Changing Higher Ed

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

Creative partnerships, and mergers and acquisitions are helping colleges and universities get out of financial crises while also serving students’ needs. One example of this type of partnership involves three higher education institutions -- Goodwin University, Sacred Heart and Paier College of Art—that are working with the University of Bridgeport to create a partnership.  The University of Bridgeport, which has experienced financial difficulties, decided to pursue alternative ways of operating. Dr. Mark Scheinberg is president of Goodwin University. He describes how this partnership formed and the challenges that institutions are facing. Making a Difficult Decision Frequently, universities are so deeply committed and enthusiastic that they often are too optimistic when experiencing financial difficulties. This leads to unrealistic projections. Board members will try to figure out how to raise more money or find ways to make up for a shortfall, but, having the best of intentions, these trustees run the institution off a cliff. By the time they realize that the institution is not going to make it, the situation has progressed to the point where the institution can’t make payroll at the end of the month. There are meaningful things that can be done, but because these things can “hurt,” leaders and boards often opt to “kick the can down the road” instead. The University of Bridgeport didn’t do that. After experiencing a number of years filled with financial hardship hits, and while the institution still had an endowment and its facilities, its leadership realized the university’s future was in doubt and they decided to look outside of the institution to see if there were any meaningful partnerships that could be developed. Rather than continuing to operate until running the institution into the ground, administration and the board believed a partnership of this type could save the core of the university—the students and faculty. Taking a Proactive Stance When an institution starts from scratch as Goodwin did two decades ago, leaders don’t have a lot of legacy to teach them what to do next. At the same time, this lack of legacy frees institutional leaders to try new approaches. When the college was founded, Dr. Scheinberg told faculty and staff that they needed to think deeply about the reasons for their organizational decisions, instead of making arbitrary choices. Otherwise, the college would run in ways that were not efficient, responsible, or business-like. For example, Goodwin primarily serves nontraditional students between the ages of 28-40, and its academic calendar has three semester each year. Approximately 85% of those students work, so most are enrolled at the 50-75% level. By running three semesters, these students can move through the academic program faster than they could a full-time “traditional” program that runs primarily on two semesters. Dr. Scheinberg believes this is a smarter system that supports Goodwin’s students. Additionally, this system allows faculty members who are associate professors or higher to be given a contract, which in time becomes a long-term contract. University leaders use the contract to address issues that would have been part of tenure, which as a system doesn’t make sense in the current world. Not having a tenure system in place enables the institution to change operations on a dime, allowing it to be nimble. The Partnership Most colleges that are having financial difficulties are relatively small. From an economic model, a college with an enrollment of under 1,000 students is difficult to operate because there isn’t economies of scale. These smaller higher education institutions are struggling and often need to close or be part of a merger or acquisition. Dr. Scheinberg pointed to Goodwin’s assistance to struggling Lincoln College of New England. Goodwin absorbed Lincoln College’s 400 students and helped them finish their studies on time. Creating these types of efforts becomes a skill unto itself, e.g., working with accreditors, etc. The University of Bridgeport offers a different tale. Ten years ago, University of Bridgeport enrolled 10,000 students, but more recently its enrollment dropped to 4,500 students. No higher education institution by itself could absorb this number of students. However, a every consortium of schools could, hence the partnership with Sacred Heart and Paier. Every merger/acquisition and alliance/partnership is different, and requires the collaborating institutions to be sensitive to the situation. This certainly was the case with this partnership. For example, The University of Bridgeport plays a pivotal part in the City of Bridgeport. Because of this, the consortia members decided to continue holding the absorbed programs at the University of Bridgeport campus. So instead of pulling programs out of Bridgeport and then dispersing them to the three partnering universities, the consortia partners will be using buildings on the University of Bridgeport campus to offer classes related to the schools that they are taking over.  Paier College of Art is taking over the art and design programs. Sacred Heart University is assuming the engineering programs, the counseling program, a chiropractic school and the school of education. Goodwin, whose has a focus in health care, is taking over a physician’s assistant school, nursing school, dental hygiene school, and the school of business. This logical division does not include the University of Bridgeport’s school of arts and sciences. Those classes are being assigned to partnering institutions based on where they make the most sense. For example, chemistry and physics courses feed engineering degree programs whereas biosciences courses feed the health sciences degree programs. Reallocating Resources The institutional partners also realized that they had this opportunity to focus their money on teaching instead of the back-room operations that constitute significant institutional expenses. They wondered why they would need three separate security forces, three food service departments and three housing departments. Now the institutions are pooling these areas through a shared service agreement, which is reducing the operating costs in these areas through the partnership and shared services. Dr. Scheinberg also sees promising possibilities for the three universities as well as other partners that show up. For example, the three partners are trying to make it easy for students to take courses at the other two partner institutions that can easily transfer to the third partner. This means that if a student needs to take a course in the spring semester before he/she graduates and their home institution isn’t offering that course, it is much more likely that one of the other partners is offering the course. It also allows an institution to offer more advanced courses that normally would attract only a few students at one institution, but could have a full class through offering it among the partnering institutions. Governance Issues The University of Bridgeport will eventually be absorbed by the other institutions. However, because it still has money and knew where it was headed, it will continue to operate as all the pieces are put into place. The board governance remains intact for the upcoming school year. One of the key pieces of any kind of agreement like this must be gaining approval from accreditors. The partners have been in touch with the university’s various accreditors so they can take their time analyzing, accepting and approving the movement of the programs to a new sponsor. Each accreditor handles this transfer differently; some have processes in place while others have not anticipated this scenario. In the latter case, some of these accreditation changes may take a year or more. Therefore, the programs need to remain at the University of Bridgeport until the accreditor’s approval is received. Each partnering institution is separately accredited so they have to have their own governance. They need to be clearly demarcated due to accreditation. Each of the partnering institutions are independent and have their own campuses and enrollments. Administrators, faculty and staff in this partnership have some anxiety as this partnership moves forward. There is a high degree of ambiguity, which isn’t initially comfortable for everybody. The partners are having to feel things through as they go forward and make decisions. There will be rubs and the partners will make it work. Three Recommendations for Higher Education Leaders Dr. Scheinberg suggested several takeaways for higher education leaders: Take a cold-eyed view if there is financial difficulties and be proactive in taking action. Don’t proceed with a hope and a prayer if the budget is blown. Don’t wait to be surprised. In these situations, no one is happy. Students and faculty at the institution being taken over are upset and they don’t know where to place their emotions. The receiving institution often is the target of the students’ and faculty members’ ire. It is critical to focus on transparency. Be visible and available during these times to help people understand what is going on and also what has not been decided yet.   