CHANGE MANAGEMENT IN COOPERATIVE EDUCATION: THE EXPANSION AND DEVEI.OPMENT OF TITLE VIII COMPREHENSIVE LARGE SCALE CO-OP PROGRAMS

Within the context of the history of cooperative education growth, this article considers the results of a study on relationships between Title VIII funding and co-op education expansion for Title VIII institutions. Variables studied were Title VIII funding, program objectives, achieve­ment of program objectives, changes in objectives, strengths, weaknesses, problems, and solutions based on the experience of Title VIII institutions. Empirical case data from Title VIII institutions is presented and discussed. The purpose and federal authorization for this study was to examine the internal dynamics of Title VIII institutions, not to compare Title VIII institutions with other institutions. As such, the reader must be cautious in making inferences to non-Title VIII institutions.

Emergence and Slow Growth of Cooperative Education

The first cooperative education program was established at the University of Cincinnati in 1906. Over the next 50 years (1905-1956), 55 more institutions implemented co-op programs, principally in the engineer­ing and technical disciplines. This represented a very small portion of U.S. higher education (Barbeau, 1985).

After the first fifty years, it became apparent that the cooperative education movement required far greater resources to fulfill its vast poten­tial. An important consideration in facilitating the adoption of innova­tion is the availability of external financial resources and the active leader­ship of an institution's chief executive officer (CEO) (Dromgoole, 1983). With the availability of external resources, organizations need not divert resources from internal purposes to advance the innovation. Consequently, there is a lessening of opposition to and more consensus for an innovation that is not competing for internal funds. Concurrently, when institutions can use some of the external resources allocated primarily for the innova­tion to help subsidize other internal programs, there is a further lessen­ing of opposition to and more consensus for the innovation.

In 1963, the NCCE adopted a strategy to seek large scale federal finan­cial support as a key form of external "venture capital'' to advance cooperative education (Porter and Nielsen, 1986). After two years of in­tensive work with members of the NCCE, the Congress and the Office of Education, Title III of the 1965 Higher Education Act was amended to permit developing higher education institutions to use Title III money to develop cooperative education programs. In 196,5 the Congress also amended the Higher Education Act of 1965 to authorize under Title IV, student assistance - federal support specifically for cooperative education. In 1972, money for cooperative education was appropriated for the first time. Con­sequently, a specific line item in the budget for Title IV-D was establish­ed. This was the beginning of large scale funding for cooperative educa­tion. For only the second time in history (the first was the Morrill Act), Congress financially endorsed a specific form of education. Thus, by 1972, separate federal funding of cooperative education was established within the policy priorities of the federal government. Cooperative education legislation now existed and was of distinct importance. Increasingly, cooperative education was being adopted by students, institutions and government. By 1977, the number of institutions of higher education that had adopted co-op programs had grown to approximately 1,000. Although this represented one-third of all the institutions of higher education in the U.S., it should be noted that the vast majority of these programs remained in the incipient stages of development and reached very few students. On­ly about 200,000 postsecondary students, or about 2 % of all college students, were in all forms of cooperative education programs.

Federal Funding of Large-Scale Co-op Programs

Because of this situation, where the vast majority of institutions had relatively small programs of less than one hundred students each, the NCCE, under the direction of Ralph Porter, the Commission's then Executive Vice President (today's President), organized the Comprehensive Cooperative Education Program Task Force to develop a model for implementing com­prehensive co-op programs within higher education institutions.

To help implement the comprehensive program model, the NCCE, after first helping to reverse the Administration's decision in 1979 to seek the elimination of Title VIII funding, assisted the Administration in develop­ing a funding strategy to expand the depth, size and quality of institutional co-op programs. As a result, in 1979, under the Office of Education leader­ship of Richard Rowe (then Director of the Division of Training and Facilities) and the NCCE leadership of Ralph Porter, Title VIII regula­tions were amended to encourage large-scale demonstration projects. To date, the federal government has supported this initiative with 49 large scale, institutional demonstration grants of up to $1,000,000 each, totaling approximately $25,000,000 (Porter and Nielsen, 1986).

Concurrently, in 1981, the NCCE began a series of training programs under the direction of Dr. John Dromgoole for institutions committed to establishing large-scale, comprehensive co-op programs and competing for federal funding support to carry out the program implementation phase. This important training continues to date under the operational manage­ment of Dr. Dromgoole.

