Changing Higher Ed

The results of the U.S. presidential election suggest that there will be a significant transformation in the way the nation is governed, even though the political divide in government will continue. This should have significant repercussions for education. Mike Goldstein, a distinguished higher education consultant and attorney, offers his insights on how the presidential election will alter the course of higher education. Changing Directions President-elect Joe Biden’s plan for higher education promises to strengthen college as a reliable path to the middle class. While Republicans and Democrats will probably agree with this in general principle, they may differ on what is intended and how to go about accomplishing this lofty goal. There are two components of this: one where agreement may be found, and one where there will be disagreement. The first is the general acceptance that education—and especially higher education--has to be faster, better and less expensive. However, the second, that higher education needs to be more accessible to people of color, first-generation college students, and those from lower-income backgrounds, although less than generally accepted, is becoming more and more recognized as important. To do so means more than reducing the cost of education; it means doing more not just to admit these students, but to help them get their education and earn the credential that will lead to a better life. The credential / degree also has to be meaningful for employers. This will not only cause changes to higher education programs, but also require alterations to counseling, admissions, and tutoring to help students through the program. Additionally, the traditional disconnect continues between what is taught in higher education and what is needed in the workforce by employers. Faculty overwhelmingly believe they are preparing students for the workforce. However, only about 40% of employers believe that students are prepared for jobs when they graduate. That disconnect has been in existence for a while. Stakeholders are beginning to realize that this gap was created because higher education and the business community were not communicating about what is needed, how to make what is needed become part of the curriculum, and the role that business should play in working with higher education to ensure that students are ready and successful in the workforce. The incoming administration plans to address these issues through providing paid internships, degree-related on-the-job training, pathways, and sequences of courses that support specific areas of study. Talent Supply Chain One could argue that a course should be a set of stackable credentials while a degree should be a pile of stackable credentials that add up to the set of competencies that also equate a degree of some sort. The degree is actually the aggregation of a set of marketable competencies. This was the premise behind Western Governors’ University. That’s where we are now heading. In the Biden Administration, expect to see the leaders in the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce and the Department of Labor working in conjunction with one another to develop these kinds of programs. There needs to be a consensus about what higher education is trying to do – both its purpose and how it gets accomplished. This includes accessibility, affordability, improving student aid programs, and reducing debt burden on all students, and a recognition that today’s student isn’t the same as it has been in the past. Another critical problem is that at the current cost, the debt burden that hits middle class students. The president-elect’s plan for higher education probably will address this issue. Expanding Access President-elect Biden’s platform has several components to expand access. This includes making enrollment in community colleges or similar training organizations debt-free. This would include reduced tuition along with state and/or federal grants. The president-elect’s proposal calls for 75% federal funding, which will depend on receiving Congressional support. The premise of free two-year education to get an associate’s degree is important for the country’s future. He also places a high priority on supporting minority-serving institutions that serve Blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans. HBCUs are important institutions because they provide an exceptional service, and students get a high-quality education in an extremely supportive environment. These institutions also influence other minority-serving institutions. Many state and city colleges were founded on the basis of providing access to education to everyone, including the City of New York institutions which were founded and gave free tuition to students. We’ve lost that for reasons that were not in control of the educators, but now there is a movement to return to the notion that education for all beyond high school should be affordable. Additionally, it’s important that people who enroll in college be able to complete their education. The average student is no longer 18; now the average student is an adult who has responsibilities for children, aging parents and work. This requires counseling, childcare and other types of support, all of which requires additional funding. Title IX Changes Many changes to Title IX are projected to be rolled back. The Trump Administration got it partly right on Title IX because there was an imbalance in protections. Institutions lacked appropriate guidance on how to deal with abuse and discrimination. The problem was that the Department of Education flipped it in the opposite direction. There is a balance to be struck—one has to protect the rights of individuals who suffer from sexual misconduct, abuse or discrimination while also ensuring that the process is fair. Institutions are currently badly equipped in having the necessary human resources to support the process. The incoming administration will focus on coming up with a balanced system that gives institutions the tools to properly administrator the law and these programs. The regulations are designed to flesh out what is a legal obligation. This administration will be much more sensitive to ensuring the protection of the person who has suffered while also ensuring that the process is fair and expeditious. Jurisdiction is still questionable. There is a limit as to how much authority an institution should exercise over its population. The question that needs to be asked is what the responsibility would be for an employer whose employee engages in this type of conduct outside of the workplace. This should be handled in a similar manner in a university. If a student who engages in misconduct off campus, this should be a civil issue. If the misconduct is morally repugnant, the institution should be in its rights to dismiss the student. However, institutions should not be held responsible for every student all times. If students are off campus and not under responsibility of the institution when they engage in bad conduct, the enforcement becomes a slippery slope. Predatory For-Profit Institutions It is anticipated that the Biden Administration will be more active in pursuing predatory for-profit colleges. The critical word is “predatory”; any institution that acts inappropriately, misrepresents what it is doing, or fails to properly safeguard the use of federal funds or provide the educational service it promises should suffer the consequences. Unfortunately, the posterchild for this type of conduct has been for-profit institutions, and nearly all of the worst offenders are no longer with us. For the most part, for-profit colleges play an important role in training students in areas such as cosmetology, welding, etc., and there is a place for those in higher education. The emphasis should be that every institution, including for-profit colleges, behave properly and work within the rules. Where they do not, students should be protected from harm. If a school suddenly folds, the students should have recourse. The rules should be applied evenly and enforced in relation to recruitment, finances, etc. When they do not, the government should ensure that students can take appropriate action. However, the Trump Administration walked away from enforcement. Additional Financial Areas The 90/10 rule (at least 10% of tuition needs to be derived from non-federal student aid sources) has many proposals currently being brought forward. This rule is indicative of the socio-economic class of students being served; however, it may not be a good indicator to use to determine the quality of education. A critical issue will be CARES Act 3. There currently needs to be a large infusion of funds awarded to the states and higher education institutions. This funding is needed to sustain these institutions through the transition from the Trump Administration to the Biden Administration, which may stretch out for a year. A number of private colleges were in a weakened state going into the pandemic and now they are teetering on the brink. The federal government needs to protect these institutions, which otherwise would cause great disruption to higher education. Three Recommendations for Higher Education Leaders and Boards Goldstein suggested several takeaways for higher education leaders and boards: Think faster, better and cheaper. How can you improve the quality of education and the way it’s delivered? Also, find a way to reduce the cost of education while providing other sources of support. Make the system fairer and more accessible. Education needs to meet the needs of a changing population of students and need to figure out ways to help these various students, whether they are coalminers or immigrants. We need to go back to the idea that seeking higher education is a public good. Bullet Points The presidential election will change the course of higher education policy. Higher education needs to transform to be faster, better and less expensive. There needs to be increasing acceptance that higher education needs to be more accessible to people of color, first-generation college students, and those from lower-income backgrounds. Higher education credentials need to be meaningful for employers. To make this happen will changes to higher education programs, but also require alterations to counseling, admissions, and tutoring to help students as they make their way through the program. A course should be a set of micro-credentials while a degree should be a pile of stackable certificates that add up to the set of competencies that also equate a degree of some sort. The degree is actually the aggregation of a set of marketable competencies / credentials. There needs to be a consensus of what higher education is trying to do. This includes accessibility, affordability, improving student aid programs, and reducing debt burden on all students. The president-elect’s platform includes making enrollment in community colleges or similar training organizations debt-free. This would include reduced tuition along with state and/or federal grants. The incoming administration also places a high priority on supporting minority-serving institutions that serve Blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans. It’s important that people who enroll in college be able to complete their education. The average student is no longer 18-24; now the average student is an adult who has responsibilities for children, aging parents and work. They need different types of support to help them earn a degree. The incoming administration will focus on developing a balanced system that gives institutions the tools to properly administrator Title IX. This administration also will be much more sensitive to ensuring the protection of the person who has suffered while also ensuring that the process is fair and expeditious. It is anticipated that the Biden Administration will be more active in pursuing predatory colleges and universities that act inappropriately, misrepresent what they are doing, or fail to properly safeguard the use of federal funds or provide the educational service promised. A critical issue moving forward will be the passage of CARES Act 3. There needs to be a large infusion of funds awarded to the states and higher education institutions. This funding is needed to sustain higher education institutions through the transition from the Trump Administration to the Biden Administration, which may stretch out for a year. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Tyton Partners Center for Higher Education Transformation Guests Social Media Links: Bio: https://tytonpartners.com/about/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelbgoldstein/ The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: Website: https://changinghighered.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