Bullet Points Leaders and board members of higher education institutions need to take a realistic look at finances and make a tough choice in relation to whether to remain open or consider a different path, whether that’s a merger, acquisition or closure. Institutions need to look at decisions in ways that leave behind legacy. Therefore, decisions need to be based on having thought through decisions thoroughly instead of basing them on what has always been or what is expedient. Smaller institutions tend to struggle economically, especially with the COVID crisis. Therefore, these institutions often are in need of assistance and are ripe for these type of partnerships and/or acquisition. Partnerships can creatively offer solutions for institutions that are struggling. Partnering institutions can create these partnerships in ways that create economic benefits in operational areas such as residence services, food service, custodial services, HR, and security services. This allows institutions to focus their financial sources more on teaching and learning. In some partnerships, the partners need to remain independent. In addition, they need to take into account the economic benefit that the struggling institution offers to a community. Through doing this, the partnership can create a win-win-win situation for everyone involved. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Goodwin University Sacred Heart University Paier College of Art University of Bridgeport Guests Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-scheinberg-256ab0123/ Bio: https://www.goodwin.edu/administration/presidents-welcome 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

Christian colleges and universities face unique challenges, even without coronavirus, economic issues and racial unrest. One of the guiding lights in helping navigate those challenges is the Association for Biblical Higher Education, which serves as an accreditor and also offers a number of services. After long-time president Dr. Ralph Enlow retired, ABHE selected Dr. Philip Dearborn to fill the position. He previously served as provost of Lancaster Bible College and multiple other positions. Navigating Turbulent Waters Dr. Dearborn, who assumed his new role during the midst of unprecedented times on July 1, is not sure what the new “normal” will look like. Dr. Dearborn put together eight goals for his first 100 days to give to ABHE’s board. He is a self-described optimist, and believes that the pandemic actually has created great opportunities, so the challenge becomes navigating through the turbulent waters to find these silver linings. While the circumstances around higher education have changed, ABHE’s purpose, vision and mission has not. Dr. Dearborn noted that ABHE must be nimble enough to find ways to move forward while supporting its members as they move forward. To achieve that, ABHE is starting a new strategic planning process focused on identifying the needs of Christian higher education institutions. This process will enable the association to better meet the needs of its constituency, while also broadening the services ABHE offers, especially in relation to developing leaders. ABHE also is trying to modernize its facilities so it can provide top-of-the-line services. For example, the Association is creating a state-of-the-art Zoom room that will provide cutting-edge technology to deliver quality programs. Transforming a Lagging Industry COVID and the resultant economic issues have accelerated the changes that have been coming in higher education. Similar to Dr. Gordon Gee, President of West Virginia University, Dr. Dearborn estimates that the acceleration process has sped up by a decade, which will be challenging for higher education leaders to make since colleges and universities often lag behind in adopting change. He pointed to a number of colleges where faculty and staff stepped up during the early stages of the pandemic to help deal with the rapid challenges. However, to expect these individuals to continue to do that work for a sustained period of time is unrealistic. Additionally, much of higher education’s lag is caused by an organizational culture that primarily supports the needs of faculty instead of students, especially in places where there is unionization. Higher education starts the upcoming fall term with a great amount of uncertainty. Fall enrollments are still up in the air and won’t become clear until later in August and even September. Most institutions can no longer make a five-year plan. Instead, planning efforts are narrowing down to cover a month (or less) at a time. Dr. Dearborn believes that the changes that the pandemic brought during the spring semester will ripple through higher education and it will take more time for the sector to find its direction and understand what the ultimate impact is. These waves will continue for a significant period in time and will, in all probability, extend past the identification and production of a vaccination. It will take many years before the nation is “over” COVID-19. He pointed to one university president who said that his institution is trying to hold on through August 2021. At that point, that president believes there will be more clarity about what the future holds. Scenario Planning Because of these uncertain times, ABHE will delve deeply into scenario planning during its upcoming team retreat.  Dr. Dearborn believes that the world will continue to face big issues that will have a significant effect on higher education as well as the greater society. Therefore, he believes that in order for ABHE to remain nimble, the staff need to have a shared language that helps them focus on scenario planning. He also encourages higher education leaders to explore scenario planning. Dr. Dearborn advises picking a particular model and then starting to incorporate the scenario planning language into the institution’s daily work. Soon higher education leaders will be able to look at various scenarios in relation to some of the institution’s offerings. In-person vs. Technology ABHE shifted all of its meetings to Zoom. With that said, Dr. Dearborn believes there will be a place for both in-person meetings and technology after the pandemic ends. He predicts that face-to-face meetings and conferences will have a resurgence once the pandemic is over. While a lot can be accomplished on Zoom, there’s something relationally important about face-to-face interactions, which are foundational to human lives. In comparison, Zoom is transactional. Dr. Dearborn cautions that leaders need to look for ways beyond these types of meetings, going forward because leadership is much more than just about transactions. Furthermore, it is difficult to get participants fully engaged when there are more than five people involved in a Zoom meeting. Expanding Services ABHE, which is primarily an accreditor and offers academic quality assurance, also continues to try to broaden its offerings to include board governance, board consulting, board/administration training, and leadership development for C-Suite executives.  Dr. Dearborn believes ABHE needs to expand its offers to include faculty, who spend the most time with students.  Furthermore, faculty need to shift their thinking and behaviors in order for higher education to remain sustainable in the wake of the many changes that are happening in the industry and across society. The ABHE president believes the association can offer several important services to support faculty. These include: Helping faculty members do better pedagogically in the classroom. This includes helping them understand how to teach critical thinking skills to students. He also wants to leverage technology to offer training, especially for faculty members. Providing leadership training specifically designed for faculty. Dr. Dearborn equated faculty with being middle-managers, who need to have a unique skill set to be able to relate up, down and across the organization. However, faculty who are placed in chair positions often don’t flourish because while they are exceptionally smart, they didn’t have this skill set. Changing Christian Education Dr. Dearborn noted that there are definitely trends within general higher education that affect the Bible college movement. These trends include enrollment, job readiness, and emotional intelligence. Bible colleges also have unique responsibilities. For example, Bible colleges have a mandate that comes specifically from the word of God, which is to fulfill the great commission. That mandate does not change during difficult times and serves as the common thread with the church at the center. However, Dr. Dearborn has seen trends among Bible colleges. For example, at one point both Bible colleges and Christian education distanced themselves from the church. These colleges were focused on enrolling individuals and preparing them for the churches through a top-down process that indicated that the colleges knew what was best. That paradigm has totally changed. Now, colleges need to reach out to pastors and ask them to identify the needs that churches are