The locus of formal decision-making for curriculum and instruction in selected multi-campus community colleges

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The locus of formal decision-making for curriculum and instruction in selected multi-campus community colleges
Physical Description:
ix, 138 leaves. : 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Holcombe, Willis Newton, 1945-
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Decision-making -- School management   ( lcsh )
Community colleges -- Curricula   ( lcsh )
Educational Administration and Supervision thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Administration and Supervision -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis -- University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 135-137.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
Willis N. Holcombe.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 022919325
oclc - 14182025
System ID:
AA00022251:00001

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
    Acknowledgement
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
    List of Tables
        Page v
    List of Figures
        Page vi
    Abstract
        Page vii
        Page viii
        Page ix
    Chapter 1. Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
    Chapter 2. The decision-making pattern of southern community college district
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
    Chapter 3. The decision-making pattern of western community college district
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
    Chapter 4. The decision-making pattern of eastern community college district
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
    Chapter 5. Commalities and differences in the decision-making patterns for the three districts
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
    Chapter 6. Generalizations, implications, and recommendations for further study
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
    Appendix A. The decision point instrument
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
    Appendix B. Structured interview guide
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
    References
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
    Biographical sketch
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
Full Text











THE LOCUS OF FORMAL DECISION-MAKING
FOR CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION
IN SELECTED MULTI-CAMPUS COMMUNITY COLLEGES












By

WILLIS N. HOLCOMBE


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY












UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1974














ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


A study of this kind requires the assistance and support

of many individuals. The writer wishes to express his appre-

ciation to all those who helped make this study possible.

The writer wishes to express his special appreciation to Dr.

James L. Wattenbarger, chairman of the doctoral committee

and director of the thesis.

Special acknowledgement also is due to Drs. Michael Y.

Nunnery and Albert B. Smith for their support and guidance

in the formulation of the study.

The writer wishes to say thank you to his wife, Jo, for

her encouragement, understanding, and assistance in the

completion of the study. Her contribution was evidence of

the love that only a wife can give.

Finally, the writer wishes to thank his parents, Mr. and

Mrs. W.N. Holcombe, for their continued guidance and love

during his formative years.














TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .. ........

LIST OF TABLES ... ........

LIST OF FIGURES ... ........

ABSTRACT .... ...........


..... ... .ii

V

. . . . . . . vi

. . . . . . . vii


Chapter


I INTRODUCTION ....


S . . . . . . ..1


The Problem ..... .........
Definition of Terms ............
Review of Related Literature . .
Procedures .... ............
Organization of the Remainder of
the Research Report ... .......


.. ...... 27


II THE DECISION-MAKING PATTERN OF SOUTHERN
COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ..........

Environment... ... ..............
Procedures for Decision-Making in
Curriculum and Instruction .........
Decision-Making Patterns Identified
by the Decision Point Analysis
Instrument ..... ..............
Decision-Making Patterns Identified
by Structured Interviews .. ........
General Observations and Summation . .


THE DECISION-MAKING PATTERN OF WESTERN
COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT .. ........


Environment ..... .............
Procedures for Decision-Making in
Curriculum and Instruction ....
Decision-Making Patterns Identified
by the Decision Point Analysis
Instrument ... ............
Decision-Making Patterns Identified
by Structured Interviews .......


. . 29

. 29

* . 34


* . 37

* . 48
52


* . 55

. . 55

. 59


* . 64

* . 75


iii


III









Page


General Observations and Summation .

THE DECISION-MAKING PATTERN OF EASTEI
COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ........


Environment ..... ..............
Procedures for Decision-Making in
Curriculum and Instruction .........
Decision-Making Patterns Identified
by the Decision Point Analysis
Instrument ...... ..............
Decision-Making Patterns Identified
by Structured Interviews .. ........
General Observations and Summation . .

V COMMALITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN THE
DECISION-MAKING PATTERNS FOR THE THREE
DISTRICTS ....... ..............

Procedures for Decision-Making ........
Role Incumbents as Decision-
Makers ... .... .................
General Observations .... ..........
Summation . . . . . . . .


GENERALIZATIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Generalizations and Implications
Recommendations for Further Study.


APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B


THE DECISION POINT INSTRUMENT .

STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE . .


REFERENCES ........ ..................

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............


ZN


106
ill
114


. . . 116

.... 117
.... 121

.... 123

.... 132

.... 135

.... 138


* . .78


* . .80

* . .80

* . .85


. .. 87

. . .98
* . 101



* . 103

* . 103















LIST OF TABLES


Table Page


1 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES TO CURRICULUM ITEMS
FOR SOUTHERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE 39

2 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES TO INSTRUCTION ITEMS
FOR SOUTHERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE 41

3 RESPONSES TO ALL ITEMS, RANK ORDER DISTRIBUTION
BY FREQUENCY 44

4 RESPONDENTS PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR OWN INVOLVE-
MENT IN THE PROCESS 47

5 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES TO CURRICULUM ITEMS
FOR WESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE 66

6 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES TO INSTRUCTION ITEMS
FOR WESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE 68

7 RESPONSES TO ALL ITEMS RANK ORDER DISTRIBUTION
BY FREQUENCY 71

8 RESPONDENTS PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR OWN INVOLVE-
MENT IN THE PROCESS 73

9 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES TO CURRICULUM ITEMS
FOR EASTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE 89

10 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES TO INSTRUCTION ITEMS
FOR EASTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE 92

11 RESPONSES TO ALL ITEMS RANK ORDER DISTRIBUTION
BY FREQUENCY 94

12 RESPONDENTS PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR OWN INVOLVE-
MENT IN THE PROCESS 97
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure Page


1. SIMPLIFIED TABLE OF ORGANIZATION FOR
ACADEMIC AFFAIRS AT SOUTHERN COMMUNITY
COLLEGE 33

2. SIMPLIFIED TABLE OF ORGANIZATION FOR
ACADEMIC AFFAIRS AT WESTERN COMMUNITY
COLLEGE 60

3. SIMPLIFIED TABLE OF ORGANIZATION FOR
ACADEMIC AFFAIRS AT EASTERN COMMUNITY
COLLEGE 84











Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


THE LOCUS OF FORMAL DECISION-MAKING
FOR CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION
IN SELECTED MULTI-CAMPUS COMMUNITY COLLEGES

By

Willis N. Holcombe

August, 1974

Chairman: James L. Wattenbarger
Co-Chairman: Albert B. Smith
Major Department: Educational Administration


The purpose of the study was to investigate the locus of

formal decision-making with regard to sp cific curriculum

and instruction decisions in selected multi-campus community

college districts. The study was designed to respond to three

questions:

1. What are the procedures that exist for making de-
cisions in curriculum and instruction for the
selected multi-campus community colleges?

2. What role incumbents make decisions concerning
specified tasks in curriculum and instruction
for the selected multi-campus community colleges?

3. What is the degree of congruence between stated
decision-making procedures in curriculum and in-
struction and perceived decision-making patterns
as identified by the Decision Point Analysis
Instrument?

The data relating to these three questions formed a basis for

developing generalizations relative to evolving practices for

decision-making in curriculum and instruction in these dis-

tricts.


vii










The three districts were selected on the basis of size,

state governance patterns, location, organizational planning

and willingness to participate. Four data collection tech-

niques were used at each of the three institutions. These

techniques included two instruments (the Decision Point

Analysis Instrument and a structured interview guide),a re-

view of documents and records, and general observations.

Field visits were conducted in each district and role incum-

bents were selected at each district. The Decision Point

Analysis Instrument was completed by the selected role incum-

bents in the presence of the researcher. The same people

were also asked to respond to the interview guide. Approxi-

mately fifty percent of the role incumbents who completed the

Decision Point Analysis Instrument were interviewed. In addi-

tion to the two instruments, policy manuals, handbooks, and

other documents were reviewed to reveal stated decision-making

procedures. Also, general observations were recorded at each

district.

The data weredescribed in separate, chapters devoted to

each of the districts, which were identified only by pseudo-

nyms. In these chapters, the stated decision-making structures

were identified. This was followed by the responses to the

Decision Point Analysis Instrument and the structured inter-

views. General Observations, a discussion of congruence be-

tween stated and perceived decision-making patterns, and a

summary concluded each of the three chapters on the districts.


viii










A comparative analysis of the data followed the chapters

on the individual colleges. From the analysis the following

generalizations were formulated:

1. A curriculum and instruction committee had been

established at all three colleges, but it only played a

viable role in the decision-making process when the instruc-

tional divisions, i.e., division chairmen, department chairmen,

and faculty members, were represented.

2. The formal organizational structure for curriculum

and instruction helped to determine the perceptions of the

role incumbents about who was responsible for decision-making.

3. Curriculum decisions were perceived to be more centrally

determined than were instructional decisions.

4. Division and department chairmen were perceived as

strong primary decision-makers.

5. Academic administrators from the district administra-

tive staff were not perceived to be strong decision-makers

for curriculum and instruction.

6. The decision-making pattern for non-credit courses

was different from that for the regular curriculum. The role

incumbent charged with responsibility for community services

and continuing education was the primary decision-maker in

that area.

7. There tended to be more participation in the formula-

tion of curriculum decisions than was evident in instruction

decisions.

8. Role incumbents were reluctant to identify themselves

as primary decision-makers in curriculum items.
ix














CHAPTER I


INTRODUCTION


The concept of the public community junior college is no

longer new to American education. The junior college came

into existence just after the turn of the century and has

grown tremendously since that time. The 1973 Directory of

the American Association of Community Junior Colleges reported

that in October, 1972, there were more than 900 public junior

colleges in the United States of America. The combined en-

rollment of these institutions was over 2,700,000 students

[AACJC, 1973, p. 7]

During this expansion period not all of the growth was

in the area of numbers of institutions and students. The

junior college itself has changed over the past 70 years and

especially in the past two decades. One such change is the

evolution of the community college with more than one campus.

This type of institution is relatively new and is still emer-

ging from previously single campus community colleges.

Kintzer, Jensen, and Hansen related that in 1964 there were

only ten multi-junior college districts; in 1967, thirty-one

and in 1968, forty [Kintzer, 1969, p. 2].

Most of the first community colleges to develop into

multi-campus institutions did so without the benefit of clear

cut guidelines for the organization and governance of their










schools. The establishment of a central administration, struc-

turally separate from the individual campuses, posed problems

that have never been encountered before by either the admin-

istration or the faculty. These pioneer institutions were

obliged then to resolve their problems with little or no em-

pirically gained evidence from other community colleges.

Studies need to be done to extract from these colleges

empirical data which may be useful to others. McCluskey,

in his doctoral dissertation, undertook a study of the formal

decision-making for student personnel services in the multi-

campus community college [McCluskey, 1972]. In his study,

McCluskey explored the procedure for and the levels of deci-

sion-making in student personnel services for selected com-

munity colleges.

The study presented here was methodologically similar

to McCluskey's investigation. Although the target of this

study was decision-making in curriculum and instruction, not

student personnel services, the design was much the same.

The present researcher drew heavily on McCluskey's work in

the formulation of the plan for this research. Thus the com-

monalities were by intent, rather than coincidence.



The Problem


Statement of the Problem


The problem was to determine the locus of formal decision-

making with regard to specified tasks in curriculum and










instruction in selected multi-campus community colleges.

Answers to the following questions were sought.

1. What are the procedures that exist'for making
decisions in curriculum and instruction for
the selected multi-campus community colleges?

2. What role incumbents make decisions concerning
specified tasks in curriculum and instruction
for the selected multi-campus community colleges?

3. What is the degree of congruence between stated
decision-making procedures in curriculum and in-
struction and perceived decision-making patterns
as identified by the Decision Point Analysis
Instrument?


Delimitations

The following restrictions were observed in the conduct

of the study:

1. The study of the locus of decision-making
was limited to three multi-campus community
colleges.

2. The study was limited to the decision-making
policies for curriculum and instruction that
prevailed in 1973-1974.

3. The data collection was limited to an exam-
ination of college documents and records,
general observations, responses to the Decision
Point Analysis Instrument, and responses to
the structured personal interview.

4. Only the following role incumbents at each
college were asked to respond to the Decision
Point Analysis Instrument and the structured
personal interview:

a. President/chief administrator for the
entire college,

b. Vice-President for Academic Affairs/chief
administrator for academic affairs for the
entire college,

c. Campus Dean/chief campus administrator for
each campus,










d. Campus Director for Academic Affairs/chief
campus administrator for academic affairs
on each campus,

e. Eight division/department chairmen, repre-
senting all campuses and selected on the
basis of a willingness to participate.

f. Eight faculty members, representing all cam-
puses and selected on the basis of a willing-
ness to participate.