  With the various factors (the pandemic, the recent election, social unrest, etc.) roiling the nation, reputation management and crisis management have never been more important in higher education.   Over the past six months, most institutions have managed to pivot their operations to deal with the pandemic. However, there probably will be more mergers in the future due to enrollment declines this year along with the upcoming enrollment cliff. Additionally, the speed of change that has been accelerated by the pandemic and social unrest also means that universities and colleges have to remain aware of their image to survive. This podcast features Bill Coletti, the CEO of Kith. His company has worked with a number of institutions, including large universities who faced outcries due to sexual harassment challenges as well as institutions that are undertaking mergers. Four A’s of Reputation Management There are four A’s of reputation management, which describe a process that institutional leaders can use: Before going on a reputation management journey, you need to be self-aware and aware of what matters to your most important (and influential) stakeholders – that is, the needs of those who matter the most to you. For example, is sexual harassment a real issue or is it governance or gender issues? Ask important stakeholders for their opinions to learn what they are thinking. This allows you to tap into both internal and external courts of public opinion. You can’t go on a reputation management journey unless you have buy-in from the board, the president, or the institution’s shared governance model. Having completed the first three A’s, the final A--taking action--is designed to move the levers of reputation. The goal in these situations is to move fast, but don’t break things. Higher education institutions are large complex organizations, and must be mindfully changed. This approach is aligned with Warren Buffett’s philosophy instead of Mark Zuckerberg’s model at Facebook. However, this approach doesn’t mean paralysis by analysis; instead, it encourages leaders to take a thoughtful perspective. Types of Risks Higher education institutions face a number of different risks that could be previously categorized as: Strategic risk, which involves things that the institution plans to do, such as opening a new campus or go online. This risk is created through a superior strategic objective and is designed to grow the enterprise. Preventable risk, which an institution should have zero tolerance for. This includes sexual harassment by a faculty to a student, crime and violence on campus, and racism. External risks, which are outside the institution’s control. While the institution can put procedures in place, it cannot control these situations, like when an active shooter brings a gun on campus. However, there also is a whole new construct emerging, i.e., social risk, which are risks that directly impact populations and groups. While higher education is acutely aware of strategic, preventable and external risks, social risks are a new frontier that may cause colleges and universities to stumble. Therefore, presidents and boards need to think about this next frontier of risks instead of the “3 F’s”: facility, football and faculty. Through awareness and assessment, institutions can determine where they stand on issues such as “Black Lives Matter,” whether that’s the formal group or the concept. LBGT issues also may reemerge soon given the recent election. Preparing for a Crisis To successfully navigate these social risks, higher education institutions will need to make thoughtful decisions based on values. These conversations should happen sooner while things are calm rather than later when the institution is in the middle of a crisis. Leadership is critical – there is no on-the-job training for large crisis events. Instead, these situations often become soul-baring moments when the core nature of institutional leaders is revealed. The remedy is to be very clear about what the leader and the institution stand for, and maintain a high level of EQ. The key differentiator in these moments is speed – how fast are you able to respond to fill the vacuum. The challenge is that, thanks to smartphones, everyone has a camera and audio recorder readily available so everyone becomes a reporter. The equation to get fast is: Clear Mission and Values + Clear Chain of Command = Speed. Leaders should regularly practice scenarios and conduct crisis simulations to exercise the team in preparing to meet reputational challenges. Leaders need to accept that faculty are going to weigh in during a crisis. Simulations allow the leadership team to model what a situation will look like, predict what faculty and others may say, and then determine potential next moves and responses. If leaders have done the work to identify who matters most and are always communicating and engaging with these individuals, they shouldn’t face surprises. While it is a good strategy to have a policy of only one institutional spokesperson in a time of crisis, people’s definition of “crisis” will differ. Most people can embrace the policy when there are external events, such as an active shooter, weather event, natural disaster, etc. However, crises of our own making make, e.g., a vote of no confidence in the president / board, etc., this policy hard to enforce. Everyone will have an opinion and can’t wait to express it to the media. Who serves as the spokesperson should depend on the situation. At the end of the day, the president is responsible for the functioing of the institution and represents the institution as the CEO. While this person is the first line of defense, an institution can use others, such as a provost or dean or the board chair. Using a lesser level in the chair of command rings fence the crisis but keep the president, who is the institution’s most important spokesperson, on the sideline. Four Recommendations for Higher Education Leaders Coletti suggested four takeaways for higher education leaders: Recognize that speed is imperative. Consider what the institution stands for (e.g., mission and values, what does the institution really believe in) as well as what the leader believes in. How will these permeate the organization?  Identify a chain of command. Who are the critical decision-makers when the time comes? How does this chain of command respect the individuals working in the C-suite, the institution’s shared governance model and policymakers? Pull out The Chronicle of Higher Education or The Wall Street Journal to find examples of crises. Begin to regularly ask, “If this happened to us, what would we do?” Bullet Points The four A’s--awareness, assessment, authority, and action--should guide an institution’s reputation management efforts. Three common types of risk include strategic risk (what the institution plans to do), preventable risk (areas such as racism or violence on campus that should never be condoned), and external risk (situations that the institution has no control over). Social risks are a new frontier that may cause colleges and universities to stumble in maintaining a reputation. These risks can include responses to Black Lives Matter or working with LBGT populations. To successfully navigate these social risks, higher education institutions will need to make thoughtful decisions based on values. These crisis situations often become soul-baring moments when the core nature of institutional leaders is revealed. Leaders need to be very clear about their values as well as what the institution stand for. Leaders also need to maintain a high level of EQ in these situations. The equation to get fast is: Clear Mission and Values + Clear Chain of Command = Speed. Leaders should regularly practice using scenarios and crisis simulations to prepare the team to meet reputational challenges. This enables everyone to understand their role in a crisis and also to anticipate what may happen so they can consider an appropriate response. The choice of spokesperson will depend on the situation. However, at the end of the day, the institution’s president is the CEO and often will serve in this role. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Kith Guests Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/billcoletti/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/bcoletti The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: Website: https://changinghighered.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com  

As higher education institutions deal with the fallout caused by the coronavirus pandemic, they also are facing a critical challenge in maintaining student enrollment. Many leaders were already worried about the enrollment cliff, but the pandemic has accelerated this issue. Many students are changing their initial decision about college through not applying, deferring admission or transferring to a regional institution closer to home. This podcast will look at the pandemic, student enrollment and the ripple effect that this can have on an institution. Today’s guests are Bill Conley and Bob Massa, co-founders of Enrollment Intelligence NOW. Falling Enrollments The pandemic has caused colleges and universities to lose student enrollment at a time they where they were bracing for the enrollment cliff of 2025. A year ago, more than half of four-year colleges and universities had not met their enrollment goal. COVID-19 has put a sharp punctuation mark on a trend that was growing over the last several years in many sectors of higher education, especially small four-year liberal arts colleges that are highly dependent on a regional enrollment in areas where high school graduation rates are declining and will continue to decline precipitously. The fall enrollment numbers are sobering. Overall higher education enrollment is down 2.5%. However, some institutions and subgroups of students are experiencing steeper declines. Private college enrollment dropped by approximately 4% and community college enrollment also is down. The only institutions that have done reasonably well during this time are the regional public institutions. However, these institutions’ enrollment still have dropped, but not as significantly as other types of colleges and universities. International student enrollment dipped by 11%; this is not surprising due to the difficulty in enter the United States and COVID travel restrictions. Domestic students are attending institution that are closer to home. A not-insignificant number of students have deferred their admission to next school year. These enrollment drops also will have a significant effect on public institutions, which will face the additional burden of receiving decreased state funding due to the pandemic’s impact. A Steeper Enrollment Cliff Dr. Nathan Grawe, the Carlton College economics professor who wrote “Demographics and the Demand for Higher Education,” pointed to the Great Recession of 2008-2009 when fertility rates dropped significantly. He also projected a discouraging picture of high school graduation rates in 2030; this will be much worse when the decline in fertility is factored in. Now facing the uncertainties of a pandemic, families are postponing childbearing. This would mean the next wave of students won’t reach college until 2040, which could result in higher education having an even rougher ride. These projections have significant ramifications for higher education leaders. There is a tendency by university presidents, provosts and enrollment managers to focus on making decisions based on the “here and now” and what is right in front of them. However with the enrollment cliff rapidly approaching, decisions made right now will have institutional ramifications decades into the future. Therefore, it’s important for higher education leaders to look toward the future to strategically consider the impact that current decisions will have. Leaders face a real tension between making the current decisions that are designed “to keep the lights on” and making sure those decisions don’t inhibit longer-term opportunities and excellence. What happens in this environment can affect stakeholders’ sense of trust. In the current environment shaped by the pandemic, many higher education decisions are being made in a more efficient manner that is often seen in the corporate sector; this decision-making style is foreign to higher education and their shared governance models. To be successful, current higher education leaders need to balance rapid decision-making that is focused on the here-and-now with consideration on how to build and maintain trust within the college or university across the institution’s governance structure, which includes faculty, staff, Board of Trustees. This involves blending two often contradictory styles and considering tradeoffs when necessary. Taking the Long View In the early 2000s, a well-respected president from a top liberal arts college made the decision to hold tuition constant for a year, thanks to the institution’s large endowment and healthy budget. In retrospect, the president believes this was one of the worst decisions he made because it had a multiplying effect on the institution’s bottom line so that the college was handcuffed and couldn’t to what it needed to do for its mission. This should be a cautionary tale for higher education leaders. Today, colleges are rushing to discount tuition for online learning. However, leaders should reconsider this decision because not only does it set institutions up for less revenue than they need in this current economic situation, but also sets up an expectation among constituents (parents and students) that they should always look for a lower price. While there is a strong need for cost containment in higher education, price and cost are two different things. Price is what institutions charge; while this is related to cost, it’s not the same thing. Rarely does the price charged for an education cover the full cost of providing that education. The rest is made up by endowment earnings, gifts, state funding, federal aid, etc. Governance and Trust An increasing number of presidents are announcing their retirement, resignation or return to the faculty. There is some speculation that many presidents may have planned to announce these decisions back in March, but delayed the announcement due to the pandemic. There also are a growing number of challenges in the decision-making arena, including faculty votes of no-confidence. Are these no-confidence votes related to a president’s decision-making in regards to COVID-19? Or are faculty cherry-picking grievances based on past decisions? Moving forward, presidents, provosts and board do need to be held accountable. With that said, there needs to be an understanding that they have a complex job and it’s become more so in the current situation. However, some faculty distrust decisions that are made when they are not present. What is a University’s Primary Mission? Educating Students Colleges and universities exist to educate students, not to employ faculty and staff. Many decisions currently being made are about how to keep student demand in place in order to maintain enrollment. College and university faculty need to understand that ultimately the institution exists for the students. If the institution doesn’t have students, it doesn’t have revenue; if there is no revenue, there is no mission. Currently, stakeholders need to come together around a common idea of the institution’s guiding principle. This group of stakeholders also needs to include student and parents, many of whom felt blindsided by this year by university decisions to open, not open and quarantine. Not all of the institution’s constituents will be in favor of every decision. Leaders need to convey that they are listening and cognizant of the concerns that faculty, staff and parents have. This is why transparency is important in decision-making. Enrollment Management It’s important to remember what enrollment management entails because there have a number of cynical perspectives, such as it’s about net-tuition revenue. While it is, the best way for the institution to maintain and enhance net tuition revenue is not just recruiting first-time freshmen and qualified transfers, but also