experiencing. Higher education leaders also need to understand that while students need to have a deep knowledge of the Bible, they also need to understand the business side of running a church. The ABHE president also believes it’s time for Bible college leaders to have conversations with churches about what they need not only from a staffing perspective, but also from the church parishioners as the church fulfills its mission. Therefore, conversations about systemic changes that are currently happening are needed between church leaders and Bible colleges. Three Recommendations for Higher Education Leaders Dr. Dearborn suggested three takeaways for higher education leaders: Keep students first. If you’re not focused on the needs of the students, your success rate will drop significant. Always consider the perspective of students when making decisions. Always learn. Force yourself to expand your knowledge and get outside of your context. For example, go outside to a business context to learn so you can bring those perspectives into your higher education institution. Don’t stop building genuine relationships. Don’t ever let these relationships be fake; build strong and long lasting relationships so you can lead effectively. Bullet Points The new “normal” probably will not emerge anytime soon. Higher education institutions won’t be able to do long-range planning for some time—and that could be several years from now. Higher education traditionally has resisted change. Now with the pandemic and economic situation, higher education leaders are being forced to deal with issues that were thought to be a decade down the road. A key piece to this adaptation is faculty. Faculty need to understand that higher education’s culture should be based on the needs of students, not their own. Scenario planning can create a common language and then offer ways for leaders to consider what may happen in the short term, thus helping the organization remain nimble when issues emerge rapidly. While all communications have been moved to Zoom and other platforms, nurturing face-to-face relationships will continue to be a priority, especially when the pandemic eases. There are many opportunities to help faculty grow. These include helping them understand pedagogy, which will improve their teaching, and also offering leadership development so they can serve in management positions within a college. While Christian education is facing many of the same issues that the overall higher education industry faces, Bible colleges will continue to be grounded in the word of God and the Bible’s mission. Bible colleges do need to revise how they approach their world. Previously, many thought they created church leaders in a vacuum. Now it’s important for Bible colleges to reach out to churches to get their feedback on what is needed both for those in the pulpit as well as the parishioners. This includes knowledge that extends past the Bible; for example, future pastors need to understand how to run the church as a business. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Association for Biblical Higher Education Guests Social Media Links: LinkedIn: com/in/philipedearborn 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

Many higher ed institutions are struggling with finances due to COVID and other reasons, and some higher ed leaders are seriously contemplating a merger with or acquisition of or by another institution. These processes can be a win-win proposition, allowing for increased capacity, services and efficiencies for students.   One example of this process is Delaware State University, which is in the process of merging with Wesley College. This merger began earlier this year and is spearheaded by Dr. Tony Allen, who became Delaware State’s 12th president in January. He previously served as the institution’s provost.   But that isn’t the two story with Dr. Allen – his career spans both higher education and corporate. This broad career has benefited him significantly, as he brings his experience from outside of higher Ed to tackle some of its biggest challenges.  For example, in this, his first year as Delaware State’s president, he has had to deal with COVID and moving to online education.   This merger/acquisition is the latest major issue that he is tackling. Dr. Allen believes that growing a very proud Black institution that has faced its challenges and focused on developing innovative programs is the most important thing he can focus on doing at this moment because these efforts will grow capacity and opportunity for students who are often underserved.   Merging with a Neighbor (or Anyone Else)  An advocate for both the State of Delaware and the University,, Dr. Allen has always believed in the institution’s possibilities. He said that Delaware State has an amazing story to tell but has not had enough storytellers. He wants people to know the institution’s rich history – and to grow it.  The merger is part of the institutional strategy to make that happen.   Dr. Allen, who has participated in a higher education merger before, said that going through a merger is a very interesting process. Delaware State’s vision is to be the most diverse HBCU in America. The institution’s leaders would like to increase enrollment from the current number (5,000 students) to 10,000 students in the next 5-7 years. To accomplish that, the school needs not only more students, but also more physical infrastructure to attract those students and to make sure that the faculty and staff feel like Delaware State is a first-class institution. Thus, a merger is a very sound strategy by which to accomplish this.  Wesley College, which primarily serves minority students, is literally two miles from Delaware State University. The college’s campus has about 20 buildings on 50 acres of land near downtown Dover.  In watching Wesley College’s decision-making processes related to the institution’s future, Delaware State leaders believed it was an interesting opportunity to approach their neighbors about the possibility of a merger. The college’s leaders were interested and are working with their Delaware State counterparts to make the merger happen. The merger agreement was recently signed.   One of the critical first pieces of any kind of merger is the due diligence of finding the correct partner. As you can see in the following paragraphs, Dr. Allen and his team have done their homework to make sure that Delaware State and Wesley are good partners for a merger.  Merger Due Diligence   Wesley and Delaware State share a similar student demographic. Delaware State has about 55% in-state students while Wesley has 57%. Both institutions serve minority students and their programs have many similarities and synergies, especially in the health sciences.   Wesley’s location and physical lay-out is exactly what Delaware State needs in Central Dover. Dr. Allen believes that once this merger is done, it will help the combined institutions rival sister institutions across the region and country.   From a purely financial place, Wesley is valued at approximately $34 million and has reasonably little debt. Through this merger, Delaware State leaders are creating a broader organization model that can support the institution moving forward.   Organizational Culture  Dr. Allen noted that cultural fit is key to the success of a merger. He believes it’s important to find the best of both institutions and then combining it to make the merger successful.   The next step in the Delaware State/Wesley merger involves combining the two organizational cultures. Dr. Allen said that Wesley has great brand equity in Dover and the State. While that brand equity is important, he wants to build capacity for Delaware State to expand its footprint more thoughtfully.  This requires getting to know the people on the other side of the table, and then sharing the hopes and aspirations from each institution’s perspective. Dr. Allen believes by sharing this information, parties can work together to build new and better structures and a strong organizational culture for the future.  Getting Governing Boards Buy-in  Dr. Allen noted that the Delaware State/Wesley contract was more of an acquisition than a merger of equals. During the negotiation process, Delaware State’s leaders were able to “sell” this deal to its trustees and some key stakeholders across the community. The university’s significant track record of graduating some of the finest students in the state, especially students of color, over the past 130 years, helped make the case. In addition, Delaware State has grown a serious research portfolio across a number of disciplines.   The addition of Wesley into the university’s portfolio will expand Delaware State exponentially. Therefore, making the case for why and why now was part of the pitch that Delaware State leaders made to the institution’s board, which includes two past governors, business leaders and alumni. As the institutional leaders made the case, board members and stakeholders asked good questions and helped the leaders get the right kind of feedback to ensure that this acquisition happened in the right way.   