Foundations of Administrative Practice

 

[Editors Note. This blog was first posted on Saturday, February 22, 2020 and is republished as part of institutional improvement work with appropriate updates and improvements.]

In the current context of difficult economic times in higher education and an ever-eroding appreciation of  higher education as a public good, I am reminded of foundations of administrative practice aimed at good-faith efforts at institutions to be better. These foundations– efficiency, effectiveness, equity, and sustainability – best operate when are all are held in a balance. Overemphasis of any one pillar to the detriment of the others negatively impacts all.

In recent years, inattention to equity brought higher education to the brink of crisis as an increasingly diverse public grows skeptical of higher education as a public good. The high water mark of public perceptions about higher education may correlate to the development of state community college systems in the late 50s and 60s. Coupled with the G.I. Bill, the promise of institutions to provide liberal and professional technical, developmental, and community education suggests that the public in general had high hopes that the education system would meet the needs of all. Both what are these needs? The Lumina Foundation recently moved its strategic focus from attainment (The Big Goal) to attainment with prosperity (Stronger Nation). Credentials alone are no longer sufficient: now they need to have economic value (see February 6, 2026 Forbes article: Lumina Measures New Goal: Do Higher Ed Degrees Yield Economic Payoffs.

The double whammy of reduced appreciation for higher education and the need to prove economic value means that most institutions need to get really, really good at understanding their business model.  The American promise of socioeconomic liquidity, in which a first generation college student ascends to economic fortune based upon their educational attainment isn’t quite as fluid as we would like. Strata remain, and our systems replicate the strata. Harvard is expected to be inefficient. By lavishing resources on a relatively small group of students, Harvard's students benefit greatly.  But is it equitable?

State policymakers have underfunded most public colleges and universities since their inception. The logical response to these economic pressures is to wring out the extras. Students at these institutions haven't received the individualized attention and cocurricular niceties. Until recently, research was frowned upon in community colleges, notwithstanding the fact that undergraduate research is a solid contributor to the development of skills that lead to success in a major. Extracurriculars are minimized and student life limited due to the large portion of students commuting to class. Faculty teaching and advising loads were raised, despite the fact that such loads reduce faculty capacity to serve individually students in need. Public perception of our colleges and universities fell into clean little tiers: highly selective privates, research ones, regionals, community colleges, and technical colleges.

Public policy has reinforced these tiers, or perhaps reflected them. Rather than providing sufficient resources to colleges and universities directly, policymakers began creating algorithms that calculate student need based upon both family income and cost of attendance. The theory is that a high performing student who lacks financial means will simply have those financial needs met through financial aid and then, when the student succeeds and enters the workforce, their income will allow for such debt easily be paid off. The reality of this theory is much different as student debt mounts and is now a priority topic in political debates. Nonetheless, educational financial policy reflects the dramatic shift from higher education as a public good to higher education as a private good paid for by individuals for their benefit.

Exacerbating all of this is the emergence of a new kind of higher education institution, the for-profits. Driven by stakeholder investment expectations, these institutions are not interested in sustainability, but quarterly profits. Efficiency levers are ramped up in such institutions. Sophisticated means of student recruitment and intake, pricing thresholds, and financial analytics are key components. While the worst actors in this sector have been held accountable, the sector remains strong and the financial aid system provides a cash flow for those students who don’t have financial means. Is this equitable?

While I may not have all the facts right related to the aforementioned stories, it does not take an economist or a higher education administrator to see that depending on what kind of institution we are talking about, the four pillars skew and may fall out of balance. The consequences are dramatic at both the macro level and the institutional level.

At the institutional level,  the need to integrate the four pillars of efficiency, effectiveness, equity, and sustainability is critical. Inattention to sustainability hinders long term viability. Sustainability takes the long view (not the quarterly stakeholder view) in building a healthy environment for learning with a great employee climate and financial investment that leads to long term survivability of the institution.

Yet, community colleges, the most social justice minded institutions, are at risk. As of this writing, the United States has enjoyed a long economic recovery with extremely low unemployment rates. In 2026, US colleges and ununiversities are hitting the infamous "enrollment cliff"(See College Board, November 2025). Consequently, community colleges and regional institutions across the country are struggling for enrollment in funding models that aren’t designed for sustainability and resilience. The noble mission of these institutions to serve communities that are growing more diverse leads us to focus rightfully on a growing litany of unmet need. Scholarship now shows unequivocally that students of color and first-generation students must overcome substantial cognitive and noncognitive barriers. Gaps in education require additional support such as tutoring, supplemental instruction, and faculty who know how to use tools that are culturally responsive. Because the students often lack the support of someone at home who has gone through the process previously, the students need even more individualized attention around advising and navigation. Students today suffer from transportation, food, housing, and childcare insecurity, even as they make the brave choice to try to educate themselves to better their lives of their families. What these students need more than anything is for our institutions to be positioned to sacrifice efficiency in order to enhance effectiveness and equity.

For administrators caught in fiscally constrained scenarios, this is simply not possible, and it is heartbreaking. Forced to choose between keeping the lights on and serving our students better, we are left with difficult choices. Talent management and institutional climate suffer with negative impacts on effectiveness. Financial cuts remove the very supports our neediest students need. In turn, we fulfill the reduced expectations of higher education by serving on those who can fend for themselves in programs that can pay for themselves.

Despite the general premise of this blog, I remain an optimist. Watching participation rates of first-generation students, students of color, immigrants, and others who have not had access, I am excited to see what the world will look like as the students increasingly find their ways into positions of influence, including an academic administration. Excited by efforts of colleges and universities toward equitable student success, I believe we will eventually bridge opportunity gaps. Inspired by students and colleagues who have been successful and are now telling their stories, I still believe in our mission. 

The mission and promise of community colleges demands a higher caliber of administrative practice around the four pillars so that we can maintain and advance our mission to the public good: to meeting the needs of the neediest and serving our communities. I wonder if we would benefit from a little more intention. What would it look like if conversations around equity included chief financial officers and the finance office? What would it look like if effectiveness conversations around student success similarly included facilities and other staff? What if everyone in the institution understood the financial underpinnings for providing great services sustainably? Finally, what if we paid as much attention to our people, our institutional climate, as we do to our environment and finance?

Our communities need us to be more than credentialers. They need us to do more than just polish off already high performers. We stand in gaps where poverty, community decline, workforce and economic pressures need us to be focused, present, and resilient. We cannot do any of it well unless we integrate all four pillars of efficiency, effectiveness, equity, and sustainability to meet our mission.