retaining the students that the institution worked so hard to recruit in the first place. This involves taking into account recruitment, admissions, financial aid, retention rates, graduation rates and giving rates among alumni. Analyzing each point on this continuum is the best way for institutions to manage the current stresses. People have to over-perform in all of these ways, which is well illustrated by Peter Drucker’s quote, “The best way to plan for the future is to plan the future.” Creating trust in relation to higher education governance is about planning the future through using students as the focus. Breaking Down Siloes People in colleges and universities are very good at building silos. In contrast, an enrollment management system should be good at breaking down siloes and checking on students in relation to retention. In doing so during these times, it’s important to integrate both the counseling center and the career center staff in these efforts to ensure that each student’s individual needs are being meet at this time. It’s important that the appropriate resources be made available to take care of students in relation to enrollment management, counseling and career services. However, counseling centers are currently understaffed and having difficulty dealing with mental health issues coming up in the pandemic and the significant increase in number of students who are seeking counseling on campus. Even though institutions are in a retention period because revenue has taken a big hit, expenses have increased significantly (especially in relation to COVID), and cuts and furloughs are happening. That sets the stage for the dynamics between enrollment management and the business office. The business/finance office views this as spending money (or too much money) that the institution doesn’t have. However, spending to provide appropriate services such as enrollment management, counseling and career services is actually an investment in current (and future) students. These services ultimately are a benefit financially to the institution since they help maintain a steady enrollment of students. Therefore, it’s important to consider whether requests from these areas are an investment or truly a spend. Four Recommendations for Higher Education Leaders Conley and Massa suggested four takeaways for higher education leaders: Leaders need to stand with confidence but given all the unknowns, it’s a folly being certain. Leaders need to tell people the truth–both good and bad—and lay out the options with confidence and compassion. Make certain that the decisions made today also take the future into account. This requires careful thought and mapping out potential implications that a particular decision can have on the future. Presidents need to communicate to enrollment management leaders and admissions deans that they need to stay connected by the external world, including K-12 education. Don’t get consumed by internal issues. This approach goes to building trust and credibility among the external-facing public. Consider the difference between investment and expenditure. Do not expect the staff to produce if they don’t have the resources. With that said, staff do need to be held accountable, optimize their work and row in the same direction. Bullet Points Higher education enrollments have declined in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. These drops will be especially difficult for institutions that depend on state funding for a significant part of their budget. Higher education already was facing an enrollment cliff. The pandemic may extend this issue since parents may delay having children until the pandemic and economy stabilize, which will have implications through 2040. Higher education leaders need to consider both the short-term impact of decisions as well as the long-term ramifications. What looks good in the short-term (keeping the lights on) could have serious negative implications for the institution years down the road. Building trust among stakeholders is critically important right now. This is important because many leaders have been forced to use a more corporate decision-making model based on the rapidly emerging issues in the pandemic, which is counter to how higher education has traditionally operated. This change has resulted in some votes of no confidence emerging among faculty members across the nation. Price and cost are two different things. Price is what institutions charge; while this is related to cost, it’s not the same thing. Rarely does the price charged for an education cover the full cost of providing that education. Therefore, it’s important to think twice about cutting the cost of tuition since parents and students will come to expect a lower price in the future. College and university faculty need to understand that ultimately the institution exists for the students. If the institution doesn’t have students, it doesn’t have revenue; if there is no revenue, there is no mission. Enrollment management takes into account recruitment, admissions, financial aid, retention rates, graduation rates and giving rates among alumni. Analyzing each point on this continuum is the best way for institutions to manage the current stresses. Appropriate resources need to be made available to take care of students in relation to enrollment management, counseling and career services. These services ultimately are a benefit financially to the institution and an investment since they help maintain a steady enrollment of students. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Enrollment Intelligence NOW Guests Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/enrollment-intelligence-now/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/william-conley-5688a637/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/bobmassa/ The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: Website: https://thechangeleader.com Website: https://changinghighered.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com Keywords: #HigherEducation #EnrollmentCliff #University #COVID #Education

COVID has accelerated the higher education model’s day of reckoning so it has come faster than anyone ever expected. Colleges and universities have been facing this day of reckoning for at least five years; leaders knew that change was coming and many were focused on strategic thinking about these impending changes. However, the pandemic has forced the entire higher education business model (which includes financing, delivery systems, and who manages and controls what) to transform. Institutions have had to come to terms with the realization that they cannot continue to operate as they previously have been functioning. This episode, which focuses on the future of higher education, features Gerry Czarnecki, who served on the National University System board for nearly three decades. He now is the system’s trustee emeritus. COVID and the Day of Reckoning The higher education community currently consists of a wide variety of institutions including the Ivy League schools, community colleges, Tier 1 research universities and for-profit institutions. Moving forward, these institutions will have to figure out who their primary customer truly is—and that may cause the creation of smaller higher education communities. The institutions also will be separated by their own organizational nature and characteristics regarding their mission as well as their available financial resources. Higher education leaders don’t know where the industry will end up. The whole higher education community may fracture to become multiple communities. If this happens, the various higher education sub-communities won’t know each other well. For example, R1 institutions shouldn’t see themselves as the same as National University, which is an adult-learning organization with less than half of 1% of its students enrolling as first-time freshmen. The students at National University and the other institutions that are part of the system are, on average, 35 years of age and primarily working adults. Additionally, National and its sister institutions are entirely focused on creating a learning experience for students who are more adult. This is very different from R1 institutions, so describing a first-tier R1 institution as “an institution of higher education” is in many ways a misnomer. There is no comparison between R1 institutions and other institutions who are completely focused on educating students. These two institutions have virtually nothing in common, other than they are both called “university.” Evolving Business Models The R1 institutional business model, which depends primarily on research grants and endowments, is not as challenged, except at the undergraduate learning experience. The research institutions weren’t ready for the current situation caused by the pandemic. These universities were using the legacy model of in-classroom experience on campus for their undergraduate programs, but due to the pandemic, all of a sudden, students couldn’t be on campus and in classrooms. These institutions didn’t have the technology or the operating systems in place. These institutions are essentially using Zoom to teach virtual classes and Zoom is not a learning management system. Institutions at the other end are totally into higher education. These institutions primary are tuition and room and board-driven for their budgets. At National University, research grants are less than 1%. At the system level, research money is an exception rather than a rule. The system’s institutions also have a modest endowment, but primarily revenues come from tuition. This is a dramatically different business model. There are a massive number of institutions who are in the middle and will be redefining themselves over the next few years instead of the upcoming decade. Those “middle” colleges and universities—which are trying to combine the model of research/academic pursuit of new knowledge as well as the model of teaching students—are the ones that have a business model that will be the most challenged. They don’t have the grant money to subsidize their activities or the heavy endowment numbers to subsidize students. They face increasing pressure in trying to continue their enrollment strategy (which is being challenged by the pandemic and the upcoming enrollment cliff). They also face cost pressures to be competitive in the marketplace. This is making it more difficult to provide the same learning experience that they are used to providing. Size of enrollment and endowment will be key deciders as to whether an institution survives. In the National System of institutions (which is a non-profit organization), there are a variety of institutions, both in size and focus. One of the institutions that was the smallest no longer exists now and its programs have transferred to other system institutions – the system could not figure out how to make the economics work to keep this small university alive, so it has been closed. Embracing Online Education All institutions will need to find other—and better—ways than Zoom to teach courses online because this desire for online learning will not go away after the pandemic is over. This move wasn’t expected to happen this quickly and presents a huge challenge. This change also presents a major cost curve, which will challenge the institutions in the middle. The pandemic has forced an acceleration for online education. National University had a strategic plan of where it wanted to go—to become a completely asynchronous online university. COVID did the institution a favor because it forced faster movement than the system could have done on its own without facing stakeholder repercussions. National was founded an in-person institution, but by a couple of years ago, it had transitioned to a point where half of its classes were in-person and the other half online. The pandemic has accelerated this transition by 3-5 years and the system’s institutions are now totally online as of today, and all but one institution in the system has transitioned to asynchronous online education. As a result, the system is liquidating real estate, including selling the university’s system’s headquarters, and getting out of leases, as classrooms are no longer needed. Increasing Board Accountability Corporate America has gone through a massive transformation in relation to its boards. However, this transformation has not been completed. These boards are far more fiduciary, independent and focused on their role on strategy, governance and oversight than they were two decades ago. CEOs have accountability to boards. That transformation has not yet happened in higher education, and while this change is beginning to emerge, higher education boards are far behind corporate boards in completing this transition. This has a lot to do with the fact that these institutions and systems utilize volunteers as board members. It is hard to ask volunteers to spend the time and do the amount of work that is necessary. In comparison, many corporate board members are paid to serve on boards. Thus, the higher education president or chancellor tends to be the key player in the institution’s decision-making processes. However, tension builds when the enterprise is at risk and trustees start asking whether the institution is going to make it. Furthermore, non-profit boards still have the same fiduciary duties as their corporate counterparts – they can be held legally liable and professionally responsible for mistakes. Ultimately, this period of change will not be an easy transformation for higher education boards.  