I No. Hi? THE PHASING OUT OF AN INNOVATIVE SUBCOLLEGE/CLUSTER COLLEGE (MONTEITH COLLEGE, WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY): A CASE STUDY IN CONFLICT DYNAMICS Arumynayagam Malkia Perus A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May 1978 green state UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES ABSTRACT The study describes and analyzes the closure of Monteith College, Wayne State University (WSU) and the related conflict dynamics and policy formation processes. Monteith was a subcollege established in 1959 to improve the quality of undergraduate education. It was based on the cluster college model. In spite of the opposition from the College of Liberal Arts, Monteith came into existence because of a grant from the Ford Foundation and the support from President Hilberry. Monteith had a great impact on its students, similar to the elite colleges. According to several scholarly studies, Monteith students changed dramatically. However, Monteith had the problems of high costs and attrition rates. In 1971, a new Wayne State President reorganized the Central Administration. The new Provost, previously the Physics Department Chairman, had long been an opponent of Monteith. In 1971, the newly appointed Monteith Dean, new also to Wayne State, refused Central Administration "dictates. Consequently, without needed Central Adminis­ tration support, Monteith was in political trouble. Because of the financial problem since 1970, Michigan State Legislature requested all of public higher education to cut down tie expenses. The Central Administration and the Board of Governors of WSU decided to close down Monteith in May 1975 as one step. Bitter contro­ versies resulted partly because proper academic procedures were not followed. The University Council suspended in protest, and the national AAUP questioned the procedure. The University Council reconvened after the Board of Governors accepted the statutory change, assuring faculty participation in academic matters. The Council appointed an Ad Hoc Monteith Committee to study Monteith. The Committee recommended Monteith’s phase-out. The Council debated the issue and endorsed the recommendations. The Board of Governors endorsed the phase-out in December 1975. Balridge’s political model was used to study policy formation. The study shows that the Central Administration had the upper hand, using political weapons to influence and control. A major finding is that central administration support is crucial to innovation survival. Ill IN APPRECIATION This study was possible because of the co-operation of the participating universities and tbeit subcolleges in Michigan and Ohio. My special thanks goes to Dr. Yates Hafner for giving me permission to study Monteith College. I am also grateful to the Monteith faculty and the Central Administrators of Wayne State University for their co-operation. I sincerely thank all my committee members for sparing their precious time in guiding me till the final step. My special apprecia­ tion to Dr. Morris J. Weinberger for his inituitive advice, timely help, and constant encouragement. He is my Guru in the literal sense of the Indian usage. I also thank Dr. Malcolm Campbell for his constructive comments and suggestions at the initial stages of the proposal. Grateful acknowledgements are due Dr. Mearl R. Guthrie, Chairman of the Business Education Department and to the Department of Educational Administration and Supervision for providing a Doctoral Fellowship to enable me to pursue my doctoral program. Above all, I am thankful to my heavenly Father for giving me knowledge, wisdom, and understanding, and also for sustaining me with energy and perseverance to bring this study to a completion. Praise be unto the Lord. A. Malkia Perus IV TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. THE PROBLEM, PROCEDURES, AND METHODOLOGY . ............. 1 Introduction ............................................. 1 Statement of the Problem................................. 3 Objectives of the Study.............................. 4 Definitions ............................................. 4 Significance of the Problem .............................. 5 Sources of Data ......................................... 7 Monteith College ....................................... 7 Subcolleges in Michigan and Ohio...................... 7 Instrumentation and Procedures ................... 7 Questionnaires ......................................... 7 Interviews ........................................... 8 Analysis of Data and Its Limitations.................... 9 II. THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK....................... 10 Major Approaches to the Study of Innovation.............. 10 The Conflict Approach ........ .................. 12 Rationale for the Political Model ...................... 14 The Political Model ................................... 15 Power and Influence ................................... 18 Who Decides?.......................... 19 The Political Decision Model.......................... 21 A Case Study of New York University...................... 26 Why Innovations Fold? ................................... 28 The New College Experiment............................... 31 V III. CURRENT PROBLEMS AND ISSUES IN SUBCOLLEGES ................. 34 The Nature of Sub colleges.............................. 35 Experimental Programs on Trial......................... 37 The Question of Quality ...................... ..... 38 Financial Problems .............. 40 Cost Effectiveness of Subcolleges ....................... 44 Duplication of Programs................................ 49 Student Attrition ... ................................ 50 Shift in Student Attitude........................ 51 Faculty Problems............ 52 Tension Between Liberal Arts Colleges and Subcolleges . 55 Administrative Support ........................ 56 IV. A SHORT HISTORY OF MONTEITH COLLEGE ............ 58 Emergence of Monteith College................ 58 Inception of Monteith College.................. .. 58 Monteith’s Educational Model .......................... 60 Internal and External Support ........................ 64 Friction Between Monteith and the College of Liberal Arts 64 Monteith Stablized as a College ......................... 67 Internal Evaluation of Monteith ...................... 67 External Evaluation of Monteith ...................... 69 Debate on the Adoption of Monteith.................. • 71 Impact and Quality of Monteith Education ................ 73 The Impact of Monteith Education...................... 74 Quality of Monteith Education ........................ 76 Acclaim of Monteith College............ .............. 78 vi Problems and Issues of Monteith...................... .. 79 Question of High Cost........ ........................ 80 Student Attrition ....... ...................... 85 Faculty Problems ..... ............................ 89 Friction Between Monteith and Central Administration . 90 Problem of Survival ........... ............ 94 Summary ............................................... 94 V. EVENTS LEADING TO THE PHASE OUT OF MONTEITH.............. 98 The Role of Central Administration................ .. • 98 Budgetary Problems of WSU.................. .......... 98 The New Dean’s Emphasis on General Education .......... 101 The Proposal to Phase out Monteith . ............... 102 The Decision to Phase out Monteith ........ .. 109 Rationale for the Phase-out........ .................. Ill Repercussions to the Proposal........................ .. 113 University Council Suspends ............... ........... 113 Reaction from Monteith College .......... ....... 114 Intervention by AAUP . ................... 121 The Board’s Budget and Finance Committee in Favor of Monteith . .................... .. 122 The Board of Governors in Favor of Monteith ...... 123 The Resignation of the Provost .............. .. 125 Review of Educational Policy at WSU . ............... • 126 The Role of Ad Hoc Monteith Committee................ .. 127 The Role of Ad Hoc Task Force on University Budget ... 131 vii Debate on the Decision to Phase out Monteith............ 132 Debate by the University Council ...................... 134 Debate by the Board of Governors...................... 145 Repercussions to the Final Decision .................... 149 Monteith's Strategy for Survival........ ............ 149 Reaction from Monteith Students ...................... 156 Michigan State House Resolution ........................ 159 VI. ANALYSIS OF EVENTS BASED ON THE POLITICAL MODEL............ 160 The Social Structure Factors .......................... • 160 External Social Context ................................ 160 Internal Social Context . .............................. 160 The Complex Social Structure of WSU................ .. 160 Changing Trends in the Central Administration . 161 Changing Trends at Monteith.............. ............165 Friction between Monteith and the College of Liberal Arts...................................... 167 Analysis of Major Causes Leading to the Phase out ........ 168 Interest Articulation ................ .......... 172 Support for the Phase-out................................ 172 Opposition to Changes.......... 173 Powe:; and Influence...................................... 175 The 3ycle of Conflict........................ 177 First Phase of the Conflict ...........................177 Second Phase of the Conflict ........................... 178 ThLrd Phase of the Conflict............................ 179