The two institutions have set up a timeline of one year in which to bring the organizations together, and during this year, they have built enough “tollbooth gates” along the way to be able to pause to see if the institution is meeting the goals effectively in each step along the way of this merger/acquisition. That’s why a year of transition is so critically important in this process.  Key Performance Metrics  Dr. Allen said there are contingencies in the acquisition agreement that must be met in order to get to “Legal Day One” in June 2021. These tollbooth gates include:  Securing enough private and government funding to manage the transition effectively.   Receiving approval of the deal from the institution’s accreditation and regulatory bodies.  Identifying core efficiencies in bigger contracts, such as IT and food services. Through this merger/acquisition, Dr. Allen believes that institutional leaders can negotiate some cost efficiencies.  Creating a dedicated project management office that can help provide and manage a successful transition plan that will serve as a roadmap for the future.   Maintaining a strong consulting team, including an independent consultant who helped with the due diligence process as well as additional consultants who provide national heft to the process. These individuals understand what needs to happen as well as the pitfalls that are lurking.  Focusing on Growth  Dr. Allen stated that the institution wants to have more students when the agreement’s effective date arrives, but also wants to be able to grow into its institutional “skin.” He noted that Delaware State’s student enrollment has grown 40% over the past decade whereas during that same period, colleges in the aggregate have seen declining enrollments. While Delaware State has been able to buck this trend, Dr. Allen noted that space restrictions have created issues with this growth that this merger will help alleviate.  In thinking about the right business model, the optimal student enrollment mix of residential vs. international vs. online as well as the right program mix, Dr. Allen noted that the acquisition of Wesley offers a very good opportunity to move a significant part of the residential mix of students and health services on the program side to that campus. Making these moves could build something very special.  Dr. Allen also noted that he and his staff have watched Wesley closely over many years and appreciated the quality of the institution’s programs. Wesley has faced many similar concerns that many private liberal colleges have faced this century and have been trying to find someone who could partner in a thoughtful way in order to preserve the students that are enrolled and also help the institution grow holistically.   Working on Organizational Redesign  Leaders are taking this year to evaluate different options of organization design and configuration to determine what would be best in moving forward and what would attract quality faculty and staff as well as students. Dr. Allen said a number of different configurations between the two institutions are being considered, including a Wesley campus at Delaware State University as well as a new Wesley College of Health and Behavioral Sciences at Delaware State University. This will expand Delaware State’s footprint across a wider region.  The real work begins now that the deal is signed. Dr. Allen has gone through this process as part of the acquired institution. He said that if you do it well, you’re taking the best of both institutions while also shedding things that beleaguered both institutions. Therefore, institutional leaders are being thoughtful about what they think is great about Wesley, where Delaware State can be more efficient and effective, and how to serve more students and give them more opportunities.  Creating a Merger  This was not the first time that Wesley had considered a merger – Wesley had considered several other partners, but those deals didn’t work out. Delaware State approached Wesley’s leaders with a deal that offered the best path forward for the institution. Additionally, this public-private partnership offers many additional benefits because it means Wesley will become a public institution.   Trying to find a merger partner can be difficult, but can succeed through identifying synergies. According to Dr. Allen, this is currently happening in his institution’s merger and that it’s important to be deliberate and realize that there are going to be surprises. He stressed the importance of having consultants who can help guide this process. He also believes that it is important to be thoughtful and really hopeful about creating a business model that can really change an institution and its service area.  Dr. Allen had a strategic vision when he assumed the presidency. His vision was helped because he grew up in Delaware and also served as the institution’s provost for two years before accepting the presidency. As he assumed the presidency, he contemplated the vision as well as what is right around the institution that can be amplified. Delaware State’s close proximity and regular collaboration to Wesley made this merger/acquisition make sense. Early reports indicate that stakeholders are seeing this effort favorably.  Communications  Communications are critical. The two institutions’ presidents are trying to answer questions in a uniform fashion. Both presidents meet regularly and coordinate communications, including the announcement of the merger/acquisition through a press release and press conference. They tried to articulate messages that would help individuals—students, faculty, staff and alumni—on both sides understand what this partnership would offer.   The next step is “standing and delivering in front of these audiences,” Dr. Allen said. This will encourage Wesley stakeholders to talk about their needs and anxieties and also communicate the opportunities that are being created for both institutions.  Dr. Allen believes that leaders need to communicate messages multiple times and then follow through on any promises that are made.  Four Recommendations for Higher Education Leaders  Dr. Allen suggested several takeaways for higher education leaders:  Leaders need to ensure that a decision about a merger/acquisition aligns with the institutional mission.   Be thoughtful about these decisions. While it may feel like it’s important to make the merger/acquisition happen immediately, Dr. Allen advises taking the time to do due diligence while also using the time to help bring two institutions meaningfully together.  Engage your board of directors. Think about the real value proposition that the institution being acquired brings to the decision. This is crucially important.  Always under-promise and over-deliver.  Bullet Points  A merger or acquisition can help institutions reach more students and provide more extensive programs.   Institutions who are interested in these types of actions need to consider fit. That includes proximity, campus facilities, student body, programs offered, institutional missions, and current financial status.  As part of this merger, institutions need to form a new culture that incorporates the hopes and dreams of both institutions. This requires getting to truly know individuals from the other institution and listening to their concerns and wishes.  Governing boards are obviously involved in this decision. These individuals can ask questions that can prompt due diligence that will help ensure the partnership is in the best interest of both organizations.  It is important to create a variety of metrics—including financial, programmatic, accreditation, efficiencies, etc.--to guide the merger process.   The merger or acquisition offers an opportunity to create a different education model both in relation to how to serve students and programmatically.  However, it’s wiser to take the necessary time to make the new configuration operational.  A strategic vision and synergies are important in helping create a strong merger/acquisition.  Outside consultants are critical in helping guide mergers and acquisitions.  Regular communications from both institution’s leaders are important in announcing a merger/acquisition as well as helping stakeholders understand next steps as the effort moves forward.  Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview:  Delaware State University  Wesley College  Guests Social Media Links:  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tony-allen-b349736/   Twitter: @BelieveLiveLove   Bio: https://www.desu.edu/about/administration/office-president/about-tony   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 #Mergers #University #HigherEducation 