5. The following role incumbents participated in
the study by completing the Decision Point
Analysis Instrument.

a. Southern Community College (20 total):

1) President
2) Dean of Academic Affairs
3) Dean of Instruction (2)
4) Department Chairmen (8)
5) Faculty (8)

b. Western Community College (22 total):

1) Chancellor
2) Director of Curriculum Review and Evaluation
3) President (2)
4) Dean of Instruction (2)
5) Division Chairmen (4)
6) Department Chairmen (4)
7) Faculty (8)

c. Eastern Community College (22 total):

1) President
2) Dean for Instructional Services
3) Provost (4)
4) Division Chairmen (8)
5) Faculty (8)

6. Not all of the participants in the study were in-
terviewed. Because of time and scheduling limi-
tations only the following number of interviews
were conducted:

a. Southern Community College--10 interviews

b. Western Community College--12 interviews


c. Eastern Community College--9 interviews





5




7. The scope of this study was confined to formal
decision-making arrangements only and did not
attempt to investigate informal structures.
The importance of the informal decision-making
structure, as identified by Kimbrough (1964)
was recognized, but was not at issue in this
study.

8. The study focused only on decision-making af-
fecting the curriculum and instruction items
presented in the Decision Point Analysis Instru-
ment.


Limitations


1. The study was limited because of its ex post
facto character, namely,
a. The inability to manipulate independent
variables,

b. The lack of power to randomize,

c. The risk of improper interpretation [Kerlinger,
1964, p. 371],

2. Any generalizations drawn apply only to the three
community colleges studied, and any inferences
drawn to multi-campus institutions in general are
purely speculative.

3. Although the two basic instruments used in this
study have a history of use, enough modification
was made to limit their validity to face validity.

4. The identity of the individuals and institutions
remains confidential. A general description
of the social milieu and other pertinent items
of information about the institutions was pre-
sented as a background for the study.


Justification for the Study


With the growing demand for its educational services as

evidenced by the increasing numbers of students attending the

community colleges, the community college must respond and










provide facilities and programs to the public. One type of

response that colleges are turning to is a movement toward

multi-campus operation. The administrators and other offi-

cials of these colleges need information to help them make

responsible decisions about the organization of the multi-

campus. This study was an attempt to provide information on

current practices in multi-campus community colleges. The

following statement signifies a need for more research on

multi-campus administration:

If the junior college movement is to retain
in the years ahead the vigor for which it
has been noted in the past, important deci-
sions will have to be made about the future
organization and administration of two or more
campuses. [Kintzer, 1969, p. 2]

The results of this research added to the empirically based

knowledge of the multi-campus community college by providing

more information on decision-making patterns.

A simple question stated by Murray Block in his research

on multi-campus administration led to futher justification for

this study. He posed the question: "Should curriculum and

instruction masters be localized or centralized?" [Block,

1970,p.24]. In large part, the research was organized to react

to that question. The degree of centralization or decentra-

lization depends almost entirely on the levels and procedures

of decision-making found in the institution.

This was the second in a series of planned research pro-

jects at the University of Florida concerning the administra-

tive problems presented by the multi-campus community college.










McCluskey's doctoral dissertation was the first study and

dealt with the area of student personnel services. There is

a need for further studies dealing with the other areas of

administration to provide a comprehensive empirical descrip-

tion of the ways that junior community colleges are operating

in the multi-campus setting.



Definition of Terms


Community College--A public, two-year college which of-

fers programs and/or courses limited to the first two years

of post-high school education, including the university parallel

program and at least one of the following: occupational edu-

cation or continuing education. For the purposes of this

study, community college is synonymous with "junior college"

and "community junior college."

Curriculum--The courses and programs of instruction of-

fered at the community college.

Instruction--The methods and materials used by faculty

in their teaching of the curriculum.

Locus--The role incumbent (position) that has the effec-

tive responsibility for the decision-making process in speci-

fic task areas of curriculum and instruction.

Multi-Campus--A community college organizational pattern

utilizing the following: one district, a single college, two

or more campuses, where a central administration directs many

of the internal operations of the college.










Primary Decision-Maker--The role incumbent who was mainly

responsible for the making of a particular decision. Opera-

tionally the primary decision-maker was identified by responses

to part "A" of each decision item in the Decision Point Anal-

ysis instrument.

Role Incumbent--The individual that occupies one of the

official college positions identified in this study.

Multi-Unit--A general term describing a district operating

two or more community college sites under one governing board.

It is a more inclusive term than multi-campus in that it en-

compasses both multi-college and multi-campus districts.



Review of Related Literature


The review of related literature for this study is pre-

sented in three separate sections. The first section is a

review of research and literature on multi-unit community col-

lege districts. The second section consists of literature

pertaining to decision-making theory and practice. Curriculum

and instruction literature pertinent to this study is pre-

sented in the third section.


Review of Research and Literature on Multi-Unit Districts

This section is divided into two parts: the research

studies and the other literature pertinent to multi-unit junior

colleges. The research information is presented first and

is arranged in chronological order.

The first study noted herein was a survey of ten urban










multi-campus junior colleges [Jensen, 1965]. One purpose of

the investigation was to identify the principal reasons for

the emergence of the multi-campus organization. The main

reasons were:

1. To compensate for district geographical size
which prohibited one campus from servicing
the district adequately.

2. To equalize educational opportunities through
effective accessibility of the college to the
residents of the district.

3. To meet the differing educational needs of the
various communities located within the district.

4. To accommodate applicants after the district's
only campus had reached its maximum capacity.

5. To keep each campus to a reasonable and func-
tional size. [Jensen, 1965, p.8]

By talking with college officials, studying official

documents, and learning the history of each district, Jensen

was able to determine other characteristics of multi-unit

junior colleges. Of the ten participating districts, two

were multi-college districts, five were multi-campus districts

and three were multi-program districts. The distinctive de-

finitions that Jensen derived for these different types of

multi-unit college districts have become standard terminology

in the literature and are:

1. Multi-College District--operates two or more in-
dividual comprehensive colleges.

2. Multi-Campus District--operates a single legal in-
stitution with two or more comprehensive campuses.

3. Multi-Program District--similar in organization
to multi-campus districts except that each branch
offers a different educational program--for ex-
ample, a technical and vocational program on one
campus, and arts and sciences on another. [Jensen,
1965, p.9]










Jensen also found that campus administrators, faculty,

and students favored the multi-college plan because they felt

it offered the most autonomy of the three patterns. There

was unanimous agreement on three organizational issues:

student personnel services should be a campus function, staff

personnel policies should be district-wide, and business

affairs should be handled on the district level.

Milton Jones published a document in 1968 that attempted

to pull together the information available about existing

multi-unit models with the purpose of identifying trends in

organizational structure [Jones, 1968, p. 8]. The most per-

tinent finding by Jones was that he identified a continuum

of centralized-decentralized authority related to the various

types of multi-unit organization. He concluded that author-

ity in the multi-college district was more decentralized;

i.e., there was more autonomy at the campus level than in

the multi-campus model [Jones, 1968, p. 33].

Bogart conducted a case study of Tarrant County Junior

College District for the purpose of establishing a set of

multi-campus development guidelines [Bogart, 1968]. His

sources of data were published documents, letters, news items,

and personal interviews. Bogart found only minor differences

between guidelines considered in developing single and multi-

campus junior colleges.

The most extensive study reviewed was done with forty-

five multi-unit junior college districts as participants

[Kintzer, Jensen, Hansen, 1969]. These districts covered










seventeen states and a wide diversity of demographic charac-

teristics. Two items of that study are pertinent to this

review. Kintzer and associates concluded that there was

no best pattern of organization extant, but that some general

guidelines could be stated. Some of these are:

1. that a chancellor represent the board of trus-
tees and be responsible for general administra-
tion of the entire district,

2. that someone at the central office be responsible
for:
a. business affairs
b. instructional programs
c. business, technical, and vocational education,

3. that the central office be located completely
away from all campuses and, if possible, cen-
trally within the district,

4. that each campus have as much autonomy as possible,

5. that experimentation on the campus level be en-
couraged and supported,

6. that each campus be allowed to hire its own per-
sonnel. [Kintzer, 1969, pp. 51-54]

In addition to the positive aspects of the multi-unit or-

ganizational structures, the Kintzer study group chronicled

what they found to be disadvantages of these structures.

Some of these are:

1. may not be sufficiently sensitive to the various
service areas within the district,

2. not as well suited to innovative change as is the
simpler one-unit college district,

3. may find it more difficult for the community to
identify with the institution,

4. will find that central office personnel tend to be
too directive,

5. will find that both building costs and, at least
initially, operating costs are greater,










6. may find that competition among the campuses
is excessive and destructive,

7. will likely have one campus oriented more towards
"blue collar" educational programs and the other
towards "white collar" programs with probable
unfortunate social consequences. [Kintzer, 1969,
p. 301

Ramstad studied nine of the eleven multi-college districts

in California to determine what their general practices and

problems were [Ramstad, 1970]. He was concerned with five

general topics: planning, construction, operation, coordina-

tion, and the district office. He found many commonalities

among districts, but could not identify a pattern to the dis-

trict operations. Ramstad concluded his study by stating

that the junior college districts had not shared their ex-

periences and that this was a loss of valuable information

that could have helped the colleges avoid some of their com-

mon developmental problems [Ramstad, 1970, p. 30].

VanTrease conducted a survey of chief campus administra-

tors and chief district administrators of multi-campus dis-

tricts [VanTrease, 1972]. The purpose of the study was to

determine whether there was a difference in the perceptions

of the two groups of administrators regarding the degree of

delegated authority existing in their schools. VanTrease

found that there was a significant difference (.05 level) in

nearly all specified areas. He recommended improved communi-

cation between the central office and the campuses.

In addition to the research done on multi-campus junior

colleges, several articles of interest have been written.

Sammartino concluded an article on multi-campus colleges by











writing, "All a college can do is to examine the different

ways it has been done at other places and then decide on its

own solution" [1963, p. 52].

The literature provided some examples of the different

ways it has been done and some of the problems encountered.

Masiko [19661, Erickson [1964], and Coultas [1964] wrote

descriptions of the development of urban multi-campus community

colleges. Out of descriptions like these comes information

that can be useful to developing multi-campus situations.

Erickson, in writing about the Chicago City Junior College,

expressed very succinctly the primary challenge that faces

multi-campus administrative structures. "The goal . is

to foster the creativity and flexibility of each campus,

establishing unity in the multi-campus college without rigid

conformity" [Erickson, 1964, p. 19]. All of these articles

enumerated the difficulties encountered in their respective

multi-campus colleges, and most of them are the same ones

identified by Kintzer, Jensen, and Hansen in the study dis-

cussed previously.

Rushing [1970] indicated, in his discussion of Tarrant

County Junior College, that the multi-campus situations vary

so much from state to state and situation to situation that

essentially each college faces unique problems. Some general

guidelines can be applied to all cases, but the unique-

ness of a given situation may call for new solutions and

create new problems.

At TCJC, learning is not an activity limited
to students. The college staff is constantly










learning ways of managing a multi-campus insti-
tution. With each new answer, there also arises
at least one new question. [Rushing, 1970, p.
16]

Wynn [1972] and Block [1970] identified many of the ques-

tions that administrators and faculty must answer in order to

be able to live and work together. Block's contention was

that the way the fundamental questions of the organization

are answered will largely determine the degree to which

power is centralized or decentralized in the organization.

In actual practice, Block stated that the multi-unit community

college districts have such varied patterns that one is

led to conclude that there are no standard answers [Block,

1970, p. 24]. Wynn submitted that in a multi-campus situa-

tion the responsibility falls at the district level and there-

fore most of the authority should be located at the same

level [Wynn, 1972, p. 44]. He supported a strongly centra-

lized multi-campus organization.

At the other end of the continuum was Morrissey [19671,

who argued that multi-unit districts should be multi-college

and thus be more decentralized.

I recommend that in complex community college sys-
tems each college established be called a college,
with the privilege of naming the school reserved for
the college professionals and interested citizens
of the region to be served. The word "campus" calls
forth the mummified ghosts of higher educational mis-
takes; the wotnk "college" describes what the insti-
tution is in fact. [Morrissey, 1967, p. 40]

From the research studies and articles on multi-unit

community colleges, a few general statements can be made.

1. Multi-unit colleges are not all the same and do
not always face the same problems.










2. The guidelines for multi-unit community colleges
are, at best, a general case that must be modi-
fied to fit specific institutional needs.

3. Controversy exists as to how centralized or de-
centralized authority should be in multi-unit
junior colleges.

4. Despite the problems of multi-unit organization,
the number of multi-unit junior colleges has
increased significantly in the past two decades.


Review of Research and Literature on Decision-Making

Decision-making only recently became a popular topic for

research. Daniel Griffiths reported in 1969,

From 1956 through 1962 an average of only one
dissertation a year was written using decision-
making as a basis. However, an average of six
per year were completed from 1963 through 1966.
[Griffiths, 1969, p. 19]

Dissertation Abstracts, for the first six months of 1974, listed

more than six studies a month dealing with educational deci-

sion-making alone. Along with the many research projects on

decision-making came a great deal of diversity in methodology

and research objectives. Rather than recount the findings

of studies which did not specifically relate to this study,

this review focused only on salient information.

Ernest Dale was one of the organization theorists of

the 1950s who discussed the meaning of decision-making in

terms of centralization or decentralization. His frame of

reference was the business organization, but the following

principles apply as well to educational organizations.

