improved student learning (Prestine & Nelson, 2003).
Teachers as Learners
Keeping staff informed about current research and practice and possessing a belief
system that schools are learning communities are crucial to school success. Principals
use a variety of staff development tools to focus awareness on research-based
strategies that facilitate improved instructional effectiveness (Blase & Blase, 1999). In
an effort to infuse instructional know-how across the entire faculty, the concept of an
instructional leader needs to become broadened beyond that of increasing student
learning. Principals also need to mobilize teachers' energy and capacities. This
requires a transformation of the learning cultures of schoolsa capacity in which
effective principals are adept (Fullan, 2002).
To summarize, principalsthat is, effective principalssupport instructional activities
and programs by modeling expected behaviors and consistently prioritizing
instructional concerns day-to-day. They strive to become a learner among learners.
Involvement in curriculum, instruction, and assessment are crucial to the idea of
instructional leadership. As part of their ongoing instructional leadership
responsibilities, effective school principals are highly visible through contact and
interaction with teachers, students, and parents, thus promoting the concept of a
learning community (Marzano et al., 2005).
here are good reasons to focus on school leadership. The importance of the principal's
role has never been greater, taking into consideration national accountability
standards for schools and the likelihood that principal job vacancies will increase in
the near future. Not only do effective principals focus attention on curriculum and
teaching, they also understand teaching and possess credibility in the eyes of their
staff (Mazzeo, 2003). Schmoker (2006) suggested that too often school cultures
discourage close scrutiny of instruction. He says that effective leaders can raise the
level of importance by looking for evidence that curriculum standards are taught
through the review of formative assessments, grade books, team lesson logs, and
student work.
Principals support instructional activities and programs by modeling expected
behaviors, participating in staff development (as noted earlier), and consistently
prioritizing instructional concerns on a day-to-day basis. They strive to protect
instructional time by removing issues that would detract teachers from their
instructional responsibilities (Marzano et al., 2005). Moreover, principals in effective
schools are involved in instruction and work to provide resources that keep teachers
focused on student achievement. They are knowledgeable about curriculum and

instruction and promote teacher reflection about instruction and its effect on student
achievement (Cotton, 2003).
Visiting Classrooms
Principals build trust by supporting and nurturing teacher development by providing
feedback that helps teachers to improve. This is more likely to occur when principals
exercise the collegiality of leadership. Additionally, principals are in the best position
to help teachers improve in areas of weakness and can accomplish this through
observations and dialogue that shows respect for teachers as professionals (Cooper,
Ehrensal, & Bromme, 2005). Ultimately, many principals spend too little time in
classrooms or analyzing instruction with teachers. It is important to evaluate the
quality of teaching in order to select and retain good teachers, which is discussed in
more depth in Chapter 3. Principals must develop leadership skills that help them to
build the intellectual capital that is necessary to make good curriculum choices,
establish expectations for student work, and provide teachers with opportunities to
learn the specifics of teaching well within their academic areas. As such, leadership
skills and knowledge of instruction must be tied together (Fink & Resnick, 2001).
Monitoring the Curriculum
Some educators believe that if a school organization is not meeting curriculum
expectations established by state and local policymakers, the problem is leadership.
Principals must monitor how the curriculum is taught and participate in how it is
developed. The knowledge that principals gain through this process can ensure that
teachers understand the curriculum and have access to all the necessary tools and
resources. They then can hold teachers, students, and themselves responsible for the
results (Ruebling, Stow, Kayona, & Clarke, 2004). Not only do principals need
adequate knowledge and skill to assess teacher performance, they also need a sense
of self-efficacy that they can do so successfully. This is especially important when
principals are faced with removing ineffective teachers. Knowing what is important
about good teaching is different from the ability to use that knowledge well in
stressful situations such as teacher removal. To do so successfully requires that
principals are confident in their ability not only to assess the quality and effectiveness
of teachers but also to take the necessary actions when instruction is weak (Painter,
2000). Evaluating teachers is addressed in more depth in Chapter 4. Existing research
related to the role of the principal and monitoring curriculum and instruction indicates
the following:
Effective principals possess knowledge of the curriculum and good instructional
practices (Cotton, 2003) and, subsequently, focus their attention in their schools on
curriculum and instruction (Mazzeo, 2003).
Effective principals monitor the implementation of curriculum standards and make
sure they are taught (Schmoker, 2006).
Effective principals model behaviors that they expect of school staff (Marzano et al.,
2005).
Principals are in a good position to support teacher effectiveness through observations
and conversations with teachers (Cooper et al., 2005).
Principals need to spend time in classrooms in order to effectively monitor and
encourage curriculum implementation and quality instructional practices (Fink &
Resnick, 2001; Pajak & McAfee, 1992; Ruebling et al., 2004).
Teachers and principals feel it is important to have someone to steer the curriculum
and prioritize staff development (Portin et al., 2003).
Teachers too frequently view classroom observations as a means to satisfy contractual
obligations rather than as a vehicle for improvement and professional growth (Cooper
et al., 2005).
In effective schools, principals are able to judge the quality of teaching and share a
deep knowledge of instruction with teachers (Fink & Resnick, 2001).