The world has become a place of open pain and suffering, as well as one in which people are more curious. People are asking questions about how we got here and where we are going next. While part of this is due to the coronavirus pandemic, another major part involves the explosion of long-simmering racial tensions. University of San Francisco Vice Provost for Diversity Engagement and Community Outreach Dr. Mary Wardell-Ghirarduzzi’s work on diversity and strategy has focused on helping senior leaders in higher education build their own equity and inclusion capacities. She is focusing on helping people to understand how we as a nation got to this place. Gaining Deeper Understanding Leaders who work on organizational behavior need to understand how the nation reached this point in order to help everyone heal. That’s a complex question, but also simple at the same time. Dr. Wardell-Ghirarduzzi said the simple answer is that the way that the United States was constructed as a country of people left a stain in regard to how the founding fathers went about it. We often glorify what one does; however, it’s equally important to focus on the “how” these efforts get done as an organization or a nation. The nascent nation of the United States was created on the backs of enslaved individuals and it was further expanded on the genocide of indigenous people who already were in North America. The combination of those two events—which have continued and can be seen in the nation today—informs the economic capital, the cultural capital and all of the social capitals that make the United States what it is today. In developing the nation’s social institutions (including higher education, banking, housing and health care) that contribute to the idea of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, leaders created legislation, laws and policies so as to develop these institutions. In that process, these leaders had to make decisions on how to participate in the nation and be part of the construction of these institutions some of which marginalized large groups of people. This marginalization extends to a variety of people from various nationalities, including those of Chinese and the Japanese origins. Discordant National Policies Unfortunately, our nation has been built in a way that has not been true to its founding ideals. Subsequent policy decisions have been in many ways a reenactment of what happened in 1619, when the first enslaved peoples of African descent came to the nascent colonies to help build the country. Dr. Wardell-Ghirarduzzi pointed to the failure of Reconstruction after the Civil War. During this time, states had the ability to decide how they were going to treat individuals of color. Leaders ended up enacting policies that became the Jim Crow Laws, which were worse in some ways to people of Black descent than slavery had been. Institutional Racism Since the country was founded, its continued expansion has been done in ways that marginalized individuals through all of the nation’s institutions, such as colleges/universities, churches, banks and associations/groups. As one of the core social institutions in the United States, higher education has roots that mirror the history of other social institutions. Understanding this is important because it is institutions that make up the fabric of society. Now, even in more recent institutions such as technology firms, there is hidden and unconscious—and sometimes conscious—forms of racism and bias. This goes beyond individualized forms of racism. Systemic organizational forms of racism have been part of the country since its early days, e.g., the Jim Crow laws. Unconscious Bias Everyone is guilty of unconscious bias. By focusing on this concept, it becomes a way to talk about the concept but not activity, and as such not engage in taking personal responsibility for one’s role in continuing the forms of institutional racism that exist today. These individuals take a pass on the realities of people who doing their part in relation to understanding and working through organizational bias. Which brings us to our leaders, and included in that are University presidents. That type of response, that focusing on the concept but not the activity of unconscious bias of which we are all guilty of, does not hold water for leaders who have responsibilities of duty and stewardship. Those individuals’ response to unconscious bias must be to understand the complexities of institutional racism and deal with it. Unconscious bias shows up in the modern-day form in how we make decisions because we have biases that we are not aware of. However, just because we are not aware of the biases doesn’t mean that they are not felt by the very individuals who institutional leaders are seeking to serve. Because of this, people in leadership roles (and especially University presidents) have a much higher standard and a much higher responsibility to understand that they have unconscious biases and route them out and deal with them.   Our leaders today must be proactive in determining what they do not know or understand or identifying how their leadership approach is causing them to stumble in this regard. Dr. Wardell-Ghirarduzzi suggests that individuals need to learn to unlearn in order to relearn. You have to learn new things which is going to cause leaders to confront that they have to unlearn things that are problematic to leadership in the institution. Then through relearning, leaders can respond appropriately to the needs of their community today. The First Step Understanding that there is unconscious bias and then identifying the blind spots is the first step. Dr. Wardell-Ghirarduzzi likes to do an exercise when doing learning sessions. As part of those, she talks about micro-aggressions as a modern-day form of racism and how it shows up. Students, faculty and staff of color often mention this, so by highlighting this, she’s able to help all participants understand how micro-aggression works. The real work for leaders is to do their own introspection on their own racial identity and how that informs the ways they address the issues they respond to. She cautions leaders that they will need to create space, especially during this current timeframe, to pause long enough to do the necessary discernment work. This involves higher education leaders understanding their own racial formation – how they came to think in the ways that they do (even if they do not think they are racist). For example, how did they understand race as a child? When was the first time I interacted with an African-American or Black person? What was my school like? Did I have Black children in my classroom? When was the first time that I had a Black teacher? What grade? Who taught me about race? What was the perspective of those individuals who raised me about race? Where was I raised? What zip code did I grow up in? How did my neighborhood influence my current ideas around race? Who did I marry? Who was on my wedding invitation list? While these questions are seemingly insignificant, when examined in their entirety, they can create a story around an individual’s beliefs around racial formation. You can ask the same set of questions to people of color and have different responses. The diversity of today’s college campuses means that students have very different perspectives and a different reality and understanding of the complexity of race in how they experience racism in their residential life as well as their time involved in the university’s classrooms and activities. Having people in leadership roles who have gaps in that experience which are too far from the students, faculty and staff with whom they work means they need more understanding. By and large, many higher ed leaders need to do this in-depth self-assessment work, especially since they tend to be predominantly white and male. Even though there has been progress in adding more leaders of color as well as female leaders, more work needs to be done to reflect the diversity on campus. There’s an ocean between the leader’s lived experiences and diverse experiences of those on campus. This means that there is a significant learning curve for many smart people. Based on her own experience, Dr. Wardell-Ghirarduzzi believes racial illiteracy exists among the American university presidency right now so they are not quite equipped to respond to the issues and needs that are on institution’s doorsteps. That gap is where she and others are trying to sound the alarm and also to point out the need for diverse representation in leadership. Next Steps Higher education leaders need to continue to try and understand the root problem and the root causes of racism in America. One way to do this is to become students of the Black experience in the United States and develop a deeper understanding of this experience. This will enable them to be able to talk about these issues with some sense of urgency and command. Students, faculty and staff expect them to have command of the knowledge of racial justice. Dr. Wardell-Ghirarduzzi believes leaders need to be put the same amount of energy and attention to this learning as they are having to put into the financial crisis. Leaders also need to evaluate their inner circle or cabinet. This includes evaluating whether these individuals are living out the mission and statements that the institution says is so important to them. Have these individuals expressed their commitment to the demands of equity and inclusion by ensuring that they have diversity in their own teams? That not only includes people who do diversity work, but also extends to business/finance, marketing/communications, development, and academic affairs. If their cabinet currently is and remains overwhelmingly white, then these individuals are not leading in the moment. Working with Faculty and Students Leaders also need to work with faculty and students on campus to look at ways to become an anti-racist campuses. What assets are already in place? Who can help lead the campus in this work? Which alumni can help lead the campus in this work? How can the institution pull together an anti-racist brain trust that can be an advisor to the president and leadership? Which curriculum and practices need to be looked at in relation to becoming anti-racist? Begin at the Individual Level Dr. Wardell-Ghirarduzzi believes that this effort begins with the individual. People are looking for guidance and modelling, and want individuals who have their fingers on the pulse and can help lead the institution to where it needs to be through communication and action. Higher education leaders can transform by coming to an understanding of their own background and the gaps they have, and then begin working earnestly with a sense of urgency around responding to areas that need to be addressed through additional leaders.  