Another type of decentralization--and that with
which we shall be primarily concerned here--refers
to the nature of the company's management. More










precisely, it implies the delegation of responsi-
bility and authority from higher management to
subordinates down the line. We may say that the
degree of managerial decentralization in a company
is the greater:
1. the greater the number of decisions made
lower down the management hierarchy,
2. the more important the decisions made lower
down the management hierarchy,
3. the more functions affected by decisions
made at lower levels,
4. the less checking required on the decision.
Decentralization is greatest when no check at all
must be made; less when superiors have to be in-
formed of the decision after it has been made; still
less if superiors have to be consulted before the
decision is made. [Dale, 1952, pp. 106-107]

Kimbrough has explored the influence of the informal power

structure on decision-making at nearly all levels of educa-

tional organizations [Kimbrough, 1964]. Investigations such

as this exposed the complex matrix that can be underneath a

seemingly routine bit of organizational behavior. The Getzels-

Guba model for social systems interaction has provided a con-

venient theoretical base for studies that are concerned with

the organizational (normative dimension)characteristics of

observable decision-making behavior [Fogarty and Gregg, 1966,

pp. 62-63].

Glen Eye and his associates developed the Decision Point

Analysis Instrument as a means to translate the theoretical

concern into applied research. The following statement by

Eye provided the link necessary for the development of the

technique.

According to this theory, administration may be
examined from three stances. Structurally, admini-
stration may be considered as a hierarchy of super-
ordinate-subordinate relationships within this
social system. Functionally, within this hierarchy
of relationships is the locus for allocating and










integrating roles in order to achieve the goals of
this system. Operationally, administrative pro-
cesses take place in environments characterized
by person-to-person relationships. Thus, any given
superordinate-subordinate relationship within the
administrative structure is enacted in two dynamic
and separate personal situations, one embedded in
the other. This relationship is perceived and
organized by each incumbent in terms of his needs
and goals, skills and experiences. The two sit-
uations are related to the extent that the indivi-
duals' perceptions are mutual.
Theoretically, the central question and primary
antecedent variable thus becomes, "To what extent
do complementary role incumbents in a given social
system tend to agree or disagree in their percep-
tions of their respective roles?" [Eye, 1966, p. 41

Eye studied school administrators and teachers concerning

the responsibilities for decision-making. The Decision Point

Analysis Instrument was developed to determine who made a

decision, who participated in that decision, and what the

nature of the respondents' participation was. The instrument

consisted of twenty-five decision items pertaining to pupil

personnel, staff personnel, curriculum, business management,

and school-community relations [Eye, 1966, p. 24]. The instru-

ment contained an introductory page, a background data page,

and the decision items. The researchers gave brief introduc-

tions and explanations before the respondents proceeded through

the items. Among the conclusions Eye drew from his research

the following statements were found.

1. The Decision Point Analysis Instrument was shown
to be a useful device for the assessment and the
quantification of these perceptions of the locus
of decision-making responsibilities.

2. School systems characterized more than others by
a greater extent of staff participation or in-
volvement in curricular planning and development
ranked higher in curricular-plan productivity
than did school systems not so characterized.










3. School systems characterized more than others
by greater productivity of curricular plans,
also ranked higher in the extent to which their
teachers implemented these curricular plans in
the classroom. [Eye, 1966, pp. 201-206]

Fogarty and Gregg adapted the Decision Point Analysis

Instrument for use in their study designed to test the rela-

tionship between personal characteristics of superintendents

and the centralization of decision-making [Fogarty and Gregg,

1066, p. 62]. In discussing the implications of this type of

research, Fogarty and Gregg made these observations:

Further research on the advisability of relying
on the perceptions of professional staff members re-
garding the loci of decision-points in school sys-
tems should be undertaken. It can be argued that
perceptions of the individuals inhabiting an insti-
tution should be as accurate and as free of bias
as any other method of obtaining information con-
cerning the way the institution operates. This
argument can be tested empirically to determine if
the perceptual approach yields results comparable
to those obtained, for example, by means of direct
observation by personnel from outside the institu-
tion. [Fogarty and Gregg, 1966, p. 70]

More recently, John McCluskey used a modified Decision

Point Analysis Instrument to determine the locus of deci-

sion-making for student personnel services in selected multi-

campus community colleges [McCluskey, 19721. Although the

format was very similar to the original, McCluskey changed

the task areas and the decision items to accomplish his re-

search objective. In addition to the instrument McCluskey

used a structured interview guide as a data gathering tool.

In his section on recommendations to related studies, McCluskey

indicated that studies were needed in other areas of multi-

campus decision-making in order to get a better perspective










of the total decision-making pattern. This study was a direct

outgrowth of McCluskey's research and recommendation.

The level of decision-making was much more of a concern

in multi-campus institutions than it was in the single cam-

pus school. Because of physical limitations as well as the

complexities of the organizational structure, the need for

decision-making policies was felt by several multi-campus

institutions. Some of these institutions published position

papers on this subject. Such a document was published by

Macomb County Community College in its 1973-74 policy manual.

The following is an excerpt from the policy manual.

The working basis for the division of responsi-
bilities is to assign the authority and the obli-
gation to make decisions to that level which is
judged to be best able and/or most efficient in
performing the task. Normally this is judged to be
the level closest to all of the facts required for
a reasonable decision and which therefore utilizes
the shortest lines of communication. Where there
is doubt about the level which would insure the
greatest efficiency, preference is given to the campus.
Where uniformity is essential, in most instances a
district administrator should be assigned the re-
sponsibility. [Policy Manual, 1973-74, 2410.111

More specifically some of the items that were listed as campus

functions were course content and organization, transfer cur-

riculums, faculty committees, and textbook selection. Among

the coordinated functions--that is, cross-campus decisions--

were course numbering and titles, occupational and terminal

curriculums, and graduation requirements.

Miami-Dade Junior College also addressed itself to this

concern. It listed the following among its district-wide

decisions: (1) change in course title, (2) creation of new










courses, (3) creation of new programs, and (4) change in

course description [Decision-Guidelines, 1973, pp. 1-8].

The following were campus decisions: (1) creation of a

continuing education course, (2) instructional experimentation,

(3) introduction of new instructional technology, (4) evalua-

tion of instruction, and (5) adoption of textbooks [Decision-

Guidelines, 1973, pp. 11-14].

From the review of the literature related to decision-

making this study gained much of its structure. The theore-

tical base, the Decision Point Analysis Instrument, and some

of the decision items for the survey came from the sources

mentioned above.


Review of the Literature Used to Formulate the Curriculum and
Instruction Decision Items

When the Decision Point Analysis Instrument was first

used, the focus of attention was not limited to curriculum

and instruction. Glen Eye's decision items came from other

areas of decision-making as well. Thus in the preparation of

the instrument for this study, the decision items themselves

had to be formulated. Three basic criteria provided the

parameters for the items. First, the items were to be deci-

sions that would be common to the community colleges studied.

Secondly, they were to be simply stated and easy to understand.

Thirdly, there were to be the same number of curriculum items

as there were instruction items to facilitate the comparative

aspect of the analysis.

Policy manuals were obtained from several multi-campus










community colleges to help build a list of potential items.

The documents from Miami-Dade Junior College and Macomb County

Community College mentioned above were typical of the kind

reviewed. In addition, some previous research projects helped

provide information relating to the decision items. Willis

LaVire's doctoral dissertation listed critical tasks that

should be performed in instruction and curriculum development

[LaVire, 1961, p. 9]. A.M. Jensen's study of the adminis-

tration of multi-campus junior colleges provided not only

decision items, but some data on how role incumbents responded

to the items during his study. For example, Jensen reported

the following responses to the task of textbook selection:

In two multibranch districts this was a central
office decision. Only five of the districts, multi-
branch and multiprogram, made it necessary to send
the choices of textbooks on to the central office
for approval.
In all ten districts, administrators at the cen-
tral office and at individual campuses stated that
the faculty should play the key role in choosing
textbooks. However, the majority of them believed
that all teachers on one campus should use the
same textbook for a single course. [Jensen, 1965,
pp. 11-12]

More recently Raymond Yell conducted a study of decision-

making in Texas' community colleges. He formulated a ques-

tionnaire asking for perceptions as to who made the decisions

in the institutions. He then compared the perceptions of ad-

ministrators, faculty members, and student leaders. One of

his findings was a significant difference in the perceptions

of the administrators and faculty regarding the decision to

change instructional methods and materials [Yell, 1973].










The total list of possible decision items was separated

into two categories, curriculum and instruction. After the

inappropriate items were eliminated, five items remained in

each category.

Curriculum items:

1. the decision to create a new credit course

2. the decision to create a new program

3. the decision to create a new non-credit course

4. the decision to change a course description

5. the decision to change the general education
requirements

Instruction items:

1. the decision to change the instruction mode
for a course

2. the decision to introduce new instructional
technology

3. the decision to evaluate the instruction in
a course or program

4. the decision to begin an instructional in-
novation or experiment in a course or program
5. the decision concerning the adoption or
change of a textbook

The ten decision items were assembled, and an introduc-

tory page and a background data page were added to complete

the instrument. When complete this instrument differed from

the original in several ways.

1. There were ten items instead of the twenty-five
in the original.

2. The items were limited to curriculum and instruction.

3. Fewer items of background data were solicited.










4. Two responses, one for "committee" and one for a
"don't know" response, were added.

5. The tabs that the respondents marked were elimin-
ated; the response area was placed directly be-
neath each decision item.



Procedures


The procedures section is divided into three parts. The

first part covers the selection of the sample. Next an ex-

planation of the components of the instruments and the data

collection process is presented. The final part deals with

the treatment of the data after collection.


Selection of the Sample

This study was a survey type study encompassing informa-

tion gained from three separate multi-campus community colleges.

On the population of public multi-campus community colleges

in the United States the following criteria were imposed.

1. The community/junior college had been in exis-
tence as a multi-campus institution for at least
one year at the time of the study.

2. Only one of the three selected community colleges
came from any one state.

3. Each of the campuses of the selected institutions
had at least 3000 students (head count).

4. Central administrative personnel were a separate
entity from the administrative staffs for the
campuses.

From the population of colleges who met the criteria,

three were selected on the basis of their willingness to

participate and their location. As a condition of the study,










the identity of each of the institutions participating in the

study remained confidential. Thus, the pseudonyms: Southern

Community College, Western Community College, and Eastern

Community College were used.

Within the community colleges selected, people who held

the following positions were selected as participants:

a. President/chief administrator for the entire college,

b. Vice-President for Academic Affairs/chief admin-
istrator for academic affairs for the entire college,

c. Campus Dean/chief campus administrator for each
campus,

d. Campus Director for Academic Affairs/chief campus
administrator for academic affairs on each campus,
e. Eight division/department chairmen, representing
all campuses,

f. Eight faculty members, representing all campuses.

The department chairmen and faculty members were selected

on the basis of availability and willingness to participate

in the study. The identities of the individuals chosen for

the study remained confidential.


Instrumentation and Data Collection

The Decision Point Analysis Instrument, Appendix A, con-

sists of three parts:

1. The cover sheet--this contains the purpose of the
study, the statement of confidentiality and general
instructions for filling out the instrument.

2. The background data sheet--this information was
used in categorizing and analyzing the responses
to the decision items.

3. The body of the instrument--this contains the deci-
sion items and the blanks for the responses.










The second instrument devised for the study was the

structured interview guide, Appendix B. The questions included

in this guide were designed to elicit additional perceptions

of the decision-making patterns of the district. Each role

incumbent who filled out the Decision Point Analysis Instru-

ment was asked for an interview. However, not all of these

participants were interviewed. Time constraints and scheduling

difficulties were the main reasons why some role incumbents

were not interviewed. The following role incumbents were

interviewed:

1. Southern Community College (10 total):

a. Dean of Instruction 2
b. Dean o2 Academic Affairs 1
c. Department Chairman 4
d. Faculty 4

2. Western Communtiy College (12 total):

a. Chancellor 1
b. Dean for Curriculum Review and Evaluation 1
c. President 2
d. Dean of Instruction 2
e. Division Chairman 2
f. Department Chairman 2
g. Faculty 2

3. Eastern Community College (9 total):

a. President 1
b. Provost 4
c. Division Chairman 2
d. Faculty 2

The interview guide served as a common point of departure

for the sessions. Despite the fact that all the participants

who completed the Decision Point Analysis Instrument were not

interviewed, some useful data were collected during the inter-

view sessions.










In addition to the use of two instruments, data were collected

at the selected community colleges through two other means.

First, documents and records (e.g., policy manuals, faculty

handbooks, appropriate committee reports, organizational charts

and the like) were examined and analyzed to obtain a firm

understanding of established procedures for decision-making.

General observations also were recorded during informal inter-

actions with faculty, staff, and students of the community

colleges. These observations were indicative of interpersonal

relationships, attitudes, and knowledge of decision-making

by the respondents.

