Changing Higher Ed

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

The current coronavirus pandemic puts an intense spotlight on leadership, both at the administrative and board levels. While boards and leaders have found ways to work effectively in dealing with the immediacy of closing the campus as the pandemic began, now they have to find ways to work together to create a learning environment that engages students while also taking proper precautions to keep students, faculty and staff safe on campus. Resuming the Dance Many institutional leaders have been bracing themselves due to the pandemic, but Dr. Gordon Gee, president of West Virginia University, is not one of them. Instead of being focused on the WVU’s survival during the coronavirus pandemic, he is figuring out how to help the institution thrive by using what is being learned from this situation. He believes that to do so will require reducing costs while increasing quality. Additionally, institutions need to be increasingly student-centric. Higher education institutions are now coming out of the shutdown and entering into the dance of how to open up. West Virginia recently announced that its campus will reopen, but everyone will be required to be tested, wear masks, and social distance. This decision will require a major configuration of classrooms. The university also plans to move to a hybrid flex model in which some courses will be taught in-person while others will be offered only online. The protocols required to do this are extensive and dramatic, but critically important so that institutions can help parents feel comfortable sending their children to the college or university. In addition, faculty, staff and students need to feel like they’re being well taken care of. Acceleration Due to COVID Dr. Gee believes that COVID-19 is one of the long-term issues that institutions are going to have to deal with.  He believes that institutional leaders need to figure out how to deal with reality and ensure that that reality becomes a way of life in a positive way. The acceleration / change that started a decade ago and has exponentially sped up over the past 10 months is clear. Much of this is due to technology advances, and during the pandemic, Dr. Gee has found more relevant uses of technology. As an example, he has found technology has improved his efficiency, although he has not yet determined if his effectiveness has gone up.   Dr. Gee believes that technology will remain an integral part of higher education, especially since the younger generations easily use technology. To that end, higher education leaders and faculty have to embrace a different dynamic that has emerged due to wide-spread use of technology in the pandemic. That means that higher education leaders and faculty need to find ways to embrace technology – and to learn how to lead using technology. Changing Approach to Governance Higher education governance has changed in the past two decades, as highlighted by Dr. Gee’s tenure as president at multiple universities. In his initial presidency, West Virginia University had a system governance board with a board of regents and local advisory boards. The University of Colorado had elected regents while Ohio State had a board appointed by the governor. Brown had 61 members on its board, Vanderbilt had 41 members and Ohio State had 17-18 members. Now Dr. Gee is back at West Virginia, which has 17 members of its Board of Governors. He learned in each situation that dynamics among board members and leaders are very important. It’s important not to let factions on the board develop. Dr. Gee noted that many of his colleagues have a view that you bring the board in, take them for a good meal and to a football game, and then get them out of town. He sees things differently. He wants the board members to be his partners so he communicates as much and as often as necessary to achieve that. He noted that with the West Virginia board, he tries to communicate in a number of different ways on an on-going basis. Boards have become much more engaged in the minutia of universities. Dr. Gee believes the line between (micro)management and governance has gotten very murky, causing a major challenge for both the board and the university. How leaders deal with that requires an immense number of conversations with the board and making certain that the board understands the president’s views. Dr. Gee believes there are higher education institutions have to deal with numerous levels of bureaucracy. The first is at the federal government level while the second is state government. The third is at the board level, which can involve the board asking higher education staff to deal with pet projects and issues. In the age of the coronavirus, the relationships with boards have become very intense and many presidents’ positions also are very tenuous. At this point, Dr. Gee said, university presidents’ heads are sitting lightly on their shoulders because there is a lot of oversight and second-guessing. Boards are also more externally oriented and more business oriented while the university’s internal constituencies tend to be in an academic bubble where they are much more political and less realistic in many ways. To balance that, the president needs to find a middle ground that looks at the external world’s concerns about the university’s struggles as well as funding issues, as well as the internal constituencies’ “Cinderella” approach. Difference in Institutional Boards There are fundamental differences that also exist among boards at private and public higher education institutions. Boards of private institutions may meet 2-3 times a year. At these institutions, the executive committee—made up of the chair, vice chair, and vice chair of finance, etc. – meet more often. Boards of private colleges and universities also tend to be cheerleaders, funders and those who have made an extraordinary contribution of time, talent and treasure to the institution. In comparison, boards of public colleges and universities often are very intense. They may meet monthly or every other month. These members are often politically appointed and come with a political agenda, whether that is the governor’s or their own, if they are elected. This means that higher education leaders have to deal with circumstances beyond their control, but are present in the boardroom with the trustees. Dysfunctional boards are the worst thing in the world because they are about infighting and who has access to power. The challenge for presidents in these situations is how to determine who to talk to in order to get a straight answer. Higher education leaders need to always have a pole star and then be able to convince people about why their vision for the institution is the