Trustees need to know that they are going to have to spend more time doing this work, especially during this pandemic, and accreditors will need to relent in their unwillingness to allow institutions to pay trustees.. Three Recommendations for Higher Education Trustees Czarnecki suggested several takeaways for higher education trustees: Make sure you completely understand the educational model that exists at your enterprise, as well as what higher education is. How does the organization operate? Understand the rules as well as shared governance. Be well informed and educated about what is going on. Trustees’ top responsibility is making sure the right leader (president or chancellor) is in place to run the institution. Board members need to be actively engaged in deciding the strategic focus of the enterprise. Don’t delegate this to the CEO. Bullet Points The changes created by the pandemic—which are accelerating the change that already was underway—may cause higher education community to split into groups based on their mission and the students they serve. Institutions are going to end up differentiating. For example, research institutions are focused on learning, knowledge advancement and education. The faculty is learning and advancing knowledge, and then teaching students. In comparison, other institutions are focused solely on teaching students. These differences have implications for business models. Research institutions primarily are financed through research grants and endowments, but the pandemic has brought forward issues related to undergraduate education. These universities have focused on a legacy model that focuses on on-campus classroom experience. However, they have not done well with the transition to online education in the wake of the pandemic. They primarily have focused on using Zoom for classes; this needs to change in the future if they plan to appeal to students. Colleges and universities that are trying to combine the model of research/academic pursuit of new knowledge as well as the model of teaching students are the ones that have a business model that will be most challenged. They don’t have the grant money to subsidize their activities or a large endowment to subsidize students. They will face increasing pressure to maintain their enrollment strategy and cost pressures to be competitive in the marketplace. The size of enrollment and endowment will be key deciders as to whether an institution survives. The pandemic has forced an acceleration for online education. All institutions will need to find other—and better—ways than Zoom to teach courses online because this desire for online learning will not go away after the pandemic is over. Higher education is far behind corporate boards in focusing on accountability and transparency. This has a lot to do with the fact that these institutions and systems utilize volunteers as board members. Because the work of trustees has not been brought up-to-date, the higher education president or chancellor tends to be the key player in the institution’s decision-making processes. However, when the enterprise is at risk (as it is in this pandemic), tension builds and trustees start asking whether the institution is going to make it. They also have to realize that they have a fiduciary responsibility when serving on the board. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: National University System: https://nu.edu Department of Education: https://www.ed.gov/ Guests Social Media Links: Gerry Czarnecki Twitter: https://twitter.com/gerryczarnecki?lang=en Gerry Czarnecki Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/theczar/ Gerry Czarnecki website: http://gerryczarnecki.com/ The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: Website: https://thechangeleader.com Website: https://changinghighered.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

The implementation of some of the latest higher education regulations is in limbo, thanks to the coronavirus pandemic. However, higher education institutions need to keep an eye on how decisions to move to online or digital courses will be governed by other regulations that are still in place. In addition, leaders need to analyze how the hiatus of some regulations could lead to unexpected impacts for an institution. This podcast’s guest is Dr. Russ Poulin, the executive director of WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies (WCET). Substantive Interactions All NegReg guidance has been published, including the latest one on online education. This regulation includes the definition of distance education, which officially will go into effect July 2021 but can be implemented earlier by individual institutions. For years, there was not a clear definition that delineated the difference between distance education and correspondence education. Now the big difference is that some definitions, including regular substantive interaction, are being developed. These definitions must be general enough to cover the wide variety in higher education institutions. Substantive interactions previously were defined as having conversations that were relative to the subject. For example, if the content focused on Shakespeare, the conversations that went along with the content should not be about what happened in the basketball game. Now, the definition has changed to include a number of different activities, such as instruction, feedback on the instruction, assessments on instruction, etc. Higher education leaders need to start reviewing this new definition to ensure that their courses--whether distance education, correspondence education or other types of distance offerings--are in alignment. Otherwise, the institution’s federal financial aid could be placed at risk if an institution offers too many distance education courses that do not have regular substantive interactions. Competency-Based Education The definition also begins to bring in competency-based education, which includes regular predictable interactions and the ability for the faculty member to assist the student when the student needs it as opposed to a fixed schedule. The Department of Education is saying this should happen once a week for a standard course; however, this timeframe should be adjusted if an institution is offering a shorter course. The NegReg calls for regular interactions as part of a competency-based course, but this may cause issues for CBE institutions in figuring out how to do this. In competency-based education, the interaction is triggered by the student; however, the regulation puts the onus for this type of regular interaction on the faculty. This regulation also serves as an aid in starting to signal when interactions need to happen for computer-assisted, adaptive classes. COVID’s Influence Some of the NegReg implementation was thrown into turmoil as the COVID pandemic swept the nation. There has been a lot of forgiveness among federal officials, accreditors and most states in terms of these rules. However, not every rule has waivers. For example, institutions need to understand that the accessibility rules are now in effect and need to be followed. In addition, as more courses are digitized and offered online in some format, institutions need to know which rules are in place and which are not. The Department of Education set aside a number of regulations in spring term and then extended those until the end of the fall term (or end of the crisis). With that, there are serious challenges if institutions aren’t thinking about assessments. Institutions may have an extended gap in assessment data, which could prove to be a huge challenge. Online courses need to deepen from the original emergency conversions (which many institutions were forced to do in March) to become rich learning opportunities for students that include meaningful assessments. However, many institutions are struggling with assessments. Some institutions had to increase proctoring for high-stake tests in the wake of the pandemic. This led to pedagogical discussions about assessments and cheating. By spreading the assessments out and diversifying the types of assessments, there is better demonstration of learning while also cutting down student cheating. Additionally, online opens the door to using different artifacts--such as videos or simulations--that can help get the content across. However, the creation of these artifacts needs more thought and planning. WCET developed a policy playbook to help institutions convert courses to online or other modalities. This came out of the “Every Learner Everywhere” which was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. As institutions transition traditional courses to become online courses, the rules change. Institutions need to be aware of these rules since they differ in a digital context as opposed to in a face-to-face course. The playbook has an important addendum noting that the time for forgiveness for waivers will not last forever. Accreditors soon will be asking hard questions that institutions need to be prepared to answer. Elections The presidential candidates have major differences in their platforms related to higher education. It’s important to consider these when voting. If reelected, President Trump and his administration may not have huge plans for traditional higher education. However, they are very interested in career-focused education and expanding federal financial aid beyond traditional institutions to include providers who offer short-term paths to careers. If Joe Biden is elected, some of the decisions made by the Trump Administration—such as Title IX, distance education and other NegReg regulations--probably will be reversed. There also could be a consumer-protection focus. Three Recommendations for Higher Education Leaders Dr. Poulin suggested several takeaways for higher education leaders: When an institution moves from face-to-face courses to digital courses, this transition also triggers other changes. Presidents need to make sure that someone on the university’s staff is paying attention to compliance. While there is some forgiveness now, that won’t go on forever. If Biden is elected, there will be changes in regulations so institutions need to remain flexible. Honor the campus heroes who helped institutions transition to a digital format. What started as a sprint around spring break has turned into a marathon. Bullet Points A new regulation that defines distance education officially will go into effect July 2021 but can be implemented earlier by individual institutions. This regulation broadens the area of substantive interactions to include a number of different activities, such as instruction, feedback on the instruction, assessments on instruction, etc. Higher education leaders need to review this new definition to ensure that their courses--whether distance education, correspondence education or other types of distance offerings--are in alignment. Otherwise, federal financial aid could be placed at risk. Increased substantive interactions also need to be part of competency-based education. This should include regular predictable interactions and the ability for the faculty member to assist the student when the student needs it as opposed to a fixed schedule. Some of the NegReg implementation was thrown into turmoil by the COVID pandemic, leading to a lot of forgiveness among federal officials, accreditors and most states in terms of these rules. Not every rule has waivers. As more courses are digitized and offered online in some format, institutions need to know which rules are in place and which are not. Assessments are deepening and broadening beyond a single exam. This conversation needs to continue since the implementation does have NegReg implications. WCET has developed a policy playbook to help institutions convert courses to online or other modalities and identify which regulations need to be addressed. The presidential election may have ramifications for higher education and the NegReg implementation. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technology Guests Social Media Links: WICHE Twitter: @wicheEDU WCET Twitter: @wcet_info Russ Poulin LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/russellpoulin/ The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: Website: https://thechangeleader.com Website: https://changinghighered.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com Keywords: #Education #HigherEducation #University #DistanceLearning

The coronavirus pandemic’s tumultuous reach continues to upend higher education. This podcast looks at the disruption that has happened in the areas of scholarship, financial aid and fundraising. The podcast’s guests are Keith Brown and Alania Cater. Brown is the assistant director for special awards part in the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Office of Student Financial Aid. He manages and maintains the UW-Madison scholarship management system.  Cater is the director of product management at Blackbaud. Supporting Students in a Crisis COVID has changed the scholarship process in higher education. The biggest change has been a shift to supporting emergency funding or grants. This includes CARE grants, external funding that the university is helping to raise that is earmarked to support students during this time, or departmental funds that are being shifted around to help fund students. Additionally, institutions are having to identify how to support students virtually. Universities are no longer able in many instances to advise students about the scholarship process in person or to hold outreach events about campus scholarships. Institutions are having to find new ways to adjust, and many are relying on Zoom and Microsoft Teams for online meetings. Revising Scholarship Processes The process of awarding scholarships also has moved into the virtual realm with reviewers, applicants and administrators. Some larger scholarships that require in-person interviews have moved these conversations to a virtual setting. Many institutions and applicants have had primarily positive feedback on this new process, leading many to believe that the virtual interviews may be here to stay. One interesting byproduct of the online transition is that administrators are now spending more time with reviewers than in the past, but this includes their doing more hand-holding, as well as logging into systems and confirming that the work can be done online. While this seems simple, it can be complicated. Additionally, the scholarship review process is being affected in some cases because of multiple people are working from home. Reviewers are dealing with conflicting priorities (such as children at home or caregiving) while some applicants are having difficulty getting everything in on time due to conflicts. This has required institutions to extend deadlines, especially during the spring semester when the pandemic first hit. This extension allowed the institutions to compensate for what was happening in the world, and created enough time to process and review applications while the university was focused on moving students off campus and moving all classes online. Universities like to have clean processes with breaks between the close of a cycle and the beginning of another one. However, the pandemic has made that impossible. Institutions have had to become flexible in working with incoming students. Admission deadlines had to be pushed back. Students had to weigh the decision of whether to come to campus in the fall or defer enrollment for a year. That led to a lot of shuffling in the scholarship realm. This made Fall 2020 an unprecedented time for many university admissions offices and for the awarding of scholarships. Another challenge was students’ access to technology at home. The University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Office of Financial Aid tried to meet students where they are. This involved scheduling a lot of virtual meetings and fielding a lot of calls through the online phone service. The number of emails also have increased significantly. The campus also tried to be flexible to allow in-person visits when safely possible.   