The field visits were four days lonc for each selected

community college. During the visits interviews were held,

and at the beginning of each interview the Decision Point

Analysis Instrument was completed by the respondent. Filling

the instrument out with the researcher present had two advan-

tages. First, if the respondent needed to ask a question,

he could get a reply before he marked his response. This

tended to eliminate much of the misinterpretation of semantics

that is usually present in questionnaire research. Secondly,

by collecting the instrument at the close of the interview,

the researcher achieved a 100 percent return rate with all

items complete. This would have been virtually impossible to

accomplish through a mail-out program. Between interviews,

manuals and other printed material were read to establish the

procedures for decision-making. All during the visit general

impressions were being gathered to help round out the view of

the college.










Data Treatment

Examination of college documents and records, structured

interviews with role incumbents, and general observations

provided the information for determining the established pro-

cedures and policies for decision-making in each of the dis-

tricts. This information is presented first in the chapter

on each college. Next the data collected from the responses

to the Decision Point Analysis Instrument are interpreted.

This is accomplished through a series of frequency distribu-

tion tables which pool the perceptions of the respondents as

to decision-making structure. These distributions reflect the

number of times a particular role incumbent was selected as

either primarily responsible for making the decision or as

having participated in making the decision. Also data as to

the respondent's perception of his own involvement in the

making of decisions are presented.

The decision itenLs are discussed individually as well

as being grouped. The curriculum items and the instruction

items are analyzed as groups and then are pooled into a fre-

quency table for all of the items. The final analysis done

on the data is a determination of the degree of congruence

existent between the stated procedures for decision-making

and the perceived patterns identified during the study.



Organization of the Remainder of the Research Report


The three community college districts studied are presented










separately in Chapters II, III, and IV. Each college is

described relative to its surrounding district, pertinent

historical data, organizational features, and decision-making

patterns. Analysis and discussion of the patterns identified

through the use of the Decision Point Analysis Instrument,

interviews, and general observations follow. A summary is

provided at the end of each of these chapters.

Chapter V provides a comparative analysis of the decision-

making patterns of the three multi-campus community college

districts. Similarities and differences have been high-

lighted in an effort to determine if a pattern of decision-

making emerges for all three institutions.

The final chapter provides a series of generalizations

and implications that emerged from the investigation. Lastly,

the recommendations for further related research are offered.















CHAPTER II


THE DECISION-MAKING PATTERN OF
SOUTHERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT


This chapter is a description of the decision-making pat-

tern for curriculum and instruction in the first of three

districts examined. The district and college are described

first in a section on the local environment. The procedures

for decision-making in curriculum and instruction are then

discussed. Next, the decision-making patterns identified by

the Decision Point Analysis Instrument are presented. The

information gained from the structured interviews then are

presented. General observations and a summation conclude

the chapter.



Environment


The Community

Southern Community College serves a single county area

of approximately 280 square miles. The total population of

the county was estimated at 648,741 on April 1, 1973. This

represented a 24.2 percent increase since the 1970 census.

There were twenty-four incorporated municipalities, which

accounted for 73 percent of the total population. The unincor-

porated areas of the county had 27 percent of the population

or a total of 170,238 people.










Two of the incorporated areas contained 64 percent of the

incorporated population. The larger of these was a sizable

urban area with a population of 241,420. This city was the

focal point of the county in nearly all facets of government,

economy, and activity. The growth rate of this urban area

from 1970 to 1973 was 11.6 percent. The other large incor-

porated area grew more rapidly during the same period, 28.4

percent, but still had a population of only 66,855. This

municipality did not have the urban characteristics of the

main city in the south end of the county. Rather it was the

largest of a group of fast-growing municipalities in the

north-central part of the county. Collectively these incor-

porated areas had a growth rate of slightly over 38 percent for

the period 1970-73. The projections carried out by the

county planning board indicated that the county could expect

to grow more, especially in the smaller incorporated areas

and in the unincorporated areas. At the time of the study,

Southern Community College had its two campuses located in

the two large population centers. The central administrative

facility was located between the two campuses on a main

thoroughfare. Under normal traffic conditions it took ap-

proximately twenty minutes to travel from the central admin-

istration site to either of the campuses.


History and Development

Southern Community College was founded in 1927 as a

private, non-profit corporation. During the first year there










were fourteen members on the faculty and eighty-seven students

enrolled. The college was fully accredited in 1931. In

1938 a building campaign was conducted resulting in the erec-

tion of the first permanent building on the present south

campus location. During 1948 the college converted from

private to public school status, becoming part of the county

school system. The north campus was opened to provide for

the rapidly expanding population of the upper county in 1965.

The central administration complex was completed in 1968.

Apart from the two campuses, the college operated one center

to offer further educational service to the people of the

north county area. Growth at this center was projected to be

slow because it was fairly close to another public community

college in a neighboring district. At the time of the study,

there were no definite plans to enlarge the center to campus

status or to build another campus.

Southern has enjoyed excellent growth in terms of enroll-

ment. The south campus had a fall, 1973, headcount enroll-

ment of 5679 students. This represented 58 percent of the

college's total fall enrollment. The north campus had 3686

students, which was approximately 38 percent of the total

9759 for the whole college. Enrollment at the center was 394

students or 4 percent of the college total. The enrollment

projections completed by the college indicated that the

north campus could expect its share of the enrollment to in-

crease slightly in the next five years. The south campus

was expected to have stable enrollment for the same period










of time. The total college annual enrollment projection for

1979-80 was approximately 10,500 students.


Pattern of Governance

Southern Community College was part of a statewide sys-

tem of public comprehensive community colleges. It was

governed by a seven-member district board of trustees. The

President of the college served as the secretary to the board.

The District Board was charged with full responsibility for

the governance and operation of the district. The role of

the state agencies, the State Board of Education, and the

Division of Community Colleges was largely one of coordina-

tion and planning.


Organization

Southern Community College was a multi-campus institu-

tion which stressed its unity as a single college. The faculty

handbook stated that the same general policies and philoso-

phies of operation, as well as the same procedural methods,

applied to all campuses equally. The organizational chart

for the college indicated that there were four major internal

divisions: academic affairs, administrative affairs, business

affairs, and student affairs. Both campuses had similar or-

ganizational plans with only minor differences keeping them

from being identical. Figure 1 represents a simplified view

of the organizational line relationships for the college.

Staff positions and personnel who occupied assistant posi-

tions have been left out of the chart. The administrative
















































FIGURE 1.


SIMPLIFIED TABLE OF ORGANIZATION FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS
AT SOUTHERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE










structures of the other major divisions were not shown in

detail so that the academic positions could be better high-

lighted.



Procedures for Decision-Making in
Curriculum and Instruction


The college procedures manual described three committees

which could be instrumental in the decision-making process

for curriculum and instruction. The committees were formed

to provide wider participation in the decision-making process.

These committees were the Council of Academic Deans, the Cur-

riculum and Instruction Committee, and the Course Study Com-

mittee.

The Council of Academic Deans was composed of the Deans

of Instruction on each campus and the Assistant Deans of

Academic Affairs. All decisions which were purely academic

and did not affect policy and/or operational procedures of

other areas of the college could be finalized within this com-

mittee. This body received the recommendations of the Cur-

riculum and Instruction Committee.

The Curriculum and Instruction Committee studied all

proposals presented to it by the Dean of Academic Affairs.

The committee basically had three courses of action; it could

recommend approval, recommend disapproval, or request addi-

tional information of the initiators or other pertinent people.

The normal channel for proposals was from the initiator, to

the department chairman, to the Dean of Instruction, to the










Dean of Academic Affairs, to the Curriculum and Instruction

Committee. The committee consisted of the following members

at the time of the study: Assistant Dean of Academic Affairs,

two librarians, two counselors, four department chairmen,

and six faculty members. Some of the items that were listed

as being within the purview of the committee were (1) addi-

tion of a new credit course or a new credit program, (2)

change of a course title and/or the level of offering or

credit, (3) changes or revisions of the general education

requirements, and (4) changes or revisions of course objec-

tives.

The Dean of Academic Affairs in conference with the

Council of Academic Deans each year appointed course study

committees. These committees studied specific courses desig-

nated by the department chairmen. The course study commit-

tees were authorized to study any of the following items:

(1) textbooks, (2) course objectives and outlines, (3) instruc-

tional procedures, (4) bibliographic materials, and (5)

instructional materials.

In addition to the committee structure, Southern Community

College defined some of the positions of the college in terms

of their role in the decision-making process. In some instances

these definitions were similar to job descriptions, but in

others they were more general.

The Dean of Academic Affairs was to function as a planner

of program development, supervisor of existing programs, sti-

mulator of curriculum innovation, facilitator of faculty growth,










motivator of instructional creativity, provider of teaching

resources, and interpreter of policy. The Deans of Instruc-

tion were to share with the Deans of Student Services the

administrative responsibility for the operation of the

campus. In addition to their campus administrative duties

Deans of Instruction were to (1) facilitate the department

chairmen and coordinator of evening classes in the development

of innovative curriculum and instruction ideas, (2) review

and react to curriculum and instruction proposals from the

departments and (3) evaluate programs and personnel.

The department chairmen were to be the chief facili-

tators of good student-teacher relationship. Among other

things this role required the performance of the following

specific duties: (1) supervision of curriculum development

and revision, (2) supervision of classroom instruction, (3)

evaluation of instructional activities, (4) provider of ac-

cess to instructional materials, and (5) approval of the

selection of texts and materials. Faculty members were viewed

at Southern Community College as the most vital link in the

education program. Among their responsibilities were

listed the following: (1) utilize supportive services and

resources in development of classroom activities, (2) select

his own technique in presenting the concepts of his disci-

pline, and (3) initiate proposals for experimental or innova-

tive classroom arrangements.










Decision-Making Patterns Identified
by the Decision Point Analysis Instrument


The Decision Point Analysis Instrument was used to col-

lect responses from twenty role incumbents at Southern Com-

munity College. Four members of the sample were selected by

virtue of their position in the college. Eight department

chairmen and eight faculty members were selected at random

and asked if they would be willing to participate in the study.

All respondents completed the instrument in the manner de-

scribed in Chapter I. All respondents appeared willing to

participate and interested in the intent of the study. Be-

cause of the nature of the instrument, the researcher felt

that this positive attitude was an important factor for the

study.

The data collected are separated into three categories:

(1) primary decision-makers, (2) decision participators, and

(3) self-perception of role. Within these categories the

curriculum items are discussed apart from the instruction

items. The responses are then pooled to reflect the total

pattern of the responses.


Primary Decision-Makers

Tables 1-3 depict the responses of the participants as

to what role incumbents were primarily responsible for the

making of each of the decisions. Each item is discussed indi-

vidually below, then the responses are grouped for further

analysis of the decision-making patterns.










Responses to item one in the curriculum area indicated

that department chairmen and the Curriculum and Instruction

Committee were primarily responsible for the decision to

create a new course. The creation of a new program, item

two, reflected a wider dispersion of responses. The Academic

Dean accounted for 40 percent of the responses while the

Curriculum and Instruction Committee had 30 percent.

The creation of a new non-credit course item was adminim-

tered' differently from the other items. At Southern Com-

munity College, as at the other institutions studied, the

role incumbent responsible for continuing education programs

was added to the list of possible responses. This role incum-

bent did not appear in any of the other items of the survey.

Fifty-five percent of the respondents to this item selected

the Coordinator for Continuing Education as the primary deci-

sion-maker.

The changing of a course description, item four, was

indicated by 65 percent of the respondents to be the decision

of the department chairmen. Of the eight department chairmen

responding, however, three designated the Curriculum and

Instruction Committee as being primary. The decision to

change the general education requirements was seen unanimously

as a district-wide decision. Sixty-five percent of the

respondents indicated that the Curriculum and Instruction

Committee was primary and 35 percent felt that the college

Dean of Academics was.

By pooling all the responses to the five curriculum











TABLE 1


DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES TO CURRICULUM ITEMS
FOR SOUTHERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE


Role
Incumbents


Make The Decision
Item
1 2 3 4 5 Tot. %


Participate
1tem
1 2 3 4 5 Tot. %


President 0 3 0 0 0 3 3

Academic Dean 1 8 4 0 7 20 20

Dean of Instruction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Department Chairman 9 3 3 13 0 28 28

Faculty 1 0 1 2 0 4 4

Committees 9 6 1 5 13 34 34

Continued Education
Coordinator 0 0 11 0 0 11 11

Don't Know 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

100 100


1 3

6 8

12 12

10 9

14 10

7 6


0 0

0 0


0 2 6 2.8

5 9 34 15.6

8 12 49 22.5

8 15 47 21.5

13 11 53 24.3

8 3 24 11.0


0 0 5 2.3

0 0 0 0

218 100.0










items in Table 1, it can be seen that curriculum matters as

a whole required district-wide coordination. The Curriculum

and Instruction Committee, Continuing Education Coordinator,

and Dean of Academic Affairs were district functions and

accounted for 65 percent of the responses. On the individual

campuses, however, the key decision-maker was perceived to

be the department chairman. That position received 28 percent

of the responses. The Dean of Instruction position received

no responses as being the primary decision-maker in the cur-

riculum items. The President and the faculty did not receive

a significant number of responses for being primary in the

formulation of curriculum decisions.

The instruction items revealed a more decentralized

decision-making pattern (Table 2). The responses to the

decision to change the instructional mode in a course indi-

cated that the decision was made within the department.