correct one. This campaign should extend to the board, the faculty, the students and the staff. This requires decision-making that continually is rebalancing, based on conversations. Dr. Gee believes that institutional presidents need to understand how to work with the 1-2 board members who think they have all the answers. This requires “cajoling” these board members as well as not becoming submissive to what they are doing. At the same time, it’s important that board leaders be willing to discipline fellow board members who move outside of the lines of good board behaviors. This requires a yin/yang relationship between the board chair and the university president so that the board remains firmly planted in the middle of the road. The university president and the board chair should be linked at the hip. They must trust each other implicitly and share their views openly. A strong relationship helps create the level of intimacy that allows these two to work together to make the university a better place as well as keep the governance function operating at an optimum level. Dr. Gee believes the optimal-size board is between 15-20 members, which allows for diverse views while also being small enough so that the board is not an army. West Virginia’s board includes two faculty members, one staff member and one student as regular members of the board. He believes these individuals’ views need to be part of the overall board conversation. He also tells them that they don’t come with a constituent representation; instead, they come with a point of view but they should not lobby for their particular group. Having a student representative on the board is especially important because that individual brings the current perspective of what it’s like to be in college today. Dr. Gee also noted that he would like to get rid of what he calls “the rear-view mirror” of everyone involved in the institution, especially those who graduated from the institution. He believes this would help change the discussions about how to manage the institution so that they are looking forward instead of backward. This is especially important in today’s world, where individuals will either be architects of change or change’s victims. He also noted that many ideas from corporate board governance are moving into university and college boards, as the two share many commonalities. In fact, many elements of corporate governance are moving into higher education, which is important because universities and colleges are complex organizations and can use improved governance processes. The learning curve for a higher education board member is steep. Therefore, Dr. Gee believes that a trustee’s term should not be too short; however, he also believes the term should not be too long. He likes West Virginia’s system in which trustees are appointed for a four-year term and then can be reappointed for another four-year term. He noted that Ohio State had nine-year terms, which can be appropriate so that trustees can get acclimated to the culture, the contrary nature of universities, and the possibilities of the institution, as well as the daily happenings. Dr. Gee said the trustees should not try to simplify a higher education institution because that gets in the way of governance. However, he does believe that the bureaucracy should be simplified as well as what the institution does. “Simple makes complexity work,” he said. “Complexity does not make complexity work.” He also thinks that corporate boards can learn from the dynamic interactions of university boards. He also stressed that the chief academic officer tells the higher education institution what it is going to do; the chief financial officer then must make sure the money is available to make this vision a reality. Dr. Gee thinks higher education institutions must have a long view. The “education bubble” started in Bologna in 1200 AD and continues through today. However, he thinks the American corporation does not share the kind of long view that the Japanese, Chinese or other cultures have. Instead, U.S. companies’ drive for profits hurts the issue of culture and opportunity for corporations. Three Recommendations for Higher Education Leaders Dr. Gee suggested three takeaways for higher education leaders in working with boards: Love them. Communicate with them. Never surprise them. Never let them learn something through the regular media or social media that you should have told them. Bullet Points Higher education institutions need to focus on thriving instead of just surviving the pandemic. To achieve this requires a cohesive and collaborative effort between the administrative leaders and the Board. The pandemic has accelerated change. A large part of this change involves the use of technology, which will remain a critical part of higher education moving forward. The question remains unanswered regarding whether the adoption of technology will lead to increases in both efficiency and effectiveness. The composition and structure of boards have changed over the years. Boards are not one-size-fits-all; they differ from institution to institution. Additionally, there are differences in how boards function in public vs. private higher education institutions. Board members should be considered partners in the running of a college or university. Academic and board leaders should strive not to let factions form. Boards increasingly have gotten involved in the organizational minutia. Therefore, it’s incumbent on the president to find ways to communicate with the board to help them understand and adopt his viewpoint for the institution. Higher education leaders need to have a pole star that they use as a guidepost for their work at the institution. They need to find ways to communicate that vision to board members as well as internal stakeholders. The board chairman and the university president need to be on the same page in the sense that they have built trust and opened respectful communications so they can work together. This can help the board and administration work more seamlessly for the betterment of the institution. Board membership can (and should) include a faculty member, staff member and student. These members can prove to be advantageous because they bring a different perspective to discussions. Avoid always looking in the “rear view mirror” when making decisions. Instead, focus on the vision of where you want the institution to go in the future – and encourage board members to do so as well. Specific length of terms as well as term limits can be helpful. Terms need to be long enough so that the member has enough time to go through the steep learning curve about the complexity of the institution and then can provide meaningful input on decisions. However, serving too long can dampen the trustee’s decision-making abilities. Trustees should not try to simplify higher education’s inherent complexity. Higher education and corporate boards are becoming more similar. With that said, corporate boards can learn from higher education boards to place the human equation over profit. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: West Virginia University Guests Social Media Links: E. Gordon Gee Twitter: @gordongee The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: 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