They need to understand that what’s holding them back is also impacting those who are working under their leadership. This, in turn, is holding the university back. Students and younger staff and faculty have a higher expectation of leaders in relation to this area of understanding racial injustice. These two generations believe that leaders have had enough time to figure this out and educate themselves. This means that higher education leaders can no longer hide behind their ignorance. They face a significant cost if they write, speak or do something on the campus that is based on this ignorance. Three Recommendations for Higher Education Leaders Dr. Wardell-Ghirarduzzi suggested several takeaways for higher education leaders: Leaders need to look at how COVID has exposed the racial inequities in all of our lives. These inequities extend beyond health outcomes and economic outcomes to encompass social equity. Leaders need to focus on racial equity, including using the terms “race,” “racial” and “racism” in their spoken and written language. As leaders find ways to navigate disruption due to the pandemic, they cannot put race on the back burner and focus only on the economic situation. We are in a health crisis, an economic crisis and a racial crisis. While leaders may be tempted to put aside the racial issue, they need to look at everything that is happening right now through a racial equity lens. Make commitments to bring diversity in relation to race and gender to the cabinet. This will help the institution understand these various perspectives, which will be critically helpful in moving forward. Bullet Points The nation has been built in a way that has not been true to its founding ideals. The United States was constructed on the backs of slaves and these inequities have been formalized by how the founding fathers took action. The laws and policies have continued to be racially biased, especially after the Civil War when Jim Crow Laws were passed in Southern states. This history of national racism has led to organizational racism that is now part of the nation’s institutions, including higher education. Most people have unconscious bias. While they will talk about it at the conceptual level, many people will not assume their own personal responsibility and culpability in continuing the many forms of institutional racism that exist today. Leaders who have responsibilities of duty and stewardship need to identify and work through their unconscious bias to understand the complexities of institutional racism. They need to be proactive in determining what they do not know or understand or identifying how their leadership approach is causing them to stumble in this regard. They need to learn to unlearn patterns so that they can relearn new ways of working in this area. Understanding that racial bias exists and then identifying personal blind spots is the first step in deepening one’s work in this area. Many higher education leaders face a significant learning curve because they are racial illiterate right now. Thus, they are not equipped to respond to the issues and needs that are on institution’s doorsteps. Higher education leaders need to become students of the Black experience and make this a priority at the same level that the economic situation or the healthcare crisis currently is. Higher education leaders also need to evaluate their cabinets and begin to find ways to diversify by race, gender and thought. Leaders also need to work with faculty and students to look at ways to become an anti-racist campuses. Higher education leaders are being held to a higher standard in relation to racial issues now. If they don’t deepen their learning, identify how to take appropriate steps to make their campus inclusive, and communicate clearly and effectively on these matters, they will have to pay a steep price. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Twice as Good, Leadership and Power for Women of Color Guests Social Media Links: Mary Wardell Ghirarduzzi LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mary-j-wardell-ghirarduzzi-2012873/ Mary Wardell Ghirarduzzi Twitter: https://twitter.com/drmjwardell Mary Wardell Ghirarduzzi Website: https://www.usfca.edu/provost/vice-provost-diversity-engagement-and-community-outreach 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 #BlackLivesMatter #Diversity    

Federal policymakers are trying to figure out their next steps in relation to higher education in the wake of the pandemic. In addition, these policymakers are continuing in developing and implementing regulations. TEN Government Strategies CEO Tom Netting, a regular guest on this podcast, provides an update on new regulations that are coming on line as well as recent and proposed federal legislation, including the CARES Act, which provides short-term financial and policy guidance. Federal Regulations Even as the nation focuses on the coronavirus pandemic, the regulatory environment remains omnipresent. The U.S. Department of Education is focusing on developing a number of new regulations while also overseeing the implementation of regulations. A number of these rules were deliberated as Neg Reg 2019 and other negotiated rulemaking processes during the past few years and then published in final form on or before Nov. 1, 2019. They officially went into effect on July 1 of the award year due to the master calendar requirement and legislative/statutory requirements. The Trump Administration has worked on a series of changes and revisions to regulations through the Neg Reg process. These include revisions / overturn rules from the Obama Administration – e.g., Gainful Employment and the Borrower Defense to Repayment rules – as well as the results of recent negotiations about accreditation that blur (remove) the differences between regional and national accreditation, state authorization, teacher/TEACH grants and faith-based education. Distance Education There also have been significant changes concerning state authorization and how distance education is being delivered, which is at the forefront of everybody’s mind right now because of the pandemic. In fact, the U.S. Department of Education revised their guidance for distance / online education, including loosening a number of regulations through the end of the fall term. Some of those revisions deal with long-standing issues related to assuring the quality of online education that were already in discussion prior to the pandemic. One of the key focus areas was regular and substantive interaction between the deliverer (the institution and the academician) and the student. (This came into play in a major way with the Department’s lawsuit against Western Governor’s University that was later withdrawn.) Policymakers want to ensure that both sides of the learning equation are doing their just part. As part of the negotiations, the department offered more description around what regular and substantive interactions look like, which will provide greater guidance for institutions. Another major change involved the ways that institutions accounted for their online populations. Online education allows significant blurring about the locations where students are recruited. The regulation changes modify the concept of boundaries while also addressing reciprocity agreements through NC-SARA, which includes all of the United States with the exception of the District of Columbia and California. These changes mean that if an institution is compliant with NC-SARA, it is most likely compliant with another state’s regulations. That becomes important because it ensures that students are protected, no matter the state where they reside, because the underpinnings of the institution’s online education are sound. This blurring continued with the removal of the distinction between regional and national accreditation. With online education allows students to attend institutions outside of their specific geographic regions the construct of focusing on regional accreditation versus accreditation is becoming moot. It is now focusing on protecting students, many of