Sixty-five percent felt that the faculty member was the key

decision-maker and 35 percent marked the department chairman

as being key. No other role incumbents were marked. Item

two, the decision to introduce new instructional technology,

also fell within the department. The faculty received 60

percent of the responses and the department chairman 30 percent.

It was interesting that the only responders who marked the

department chairman as primary were department chairmen.

The decision to evaluate the instruction in a course or

program was perceived to be the department chairman's function

by fifteen out of the twenty respondents. Four selected











TABLE 2


DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES TO INSTRUCTION ITEMS
FOR SOUTHERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE


Make the Decision Participate
Role
Incumbents Items Items
1 2 3 4 5 Tot % 1 2 3 4 5 Tot

President 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 3 2.0

Academic Dean 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 5 0 13 9.0

Dean of Instruction 0 1 0 2 0 3 3 4 5 5 9 1 24 16.6

Department Chairman 7 6 15 8 9 45 45 12 14 4 13 10 53 36.6

Faculty 13 12 4 9 10 48 48 7 7 14 11 10 49 33.8

Committee 0 1 0 1 1 3 3 0 0 2 0 1 3 2.0

Don't Know 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 20 20 20 20 100 100 26 30 28 39 22 145 100.0










faculty as being the primary decision-maker, and one felt the

President would be primary. The 75 percent figure for the

department chairman in this item was the highest mark of

consensus on any item of the survey at Southern Community

College. The decision to begin an instructional innovation

or experiment was once again placed in the department. How-

ever, the perceptions of the respondents were split as to

whether it was the faculty or the department chairman that

was primary. The former received 45 percent of the responses

and the latter 40 percent. The decision concerning the adop-

tion of a textbook was reported to be a departmental function.

Fifty percent of the respondents indicated that the faculty

made the decision; 45 percent felt that the department chair-

man did. On this item the faculty responded almost unanimously;

seVen out of eight indicated that the selection of a textbook

was a faculty decision.

When the instruction responses were pooled, a pattern

very different from the curriculum decisions pattern emerged.

Ninety-three out of the one hundred responses placed the locus

of decision-makers within the department. Forty-eight per-

cent of these indicated faculty, and 45 percent indicated

the department chairman. These responses reflect a more de-

centralized instructional pattern. The district-wide incum-

bents and committees received a total of only four responses.

Three of these were for the Curriculum and Instruction Committee.

The Dean of Academic Affairs, who was perceived as somewhat

influential in the curriculum items, was not given a single










response as a primary decision-maker in the instructional area.

Table 3 is a summation table which pools the responses

to the curriculum items and the instruction items. The

role incumbents are displayed here in their rank order by

frequency of response. In the perceptions of the people

surveyed, the department chairman emerged as the position in

the organization with the greatest amount of primary decision-

making power with respect to the survey items. The chairman

position was listed as the primary decision-maker in 36.5

percent of the responses. Faculty members ranked second

(26 percent) with the Curriculum and Instruction Committee

rated third by frequency of response (18.5 percent). It is

interesting to note that the people responding to the survey

did not perceive the Dean of Instruction as a strong position

with regard to these items. That position ranked last with

only 1.5 percent of the responses.


Participants in Decision-Making

This portion of the Decision Point Analysis Instrument

was designed to measure the amount of participation that was

evident in the formulation of a decision. For each of the

items, the respondents were asked to mark the people that

they felt had viable input into the making of the decision.

They were free to mark as many or as few boxes as they thought

were appropriate to the decision item.

The curriculum items overall showed a great deal of

participation in that the responses numbered 218 for the five











TABLE 3


RESPONSES TO ALL ITEMS, RANK ORDER DISTRIBUTION BY FREQUENCY


Make the Decision Participate
N = 200 N = 363
Frequency % Frequency


Department Chairman 73 36.5 Faculty 102 28.1

Faculty 52 26 Department Chairman 100 27.5

Committee 37 18.5 Dean of Instruction 73 20.1

Dean of Academics 20 10 Dean of Academics 47 12.9

Continued Education Committee 27 7.4
Coordinator 11 5.5
President 9 2.5
President 4 2.0
Continuing Education
Dean of Instruction 3 1.5 Coordinator 3 .8










items, an average of 43.5 responses per item. The partici-

pation was spread fairly evenly over a number of positions.

The highest participation rank for the curriculum items was

at the faculty level. They were perceived as having taken

part in the making of the curriculum decisions more than the

other role incumbents, 24.3 percent. However, two other posi-

tions, the Dean of Instruction (22.5 percent) and the Depart-

ment Chairmen (21.5 percent) ranked nearly as high. Table

1 displays the complete data in more detail.

Table 2 shows the degree of participation that the

respondents thought was typical of the instruction decisions.

The number of responses recorded (145) indicated that parti-

cipation was not as great in these decisions as in the curric-

ulum items. Department chairmen were thought to have the

greatest degree of participation (36.6 percent of the responses)

with faculty having 33.8 percent. The Dean of Instruction,

who was ranked next by frequency of response, had only 16.6

percent of the responses. Thus the distribution of partici-

pation was not as even as was found in the curriculum items.

The pooled responses of both the curriculum items and the

instruction items indicated that the faculty and the depart-

ment chairman role incumbents had nearly equal participation

percentages, 28.1 and 27.5, respectively, with the Dean of

Instruction getting 20.1 percent of the responses. Table 3

details the remainder of the responses by rank order. It is

interesting to note that the Dean of Instruction, who was not

perceived as a primary decision-maker, was perceived as one of

the leading participants in the formulation of decisions.











Respondents' Perception of Their Roles in Decision-Making

Each respondent was asked to characterize his involvement

in the decision process by responding to the following four

options: (1) I make the decision, (2) I recommend the deci-

sion, (3) I provide information, and (4) none. Initially it

was intended that each respondent would mark only one of

the options, but as the study progressed, some respondents

prefered to make more than one to best describe their role

in the process. Table 4 depicts in detail the perceptions

of the respondents.

The responses to the curriculum items in terms of role

perceptions showed an interesting trend. Although everyone

agreed that the decision was made, role incumbents tended not

to select themselves as the decision-maker. More typically

they felt that their role was to provide either information

or to recommend the decision. These data confirmed comments

made by many of the respondents during the survey. Their com-

ments indicated that the curriculum proposals went through a

series of reviews by role incumbents and committees, all of

whom could only recommend or provide information. Indivi-

duals in the process chain were generally unwilling to recog-

nize themselves as having primary responsibility for the deci-

sion. It is also interesting to note that the instructional

faculty tended toward less involvement in the decision-making

for curriculum items.

Instruction decisions again showed a different pattern.

The higher organizational positions, for example district









TABLE 4


RESPONDENTS PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR OWN INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROCESS


Make the Recommend Provide
Role Incumbent Decision Decision Information None


Curriculum Items

President 5

Dean of Academic
Affairs 2 3

Dean of Instruction (2) "7 1 2

Department Chairman (8) 4 21 20 4

Faculty (8) 5 23 13

Instruction Items

President 1 1 3

Dean of Academic
Affairs
Dean of Instruction (2) 5 3 1 1

Department Chairman (8) 25 11 7

Faculty (8) 19 14 10










administrative positions, responded that they played a minor

role in these items. The faculty, however, indicated a

great deal of involvement on their part. This trend would

support the earlier stated generalization that curriculum

matters required more district-wide coordination than did

the instructional decisions. Instructional items were per-

ceived to be campus decisions and in many cases departmental

prerogatives.



Decision-Making Patterns Identified
by Structured Interviews


The structured interview guide was used as a means to

collect data thatwere more easily gathered in an interview.

The incumbents interviewed also completed the Decision Point

Analysis Instrument. As the interviews progressed it became

evident that not all of those questioned were as knowledgeable

about some of the questions as they were about others. During

the interview, if the role incumbent did not wish to express

an opinion or had no opinion of a particular item, the re-

searcher did not press for an answer. Thus, although ten

interviews were conducted, there were not ten responses for

each item. In reporting the data below the emphasis is then

on the substantive responses that were received and not on

frequencies and distribution of all the responses. None of

the respondents was perceived to be reluctant to express

opinions on the items. In most cases it was more difficult

to get the respondent to stop talking on a certain topic and










move to another than it was to elicit further discussion.

The first item dealt with the centralization-decentrali-

zation continuum that was a primary issue in the literature

reviewed in Chapter I. Opinions were split on this at

Southern Community College. Four respondents felt that the

college allowed a great degree of autonomy to the campuses

and more especially to the department chairmen. One depart-

ment chairman stated that his position was the strongest in

the college in terms of decision-making power. He felt that

other department chairmen shared this same power. On the

other hand, four other incumbents perceived the college as a

fairly centralized system; this was attributed mainly to the

strong college unity position taken by the President and the

Board of Trustees. However, these people did agree that the

college had moved toward more campus autonomy in the past few

years. They predicted that this trend would continue as the

college grew and the campuses continued to strive for more

decision-making authority.

Question two was not applicable to Southern Community

College because the position of chief campus administrator

did not exist. The responsibility for the campus was shared

by the Dean of Instruction and the Dean of Student Services.

The Dean of Instruction was responsible for the administra-

tive matters that were related to the instructional program.

The responses to the third question indicated that the term
"shared" was not an especially descriptive term. Neither the

Dean of Instruction nor the Dean of Academic Affairs was seen










as sharing decision-making. Either the decision was one which

they would recommend or one which they would make. In either

case they would contact whomever they felt they needed to

in order to act in the best interests of the college. The

Council of Academic Deans provided a forum for these role

incumbents if they wanted to deliberate over a particular

proposal.

Question number four, relating to participation by vari-

ous role incumbents, was more completely treated in the sec-

tion on participation of the Decision Point Analysis Instru-

ment. The responses to this question, however, confirmed the

data collected by the instrument. The department chairmen

were seen as very strong at Southern Community College.

The faculty were thought to have good input in the area of

instruction and classroom conduct, but not as much in cur-

riculum areas. The Dean of Instruction was perceived as a

position which was handicapped by the fact that so many people

reported to him. On one campus seventeen people reported to

the Dean; on the other nineteen people did. The contention

was that the Dean had so many other responsibilities that he

could not become very involved in curriculum and instruction

matters. As a result the primary decision-making was delegated

to the department chairmen.

In discussing the committee structure presented earlier,

role incumbents were in agreement about two things. First,

the curriculum committee was seen as very active in the college.

There was broad representation on the committee with faculty










being especially well represented. One respondent, however,

indicated that the committee was verging on being too large.

At the time of the study there were fifteen members on the

committee. The only negative comment on the committee's

viability came from a department chairman who said that the

committee was functional except when the central administra-

tion wanted something done. Then the committee did not have

much to do in the making of the decision. The other prevalent

opinion was that the Council of Academic Deans and the Course

Study Committee were not considered an integral part of the

decision-making process. The Council of Academic Deans was

characterized as a "rubber stamp" committee with regard to

curriculum and instruction.

The advantages offered by the multi-campus organization

were thought to revolve around two factors, increased service

to the whole district and better economy in providing that

service. Several people indicated that by having the north

campus the college was providing the needed educational oppor-

tunity to the north county area since the south campus was

outside of commuting distance for the north county residents.

Although there were no hard data to support the contention

that the multi-campus operation was cheaper than two separate

colleges supplying the same service, some respondents to this

item believed it was true. Two of the people who stated this

opinion did not know if this was true from experience, but

they had been told by others that it was.

The perceived disadvantages of the multi-campus system










centered on the contention that the campuses were not as re-

sponsive to their respective communities as two separate in-

stitutions would be. Some respondents felt a lack in terms

of the needs of the students, and others were concerned

about meeting differing community needs. One respondent ex-

plained that the single college concept of Southern Community

College stifled campus innovation and hurt faculty morale.

He was quick to point out that the situation was by no means

unbearable, but that he preferred the multi-college flexibility

to the multi-campus conformity.

When questioned about changes that could be made, several

respondents answered either that they had never thought about

it or that they could not think of any particular change that

would improve the operation of the college. However, two

changes were suggested by several of those interviewed. First,

two people thought that a chief campus administrator should

be appointed to take some of the administrative load off the

Dean of Instruction. They felt that the Dean was not able to

serve as a leader of educational programs because of the

general administrative work that had to be done for the campus.

The other recommended change was a desire for more campus

autonomy. Although this was not a specific organizational

change, it was indicative of a concern for more separate

campus identity.



General Observations and Summation


Southern Community College appeared to be a stable,










well-managed organization with people who enjoyed working at

the institution. Throughout the data gathering process, this

researcher noticed an attitude of openness and frankness

which made the collection of the data much easier. The self-

evaluative remarks made by college officials evidenced a

spirit of optimism and critical objectivity. In the follow-

ing paragraphs the decision-making patterns that have been

identified at Southern are summarized. The first area of

summarization is the degree of congruence between stated

decision procedures and the perceived decision-makers.