An effective leader promotes coherence in the instructional program where teachers


and students follow a common curriculum framework (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003).
Effective principals trust teachers to implement instruction effectively, but they also
monitor instruction with frequent classroom visits to verify the results (Portin et al.,
2003).
Related Resources: Armstrong, 2007; Wise, 2001.
A Final Word on the Power of Positive Instructional Leadership
Nothing in the principal's role is more important for ensuring successful student
learning than effective instructional leadership. School principals who focus on a
vision for their schools nurture the leadership capabilities of their teachers.
Additionally, if their schools are moving in the right direction, they model effective
leading and learning. Combining these efforts with using data appropriately, as well as
monitoring what takes place at the classroom level, will increase the likelihood that
schools will achieve their goals for student learning.
The organizational structures of American colleges and universities vary distinctly,
depending on institutional type, culture, and history, yet they also share much in
common. While a private liberal arts college may have a large board of trustees, and a
public research university nested in a state system no trustees of its own, the vast
majority of public and private universities are overseen by an institutional or systemwide governing board. This somewhat paradoxical combination of distinctiveness and
uniformity reflects the unique characteristics of individual colleges and universities,
and the shared-task environment (including strategic planning, fiscal oversight,
curriculum planning, and student affairs) common to American postsecondary
institutions. Scholars of higher education view many aspects of private colleges and
universities as significantly different than public universities. Yet the reliance on
bureaucratic organizational structures and the belief in research, advanced
instruction, and service at both types of institutions shape many aspects of public and
private university governance structures in a fairly uniform manner.
The organizational structure of colleges and universities is an important guide to
institutional activity, but not the only one. Scholars of higher education have
developed a variety of multi-dimensional models of organizational behavior that also
shed considerable light on college and university structure and process. Multidimensional models seek to explain organizational behavior across institutional types,
and in various institutional activities. The models vary somewhat in the number of
dimensions incorporated, from J. Victor Baldridge's three dimensions (bureaucratic,
collegial, and political) and Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal's four-cornered frame
(structural, human resource, political, and symbolic) to Robert Birnbaum's five
dimensions (bureaucratic, collegial, political, anarchical, and cybernetic). These
models are quite helpful in thinking about organizational structure and process within
colleges and universities. The same institution may evidence a bureaucratic,
hierarchical decision-making process in its central administration, and a collegial
process in its academic senate. It is a combination of organizational structure and
process that shapes college and university behavior.
Public and private colleges and universities of all types incorporate key authority
structures, including a governing board, a president or chancellor, a cohort of
administrative leaders, and an academic senate. In public institutions these core
organizational entities collaborate with such external authorities as state and federal
political leaders, community organizations, and members of the public, as well as
business interests and philanthropic foundations. These external organizations

routinely interact with and shape the policies and procedures of the university's
internal organizational structures.
The degree of uniformity in private and public college and university organizational
structures has been shaped by the nature of demands on the postsecondary system
since the mid-twentieth century. Although the key governance structures of colleges
and universities were present prior to the turn of the twentieth century, the full scope
of the university's multifaceted organizational structure, most scholars agree, was not
realized until after the rise of the research university, in the wake of World War II. In
1963 then-president of the University of California system, Clark Kerr, described the
postwar American university as a multiversity. The term captured the increasingly
complex organizational and governance structures required to negotiate its everexpanding task environment.
Governing Boards
A university's governing board, also known as the trustees, regents, or board of
visitors, possesses fundamental legal authority over the university. The authority of
the governing board is vested in it by the state wherein the school resides or,
particularly in the case of older, private institutions, by legally binding royal or colonial
charters. Both public and private governing boards are generally constituted of citizen
trustees. In the public case those trustees are often political appointees who serve as
a fundamental link between the institution and state and national political structures.
In the United States the tradition of lay oversight of colleges and universities can be
traced to the founding of Harvard College in 1636. Subsequent private colleges
adopted this form of governance, which the U.S. Supreme Court deemed
constitutional in its Dartmouth College decision of 1819. Public colleges and
universities followed suit, although on the public side the role of governors in trustee
appointments and the key role of legislative funding in institutional development has
meant that the states play a central role in the governance of the institutions. The
federal government has influenced the organization of higher education primarily
through legislationthe Morrill Acts, the Higher Education Acts, and the G.I. Bill, for
instancethat reinforced decentralized governance and, hence, the authority of
institutional governing boards at both public and private institutions. As John Millet
noted, "It has long been evident that it is the state governments rather than the
federal government that carry the primary authority and responsibility for higher
education in the United States" (p. 1).
Governing board members at public institutions typically arrive at the trustee table by
one of four paths: direct appointment by the governor; ex-officio appointment;
gubernatorial appointment subject to approval of the state legislature; and less
frequently, election by popular vote. Public university board members represent the
citizens of the state and the terms and conditions of their service are often defined by
institutional charter or state constitution. Private boards are generally selfperpetuating, with new trustees chosen by the membership of the standing board.
While private colleges and universities benefit considerably from public subsidies and
support, private boards are not subject to the same degree of external scrutiny or
intervention as are public boards.
The formal responsibilities of university governing boards are significant even as they
are few in number. They include preservation of the university charter; institutional
performance evaluations; fundraising; liaison with external agencies and political
bodies; budget approval; oversight of campus policies and investment strategies; and,