Making Changes Blackbaud has seen an increase in demand for online scholarship application processes. While many institutions did not had this new process ready when the coronavirus struck, administrators and staff now understand that the scholarship application process needs to be online so more institutions are transitioning away from a reliance on paper applications. Institutions now believe this is a change that needed to occur and the pandemic offered the impetus. As a silver lining, institutions who have moved their processes online also have identified money that was going unawarded. Previously, many departments working with scholarships were having difficulty tracking all of the various donor wishes, all of the funds and where they are being allocated and to whom, and which funds were not being used. With the increasing cost of education as well as the current environment caused by the pandemic, it’s a shame not to utilize all available scholarships and financial aid. Taking CARES Many institutions received a large influx of funds from the CARES Act, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison worked as quickly as it could across campus to use these funds. Additionally, while the CARES funding was coming down the pipeline, UW-M worked with its foundation to raise emergency funds and scholarship funds for students. The institution tried not to wait and instead focused on getting those funds out as quickly as possible. By July, UW-M had awarded close to $10 million. However, their efforts didn’t stop there. The university also tried to award funding to students who were not eligible for CARES Act funding. To do this involved shuffling funding across campus to support international students and undocumented students who were caught up in the crisis. Knowing that both the regulations and policies are changing, institutional leaders tried to not let these changes stop the decision-making process and tried to remain agile in supporting students. Flexibility also is being seen as foundations are going back to donors to discuss revising awarding requirements. A number of donors previously have stipulated that their scholarship funds could only support certain types of recipients, but fundraising officials are now working with donors to make those stipulations more flexible to deal with issues impacting students and families due to COVID-19, including altering education requirements for merit-based scholarships and SAT requirements. While these conversations allow the university to gain more flexibility in using these funds, they also offer an opportunity to touch base with donors. This helps institutions continue to foster these important relationships. Changing How Scholarships Are Awarded The change in the use of SAT/ACT scores is changing institutional scholarship evaluation processes. This year, UW-M is making the scores optional and students must self-report these scores. This also is having an impact on how the institution is using Blackbaud to bring consistency around scholarship processes across campus. This will result in greater reliance on admissions data, information on admissions applications and integration of other systems to look at benchmarks. Ultimately, this effort will lead to a more holistic review instead of a strong reliance on test scores. This change also sends a signal to high school students that they need to apply themselves throughout their academic career instead of relying on getting a high SAT score. In fact, studies have found that a high SAT score is not a predictor of success in college. There are better indicators, such as a higher GPA in high school or a resume that shows work outside of school that highlights fortitude and responsibility. Next Generation of Scholarships and Donations The biggest change is the approach to fundraising. Whereas most of the funds being awarded are endowed scholarships, there may be a move to creating more scholarships that are need-based and focused on supporting students who are in crisis. In the future, scholarships also may be more general in regards to award criteria. State schools also are anxiously watching for the budgetary guidance in relation to state budgets and how it will change in the upcoming academic year. While most fundraising continues to come from major donors (and should continue going forward), there is a shift to more peer-to-peer fundraising, more outreach fundraising and more engagement across a broader constituent base. In addition, there are efforts to engage more donors at a lower donation amount. This is important in fundraising in relation to emergency fundraising and students in need; this differs from endowed funds and annual campaigns. Moving into the spring term, agility is going to be key to deal with issues created by the pandemic as well as the changing environment that relies on technology. Recommendations for Higher Education Leaders Brown suggested three takeaways for higher education leaders: Create clear and consistent messaging at the micro-level (the scholarship office) and from the campus. It’s important to provide clear guidance to students and their families. Meet students where they are. This includes providing support that they can access on their phones and other types of technology. Money is needed to support students who are caught in crisis because of the pandemic as well as student employees. Fundraising efforts and financial aid/scholarship work are critical. Cater offered the following points: University presidents should listen to and talk to the students. Technology investment is going to be key for future success. It’s important to have a connected campus. Money to make these upgrades is critical. Recommendations for Students Brown suggested two takeaways for students: Ask for help from the financial and student support perspective. Students have to stay informed on a lot of changing information; much of that could be falling through the cracks so it’s important to ask for help proactively. Persistence is key. It’s a challenging year emotionally and financially, as well as academically. Cater added the following points: There is a lot more money that is available than most students think. Don’t forget to ask for help. When overwhelmed, seek assistance. If a student needs to drop their course load to deal with the pandemic-related issues but is afraid that it will affect the financial aid package, it’s important to ask for guidance and support. Institutions are being flexible. Bullet Points The scholarship process in higher education is shifting to supporting emergency funding or grants. This includes CARE grants, external funding that is earmarked to support students during this time, or departmental funds that are being shifted around to help fund students. Institutions are moving the scholarship review and selection processes. This is helping increase efficiencies and also allowing institutions to identify pots of money that have not been being awarded. The pandemic has created numerous opportunities, including the influx of CARES Act funds. In addition, institutions are raising more funds and also having conversations with donors about revising criteria for selection to allow scholarships to be used for students who are in crisis. Many institutions are making SAT/ACT scores optional. This will result in greater reliance on admissions data, information on admissions applications and integration of other systems to look at benchmarks. It’s also sending a message to the applicant that it’s more important to have a strong high school GPA or a stellar resume that showcases work responsibilities. While most funding is coming from major donors, other philanthropic trends are emerging, including a shift to peer-to-peer fundraising, outreach fundraising and engagement across a broader constituent base. In addition, institutions are increasingly trying to engage more donors at a lower donation amount. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: University of Wisconsin-Madison Keith Brown Blackbaud Alania Cater Guests Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alaniacater/ The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: Website: https://thechangeleader.com Website: https://changinghighered.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com Keywords: #Education #University #HigherEducation #Fundraising

As higher education institutions face the multitude of challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic, many are also dealing with the challenges that go with a transition in leadership. The pandemic also has influenced these transitions, including the search process. This podcast features Dana Cohick, who is the president of RPA Inc. Executive Search, a firm that specializes in higher education presidential searches. Speeding Up COVID has had a significant impact on the demands of higher education executives. In the past, higher education turned to shared governance to bring everyone at the table, giving everyone a voice and buy-in. However, the pandemic changed the way that higher education responded since critical decisions needed to be made in a much more rapid rate. Starting in March, colleges and universities had to turn on a dime, something that they previously didn’t have to do. Students were sent home and institutions had to immediately shift classes to online education. This showed higher education leaders and faculty that the institution can turn on a dime and make quick decisions to meet both known and unknown challenges. Now, as they move forward, higher education leaders face the question of how they will handle issues when the decision tempo changes from reactive to proactive. Can an institution move quickly while still embracing shared governance, and if so, how? That’s a big question—and one of the big transformations that is emerging because of the pandemic. Traits of Higher Education Presidents Several traits have always been important in presidencies, including creating a strategic vision and bringing people together around it while also having passion and a drive to be successful in the university president role. The pandemic has reinforced the need for these traits since the president’s job has expanded to 24/7. Presidents need to have a passion for the institution’s mission and student success. The executive recruitment process can be used to identify candidates who not only have the requisite skills and experiences, but also the passion for what they do.  It is critical that the values of the institution and the successful candidate be in alignment, and as such, the executive recruitment must take into account the institution’s values and culture. However, those values are not always aligned with the advertised values that are listed on the institution’s website.  Finding a candidate who will agree to come to an institution and stay for a period of time requires good communication and transparency during the search process. To achieve transparency requires understanding what an institution is about. As the first part of its multi-step process, RPA Inc. goes to campuses and meets with multiple stakeholder groups, including the board of trustees, the senior cabinet, alumni, faculty, staff and students. While differences will emerge, the firm looks for the trends that continuously are brought up through the day’s conversations, because these are the values that are being lived at the institution and should be used to recruit candidates. An Evolving Process Institutions and candidates should understand that an executive search is a journey, not a destination. The search process evolves during its span, which normally lasts about five months. The search committee may change directions as they see candidate who bring skills, experiences and backgrounds that they hadn’t seen in the past. Communication and transparency are part of a back-and-forth model that includes learning about both the institution and candidates in a holistic way. In its executive search, RPA Inc.’s model involves a process that uses multiple stages that include talking about what has driven a candidate and his/her values, and how the institution’s presidency would fit into that value structure. Is this the right opportunity? It’s important to find a candidate who aligns with the institution’s mission and values, but who also understands how to take the institution to the next level. The selected candidate needs to be forward thinking and forward leaning, especially during this pandemic. Learning from the Pandemic When institutions are able to begin to make decisions proactively, there’s going to be an opportunity for higher education to reflect on what was learned during the pandemic. This learning can help launch institutions forward as they transition out of this challenging time. Contemplating the “new normal” is important. Some institution will go back to their 2019 model and education. Others will continue with hybrid and on-line models. Students—especially non-traditional students--will continue to desire the latter formats because of ease of accessibility. Differing Needs Not every president is a change agent, nor does every institution need a change agent. Institution challenges and needs vary. What is important moving forward is for each higher education institution to identify how to become the best version of itself and how to best exemplify its mission to serve students. Every institution is unique, and a search needs to find the individual who fits the mold of where an institution can go and wants to go, but who also can push a little and challenge perceptions. Historically, higher education administrators have come through the faculty. However, a change is emerging in that institutions increasingly are willing to see non-traditional candidates in the pool. Because of that, RPA Inc. writes its advertisement to reflect the qualities that the search committee believes it is seeking, but also to be open and inclusive because the pool needs to include individuals from enrollment management, finance, administration and student affairs as well as candidates who come from industry. Institutions are the ones who need to make the decision about which candidate is best to lead through the opportunities and challenges ahead.  