Congruence between the stated and perceived pattern of

decision-making relative to curriculum and instruction is

said to exist when the following two criteria are met: (1)

50 -percent or more of the responses for the primary

decision-maker in the item must have been given to one role

incumbent or committee, and (2) the role incumbent or committee

receiving the majority of the responses must have been the

same one identified in the procedures manual as being the

primary decision-maker. Two of the curriculum items, numbers

three and five, satisfied the conditions of congruence. The

first three instruction items also met both conditions. One-

half of the total ten items, then were congruent; that is, the

perceived decision-maker was the same as that identified in

the procedures manual. The remainder of the items failed to

satisfy the conditions. In both curriculum item four and

instruction item five, one role incumbent received a majority

of the responses to the instrument, but these perceived










decision-makers were not the ones indicated by the procedures

manual. The other three items did not have a majority of

responses given to any one position or committee.

Responses to the Decision Point Analysis Instrument and

the Structured Interview Guide have led to the formulation

of the following generalizations about the decision-making

structure at Southern Community College.

1. The Curriculum and Instruction Committee was the
only committee perceived to play a viable role in
the decision-making for curriculum and instruction.

2. Curriculum decisions were perceived to be more
centralized than instruction decisions.

3. There tended to be more participation by a greater
number of role incumbents in the formulation of
curriculum decisions than in instruction decisions.

4. The department chairman's position was perceived
to be a very strong primary decision-making posi-
tion for curriculum and instruction.

5. The Dean of Instruction was perceived to be a weak
primary decision-making position with regard to
the curriculum and instruction items.

6. Role incumbents were reluctant to identify them-
selves as primary decision-makers even when the
majority of the responses so identified them.

7. The decision-making pattern for non-credit courses
was different from that for credit courses. The
Coordinator for Continuing Education was perceived
the primary decision-maker in this area.














CHAPTER III


THE DECISION-MAKING PATTERN OF
WESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT


This chapter is a description of the decision-making

pattern for curriculum and instruction at Western Community

College. The organization of the chapter is similar to that

of Chapter II. The district environment is described first,

followed by the procedures for decision-making. Next, the

responses to the Decision Point Analysis Instrument are pre-

sented. This is followed by a discussion of data gathered

by interview. The chapter concludes with general observa-

tions and a summary of the generalizations made about deci-

sion-making at the college.



Environment


The Community

Western Community College served a single county dis-

trict which had an area of 856 square miles. This district

had one major urban area that dominated nearly every facet

of the economy in the county. In 1970 the population of the

county was 716,000, but this had grown to approximately 800,000

by 1974. The growth statistics for the area indicated that

the population had grown by approximately 20 percent each

decade and that this trend was expected to continue. Thus










the population by 1980 was expected to be over 900,000. The

population of the main city of the county was 393,000 in

1970, roughly 55 percent of the total population of the county.

The population figure for the city was somewhat misleading,

however, because it did not take into account the numerous

municipalities that surrounded the main urban center. These

communities, despite their governmental independence from

the city, economically were integral parts of the metropoli-

tan area.

The college consisted of two campuses and a central

administration facility. The district administrative offices

were located in the heart of the downtown area of the main

city. They occupied a whole floor of one of the office

buildings. No instructional activities took place on this

site. The campuses were located to the south and to the

northeast. Both of the campuses were accessible by and lo-

cated near the beltway that surrounded the city. It took

approximately one half hour to go from one facility to either

of the other two in normal traffic. A third campus was planned

for the northwest area of the county, but it was not in

operation at the time of this study.


History and Development

Western Community College District was formed July 31,

1965, when voters approved the sale of bonds for construction.

A seven-member Board of Trustees was elected, and they began

work to implement plans for the college, which was to open











in September, 1967. The Board selected a president for the

college in September, 1965, and in December of that year they

acquired the land for the college facilities. The college

was planned as a multiple campus institution, and work began

on the south campus in May, 1966. The northeast campus con-

struction began during the summer of 1967. The south campus

opened its doors in September, 1967, and the northeast campus

opened one year later. The land for the northwest campus

was acquired by the college, and a bond issue was passed in

1971 to provide funds for the construction. The projected

date for the opening of that campus was September, 1975.

There were no other plans for new campuses at the time of

this study.

Despite the growth in the county, the enrollment statis-

tics at Western Community indicated a leveling-off trend. In

the fall of 1973, 6164 students enrolled at the northeast

campus for a full-time equivalent count (FTE) of 4026. En-

rollment was 7296 (headcount) and 4685 (FTE) during the same

term at the south campus. For fall term, 1974, the enroll-

ment was 6150 students for an FTE count of 3967 at the north-

east campus. The south campus also experienced a drop in

enrollment as there were 7023 students, 4495 FTE, for the

fall, 1974, term. The projections made by the college pre-

dicted a period of stable enrollments for a few years followed

by slow growth years into the 1980s. The northwest campus

was expected to open with about 2000 students in fall, 1975.










Patterns of Governance

Western Community College was a part of a state-wide system

of public higher education. The state agencies acted as

coordinating bodies to the institutions. The Board of Trustees

of the Western Community College District was the governing

board for the district. The Board was comprised of seven

members elected by the voters of the county and was the final

authority for all matters of district development and opera-

tion. The Board also had the power to levy taxes for the con-

struction of physical facilities and for district operation

within the authority granted to it by state law and the

voters of the district. The Chancellor of the Western Community

College District was responsible directly to the Board of

Trustees for the total operation of the district.


Organization

Western Community College was conceived as a multi-campus

institution from the beginning. This was an advantage in

that the college did not need to adjust a single campus organ-

izational plan to suit multi-campus operation. Instead it

was free to organize in the way most appropriate to its

mission. The college organizational plan represented an

attempt to provide the benefits of both centralization and de-

centralization. Some administrative services and activities

common to both campuses were centralized to provide for

greater efficiency and maximum return on the tax dollar. In

the daily operation of the campuses, however, the plan showed










a definite commitment to campus authority. The next intended

result of this organization was to provide a coordinated ef-

fort in meeting the post-secondary educational needs of the

district.

Figure 2 is a simplified diagrammatic representation

of the organizational plan used at Western Community College.

The Presidents of the two campuses were responsponsible

directly to the Chancellor of the district. The other major

positions directly responsible to the Chancellor were Vice-

Chancellor for Administration, Vice-Chancellor for Research

and Development, and Director of Community Services. These

positions reflected the main functions of the central admini-

strative staff in providing direction for the college. The

positions depicted at the campus level were positions identi-

fied as being primarily responsible for curriculum and instruc-

tion.



Procedures for Decision-Making in
Curriculum and Instruction


Faculty status at Western Community College was assigned

to all professional personnel whose duties and responsibilities

were directly related to the instructional program or to

activities directly related to the educational development

of students. This included instructional faculty, administra-

tive faculty, student services faculty, professional librarians,

and professional instructional media personnel. All full-

time employees who held faculty status were eligible as voting

















I
VICE CHANCELLOR
FOR
ADMINISTRATION


FIGURE 2. SIMPLIFIED TABLE OF ORGANIZATION FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS o
AT WESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE










members of the official faculty organization on their campus.

These organizations, one for each campus, were representative

of nearly all of the professional personnel working at

Western. Faculty meetings were held monthly during an acti-

vity period. It was within their scope of activity to delib-

erate on curriculum and instruction matters. Recommendations

from these meetings were submitted through the normal organi-

zational channels for consideration. All faculty members

were expected to attend these meetings.

In addition to the faculty organization, a five-man

district committee existed to facilitate decision-making in

curriculum and instruction. The members of the district

Curriculum and Instruction Committee were the two campus

Presidents, the two Deans of Instruction, and the Director

of Curriculum Review and Evaluation. No instructional faculty or

division chairmen were represented on the committee. The

committee functioned primarily as a college-wide curriculum

coordinating vehicle for curriculum matters that might have

had more than single campus impact.

Apart from the committee structure, Western Community

College detailed some of the decision-making responsibilities

of its personnel in position descriptions. These descriptions

were published in the Policies and Procedures Manual that

was distributed to college personnel as an orientation and

reference document. Only the information germane to curri-

culum and instruction decision-making is included below. The

discussion begins with the district administrative positions.










The Chancellor of the district was to provide leadership

in the development of educational programs. This included

the responsibility for establishing priorities in instruc-

tional programming. As part of the district staff, the college

had a Director of Curriculum Review and Evaluation who rep-

resented the district in all academic matters. Included among

his duties was working with the campus Presidents or Deans

of Instruction in identifying and implementing ways for im-

proving the curriculum development process. He was responsi-

ble for preparing an analysis of all curriculum proposals and

instructional programs to facilitate the decision-making

process. Also hc developed and implemented evaluation proce-

dures that were intended to determine the effectiveness,

thrust, and focus of existing educational programs.

The President was the chief administrator for the campus,

and, as such, he was responsible for the total educational

operation of the campus. He also made recommendations for

changes in and development of curriculum, faculty policies,

and academic policies. He also functioned as the chief

liaison officer between the central administration and the

campus.

The Dean of Instruction was responsible for the instruc-

tional program and was the administrative head of the instruc-

tional faculty. He formulated objectives for the entire cur-

riculum and coordinated the preparation of specific course

outlines and syllabi. He was responsible for planning a

systematic program for faculty evaluation as well as evaluation










of the instructional program. He also directed curriculum

development and revision for the campus. He planned for a

faculty development program which had instructional improve-

ment as its goal.

The Director of Community Services was responsible for

the development and implementation of off-campus credit

courses and for all non-credit courses. In cooperation with

the Dean of Instruction, division chairmen, and department

chairmen, he extended the college services beyond the con-

fines of the campus. He reported directly to the President

of the campus. The Chancellor of the district indicated

that the community services function was to be reorganized

at the district level for the 1974-75 academic year. A re-

organization of this nature would change significantly the

roles and duties of the campus community services personnel.

The division chairmen on each campus of the college com-

prised an advisory committee to the Dean of Instruction for

all matters relating to curriculum and instruction. In-

cluded among their responsibilities was the coordination

and supervision of the instructional program in the division.

They recommended course offerings and teaching assignments

in their divisions and coordinated the program of evaluation

of instructional effectiveness and student progress. They

also assisted in preparation and periodic revision of course

syllabi in their divisions.

The department chairmen were the instructional leaders

of their departments and administrative assistants to the










division chairmen. They were responsible for the super-

vision of the department instructional program, preparation

of the instructional budget, and execution of the depart-

mental budget. They evaluated the instructional effective-

ness of their staffs and supervised the preparation and re-

vision of syllabi for departmental course offerings. They

recommended to their division chairmen the textbooks and

media materials to be purchased by the Learning Resources

Center.

The description of the role that faculty played in the

educational process tended to be laudatory and general. In

this regard, it was difficult to identify particular areas

of responsibility that faculty members assumed. Statements

such as the following from the Policies and Procedures Manual

were common in describing faculty responsibilities. "Being

prepared, cheerful, willing and eager to serve, responsive

to change and maintaining a constant dedication to serve stu-

dents make responsibilities of faculty persons unique challenges."



Decision-Making Patterns Identified
by the Decision Point Analysis Instrument


Twenty-two role incumbents from Western Community College

responded to the Decision Point Analysis Instrument. The

only change in the administration of the instrument from that

reported in Chapter II was the insertion of a response space

to accommodate both the department chairman and the division

chairman positions. Four role incumbents from each of these










positions were asked to respond. As at the other colleges

participating, the respondents were cooperative and open

during the interview sessions. The discussion of the data

is presented in the sequence used in Chapter II. Tables 5-8

are summaries of the response data.


Primary Decision-Makers

Item one, the creation of a new course, showed that the

Deans of Instruction and the Presidents were perceived as

the primary decision-makers. The Dean of Instruction posi-

tion received 50 percent of the responses, and the President

received 32 percent. No other position received more than one

response to the item. The creation of a new program, item

2, did not bring a consensus of responses. Seven different

role incumbents received responses as being primary with none

of them having more than 27 percent of the total. The deci-

sion appeared to be one that required cross-campus approval,

however, because nearly 50 percent of the responses were in

the district administrative positions or the Curriculum and

Instruction Committee. One faculty respondent marked that

he did not know where this decision would be made.

The Director of Community Services was seen as the pri-

mary decision-maker in the creation of a new non-credit course

by 54 percent of the respondents. The Dean of Instruction

and the department chairmen were seen by some as being key,

as they received 18 percent and 14 percent, respectively.