Large-Scale Change Management

In his 1983 doctoral dissertation, John Dromgoole hypothesized and demonstrated that large scale expansion of cooperative education programs is fundamentally influenced by 1) large-scale external funding of cooperative education and 2) active leadership of an institution's Chief Executive Of­ficer (CEO) for the large scale expansion.

These hypotheses were based in part on Hefferlin's (1969) theory of the dynamics of academic reform and the strategic management literature. According to Hefferlin (1969),

"The history of American colleges and universities ... seems to point to ... (these) dominant sources of change in higher educa­tion: the resources available for change, the advocates interested in change ... ".

Dromgoole (1983) added to and more specifically informed the Hefferlin model with his own extensive experiences as a cooperative education strategic management trainer and consultant as well as with literature from the strategic management area. This literature suggests that the most impor­tant type of change and innovation leadership in a large organization is the personal consensus-building leadership and interest of the CEO (Quinn, 1980; Nielsen, 1981). The strategic management literature further suggests that external resource opportunities are particularly important as an in­centive for internal organizational change when they can be used to sub­sidize, at least in part, other activities the institution is concerned with (Nielsen and Porter 1981; Nielsen 1986).

The Study

In 1985, John Dromgoole with Richard Nielsen and Richard Rowe were authorized by the federal government to conduct a limited analysis of the first institutions that received Title VIII comprehensive grants. The focus of the analysis ,vas on Title VIII institutions, not to compare Title VIII institutions with non-Title VIII institutions. Consequently, the generalization of findings is, of course, constrained. Nineteen of twenty sampled institutions completed questionnaires. A cross-sectional analysis of co-op programs that received comprehensive demonstration Title VIII funding was made. The analysis of Title VIII institutions consisted of iden­tifying their comprehensive program objectives, achievement of objectives, changes in objectives, strengths, weaknesses and problems, as well as solu­tions to problems.

Further, each institution ,vas asked to provide feedback in the form of advice to the federal government and other institutions regarding im­proved management of comprehensive Title VIII co-op programs. In ad­dition, quantitative data concerning enrollment and placement impacts of the Title VIII funding were generated. All of the colleges had completed at least three years of funding under the comprehensive program's initiative.

Objectives in Seeking Title VIII Funding

Five main answers to the question concerning long term objectives of the institutions emerged: 1) expansion of enrollment in co-op programs; 2) expansion of co-op job placements; 3) curriculum improvement; 4) finan­cial support for faculty and the institution; and 5) career help for minority and special needs students. See Table I.

Enrollment and Placement Impacts of Title VIII Funding

In most institutions (17 of 19) enrollments in co-op programs increased from 24 % to 972 % after Title VIII funding. See Table II.

Table I
Objectives in Seeking Title VIII Funding

Table II
Enrollment Impacts of Title VIII Funding

Placement in Co-op Jobs

Similarly there were large increases in placements in co-op jobs after Title VIII funding. See Table III below.

Table III
Placement in Co-op Jobs

Reasons For Increases in Enrollments and Placements

As suggested by the Dromgoole dissertation hypotheses of the previously-referred-to study, almost all of the institutions cited two similar reasons for the successes they experienced in increasing co-op enrollments and placements in co-op jobs. Eighteen of the nineteen institutions surveyed indicated that the availability of Title VIII funding was very important. Seventeen of the nineteen institutions indicated that the active leadership of the institutions' chief executive officers was very important. Eleven of the nineteen institutions indicated that their institutions history of successful innovation was very important. Eight of the nineteen institutions indicated that the cooperation of faculty and staff was very important. In summary,

Table IV
Most Frequently-Cited Reasons for Enrollment and Placement Successes

Changes in Co-op Objectives

However, concurrent with these enrollment and placement successes, during the course of Title VIII funding most institutions: !)adjusted enroll­ment target downward (16 institutions); and, 2) extended the time estimates for when the co-op program would reach target objectives (18 institutions).

Even though most institutions experienced large percentage increases in the number of students enrolled in co-op and placed in co-op jobs. these increases were for the most part below targets and expectations. The analysis revealed a number of problem explanations for this. See Table V.

Key Problems Experienced in Expanding and Improving Co-op Programs

Lack of Faculty Cooperation. A common problem experienced by most in­stitutions that hindered greater expansion and improvement of co-op pro­grams was lack of faculty interest, cooperation, and in some cases even facul­ty opposition to co-op programs. Seventeen of nineteen institutions cited this as a key problem.