In the process, the conversations about qualifications often shift so that candidates with broader backgrounds emerge. The selection committees often become really excited about what these candidates can bring to the table. There’s an increasing openness to consider candidates who don’t have traditional backgrounds in the Academy. That includes individuals who come from different divisions in higher education or those who come from industry and business. The challenge that candidates who have a background in business and industry face is being able to help a committee understand that the candidate understands the differences in how higher education moves as compared to industry/business. Coming into a college or university and treating it like a business is not going to work at many higher education institutions. However, if these candidates can offer an understanding of efficiencies while embracing a shared governance model, which sets higher education apart, they can be successful. Composition of Search Committees Search committees should be made up of a cross-section of higher education stakeholders. The greatest success that these committees can have is realizing that they are designed to bring different perspectives and opinions to the table. The greatest opportunities involve listening to individuals who are from other areas and hearing those different perspectives. The biggest challenge for search committees is when people come in with preconceived notion and aren’t open to listening and having their thoughts challenged and even changed. To be successful, these committees need to embrace both the need to listen to each other but also to speak up. However, some searches—especially those that don’t have a consultant guiding them—can result in one or two or three voices become the primary voices coming out from the 16 members. The best search committees invite everyone’s opinion and every member feels comfortable offering an opinion. Open communications are meaningful so that members are talking with each other, instead of at each other. Characteristics of a Successful Search The biggest requirement / characteristic of a successful search is transparency – both being open and honest about the opportunities in front of the university, but also being open and honest about the challenges of the position and those that the institution is facing. Some committees are hesitant to share these challenges because they are afraid of scaring away candidates. The reality is that candidates don’t come to higher education because of the paycheck. They come to higher education because they have a passion for students, a mission and a desire to be part of solving problems. Institutions want candidate who are excited about being part of a conversation about challenges and moving past them. Hiding the institution’s challenges is the best way to ensure an unsuccessful search. That’s not a way to get someone to stay, since they will show up at the institution and find out about challenges that no one ever mentioned. Therefore, it’s important during the search to systematically provide more and more information in a transparent way as the candidate pool narrows. Three Recommendations for Search Committees and Teams Cohick offered three recommendations for search committees and teams: Understanding that searches are journeys and not destinations. Members need to be open to learning and evolving their thoughts and opinions as the search unfolds. While it’s important to identify skills, qualifications and experiences, also look for candidates who are passionate about the institution’s mission and student success. Seek candidates who align with that mission, but who also can help the institution move forward. Listen to one another and speak up. If you’ve been invited to be on a search committee and you end up sitting there quietly, you’re missing an opportunity to have a really big impact on an institution. Three Recommendations for a Prospective President Cohick also offered three recommendations for candidates: There will always be a need for candidates who can facilitate the creation of a vision and strategy and who can also bring people together around that vision and strategy. However, passion is critical right now in the presidency. Those approaching a presidency for the first time should talk to the recruitment firm about what the institution generally needs but also should try to gain an understanding of the complex nature of the presidency. By understanding the institution’s complexity and gauging it in relation to any experience gaps, it’s important to not shy away from these gaps. Instead, lean into them and talk about knowledge in areas where actual experience is lacking. This helps the committee understand that the candidate knows what the presidency is all about. Bullet Points The pandemic has caused higher education to move from its traditional slow and methodical change process grounded in the concept of getting everyone’s opinions through shared governance to a faster change process based on responding external factors. The ability of colleges and universities to make this speedy change has surprised many in higher education and now offers the opportunity for a new paradigm that meshes both approaches to emerge. Current and future higher education leaders will be primary drivers in helping to create that new paradigm. Great higher education presidents have many traits: the ability to create a strategic vision and engage people in that vision; a passion for education; and a drive to succeed in the higher education presidential role. The pandemic has expanded the presidency, reinforcing the need for those traits. In addition, the president needs to have a reenergized passion for the institution’s mission and student success in order to navigate these challenging times. The values of a president and the institution need to be in alignment. Therefore, it’s important during a presidential search to identify the institution’s core values, which may differ from what is listed on its website. A presidential search process, which evolves during its lifespan, requires transparency and communication to be successful. This allows both the institution and the candidate to determine if this relationship would be the right fit. The successful candidate needs to be able to understand the institution’s vision but also have an idea of how to guide the college or university to evolve and grow. This is especially important as the world creates a “new normal” in the wake of the pandemic. Historically, presidents have come from faculty. However, search committees are increasingly open to considering candidates who have backgrounds in various departments in higher education (such as finance or student enrollment) or who come from business and industry. Candidates who come from business/industry need to able to articulate that they understand the difference between business/industry and higher education. They can talk about their ability to bring efficiency, but they need to understand why the shared governance model is such an importance facet of higher education. A search committee should be committed to openness and transparency. In addition, the members should be willing to voice their opinion and also to listen to other viewpoints. The challenge is that some search committees end up giving preference to the vocal voices of a small minority of members. This approach doesn’t ultimately create a successful search process. Searches need to share both the institutional opportunities and challenges with candidates. This transparency creates a more realistic picture that can guide the selection process and ensure that the right candidate is hired. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: RPA Inc. Executive Search and Consulting Guests Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/danacohick/ The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: Website: https://thechangeleader.com Website: https://changinghighered.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

The coronavirus pandemic has tested higher education leaders in unprecedented ways—and has upended the glacial pace of change at many institutions. The pandemic also is bringing changes in leadership. Many presidents are retiring or have said they will stay on for one more year to help the institution to move through this. This turnover means that many institutions have (or will have) new presidents who just took over as the pandemic started or are starting to assume their leadership roles during this pandemic. This podcast’s guest is Dr. Sam Horn, the new president of The Master’s University and Seminary. His move into the presidency, originally scheduled for the start of June, was accelerated by the coronavirus pandemic. Time Warp COVID-19 has created a time warp. While this period is disconcerting, Dr. Horn also feels like this has been an interesting and exhilarating time that has energized the institution. Master’s is in the coronavirus-hot zone in Los Angeles County. The restrictions in California are extremely pervasive and invasive so most colleges—especially those in LA County—are suffering. The economic hit that has come because of the pandemic has been crippling. It also has been compounded by the lack of federal and state guidance and the lack of timely information throughout the summer, which made it difficult for higher ed institutions, who are scrambling and playing catch-up because of it. Still, the pandemic has given the still-new president and his team the impetus to help the institution move forward. Since taking over, Dr. Horn has led the institution’s team in planning and execution with the goal of helping the institution evolve over the next 2-3 years. For the immediate future, Master’s is focused on solidifying enrollment gains; establishing a solid strategy to identify and reconnect with the institution’s base; determining where the new markets are; and strategizing how to deliver education to constituents that is affordable, accessible and highly useful. A New Presidency in the Time of COVID Previously, most believed that the first 100 days of a presidency should be spent as an observer. This involves speaking into things, asking many questions and meeting key stakeholders. Over his three-decade career, Dr. Horn has embraced Peter Drucker’s saying, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast every time.” He believes that until a leader knows and understands the culture of the institution, all strategy will be hindered. Current employees don’t know how a new leader operates so until people come to know the new leader’s values and can trust that those values are more than words, it’s hard to get their commitment to implementing the strategy. Additionally, until the new leader knows the culture, it’s impossible to identify which strategies to implement. Dr. Horn initially accepted the presidency in early February and was to start on June 1, thus giving him and the institutional stakeholders a period to get to know each other. He planned to ease into the role, and then when he began in June, he would begin a slow on-boarding process. The pandemic has changed that. When COVID hit, Master’s leadership transition plan had to be aborted, as the institution faced quick decisions that would have long-term impact on its functioning for years to come. The board felt that Dr. Horn needed to be leading this decision-making process. This accelerated the onboarding process, which became a “pedal to the metal” approach based on necessity. COVID accelerated so many things just as the institution faced a number of major challenges that could not be ignored without harm. Dr. Horn said everyone on the team understood that the first 100-day waiting period needed to be put aside. He noted that everyone understood this change in plans was board- and COVID-driven, and everyone bought into the need for the presidency to be started in a different way than was planned. The Challenges Dr. Horn described a handful of challenges threatening The Master’s University and  Seminary right after the pandemic started. He and the leadership team decided it was important to identify the values that would guide the institution’s decision-making process. As a Christian liberal arts university, The Master’s University’s leadership agreed on three critical values: do justly; love mercy; and walk humbly. These challenges were: Closing the campus, which was Dr. Horn’s first decision. The institution extended spring break before the California governor decided to shut down the state. That opened up a number of questions -- Would people who were bound to the college campus be unable to leave? Did it mean if they were out of state, they couldn’t come back? Dr. Horn said the institution made the difficult but right decision to close, which was done several days before the stay-at-home order came down from the state. He credits many institutional leaders and faculty members with helping the institution pivot on a dime. Refunding room and board fees. Because Master’s is small and has tight margins, refunding money was a difficult budgetary decision. However, Dr. Horn said the institution went back to the values driving decision-making and decided to refund the money. Interestingly, on the last day of the fiscal year, the university’s CFO came to Dr. Horn and said, “You’re not going to believe this.” The institution finished almost $1 million in the black. The institution had seen declining enrollment for many years—and anticipated that COVID would accelerate that trend. Dr. Horn got the enrollment teams from the institution and the seminary together to work on the issue. This approach led to a 6% increase across the board and Master’s had the highest new student numbers that they’ve had in a decade. The institution was facing issues with accreditation. However, with the assistance of Dr. Drumm McNaughton, the university’s accreditation and governance consultant, they had a strong accreditation visit and anticipate a good report in the coming weeks. Tactical and Strategic Approaches Noting that much of his career has been spent in higher education management at the cabinet or vice president level, Dr. Horn has learned that only addressing