Items four and five showed little convergence on a key











TABLE 5


DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES TO CURRICULUM ITEMS
FOR WESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE


Role Make the Decision Participate
Incumbents Items Items
1 2 3 4 5 Tot % 1 2 3 4 5 Tot %

Chancellor 1 6 0 1 3 11 10.0 3 3 0 2 3 11 3.0

Director of
Curriculum &
Instruction Review 0 2 0 1 3 6 5.4 5 7 0 4 6 22 6.1

President 7 5 1 5 7 25 22.7 5 15 1 3 9 33 9.2

Dean of Instruction 11 5 4 7 5 32 29.1 11 16 11 12 16 66 18.4

Division Chairman 1 1 1 1 0 4 3.6 20 16 14 17 19 86 24.0

Department Chairman 1 0 3 3 0 7 6.3 18 14 11 16 14 73 20.4

Faculty 0 0 0 1 0 1 .9 10 4 6 9 10 39 10.9

Committee 1 2 0 2 2 7 6.3 5 5 0 2 6 18 5.0

Director of
Community Services N/A N/A 12 N/A N/A 12 10.9 N/A N/A 10 N/A N/A 10 2.8

Don't Know 0 1 1 1 2 5 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 22 22 22 22 110 99.7 77 80 53 65 83 358 99.8










decision-maker. In item four every option, from the"'han-

celloi'to the'bon't Know"response, received at least one mark,

This indicated a wide divergence of opinion. Only two role

incumbents received a significant number of responses. The

Dean of Instruction had 32 percent of the responses, and

the President had 23 percent. Others were spread over the

remaining positions. Item five indicated again that the Presi-

dent and the Dean of Instruction were perceived as being

primary in the making of the decision. The President received

32 percent and the Dean of Instruction 23 percent of the

responses. Although this was hardly a consensus, these two

positions did receive more than half of the responses. Two

respondents indicated that they did not know who the primary

decision-maker was for this item.

When the responses to the five curriculum items in Table

5 were pooled, the Dean of Instruction and the President

emerged as key decision-makers in the area of curriculum. The

Dean received 29.1 percent of all responses, and the Presi-

dent received 22.7 percent. Faculty was perceived as having

the least voice as primary decision-makers for curriculum.

They received only one response out of a total 110 for less

than 1 percent. A surprisingly high number of respondents,

4.5 percent, indicated that they did not know who made the

decisions. This was the highest incidence of the "Don't Know"

response for the entire study.

The first of the instruction items, Table 6, showed a

more decentralized approach to decision-making. Forty-five

percent of the respondents indicated that the changing of an









TABLE 6

DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES TO INSTRUCTION ITEMS
FOR WESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE



Role Make the Decision Participation
Incumbents Items Items
1 2 3 4 5 Tot % 1 2 3 4 5 Tot %

Chancellor 0 0 1 0 0 1 .9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Director of Curri-
culum & Instruc-
tional Review 0 0 4 0 0 4 3.6 0 0 4 0 0 4 1.5

President 0 1 6 1 0 8 7.3 0 3 4 4 0 11 4.0

Dean of Instruction 2 2 5 8 3 20 18.2 7 8 15 7 5 42 15.4

Division Chairman 2 2 3 3 0 10 9.1 13 15 15 16 12 71 26.1

Department Chairman 8 9 3 4 14 38 34.5 13 12 12 18 8 63 23.2

Faculty 10 7 0 6 5 28 25.4 12 14 12 16 17 71 26.1

Committee 0 1 0 0 0 1 .9 1 1 5 1 2 10 3.7

Don't Know 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 22 22 22 22 110 99.9 46 53 67 62 44 272 100
a,











instructional methodology was a faculty decision. Thirty-

six percent felt that the department chairman was the key

role incumbent in the making of that decision. Item two, the

decision to introduce new instructional technology, also

showed the department chairmen and the faculty as being the

perceived decision-makers. The department chairmen received

41 percent of the responses while the faculty had 32 percent.

The decision to evaluate the instruction in a course,

item three, had its responses evenly spread over five role

incumbents. The largest number of responses (six) was

given to the President, but the Dean of Instruction had five,

the Director of Curriculum Review and Evaluation had four,

and the two chairmen positions had three each. Item four

also showed very little uniformity of perception. The Dean

of Instruction received 36 percent of the responses, the faculty

27 percent, and the department chairmen 18 percent.

In contrast to items three and four, item five, the

decision to adopt a textbook, had more uniformity of response.

The department chairman was perceived as the primary decision-

maker by 64 percent of the respondents. Faculty was seen as

being primary by 23 percent of the respondents. The 64 per-

cent figure for the department chairman was the highest found

for all of the items at Western Community College.

When the instruction responses were pooled, the decen-

tralized pattern became evident. The department chairman

received 34.5 percent of all responses, and the faculty re-

ceived 25.4 percent. These were easily the two highest rates










of response. The lowest were the Chancellor and the Curri-

culum and Instruction Committee, both with less than one per-

cent. The decision-making for the instruction items was

clearly placed at the campus level. Only six out of the 110

responses placed the primary decision-making at the district

level.

Table 7 summarizes the identified decision-making pat-

tern across all ten decision items. The Dean of Instruction

emerged as having received the most responses, 23.6 percent,

as a primary decision-maker. The department chairman was next

with 20.4 percent of the responses. As an indicator of decen-

tralization, it is interesting to note that the district

level role incumbents and the district curriculum committee

ranked very low in frequency of response. It was especially

surprising that the Curriculum and Instruction Committee

ranked last in terms of perceived primary decision-making.


Participants in Decision-Making

The participants in the decision-making process were

determined the same way as reported in Chapter II. More

participation in the curriculum decisions was indicated by

the fact that there were 86 more responses in the curriculum

items than in the instruction items. The division chairman

received the greatest number of responses, 24 percent, as hav-

ing participated in the making of curriculum decisions. The

department chairman followed with 20.4 percent, and the Dean

of Instruction had 18.4 percent. The Curriculum and Instruction









TABLE 7


RESPONSES TO ALL ITEMS RANK ORDER DISTRIBUTION BY FREQUENCY



Make the Decision Participate
N = 220 N = 630

Frequency % Frequency %

Dean of Instruction 52 23.6 Division Chairman 157 24.9

Department Chairman 45 20.4 Department Chairman 136 21.6

President 33 15.0 Faculty 110 17.5

Faculty 29 13.2 Dean of Instruction 108 17.1

Division Chairman 14 6.4 President 44 6.9

Chancellor 12 5.4 Committee 28 4.4

Director of Com- Dean of Curriculum
munity Services 12 5.4 & Instructional
Review 26 4.1
Director of Curri-
culum & Instruc- Chancellor 11 1.7
tional Review 10 4.5
Director of Com-
Committee 8 3.6 unity Serivces 10 1.6

Don't Know 5 2.3 _j










Committee was seen as having little impact in that they were

perceived as having participated in the making of curriculum

decisions in only five percent of the responses.

The instruction items showed much the same participation

pattern as was seen for the curriculum items. The division

chairman and faculty received the same number of responses

to lead in participation with 26.1 percent each. The de-

partment chairman followed closely with 23.2 percent of all

responses. The Curriculum and Instruction Committee again

faired poorly, being indicated by only 3.7 percent of the

responses as having taken part in the formulation of decisions.

Table 7 shows the combined responses for both curriculum

and instruction decisions. The division chairman was seen

as having the largest share of the responses, 24.9 percent.

The department chairman, faculty, and Dean of Instruction

followed in close order. The role incumbents who were respon-

sible for district-wide coordination received less than 5

percent of the responses. The Curriculum and Instruction

Committee also received less than .5 percent. These data

tended to support the conclusion that the making of curri-

culum and instruction decisions was perceived of as more a

campus function than a college function.


Respondents' Perceptions of Their Roles in Decision-Making

Table 8 displays the way that the respondents perceived

their own involvement in the decision-making process. There

were basically two patterns that emerged from the responses









TABLE 8


RESPONDENTS PRECEPTIONS OF THEIR OWN INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROCESS


Role Incumbent


Make the
Decision


Recommend
Decision

Curriculum Items


Provide
Information


Chancellor

Dean of Curriculum &
Instructional Review

President (2)

Dean of Instruction (2)

Division Chairman (4)

Department Chairman (4)

Faculty (8)


4

7

14

6

7
Instruction Items


Chancellor 5
Dean of Curriculum &
Instructional Review 1 1 3
President (2) 1 1 8
Dean of Instruction (2) 1 6 4
Division Chairman (4) 2 8 10
Department Chairman (4) 7 6 6
Faculty (8) 12 18 8 2


None










to the curriculum decisions. First, the Chancellor and the

Dean of Curriculum Review and Evaluation did not feel that

they played a large role in the decision-making process.

They marked that their input was either that of providing

information or none at all. Most of the faculty also per-

ceived their involvement in the making of curriculum decisions

to be slight. Thirty-three of the forty-one responses were

for either no involvement or providing information. This

tended to leave the bulk of the decision-making to the campus

level administrators.

The pattern changed somewhat for the instruction items.

The central administrative positions again did not perceive

themselves as an integral part of the decision-making process.

Eight of the ten responses indicated no participation. How-

ever, the faculty saw themselves as having a much greater

degree of participation in the making of instruction deci-

sions than they did in curriculum decisions. Thirty of the

forty responses were either in the "make the decision" or
"recommend the decision" boxes. This indicated a greater

degree of decentralization within the campus organizational

structure than found in the area of curriculum. The trend

of not selecting one's self as the decision-maker, identified

in the second chapter, continued at Western Community College

in the curriculum area, but not in the instructional items.

This added credence to the opinions expressed by some of

those interviewed. They stated that the process of decision-

making in curriculum involved many people, and that the










proposal had to go through "channels." Their role in this

process was best described as recommending the decision as

it went from them to another position. This was not perceived

to be so for instructional decisions. Role incumbents were

more willing to respond that they had authority to make a

particular decision.



Decision-Making Patterns Identified
by Structured Interviews


Twelve interviews were conducted at Western Community

College. The respondents to the first question of the inter-

view guide were nearly unanimous in their perception of the

College as a decentralized organization with regard to cur-

riculum and instruction. The individual departments were

seen by some to be nearly autonomous with regard to the

instruction items. Curriculum decisions, however, were made

higher in the organization, although many respondents were

not sure exactly where they were made. At least one inter-

viewee, however, felt that the Director of Curriculum Review

and Evaluation was beginning to emerge as a strong decision-

making position. He made the point that the role incumbent

was relatively new at that position and that as he matured

in that role, he would become a strong decision-maker.

The responses to shared authority between the Presidents

and the Deans of Instruction indicated that it was mainly a

matter of communication rather than sharing. The Deans

stated that they had quite a bit of authority, but stressed










the need to keep the President informed of developments in

the areas of curriculum and instruction. The Presidents

responded that they preferred not to interfere with the

Dean's performance of his duties.

Although the role of the Director of Curriculum Review

and Evaluation was not that of line authority over the Deans

of Instruction, the respondents to the questions of shared

authority between them felt that they stayed in fairly close

contact. The Director stated that he worked more closely

with the Dean of Instruction than any other campus official.

His input to the Dean was seen by both parties to be that of

advice and information.

The interviewees tended to respond to question number

four in the same manner that they did to the Decision Point

Analysis Instrument. The department chairmen were seen as

strong decision-makers in instructional matters, while the

Deans of Instruction were primary in curriculum affairs.

The Curriculum and Instruction Committee was perceived

as a "rubber stamp" type committee that had very little vi-

able input in the decision-making process. The fact that it

consisted only of high level administrators bothered some

of the faculty members who were interviewed. They thought

that it could be a good working committee if it had some

faculty input. Their reactions tended to confirm the data

gathered on the committee through the use of the Decision

Point Analysis Instrument. One administrator responded to

this question by saying that the committee was very efficient

in its operation due to its small size.










The advantages of the multi-campus organization as it

applied at Western Community College were perceived to revolve

around better service for less money. The people interviewed

felt that the district office acted as a coordinating and

planning agency that could eliminate unnecessary duplication

of programs and competition between campuses. They could

also help to plan new campuses and programs from a broader

perspective than the campus level. It was thought that this

was being done at a lower cost to the taxpayer.

Disadvantages were noted in the areas of communication

and program evaluation. Some of those interviewed disliked

the physical separation of the campuses and contended that

it was extremely difficult to coordinate activities between

the two. This difficulty was enough of a problem that several

people said they gave up trying to coordinate their activi-

ties with their counterparts on the other campus. They, in

effect, functioned as separate institutions for most activi-

ties. Another disadvantage was seen in trying to evaluate

programs that existed on both campuses. The programs, although

identical in concept, took on separate identities when imple-

mented. The tendency for the programs to develop different

characteristics was increased over time so that programs

which had existed for several years at both locations had

taken on enough unique qualities to make comparison difficult.

This was thought to be especially true in new or innovative

programs.

The suggested changes that came from the interview sessions










revolved around the area of curriculum. The changes re-

flected a perceived need to achieve a better unity in the

college curriculum. One interviewee responded that he would

like to see the curriculum decisions become a district func-

tion. He felt that the unity in programs would help to

alleviate the confusion that existed at the time of the

study. Several other respondents were more specific in their

recommendations. They wanted to have a Vice-Chancellor for

Academics appointed to the District Staff. This was seen as

a way to unify the college instructional staff with regard to

the curriculum that they teach. No changes were recommended

for the instructional decision-making structure.



General Observations and Summation


At Western Community College the researcher was received

openly and enjoyed the freedom to question anyone employed

at the institution. The participants in the study could be

characterized as professionals interested in this study and

the improvement of their institution. Western Community

College, at the time of the study, was considered one of the

exemplary educational institutions of its state and region.

The objectivity with which those participating viewed their

college made the collection of data much easier. Below are

the summary remarks and generalizations that have been developed

from the data presented in this chapter.