perhaps most important, hiring and evaluating the ongoing performance of the
university president.
Because of their visibility, symbolic importance, and control over policies with
significant political salience, public university boards became subject to increasing
challenges from a variety of interests in the last two decades of the twentieth century.
These challenges were accompanied by demands for non-partisan board
appointments and trustees that are more representative of the broader society, as
well as calls for increased scrutiny of potential conflicts of interest. Boards were also
challenged by governors and legislators concerned about issues ranging from rising
costs to faculty ideology. A response to the heightened pressures on governing boards
was a push for improved trustee education programs in several states in the pursuit of
more open and effective governance processes. Given its myriad responsibilities and
powers, a strong argument can be made that the board is the most powerful
governing agent of the modern university.
The President
The liaison between a postsecondary institution and its governing board is the highest
ranking executive officer, a president or chancellor. The president provides overall
leadership to the institution and presides over its academic and administrative
bureaus. The president generally works closely with a provost, who is responsible for
academic affairs, and a chief financial officer, who oversees the institution's fiduciary
operations. The president serves as the lead fundraiser, and as a key representative of
the university and its academic community to external agencies and actors.
Presidential duties include fostering a positive public image of the institution as a site
of higher learning, maintaining a close relationship with the institutional governing
board to further the president's agenda, and forging points of common cause and
agreement with the entire university community and its constituents.
Since World War II the job of university president has become considerably more
complex, and in many ways more constrained. Presidential authority has been eroded
as boards and external actors have gained more legitimate roles in university
governance. Presidential satisfaction has declined, and the average presidential
tenure is shorter than before World War II.
No responsibility consumes the modern-day president's time and energy more than
his or her role as the institution's principal fundraiser, a task made especially difficult
because it requires extensive time away from the institution. While presidential
fundraising has been a function of private universities for centuries, the emergence of
significant public university fundraising in the 1980s and 1990s is a major
development. Fueled by decreasing state and federal support in recent years, public
universities have been forced to take on a more significant share of their own funding,
with development playing a major role in this process.
Faculty
The formal governing body of the faculty at the institutional level is the academic
senate, a body generally comprised of tenured and tenure-track faculty from the
various disciplines and professional schools. The faculty senate and its attendant
committees provide elected faculty liaisons to the university board and president. A
primary function of the senate is to represent the voice of the faculty in matters of
university governance.

Each school or college within a university is under the direction of a dean. A


chairperson or department head supervises individual departments of instruction.
Faculty members are ranked, in descending order, as professor, associate professor,
assistant professor, and instructor. Faculty of various ranks may or may not be
tenured, depending on the institution. Faculty members can be dismissed from their
posts unless and until they have been granted tenure, a term denoting a measure of
academic job security that is earned through a combination of demonstrated
teaching, research, and service contributions. The faculty generally has significant
influence over the hiring of new faculty members, tenure and promotion procedures,
the university curriculum and graduation requirements, and admissions criteria.
While the role of the faculty in governance was at one time largely advisory, over time
the faculty has become increasingly engaged in policy formation. In many cases the
faculty possesses significant authority over academic affairs. Faculty representatives
are often found on governing boards, in formal or informal (non-voting) positions. The
formal authority of the faculty may be codified in institutional charters or in the
standing rules of institutional governing boards.
A number of other factors and informal agreements shape the degree to which faculty
are involved in institutional affairs. Many colleges and universities ties have a
commitment to a process of shared governance that incorporates the faculty in
various aspects of institutional decision-making. A collegial relationship between the
faculty senate and the college or university president is a key component of shared
governance, as is the relationship between the faculty senate and the institutional
governing board. Faculty authority is also shaped by the strength and reputation of
the institution's academic departments and departmental leadership, as well as the
faculty's symbolic importance as teachers and producers of knowledge, and the
legitimacy provided by individual faculty member's professional expertise.
National organizations also contribute to the legitimacy and organizational standing of
the American professorate. Among these, the most prominent is the American
Association of University Professors (AAUP). Established in 1915 to advance the
collective interests, ideals, and standards of the fledgling university professorate, the
AAUP has since that time become best known for its role in the defense of academic
freedom and tenure. The AAUP's clearest articulation of this role can be found in its
declaration, Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure (1995). Over
time the AAUP has developed initiatives on other aspects of faculty life, including
shared university governance. In the last two decades of the twentieth century
research on faculty turned attention to the rapid growth in the percentage of nontenured and non-tenure track faculty in colleges and universities, a shift with
significant implications for the organizational structure and governance of those
institutions.
Administration and Staff
Internal university administration is composed of two interrelated administrative
cohorts: one is responsible for the oversight and administration of academic affairs;
the other is charged with institutional administration. The academic and institutional
administrations are often in conflict with one another. The growth of the institutional
administrative cohort after World War II has led to what some researchers perceive as
disproportionate influence on the part of the institutional administration. The
increasing growth and autonomy of the institutional administrative cohort also
challenges the traditional perception of the overall mission of the university's