immediate challenges created by COVID (such as focusing only on the reopening plan) would mean missing incredible opportunities to look at the institution’s context and situation within higher education. He pointed out that there are many contexts within higher education, which include: Community college or university University instruction focused on professional training, liberal arts or a mix Categories within private, independent universities, including one called Christian universities Master’s is in a small subset of Christian liberal arts universities. Leaders of institutions who fall into this subset have known for a while that massive changes have been coming to this niche. COVID has accelerated these changes so leaders are forced to consider how to navigate the various tidal waves coming at the institution, whether it’s the pandemic’s crises, demographics, the birth dearth, the broken financial aid model or changes in where potential students live. Basically, Dr. Horn noted, the higher education model has become unsustainable. COVID has forced presidents and senior leaders to think beyond the moment, because higher education is not going back to what previously existed. The present ways of operating are unsupportable; too much has been uncovered. Additionally, there are too many factors that have come together in the population’s mind based on what they’ve heard from the news media, e.g., higher education is now facing the greatest challenge to its credibility in the eyes of the public. For decades, the public has bought into the idea that the path to the future requires a four-year degree. Now the public’s mind has changed. Institutional leaders must come to realize that the true end users of higher education’s degree programs are the employers who hire graduates – that higher ed is part of the “talent supply chain.” The employers also are saying that the higher education system is broken because it is not training students to succeed in the workforce. Because higher education is not producing graduates who are ready to step into the jobs that are available, employers are moving to other options, such as credentialing. The only way forward for higher education is forward. That means coming up with new ways to do business, especially at smaller institutions. Three Recommendations for New Higher Education Leaders Dr. Horn suggested three takeaways for new higher education leaders: Be positive. In a culture of fear, fear can set the agenda. Someone has to help people rise above the fears and show the way forward. Be proactive. Get ahead of the curve. Be prepared and be informed, both in higher education and out of higher education. Dr. Horn recommends three books – “Pivot: A Vision for the New University” by Joanne Soliday and Mark Lombardi, “Surviving to Thriving” by Joanne Soliday and “There is Life After College” by Jeffery Selingo. Bullet Points The pandemic has created an unprecedented wave of change in higher education. It’s important for higher education leaders and their teams to think strategically about their next moves. The pandemic also has changed the induction process for many new higher education presidents. They no longer have the luxury of spending months assessing the situation. Now they need to be able to create strategic movement. Many new leaders find that they are facing significant issues as they start their presidency. In Dr. Horn’s case, these issues included the campus’s closure in March as the pandemic moved through, refunds and the effect on the institution’s budget, enrollment, and accreditation. Leaders have the opportunity to think more strategically at this point thanks to COVID. Instead of focusing only on smaller decisions (such as closing the campus), institutions need to think about what they need to be in the future. This conversation is made even more important because of declining credibility among both the general public and business leaders. It’s important for higher education leaders to now envision a new way to do business. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: The Master’s University and Seminary Sam Horn Bio Pivot: A Vision for the New University Surviving to Thriving There is Life After College Talent Supply Chain Guests Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sam-horn-961bba110/ Twitter: @DrSamHorn The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: Website: https://thechangeleader.com Website: https://changinghighered.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

Stress from the pandemic as well as other major societal issues is taking its toll on higher education institutions. The effects can be seen across college and university campuses as students, staff, faculty and leaders try to deal with rapidly changing circumstances. While students have access to counseling services, many higher education employees are feeling intense stress levels – and their job performance is suffering. This podcast, which focuses on employee stress levels and what leaders can do, features Dr. Tom Marrs, a clinical psychologist and assistant director for client engagement for the Center for Executive Development at Texas A&M University’s Mays Business School. A Continual Accumulation Rather than adapting to change, people are finding that their stress levels continue to get higher as the pandemic continues. They are having difficulty dealing with so many challenges at one time; these challenges include isolation and problems that come with that, fear of illness and death from the pandemic, financial stress, political unrest, social discord, the overall lack of resources, and increased work demands. These various emerging and pressing issues are creating a bottleneck of stressors. Additionally, people are getting tired from dealing with the continued stress, especially stress from unknowns. If something is stressful but there is a known end (as seen in a natural disaster such as a hurricane or wildfire), you know that you’ll be able to recover in the near future, even though going through the situation will be stressful. The pandemic, however, is so open-ended that people can’t see the light at the end of the tunnel. This makes it increasingly difficult to function since humans have a low tolerance for ambiguity, which also leads to stress. The confluence of all of these stressors at the same time is especially challenging. Colleges and universities are dealing with so many situations that couldn’t be predicted. Administrators are having to make hard decisions that have an effect on students, staff and faculty. Additionally, so many institutions have a large influence on the quality of the economy in their community. Higher education’s financial impact is wide-ranging and includes tourism, research, an area’s economic development and student expenditures. Therefore, making decisions to send students home, such as what happened in the spring, have far-reaching ramifications that can lead to increased stress. Survival Mode Stress consists of physical, psychological and/or emotional demands that are placed on an organism. People have a set amount of bandwidth to use to deal with demands; however, if the stress of the demands being faced exceeds that bandwidth, the individual locks up and shuts down. Individuals often go into survival mode when facing extreme stress. Maslow’s Hierarchy showed that people become very task-focused when under stress, leaving no room for higher order thinking and envisioning the big picture of where we’re going. Instead, individuals’ focus gets myopic, narrowing to issues relating to survival as well as those they can control. The problem is that being in survival mode over a long period of time leads to burn out. The Yerkes-Dodson Human Performance Curve shows that people don’t perform well when they have no stress and also when they are under extreme stress. It’s only when people are in the sweet spot in the middle that they do their best work. Currently, we’re fully in the far tail of the curve, which is marked by continual high stress. The repercussions can be seen in workplace behavior, employee performance and decision-making. While people have a compensatory mechanism that can handle stress, they can only compensate up to a point, and once a certain threshold is reached, people start to de-compensate through burnout and stress behaviors. This can result in a low tolerance for frustration, even in minor situations – they can develop a hair trigger and become more rigid and on edge. They look for potential threats in the environment and develop a tall antennae that is sensitive to perceived slights. If someone is perceived as causing problems, that person is labelled as a trouble maker. There also can be increased forgetfulness, which is a direct result of being stressed. Leaders’ Next Step Not surprisingly, leaders are reporting having to deal with more difficult behaviors in the workplace, more infighting among teams, as well as more problems between the leader and team members. These behaviors are predictable. The real challenge is determining what can be done about the situation. Higher education leaders are primarily focused right now on the students. Fortunately, students have access to the student counseling center, and this generation is utilizing campus counseling services more often than previous generations. A report published about 15 years ago noted this increase is a result of the destigmatizing of mental health issues.  Dr. Marrs pointed out that he has seen studies showing a 300% increase in utilization in college student counseling centers over the years. But … what are leaders doing to help the faculty and staff? As a first step, leaders need to consider every option that is available to help employees lower stress levels. The challenge becomes how to financially make these resources available when budgets are being drastically reduced. Dr. Marrs encourages leaders to use empathy when assessing how faculty and staff are functioning in the workplace. Leaders should be aware of their own as well as everyone’s stress levels and monitor their own expectations for performance. As people come under more stress, those closest to them bear the brunt of their anxiety and fear. Therefore, if an administrator is stressed, his or her emotions will roll downhill as part of the decision-making process. This leads to increased demands on the team while the administrator may not have any understanding of the increased stress that the team is under and how the team is functioning. One challenge facing higher education is that many college and university employees have not had a chance to release their stress. For example, most have not taken vacations since the Christmas holidays. On top of that, many employees are facing other issues such as on-going child care issues or their own health issues, issues that have further increased their stress levels. Gauging Ourselves Higher education leaders are not immune to the increased stress—and the resultant behaviors are having an impact on how some administrators lead their institutions. Dr. Marrs believes leaders need to focus on increasing their levels of understanding and empathy, but this requires the administrators to be self-aware. Administrators need to develop grace in working with people during these difficult times. Leaders need to apply emotional intelligence to themselves to be able to lead during the current chaos. Most MBA programs in the United States now teach emotional intelligence because it brings tangible results; it is no longer considered a soft skill. Emotional intelligence becomes critical during times of extreme stress and uncertainty. Leaders also need to pay attention to where the institution and employees are, e.g., they need to identify when they are being reactive to situations.  Having a high level of self-awareness, an awareness of others, and then being able to control our own reactions to both unfolding situations and others, will make more of a difference in the current environment than anything else we can do. And the best part is that these approaches are all free. A Pandemic of Burn-out People need to talk about and face the stigma related to burn-out. Many are experiencing burn-out, which is very predictable because of the large quantity of change present in our society. Humans are not wired to handle this much change this quickly. We have had to change so many things and learn and adopt many new processes, such as moving immediately to online learning. Leaders need to recognize that people are doing the best that they can in these situations. Leaders need to monitor their own expectations and cut employees some slack. Leaders also need to consider simplifying what they are doing in leading their teams. In order to try to maintain a sense of normalcy, many will try to find things they can do to feel they are still in control. This could mean that a leader might decide to roll out a new program or operating procedure. It might make the leader feel better temporarily, but will add to the already-high stress level of his or her team. Research shows that when people are physically tired, they tend to make good decisions but those decisions are made more slowly. However, when faced with extreme stress, people make terrible decisions with a great deal of speed. Leaders need to consider this before reorganizing departments or rolling out new programs in the current environment. The high level of stress across the college campus is difficult to deal with. When focusing exclusively on the needs of students, leaders often ignore the needs of their team--as well as their own needs. Having this much stress opens the door to bad behaviors. Leaders need to understand how to recognize these bad behaviors and identify the appropriate actions to take in these stressful times. This is where emotional intelligence comes in and why it’s important to consider what we’re reacting to. Working from home also has become especially difficult. All employees—but especially members of Millennials and Gen Z—are experiencing a lack of boundaries separating work life and home life. Employees don’t know how to unplug and are often working during their “off” time. Therefore, it’s important for leaders to honor team members’ days off by not sending an email or text with something to do when they return to work. More often than not, the employee will respond that day, even though it’s their day off. This means they won’t experience the full break they need to reset and recharge. Three Recommendations for Higher Education Leaders Dr. Marrs