In determining the degree of congruence between stated










decision-making policies and perceived decision-makers, the

same procedures outlined in Chapter II were followed. All

three of the items that had more than 50 percent of the

responses given to one role incumbent were found to be con-

gruent with the state decision-making policy. Curriculum

items one and three were congruent as was instruction item

five. The other seven items failed to identify a primary

decision-maker with more than 50 percent of the responses.

From the information gathered at Western Community College

the following generalizations have been formulated.

1. The committee structure for curriculum and instruc-
tion was not perceived to be an integral part of
the decision-making process.

2. Curriculum decisions were perceived to be more
centralized than instructional decisions, though
both were primarily campus level functions.

3. There tended to be more participation by role in-
cumbents in the formulation of curriculum deci-
sions than in instruction decisions.

4. The department chairman's position was perceived
to be a strong primary decision-making position
for instructional decisions.

5. The Dean of Instruction was perceived to be a
strong primary decision-maker for curriculum
decisions.

6. The curriculum decisions role incumbents were
reluctant to identify themselves as primary deci-
sion-makers even when the majority of the responses
so identified them.

7. The decision-making pattern for non-credit courses
was different from the regular curriculum. The
Director of Community Services was perceived to
be the key decision-maker in the non-credit area.














CHAPTER IV


THE DECISION-MAKING PATTERN OF
EASTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT


Chapter IV is a description of the decision-making pat-

tern for curriculum and instruction in the last of the three

districts studied. As in Chapters II and III, the district

environment is described first, followed by the stated deci-

sion-making procedures. Next are the decision-making patterns

identified by the Decision Point Analysis Instrument and

the responses to the structured interview. A summary section

including general observations and generalizations completes

the investigation of the decision-making patters at Eastern

Community College.



Environment


The Community

Eastern Community College served a district that consisted

of four counties and three independent municipalities. The

total area of the district was 1312 square miles. The popula-

tion of the district was 921,237 in 1970. The district was

the southern portion of the fastest growing metropolitan

area in the United States. The 1973 estimate of the popula-

tion for the entire metropolitan area was 3,200,000. The










district population was expected to reach 1,138,000 by 1976.

Many of the residents, especially in the northern part of

the district, commuted to the center of the metropolitan

area for their employment.

The counties and cities that were located in the northern

part of the district had the greatest concentration of people.

The two counties and one city that comprised that suburban

area accounted for 740,243 people, 80 percent of the total

population of the district. The other areas of the district

did not have large populations at the time of the study, but

projections for the next ten years indicated that as the

metropolitan area grew, these would become prime residential

communities.


History and Development

Eastern Community College was established as a result

of legislation in 1964. In early 1965 the college was approved

by the State Board for Technical Education, the present College

Board was formally established, and the President of the

college was appointed. Less than four months later the col-

lege opened with an initial enrollment of 761 students and a

staff of 46. The first permanent building was opened in 1967.

Sites for three other campuses were purchased also that year.

The enrollment was 5271 in 1968. In 1969 the site for

another campus was purchased. As the original campus con-

tinued to expand, the second full campus, located in the den-

sely populated north district area, began full operation in 1971.










Three other campuses were planned, and in 1972 the funds

for construction of two of these were approved. The new facil-

ities were scheduled for completion by fall, 1974. The con-

struction funds for the other campus had not been approved

at the time of this study. These three campuses opened in

temporary facilities in the fall of 1972. They were still in

those temporary locations at the time of this study.

The enrollment figures for Eastern Community College

indicated a history of rapid growth and a projected contin-

uation of quick enrollment increases. The total enrollment

for all five campuses in the fall of 1973 was 17,260 (head-

count) and 10,340 (FTE). Nearly sixteen thousand of those

students were enrolled at the two completed campuses. These

two campuses were expected to grow until 1978, then remain

relatively static in enrollment. By that year the other cam-

puses were projected to be growing rapidly in their per-

manent facilities. By 1980 the enrollment was projected to

be nearly 35,000 students. Approximately 20,000 were planned

for the two main campuses and 15,000 for the three newer

campuses.


Pattern of Governance

Eastern Community College was part of a state-wide system

of community colleges. The college operated on policies

established by the State Board of Community Colleges and with

the support and advice of a local community college board.

The college was financed primarily by state tax revenue. The










system had a state Chancellor who served as the secretary of

the State Board for Community Colleges and was responsible

for the administration of the state policies. The President

of Eastern Community College was responsible directly to

the Chancellor of the state community college system for the

operation of the college.


Organization

Eastern Community College was the largest multi-campus

institution included in this study. It had a greater number

of students and more campuses than either of the other two

community colleges. Although the college publications did

not stress the unity of the campuses as one college entity,

the organizational charts reflected that type of philosophy.

The Faculty Handbook explained the campus organizational plan

that was used for all of the campuses. This plan is presented

in simplified form as part of the total college organizational

model, which is shown in Figure 3. The Deans for Administra-

tive Services, Instructional Services, and Student Services

were representative of the major college-wide concerns. The

role incumbents in these positions were responsible for the

coordination of their various programs among the campuses.

They worked in conjunction with the Provosts of the campuses,

who were responsible for the total operation of their respec-

tive campuses. Figure 3 shows only the organizational posi-

tions germane to this study and is not intended to represent

the college staff in total.


















DEAN FOR FINANCIAL
& ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES


FIGURE 3. SIMPLIFIED TABLE OF ORGANIZATION FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS
AT EASTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE


PROVOSTS


2 MAJOR CAMPUSES

3 EMERGING CAMPUSES










Procedures for Decision-Making in
Curriculum and Instruction


The publications from Eastern Community College indicated

that there were at least twelve committees functioning at

various levels of the college at the time of this study. The

committee structure was well delineated in the Faculty Handbook.

The committee which was assigned the responsibility for the

area of curriculum and instruction is the one presented below.

The Committee on Curriculum and Instruction was organized

to coordinate the instructional programs of the separate

campuses. The specific functions of the committee were to

study the instructional programs of the college, to consider

proposals for course changes, and to make recommendations for

the improvement of curriculum and instructional programs of

all campuses. The recommendations from the committee were

made to the President of the college.

The committee was appointed by the President annually

and consisted of the following members: Dean for Instructional

Services--Chairman, Provosts (5), campus instructional ad-

ministration (2), student services administration (1), and

instructional faculty (6). The instructional faculty members

on the committee were nominated by the College Forum, a

general all-college committee.

In addition to the Curriculum and Instruction Committee,

Eastern Community College defined some of the positions of

the college in terms of their role in the decision-making

process for curriculum and instruction. The President, for










example, was the chief executive officer for the college and

as such was responsible for providing leadership and super-

vision for the total community college program.

The Dean of Instructional Services had more specific

duties outlined in the Faculty Handbook. Among them were

the following, which pertained to curriculum and instruction.

1. Coordinate the development of curriculum, courses,
and programs for the college.

2. Advise the campus Provosts in matters of curric-
ulum and instruction.

3. Stimulate and institute, through the Curriculum
and Instruction Committee, needed curricular
changes.

4. Stimulate and institute, through the Curriculum
and Instruction Committee, needea adult education
and community service programs.

5. Serve as the contact person for the college in
dealing with the state Department of Community
Colleges in curriculum and instruction matters.

The Provost's duties, like the President's, were not as

explicitly spelled out as some of the other positions. The

Provost served as the chief academic officer of the local

campus. He assumed general supervisory administration for

the development of curriculum, courses, and programs. Also

he was to institute needed curricular changes on his campus.

Reporting to the Provost were the division chairmen. Among

the division chairmen's responsibilities the following were

listed.

1. Organizing, administering, and supervising the
instructional program of the division.

2. Supervising the divisional instructional program
for both the day and evening class offerings.










3. Recommending to the Provost textbooks, materials,
and equipment after consultation with the appro-
priate division chairmen on the other campuses.

4. Making recommendations to the Provost and the
Curriculum and Instruction Committee concerning
divisional offerings and curricula.

5. Cooperating with the Director of Continuing Edu-
cation in establishing day and evening activities.

6. Working closely with the community to determine
if existing programs are meeting the needs of the
community.

7. Determining the need for, planning, and develop-
ing additional programs for the college.

The Director of Continuing Education had responsibility

for that portion of the campus program which was primarily

oriented toward the adult population and normally scheduled

during the evening and on weekends. As indicated above, the

Director of Continuing Education consulted the division

chairmen in the performance of his duties.

The primary responsibility of a faculty member at Eastern

Community College was to provide quality instruction for

the students. As part of this primary responsibility, the

faculty member also was expected to teach the prescribed

courses with the established texts, attend to assigned divi-

sional and college duties, and contribute to the development

of the program of instruction.



Decision-Making Patterns Identified
by the Decision Point Analysis Instrument


The Decision Point Analysis Instrument was used to collect

responses from twenty-two role incumbents at Eastern Community










College. The President and the Dean for Curriculum and

Instruction were the respondents from the college adminis-

trative staff. Four Provosts, eight division chairmen, and

eight faculty members completed the number of people who

participated in the survey. Included in the eight faculty

responders were two people who held the position of assis-

tant division chairman. Their responses were treated as

faculty responses because their prime duties for the college

were of an instructional nature rather than administrative.

These respondents agreed that they considered themselves

faculty rather than administration. The instrument was

administered in the same manner as before. The data collected

from the survey are classified and presented in the same

format as was used in Chapters II and III.


Primary Decision-Makers

Tables 9-11 summarize the data gained from the survey.

The discussion of the responses is based on that information

and is intended to expand on it.

The responses to the first curriculum item, the creation

of a new course, indicated that the Curriculum and Instruc-

tion Committee had an important role. Fifty-nine percent of

the respondents felt that it was the primary decision-making

body for this item. The creation of a new program, however,

did not bring the same collective type of response. Forty-

one percent thought that the Curriculum and Instruction Com-

mittee was primary, but the remainder of the responses were











TABLE 9


DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES TO CURRICULUM ITEMS
FOR EASTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE


Role Make the Decision Participate
Incumbents Items !tems
1 2 3 4 5 Tot % 1 2 3 4 5 Tot %


President 0 5 0 0 4 9 8.2 4 3 0 2 4 13 4.2
Dean for Instruc-
tional Services 0 0 0 1 1 2 1.8 12 16 1 13 12 54 17.5

Provost 1 2 1 0 0 4 3.6 16 18 6 12 12 64 20.7

Division Chairman 6 6 1 9 6 28 25.4 15 16 14 13 12 70 22.6

Faculty 2 0 0 4 0 6 5.4 15 18 12 16 15 76 24.6

Committee 13 9 1 8 10 41 37.3 6 10 0 8 6 30 9.7

Don't Know 0 0 1 0 1 2 1.8 0 0 1 0 0 1 .3

Director of Con-
tinued Education N/A N/A 18 N/A N/A 18 16.4 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A 1 .3

22 22 22 22 22 110 99.9 68 81 35 64 61 309 99.9










scattered over a rather large range. The President received

five responses and the division chairman six.

Item three, the creation of a non-credit course, was

regarded by 82 percent of the role incumbents surveyed to be

a decision made by the Director of Continuing Education.

This figure represented the highest degree of consensus

reached on any of the items at Eastern Community College.

The Curriculum and Instruction Committee and the division

chairman were the two positions that received the greatest

number of responses for item four. The committee received

36 percent of the responses, and the division chairman re-

ceived 41 percent. The committee also was considered to be

the key decision-making body in the changing of general edu-

cation requirements, item five. Forty-five percent of the

responses were given to the Curriculum and Instruction Com-

mittee. The division chairman received 27 percent.

The responses of all five of the curriculum items are

pooled in Table 9 and depict a fairly consistent trend.

The Curriculum and Instruction Committee was considered to

be a strong decision-making committee for curriculum items.

Thirty-seven percent of all responses went to the committee.

The division chairman was also perceived as an important

decision-maker, as that position received 25.4 percent of

the responses. The Director of Continuing Education was per-

ceived to be a strong decision-maker in the area of non-

credit curricular offerings. The Dean for Instructional

Services was not perceived as a key decision-maker for curric-

ulum items.










Item one of the instruction items was perceived to be a

faculty decision by 73 percent of the respondents. The only

other position receiving any responses was the division chair-

man, who received the remaining 27 percent of the responses.

Item two, the introduction of new instructional technology,

was seen as a faculty perrogative by 50 percent of those

surveyed. Thirty-two percent thought the division chairman

was key in the making of this decision.

The decision to evaluate instruction, item three, was

perceived to be a decision made at the division level. The

division chairman received 59 percent of the responses with

the faculty getting 32 percent. Although the division chair-

man did not receive a clear majority of the responses in

item four, that position again received the greatest number

with 45 percent of the responses while 41 percent thought

that faculty were primary in the making of that decision. The

last item, the selection of textbooks, was perceived to be a

faculty responsibility. Seventy-seven percent selected the

faculty as the key decision-maker for this item.

Table 10 contains the summary response data for the

instruction items. The faculty received 54.5 percent of the

responses as being the key decision-makers in the area of

instruction. The division chairman was the only other role

incumbent to receive a significant share of the responses

for the instruction items. That position received 36.4 per-

cent of the responses. From those two figures, the division

emerged as a powerful decision-making unit for instructional