IN SEARCH OF UNIVERSAL GUIDELINES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF A SATELLITE CAMPUS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

IN SEARCH OF UNIVERSAL GUIDELINES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF A SATELLITE CAMPUS FOR HIGHEREDUCATION Ms MR MathebulaCampus Director: Pietersburg CampusTechnikon Pretoria Dr KJ de BeerDirector: Regional Learning CentresTechnikon Free State 1 Introduction 1 The search for universal guidelines for managing satellite campuses began by examining models of other multi-campus, or what is frequently referred to as Satellite, regional or branch campus systems. These models vary widely in terms of autonomy and governance, level of academic programs offered, campus status, dependence on the main campus for service and curricular autonomy. Introduction 2 Common themes that emerged from this brief national survey are: Most satellite campus executives believe that their campuses, including academics, administration, students and programs, are not treated respectfully by "main campus" personnel. Introduction 3 There seems to be a natural tendency for "main campus" faculty to "downrate" the smaller satellite campuses. This tendency can be overcome to some degree through interaction of academics, institutional commitment to the satellite campus mission, awareness building and providing adequate resources. Introduction 4 The greatest levels of satisfaction and productivity at satellite campuses were reported where their autonomy was greatest. Introduction 5 Strong levels of interaction between academic administrators and academics at satellite campuses and the "main campus" were seen as critical to mutual understanding, respect, quality assurance and transferability of credits between campuses, regardless of reporting relationships and governance structure. Introduction 6 Another factor related to the success of satellite campuses was institutional and state government attitudes toward allowing satellite campuses to grow and evolve in order to meet the access needs of their service areas. Introduction 7 A multi-campus institutional culture, which develops from institution-wide leadership and focuses on institutional commitment to the access mission of the “satellite" campuses, is critical. Introduction 8 It appears that staff satisfaction at the satellite campuses results less from structural qualities and more from progressive institutional polices that make autonomy possible. There may be no fully adequate solution to some of the problems inherent with satellite or multi-campus systems. International perspectives Multi-campus systems common Different nomenclature: regional/distance Varied in size Specialized vs. traditional Own mission or mission similar to main campus National directives on satellite campuses: From Section 9 on THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SATELLITE CAMPUSES of the General policy for Technikon instructional programmes: report 150 (97/01) of January 1997 - Department of Education, it is stated that: “Satellite and distance campuses have been established by technikons during the past few years, mainly due to increasing demands for higher education, particularly in some areas, in order to redress educational imbalances and to empower communities as part of their community service and commitment to the Reconstruction and Development Programme”. Definition of Satellite campus "Satellite campus" means a campus, not located in the seat of a technikon, where it conducts some of its academic, cultural, administrative, sport and/or recreational activities, and meets the requirements set out in paragraph 9.2, particularly that of ownership of the land and fixed assets there-on. Definition of distance campus A "distance campus" is a place outside its seat where a technikon conducts limited activities as set out in paragraph 9.2, but where the technikon does not own the land or the fixed assets there on. Satellite management issues: Governance  Access Size and shape Academic support Financial support and; Total Quality Management  Governance systems: There are three types of satellite campus management models, namely: Centralized models De-centralized models and, A mixed mode model that reflects elements of both fully fledged centralized or participative de-centralized campuses. Governance issues Representation Council Senate Etc. Infrastructure Telecommunication Transport IT Governance issues 2 Administration & support services Admin Finance Etc. Access Admission policies & requirements Recruitment of learners Centralized vs. decentralized Mobility (credit transfer) Size & Shape Infrastructure: Classrooms Library Residences, Etc. Student enrolments Centralized vs. decentralized Program diversity Academic Support Program governance Lecturer workload Delivery mode Table 1: Academic support according to management model. Financial support Control structure Procurement systems Subsidy allocation Practical implications Main campuses with satellite campuses are under obligations to render academic support to programmes offered on satellite campuses. The support includes among others:  Provision of the teaching and learning activities for the program The same curriculum, contents must be followed  The same assessment methods used,   Library facilities, etc Implications Provision of physical infrastructure Sufficient lecture halls Offices Etc Implications Provision of personnel, both academic and administrative Personnel must be hired according to same criteria & procedures The providers of academic and administrative services have an obligation to appropriately provide for the needs of learners and staff on satellite campuses. Implications Use of modern technology (modern computers etc) Communication technology such as e-mail, telephone, radio, LAN, WAN, video conferencing, etc Transport (cars/buses are available and used for regular and systematic commuting to and from centers) Implications Support services such as counseling, information and library, computing, property, staff and student recruitment, stores and purchasing, are usually operated through (and as extensions of) the main campus wherever possible. (Cf. Curtin University) Implications             Appropriate provision means a level of services tailored to the reasonable needs and expectations of the satellite campus. It does not mean identical services to the main campus.  Provision of technology to link the main campus and the satellite campus. Implications Financial support The development fund The development fund may have credit and debit levels of fund balances This satellite development fund should be approved by the Institution’s Council. Proposals Campus-wide responsibility Business plan Own council/board Development fund Fully-fledged administrative unit Essential establishment criteria Improvement of access to community Academically sound program mix Financially viable business plan No serious consequences Functional conditions Resources provision should be adequate Appropriate academic support & facilities The institution's presence should be supported, endorsed and welcomed by the relevant Governmental and community authorities. A range of programs There should be convincing demographic evidence of the need for higher education access.   Functional conditions The establishment of a satellite campus should make a positive economic contribution to the local community, industry and to the level of resources available to the institution. There should be a local contribution in the development and establishment of a satellite campus. There should be a reasonable balance in the diversity of students' characteristics across all campuses. Functional conditions There should be an emphasis on undergraduate level programs except where the main location for an academic discipline is at a satellite location. Alternative educational technologies should be considered. The institution should seek to be a co-operative and a good neighbour to educational institutions in the vicinity of a satellite campus) and to act in a consultative manner where such an approach would be welcomed by local institutions.   Quality control There should be appropriate monitoring, review and reporting system in place for each satellite campus’s development. Reviews should be conducted on a routine basis. The maintenance, review and reporting of academic program quality and/or performance is the responsibility of the academic areas concerned (using the systems and mechanisms applicable to the main or branch campuses).