suggested three takeaways for higher education leaders: Take care of yourself. You are of no use to anyone if you are stressed out. You will be making decisions based on fear. Have empathy for others. Be aware of your own emotional intelligence. Monitor the engagement and burnout of people who work for you. Give them time off or find other ways to compensate to help them regain their balance. This is not a time to make unnecessary decisions that result in change. When in doubt, consult with others. Have a sounding board. Bullet Points Higher education institutions are facing huge amounts of stress in the current environment. These stressors include the pandemic, race relations, financial issues, the upcoming election cycle, and the institution’s own challenges of making changes. While much—if not all--of the focus has been on helping students through these current issues, many faculty, staff and administrators are struggling with handling the current high rates of stress. Being in survival mode over a long period of time leads to burn out. Once a certain threshold of stress is reached, people start to de-compensate through experiencing burnout and exhibiting stress behaviors, such as frustration, rigidity, being on edge, and having a hair trigger. They start looking for potential threats in the environment and become overly sensitive to what they perceive as slights. Leaders need to use empathy when assessing how faculty and staff are functioning in the workplace. They also should be aware of their own as well as everyone’s stress levels and monitor their own expectations for performance. A leader’s emotional intelligence is critical during the current chaos. The current situation is not the time to start a new program, process or initiative. It’s far better to simplify than to add complexity. It’s important to talk about and remove the stigma around burn-out. When faced with extreme stress, people make terrible decisions with a great deal of speed. Leaders need to focus on controlling their own reactions to both unfolding situations and others. This will make more of a difference in the current environment than anything else. Employees have difficulty setting boundaries separating work life and home life. Therefore, it’s important for leaders to honor their team’s off-time and not text or email them with future to-do’s that might derail their recuperation time. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Texas A&M University’s Center for Executive Development Tom Marrs, PhD Guests Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-marrs-42b30a31/ The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: Website: https://thechangeleader.com Website: https://changinghighered.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

The coronavirus pandemic and the previous Negotiated Rulemaking from Spring 2019 are driving new changes in the current and future regulatory process regarding higher education. Federal policymakers continue to extend guidance and develop new regulations in response to the pandemic. In addition, several new guidelines are coming on line that will affect higher education in areas including Title IX and online learning/innovation. This guidance is coming during a time of chaotic change. A new Moody report also reported that the pandemic has sped up the normally glacial rate of change of higher education. This change normally would have taken 5-10 years period, but it now has been accelerated. TEN Government Strategies CEO Tom Netting, a regular guest on this podcast, provides an update on the latest coming out of Washington, D.C. and how these will impact institutions and students. COVID Guidance Extended Several important decisions came out of the U.S. Department of Education recently that will help institutions and students. In one of these decisions, the Department extended the opportunity for students to delay repayment of student loans as well as the 0% interest rate. The Department also offered additional guidance and extension of areas that were included in the CARES Act, including satisfactory academic progress, the Return of Title 4 Funds Policy, and audits and reports back to the department. The guidance was extended through the end of the calendar year or--if the pandemic has not been resolved--to a period after Dec. 31, 2020 when the emergency declaration is lifted. This guidance includes: Extends the leave of absence for students through the end of the year; this also can be extended if the pandemic hasn’t ended by then. During the pandemic, many of these leaves of absence have been used by students for experiential programs. These students had to be placed on a leave of absence because the internship/externship/clinic or other experiential learning opportunity was needed to complete their program. Without this, they couldn’t sit for their certification exams or complete the programs that had hands-on requirements. This guidance protects the students’ interest and allows them to complete their programs. Extends institutional audits and reports—specifically fiscal and financial aid reports and fiscal audits, where auditors couldn’t complete the work with institutions—for a six-month period. Extends the ability for institutions to protect students so they do not have to return federal funds provided through Return of Title 4 Funds. These funds were earmarked to help students who faced financial disruption due to COVID-19. These guidelines hold even if the students withdraw from the university or college, as long as their withdrawal is due to COVID-19. The Department also gave some relief to institutions in relation to the academic calendar. For the purpose of the pandemic, the policymakers have loosened some of the guidance that originally required the traditional academic year to be strict rigid semester. This decision will help institutions utilize innovative schedules that allow students to take online courses over a shorter span of time (instead of an entire semester) while also getting the necessary clock hours. This change also helps institutions with the new standard regarding substantive interactions between the instructors Online Education, Distance Education and Innovation The Department also just did a soft release of a new piece of guidance around distance education, online education and innovation. This is the last of three pieces of guidance in this area, which the Department had developed during the past two years as part of the Negotiated Rulemaking from 2019. This recent package built on prior information as well as current conditions. For example, the definitions or “regular” and “substantive” interaction were modified to help synchronous and asynchronous learning in the clock hour institutional environment. Other sets of circumstances were also addressed in these regulations, which are scheduled to take effect in July 1, 2021. (Any regulation that is Title 4-driven must be introduced on or before November 1 of the preceding year to go into effect July 1 of the subsequent year.) Because this guidance had consensus approval and the Department has taken its time in bringing the guidance forward, the secretary and the Department have the authority to allow institutions to implement these regulations—which includes competency-based education and online education—the early, if they so choose. Netting believes some institutions will take advantage of that option. Some of the shifts involve competency-based education, direct assessment and stackable credentials. A new Moody’s report indicated that non-degree certificate programs are growing at a 10% rate, even at major colleges and universities. This indicates a new opportunity for students to utilize online education to supplement their bricks-and-mortar experience as they work toward a two-year and/or four-year degree. These regulations also offer certificate/diploma options to fulfill basic requirements while also allowing these options to be stackable as students pursue a four-year degree or go on to earn a master’s degree. There is a shift away from the Carnegie Method of assessment as institutions increasingly focus on using actual student assessment as is used in competency-based education. This change is on a dynamic level in real time. This round of negotiated rulemaking addressed this by encouraging a focus on skill sets that students need to develop instead of seat time. This guidance also encourages institutions to focus on the actual progression and assimilation of the education that students receive. The guidance also asks institutions to look at prior learning experience and give credit for prior mastery before entering the education system. This especially is relevant to veterans who have skill sets in vocations or disciplines that are degree-based. Title IX New Title IX regulations go into effect in September that will increase the focus on the rights of the accused. One of the areas that is addressed include cross-examination by the accused or his/her representative of the victim. Some of the changes in these regulations are contentious and many on Capitol Hill are expressing concerns. However, institutions will need to follow the published final regulations that include hearing processes. These regulations also change how institutions do investigations and hearings.  However, the new requirements also benefit higher education institutions by limiting the number of employees at the institutional level who have to report and track these allegations; this number had become unwieldy at many institutions. Now institutions will offer more directed circumstances for the accused and victim to follow. Institutions are working diligently to move forward with these regulations. The Department should be providing additional guidance soon to help students and institutions implement these new regulations. Netting also expects to see some FAQs that will help guide development of policies, procedures and implementation at the institutional level. On the Horizon First and foremost, the Department probably will be coming out with additional guidance on the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund, which was part of the CARES Act. Half of those funds were earmarked for students while the other half went to institutions. The department has done a good job in providing guidance for students, and additional guidance should be coming out for institutions on how they can use these funds, especially in relation to payroll, as well as reporting requirements. Some clarification has been offered through FAQs, but additional guidance is needed. Netting anticipates this guidance will come out around Labor Day. Congress and the White House continue to negotiate a number of proposals related to COVID-19. There has been down time due to the national conventions, but Netting believes discussions will ramp up soon concerning the next stimulus package. The Republicans have two bills out—a skinny bill and a regular bill, both called the HEALS Act—while the Democrats have the HEROS Act. President Trump also has items that he wants to place in a bill. Some of the major contentious issues involve liability for the employer and employees as well as funding for state and local communities. Netting believes that the next bill will primarily focus on elementary/secondary education whereas higher education had the greater part of the CARES Act. However, Netting believes that higher education will still get some funding. Netting pointed to key nuances that are beginning to emerge: The Senate Republican bill (which may have Democratic support) would make a retroactive change to the CARES Act in relation to payroll and lost revenue, which will help with guidance for institutions on how they can utilize these funds. From the student’s perspective, the bill would expand the use of funding given to students to include tuition and fees. There also will be technical corrections to help all institutions in regards to financial responsibility as well as some of the regulatory requirements that institutions need to fulfill on a regular basis, such as composite scores. All institutions are hurting right now and will need some relief in assessing their fiscal positioning going into the next year or two. Bullet Points Several extensions have come out recently, including repayment of student loans, student leave of absence, reporting deadlines for fiscal and financial aid reports and fiscal audits, and Return of Title 4 Funds. The Department also provided relief on the educational calendar to allow institutions to have flexibility due to the pandemic. The Department’s soft release of a new piece of guidance around distance education, online education and innovation addresses modifying “regular” and “substantive,” changing synchronous and asynchronous learning, and addressing competency-based education, direct assessment and stackable credentials. Assessment also is shifting to encourage a focus on skill sets instead of seat time. In addition, institutions can consider the student’s previous experiences in relation to awarding credit for specific skills. Title IX guidelines have been published and focus on the rights of the accused. These regulations change how institutions do investigations and hearings. The Department will be coming out with additional guidance on the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund, which was part of the CARES Act. This guidance should come out around Labor Day. Both political parties are focused on creating a new bill related to the pandemic. Some of the major contentious issues involve liability for the employer and employees as well as funding for state and local communities. Netting anticipates the next bill will primarily focus on elementary/secondary education; however, higher education still should see some funding. These bills also may provide additional guidance for how higher education institutions and students can use funding from the CARES Act, as well as technical corrections to help guide financial responsibility and the regulatory requirements that institutions need to fulfill on a regular basis, such as composite scores. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: 2019 Negotiated Rulemaking process Department of Education Guests Social Media Links: Tom Netting LinkedIn – https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-netting-9214755/ Tom Netting Twitter - @t_netting The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: Website: https://thechangeleader.com Website: https://changinghighered.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com