© Ross Woods, 11/10/04, reformatted 2022
The purpose of this paper is to create a continuum of the different ways that colleges can relate to each other for mutual benefit. It provides a brief map of what is possible in different situations.
At the lowest commitment level, schools can share information, publications, and services. They can sometimes do this on the basis that no money changes hands.
For example, they might:
On the basis of a limited commitment they might also work together to lobby government or accreditors on specific issues for a specified time period.
The strength of this approach is that it allows schools that are very different from each other to maintain beneficial relationships. Differences might differ in location, denomination, theological emphasis, level of qualification, purpose of qualification, or demography.
Many associations related to the World Evangelical Fellowship have worked this way at various times, for example, the Theological Commission of the Evangelical Alliance, the South Pacific Association of Bible Colleges, and the international association for theological education by extension.
Cooperating schools also share information, but their stronger mutual commitment enables them might achieve much more. With so many options, cooperation can take many forms.
Member colleges might work together to:
Some of these services are only provided by colleges to peer colleges, and some are provided by some accrediting associations. A few coalitions are so strong that they run publishing houses to share information.
Exchange of services and publications might be on the basis that no money changes hands in smaller case-by-case situations. When the exchange gets higher in volume and potentially more imbalanced, fees become payable on a non-profit basis.
As many of its activities require a cash flow, these bodies inevitably must have a legal body and they usually incorporate as non-profit organizations. They need:
At the higher level of commitment, the colleges form a coalition. Each retains maximum autonomy but they share an accreditation umbrella and a small central administration. The Australian College of Theology and the University of London both use this model.
In some cases, the central body acts as an examining body only, leaving the colleges to teach. In other cases, the colleges conduct their own assessments according to policies set down by the central office.
The advantages are many, and new synergies between colleges are always emerging. Besides all the advantages of other levels, a coalition can:
Coalitions tend to be long-lasting, and historically, as in the case of the University of Oxford, the centre gradually exercises some control over the member colleges. The dynamic seems to be that the coalition’s strength is in its unity and its shared common interests. (This oddly parallels the gradual increase in power of the central government over the states in a federal system of government.) Yet they are not invincible; at least one major American coalition fell apart.
At this level of commitment, two (or more) colleges question the value of duplication, especially if the same person teaches the same unit separately at two nearby colleges. To gain economies of scale, some local colleges have successfully run the course once jointly, giving students credit at their respective institutions.
The advantages are that it:
Each unit carries multiple codes, so for credit purposes, each unit is an internal unit of each college.
Joint programs seldom become separate, inter-college institutes because issues of control could be difficult and it might have to become accredited in its own right. (The alternative structure is that one body is the major provider and has cross-credit arrangements with the other colleges. This is possibly less acceptable because it can give one college power over the others.)
Colleges differ in many ways and they seek solutions on the best kind of relationship1:
| Differences between colleges | Possible solution |
|---|---|
| Recognition of lecturers | The ideal is for each lecturer to be on each other college's list of adjunct faculty. |
| Class attendance requirements | Extra classes are required for some students and optional for others. For example two schools might hold a five-day intensive, but the students of one college are only required to attend four days. |
| Non-overlapping requirements | Each college would be free to add requirements as long as it meets their own content requirements and fits the timeframe. This perhaps most affects the prior reading requirements of colleges that teach in intensives. |
| Scheduling generally | Good forward planning It is also possible to do a couple of days per month. |
| Scheduling, including intensives | Intensives work best when every student has sufficient background knowledge and for skills courses as one-shot review, and follow-up projects |
| Fees | Each college receives their normal fees for the unit. Then each participating college pays equal amounts, to a maximum of 90% of fees received. |
| Assessment procedures and reporting requirements (e.g. how grades are expressed). | Assessment should follow each college's own procedures. As much as possible, these should be amalgamated into one procedure. |
Other issues in which some consensus should be gained are:
• Location
• Should it work at foundational or advanced level? (Advanced level units have prerequisites.)
• Who decides financial viability?
• Should it work at degree or diploma level?
_____________
1Based on a discussion with John Olley, Baptist Theological College of WA.