Lack of Staff Cooperation. Similarly, a common problem was lack of general administrative staff support and cooperation with the co-op program. Seven­teen of nineteen institutions also cited this as a key problem.

Turnover of Co-op Personnel. Another problem was too frequent turnover of co-op personnel. Apparently, many co-op people demonstrate general competence in co-op staff positions and are then promoted to other institu­tional positions or even other institutions before they are able to fully realize the opportunities for expanding and improving co-op programs that they started to address with Title VIII funding. Seven of nineteen institutions cited this as a key problem.

Depressed Local Economies. Eight institutions also referred to depressed local economic conditions as a key constraint on the growth of their co-op programs.

Table V
Key Problems Constraining Growth of Co-op Program.

Key Solution Strategies

CEO Leadership. As suggested by fourteen of the nineteen institutions, when there is institutional resistance to co-op, the Chief Executive Officer should take an even more active role in leading the co-op effort. Several co-op direc­tors also indicated that it was an important part of the job of the co-op director to gracefully apply upward pressure on CEO's to encourage their interest and leadership.

Individual Negotiations. Fourteen of nineteen institutions found that large meetings of faculty and staff concerning co-op were not as productive as individual communications and negotiations. Apparently, fears concern­ing co-op multiply in large groups. Instead, co-op managers found that one-on-one personal communication and negotiation concerning faculty and staff cooperation and support for co-op was much more effective than large group meetings.

Communicate Objectives and Timetables. Twelve institutions recommend­ed that objectives be more clearly communicated to all faculty and staff with clear timetables and deadlines.

Extend Title VIII Funding Time Period. Eleven of the nineteen institutions suggested that Title VIII funding be extended beyond three years. Seven institutions suggested five years. The reasons for this were that internal in­stitution resistance and the work required to implement new systems re­quire more than three years to overcome and implement.

Monitoring by the "Feds': Nine institutions suggested that the federal govern­ment should monitor more closely co-op program objectives and timetables so as to give co-op managers the "excuse" of telling people within their in­stitutions that changes have to be made because the "feds" are very serious about monitoring progress as a condition for funding (Nielsen, 1985).

Upgrade Co-op Positions To Reduce Turnover. In order to avoid the phenomenon of good people leaving co-op career positions too quickly, it ,vas suggested by six institutions to up-grade co-op career positions so that promotion within rather than out of co-op is encouraged.

Table VI
Key Solution Strategies

Conclusions

As suggested, co-op appears very much to need federal financing. Ti­tle VIII funding appears to have provided the essential external financial incentive required by eighteen of the nineteen institutions analyzed to motivate CEO's, faculty, and staff to realize co-op opportunities. Generally, they did not think they could address expansion opportunities without ex­ternal financial support. Apparently, there is something of an .. externali­ty'' phenomenon operating here. That is, institution CEO's, faculty, staff. and employers realize that there are enormous benefits of co-op, but they tend to think of these benefits and costs the way we might think about highways. Most of us think that highways are beneficial, but since so many different groups benefit from highways. each individual constituency is reluctant to commit the resources required to build and operate a highway. Therefore, external funding becomes essential when people view a project as such an externality. Externalities require external financing. Since so many different groups from both within and outside colleges and universities benefit from and piggyback on co-op; since each individual group is reluc­tant to commit the resources for co-op, then external funding for co-op appears essential.

Also as suggested, seventeen of nineteen institutions indicated that the active personal leadership of the institution's Chief Executive Officer is essen­tial for realizing the opportunities afforded by Title VIII funding for large scale expansion of cooperative education.

In addition, as suggested by nine institutions, co-op may need firmer federal monitoring. Co-op managers can have more impact within their own institutions if they can realistically state that the federal government will monitor funding and that their institutions really do have to do what they promised when they promised it. If federal monitoring is weak, then it is easier for institutions to address themselves to other more pressing issues.

While the above findings and conclusions arc suggestive, the analysis is limited and constrained by the fact that the data in this study are for nineteen Title VIII institutions. For more definitive results we need to com­pare Title VIII with non-Title VIII institutions. In addition, such com­parisons need to be made within and across more time periods. However, despite these limitations and constraints, there do appear to be several sug­gestive but nonetheless important potential conclusions that managers of co-op programs could consider drawing from this analysis. Similarly, ex­tensions of this analysis and research are also suggested for co-op research­ers with respect to non-Title VIII institutions and more time periods.