administration as one of academic support and facilitation. As Amitai Etzioni (1964)


has noted, there is an essential tension in organizations such as colleges and
universities that are driven by professional expertise but led by administrators. This
has produced demands for a cohort of administrative leaders who can bring
professional education and credentials to institutional managerial practice.
Within the academic administration, the president presides over a hierarchy that
generally consists of a number of senior officers, including a university provost, and
the deans of individual colleges and professional programs. Academic administrators
are traditionally drawn from the faculty ranks, where departmental leadership
positions serve as preparation for university-wide academic leadership roles.
The managerial cohort of the institutional administration is led by a chief financial
officer and various senior executives. The chief financial officer provides leadership
and direction to a host of administrative functions that generally includes student
services, institutional support, maintenance and operation of the physical plant, and
auxiliary enterprises. These individual units in turn encompass smaller departments
responsible for more specialized services. The latter part of the twentieth century
witnessed increased demands for greater efficiency, productivity, and entrepreneurial
management at colleges and universities. Efficiency initiatives in particular, including
outsourcing of institutional functions and the hiring of adjunct faculty, engendered
significant internal conflict between the managerial and academic administrations.
Students
Historically students have not had a significant role in the organizational structure or
governance of colleges and universities. During most of the nineteenth century,
college administrations followed a practice of in loco parentis, an educational
philosophy that led university administrators and faculty members to oversee the
academic advancement and personal conduct of their students very closely. Over time
a gradual loosening of the institutional academic and social oversight occurred, a
result of the university's incorporation of the German university model that
emphasized greater student and faculty freedom. The heightened social and
intellectual autonomy available to undergraduates encouraged students to seek
greater involvement in university governance and administrative affairs.
Student interest in university organization and governance increased significantly in
the 1960s. In the aftermath of student unrest and demands for increased student
involvement in campus affairs, a degree of student participation on university boards,
search committees, and faculty senates has become commonplace. Many colleges
and universities include a student representative in either an advisory or voting
position on the board of trustees. In addition, students often have their own network
of parallel undergraduate and graduate governance organizations headed by a
student body president and elected representatives that have contact with university
officials, such as the president and the board.
Future Prospects
As the American university moves into the twenty-first century, a number of factors,
including the increased complexity of institutional functions, changing student
demographics, demands for entrepreneurial behavior, technological innovations, and
increases in external interest group interventions will significantly challenge existing
organizational structures and processes. The rapid growth in demand for continuing
education and the provision of distance programs by colleges and universities in

particular has challenged traditional notions of the content and delivery of


postsecondary education. A number of key political shifts, including a growing retreat
from public funding of colleges and universities, demands for privatization of college
and university services, and the use of the university as an instrument in broader
national political struggles, will further complicate organizational arrangements. These
political shifts entail considerably more institutional outreach to legislatures,
governors, and key interest groups at the state and national levels, as well as
additional staff in governmental and public relations. Finally, the rise of what Richard
T. Ingram terms "activist trusteeship" and increasingly interventionist stances taken
by public and private institutional governing boards may require increased collective
action by internal cohorts. In order to preserve institutional autonomy and shared
governance in a time of increasing political conflict, effort will also need to be directed
to creating more effective organizational bridges between colleges and university
leaders and institutional governing boards.

Read more: Colleges and Organizational Structure of Universities - Governing Boards,


The President, Faculty, Administration and Staff, Students, Future Prospects StateUniversity.com
http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1859/CollegesUniversities-Organizational-Structure.html#ixzz4RCGobrOI