whom may live in another state or another part of the world. Additionally, this allows accreditors to be more flexible in working with the institutions they recognize to identify and implement better assessments of the quality of their respective missions. There also still needs to be programmatic accreditation to look at certification and licensure levels. Transparency The new disclosure requirement also requires all institutions to expressly and publicly state what their transfer and credit policies are. This regulation will allow consumers to have a better understanding while also shedding light on past limitations that have prohibitive to the students Netting also believes this requirement will also encourage institutions to adopt new and innovative assessment modalities, thus allowing students and their parents to better evaluate the portability of education prior to enrolling in the institution. The new regulations also require institutions to put critical information on their websites, such as transfer of credit, placement rates, retention rates and student services. This information must be easily assessable and the requirements specify critical details, such as font sizes. This will change areas required in accreditation as well as the consumer’s understanding of cost-benefit of high education. The Department is also revamping a number of areas, including NextGen, the next generation of federal financial aid. They have totally revised StudentAid.gov, the student/consumer-facing side that provides students with more information and how to make their decisions prior to making their college choices. Additionally, the Department is offering more opportunities for students to interact with the loan servicers to enable more financial literacy education for students. This will help students understand more about their loan and how it differs from a grant. The department is now starting to work on the backend portion of NextGen, which involves the delivery of financial aid. CARES Act The pandemic’s pressing issues and the resulting the CARES Act and have meant that many higher education issues and discussions have been moved to the side. With that said, many policymakers and higher education leaders are dealing with both, thus having to “walk and chew gum at the same time.” The CARES Act spread $14 billion across the higher education community with significant stipulations. These included that the funds must be used in relation to the national emergency created by the pandemic and were to be delivered to individual students as well as the institution so it could move to distance education. As part of this, institutions had to develop a plan of delivery of funding to the students who were most disrupted and most in need, such as those on federal Pell Grants. Conversations are on-going in relation to DACA students, who did not receive any of these initial funds. Congress also allowed institutions to use any remaining money to the institution to support students. However, a number of institutions didn’t receive as much of an allotment as they needed; these institutions—primarily state colleges and universities, community colleges and others--would have preferred to have funding based on total enrollment and total population, as opposed to the priority being the need-based populations. Additionally, loan-payment relief was given to students through the end of the year. This eliminates all negative consequences in relation to eligibility and repayment. Discussions about a Next Stimulus Congress began discussions in June about the next round of stimulus funding, although the political parties have differences on where to target the funding. While the Republicans want these funds to go toward healthcare, education and job retraining / advancement, they believe a significant portion of the funding should be used to help people safely transition to education or jobs / employment. This would involve testing individuals for COVID prior to returning to work as well as fair distributions of vaccinations once they are available. The Democrats are looking at providing money for state colleges, state universities, community colleges and other institutions, as well as using an equation that focuses on the total population served (as opposed to need-based funding). The House Democrats voted in a major stimulus package called the HERO Act that would provide significant directed funds to higher education and elementary and secondary education. Sen. Patti Murray (D) also introduced the Coronavirus Childcare Corrections and Educational Relief Act (CCCERA), which would provide significant funding for all sectors of higher education. One of the key differences between the House Democrat version and the Senate Democrat version is the House bill does not include private or proprietary institutions while the Senate bill includes for-profit institutions. Additionally, the Senate version counts individuals who were taking only online education, regardless of institution. The major sticking point to passage of another stimulus package is liability. Republicans believe there should be liability protection included in the bill, and that those protections should extend to employers and institutions. The future challenge, however, is that these various stimulus packages will eventually create a societal financial burden that will weigh down the individuals who are currently students who will benefit from these packages. Three Areas for Higher Education Leaders to Watch Netting encouraged higher education leaders to watch for these three upcoming issues: Another set of regulations take effect in mid-August. These are very contentious regulations that are tied to Title IX. Those who support these new regulations believe there is a more equitable approach in relation to both the victims and the accused. However, victim rights advocates see these guidelines in the opposite light. Look for additional guidance from the Department of Education on how these guidelines will come forward. The Department also will be providing additional guidance on the CARES Act, even though the funds have been delivered and expended. There are continued questions as to how far institutions can go in using these funds. There’s also a question about lost revenue, especially for Title 3, Title 5 and Title 7 institutions. The next round of CARES Act may be coming soon. Congress may try to finish this legislation before the August recess. This legislation probably will include liability issues as well as funding for students and institutions. Netting said he is working with federal legislators and their staff to try to clean up issues that emerged in relation to the previous CARES Act, such as financial responsibility and student leaves of absence that resulted from their inability to do internships, etc., that are consequences of the pandemic. Bullet Points A number of new regulations started July 1. These include revisions to rules set during the Obama Administration--the gainful employment rule and the borrower defense to repayment rule—as well as recent negotiations about accreditation, state authorization, teacher/teach grants and faith-based education State authorization and distance education also are changing. These changes focus on ensuring the quality of online education (which has been increasingly important in the wake of the pandemic) and flexibility of boundaries that allow students to attend online programs from institutions in other regions or states. The new disclosure requirement requires all institutions to expressly and publicly state what their transfer and credit policies are. The new regulations require institutions to put critical information on their websites, such as transfer of credit, placement rates, retention rates and student services. The Department is revamping a number of areas, including NextGen, which is the next generation of federal financial aid. This revision will encourage more transparency in relation to student loans and also focus on providing more financial literacy education. The CARES Act spread $14 billion across the entire higher education community to be used in relation to the national emergency created by the pandemic. These funds were earmarked to support individual students as well as the institution so it could move to distance education. However, a number of institutions didn’t receive as much of an allotment as they needed; these institutions would have preferred the use of a different funding equation that was based on total enrollment and total population. Loan payment relief through the CARES Act eliminates all negative consequences in relation to eligibility and repayment. Congress began on-going discussions in June about the next round of stimulus funding, although the political parties have differences on where to focus the funding. However, the major sticking point is liability protection, which the Republicans support. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Lamar Alexander Patti Murray Congressman Bobby Scott Virginia Foxx 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 Keywords: #Education #University #HigherEducation

Higher education institutions are still reeling from dealing with the coronavirus pandemic during the spring term. However, now they are faced with the challenge of making critical decisions that also offer flexibility moving into the fall semester. Beloit College already is far ahead on this path. This edition of the podcast will feature Dr. Eric Boynton, Beloit College’s provost and dean of the college. He was instrumental in helping lead the development of a unique plan for moving forward. Creating a Task Force In March as the pandemic emerged in the United States, Beloit started creating a COVID-19 task force that included individuals from across the institution that were going to be affected. The institution’s COVID task force, which was led by Dr. Boynton, included the chief technology officer, the chief operations officer, the chief health/wellness staff member, the dean of students, the assistant to the president, and the vice president of enrollment. The president purposefully was not a member of this task force because the efforts were going to be primarily focused on the curriculum; however the president’s assistant served as his representative and they met regularly to discuss the task force’s efforts.  This approach also gave the president time to focus on the broad picture. The task force met daily for a number of weeks. Dr. Boynton talked about the need to be fluid at this time since the situation was changing so quickly. Dr. Boynton said he initially didn’t deal well with these rapid and unplanned changes. He was in his first year serving as provost and was immersed in creating pedagogical innovations that would demonstrate the distinctiveness of the college’s education. This focus put him in a completely offensive posture until COVID hit, which immediately threw him into a defensive posture. He found that he was in a fog during the spring semester and could not see the horizon in relation to planning. Rapid Transition to Online Beloit’s first action was to extend spring break for a week and buy some time to see if they could bring students back to campus. However, it quickly became clear that this would not be possible so the institution moved to having classes fully online after the two-week spring break. Like most small liberal arts institutions, Beloit had very few online courses before. There were blended courses, which depended on the professor and his/her aptitude in relation to using the technology. There also were a few faculty members who offered online summer courses. Dr. Boynton described the spring semester as a glorious experiment in getting faculty who never thought about teaching online to embrace that instructional necessity. It was a way that Beloit and other small liberal arts institutions were able to shine, as faculty could think differently about these offerings. He believes these newly developed and innovative options will continue in the upcoming years and it will make education better. Innovating for Fall Term When Dr. Boynton and the university president decided to start thinking about the fall semester early in the pandemic, they kept their focus on what could be done to maximize possibilities while also minimizing disruptions. For example, Dr. Boynton found that students and faculty had trouble juggling four online courses simultaneously. He noted that many online institutions offer eight week sessions in which students take two courses at a time. Dr. Boynton and the president began to consider moving to a block plan in the fall. In this initially considered plan, the semester would be carved up into quarters so that there would be 3-1/2 week courses. This started feeling controllable, as opposed to the triage environment that the administration and faculty were working in during the spring semester. The provost met with several key staff members about the idea of the block plan. Some could easily see the potential offered by the proposal’s maximum flexibility while others needed more time to ponder it. This led to other discussions, which resulted in the idea to split the semester in half, thus allowing students to take two courses during a seven-and-half week period. Interestingly, this new plan echoed a proposal that Beloit leaders and faculty had developed five years before Dr. Boynton’s arrival at Beloit – a plan that wasn’t enacted because it was considered too radical at the time. Developing the Schedule Students were are the forefront of Beloit’s thinking – they didn’t want to register students for the full semester and then have to come back with a new schedule and redo registration. To rapidly create a new schedule that would be done in time for registration (which was scheduled to occur shortly thereafter), the task force—with full faculty support—focused on strategically putting together the fall semester’s schedule. Instead of turning the schedule over to the department chairs and faculty members, two well-respected faculty members massaged the newly configured schedule, keeping an eye on what courses needed to be delivered in-person (such as lab courses) as well as other considerations, such as when to offer appealing entry courses to first-year students. Once this was completed, department heads and faculty then had a chance to review the schedule; almost everyone ended up agreeing with what had been proposed. Positive Implications This new structure will have implications post-COVID. With this schedule, the institution now has the flexibility to teach face-to-face or to move online if the pandemic worsens. Dr. Boynton also believes the schedule will morph in upcoming years, but still will offer the flexibility to meet students’ and faculty’s needs through hybrid instruction in the future. One of the unintended (but good) consequences of this new structure is that only morning and afternoon classes are offered. This means that students will only be passing each other twice a day in the classes. These two blocks simplify and clarify how students move in and out of the classroom space. Beloit will evaluate how this plan works to determine how to move forward after the pandemic is over.  Noting that at Beloit this is ultimately a faculty decision, Dr. Boynton said the institution will pay attention to how students and faculty experience this set-up. He believes it could open up the possibility of outside-the-classroom participation during the semester while also simplifying the schedule. Dr. Boynton also believes that even if it does not become the way that future classes are structured, this approach will be adopted by more and more faculty. Growing Interest Many other institutions have become interested in Beloit’s new campus schedule. Twelve small liberal arts colleges have adopted Beloit’s revised schedule. In doing so, they’ve had to blow up their previously planned schedule and reregister students. Beloit plans to host a conference for institutions who are moving to this type of schedule. This will be an opportunity to learn from each other what is working and what is not. Three Recommendations for Higher Education Leaders Dr. Boynton suggested three takeaways for higher education leaders: Find ways to marry agility with ideas of weight and substance. Also identify ways to use your academic training in interesting ways in the world. Constant communication and transparency, as well as stories, laughter and anecdotes, are critical in working with faculty and building consensus. Go into conversations with a sense of the direction where you want to end up. Encourage meeting participants to offer their viewpoints so you can triangulate and figure out how to bring people together on a common direction. Bullet Points Identify a task force that includes key stakeholders from across campus. The participation of the president may not be mandatory, but make sure she/he sends a trusted representative to participate. In times of crisis, flexibility is key. However, realize that everything is fluctuating so that leaders may not be able to instantly get a good fix on the horizon to gauge next steps. Consider radical change the opportunity to have a glorious experiment. Use this as a way to get faculty and others to find ways to embrace the new normal and innovate. In times of crisis, consider focusing on maximizing possibilities while minimizing disruptions. This can create break-through thinking. Get feedback from across the campus as you develop these new ideas. Also look for different ways to get the work done, such as involving a few trusted faculty members in developing the schedule. Look for unintended possibilities, such as how Benoit’s new schedule will limit student interaction (and thus limit the opportunities for COVID to spread). Evaluate new efforts to see what modifications need to be made or if they should continue. However, even if the new options don’t continue, some faculty may choose to adopt some of the elements in their own work. Create networks with other institutions during crisis in order to learn from each other about what works and what doesn’t. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Beloit College Eric Boynton Guests Social Media Links: Twitter: @Beloit_College 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 #Education #University #Coronavirus