The COVID-19 pandemic has put even more pressure on institutions that serve underrepresented populations. One such institution is Amarillo College in Amarillo, TX. This community college is redefining its efforts to reach and engage its student body, many of whom are non-traditional and underrepresented students. Dr. Russell Lowery-Hart is the college’s president. A product of the area, he previously served as a faculty member and associate provost of academic affairs at nearby West Texas A&M University (WTAM) before moving to Amarillo College as vice president of academics. He assumed the college’s presidency in 2014. Focus on Educational Attainment While serving as WTAM’s associate provost, Dr. Lowery-Hart was part of a community study on educational attainment in the Amarillo community. The data suggested that the community would be at-risk if the educational path for the majority of students did not fundamentally change. The institution that would be most critical in changing that trajectory was Amarillo College, the area’s community college. With that in mind, Dr. Lowery-Hart applied for the position of Amarillo’ College’s vice president for academic when the position came open. He wanted to make this move because he understood that the college was going to be the epicenter in changing the community’s economic future. Dr. Lowery-Hart considers himself an academic at heart so he looks at issues from a faculty perspective. When he came to Amarillo College, he initially looked at the institutional success rates, which were low. Wanting to understand what was happening in the classroom, Dr. Lowery-Hart assumed what the answers behind why students were failing so profoundly centered on academics. While that was partially true, students also told him that the biggest barriers to their academic success had nothing to do with what was going on in the classroom; instead, the biggest barriers were child care, health care, transportation, housing, food, utility payments, legal services and mental health support. That understanding of the students’ situation changed Dr. Lowery-Hart as a person as well as a professional. He realized that the college’s infrastructure and support services needed to change dramatically in order to prepare students for workforce demands as well as transferring to universities. Changing Perceptions about Students Hearing students’ stories highlighted the fact that higher education is often built around a history that doesn’t necessarily reflect the reality of students that are in the community and on campuses. Institutions often are committed to perpetuating the wrong thinking that they need to serve the students that used attend instead of the student that is here now. Conversations with students also taught Dr. Lowery-Hart that higher education administrators and faculty need to fall in love with the current students, instead of the students that the institution wishes it has or used to have. This means listening to, acknowledging and seeing students for who they are, and using their voices to shape the institution’s work. Higher education needs to provide a familial context in order to learn profoundly – students don’t care how much faculty and administrators know until they know how much they care. To that end, Amarillo College held a professional development training as part of a poverty certification. Administrators, faculty and staff learned that while students who have nuclear family are enrolled in some form or fashion, generational poverty has changed how many students see themselves, their world and their own advocacy. Dr. Lowery-Hart said that most institutions are set up to support people like those already in higher education instead of supporting students who come from poverty. Generational poverty teaches passivity and that hard work isn’t rewarded because people who live in poverty have done the hard work without seeing it pay off. This realization caused Amarillo College to rethink its bureaucracy, messaging and support systems. It also caused the institution to embrace the concept of love, with the idea that love through education can help someone emerge from generational poverty. Because of this work, Amarillo College used its student enrollment data created a composite student, which they have named Maria. Maria is 27 years old, a Hispanic female who has real financial need. She is working two part-time jobs and raising a child while going to college. This type of student is common in most community colleges and at many universities. Dr. Lowery-Hart noted that the institution needs to design itself around “Maria’s” needs while at the same time being cognizant of keeping male students on a successful pathway. Improving Student Services Amarillo College already had numerous innovative student services in place before the pandemic. Dr. Lowery-Hart said that life barriers need to be removed to help students embrace the learning. Providing systems of support have fundamentally altered students’ outcomes. Some of these structures are unique. For example, Dr. Lowery-Hart has hired four social workers to bring robust community support to the college and to case-manage students through their classes and into success while ensuring they have the resources they need to graduate. Amarillo College also expanded the number of available counselors because so many students grew up in generational poverty and are struggling with trauma that many cannot understand. Additionally, there is academic support, through required tutoring, coaching and mentoring. The system that Amarillo College put in place, which was instrumental in increasing the college’s completion rate from 19% five years ago to 52% currently, includes: Social workers, who are structurally connecting students to support; Required tutoring in classes to help students improve their learning; A mentor or coach, to help students connect with resources and navigate the bureaucracy ; and A counseling center to provide emotional support. Additionally, the poverty training also helped faculty understand their role on the frontline because they have the most robust relationship with these students. Because faculty serve as the glue to help the students get to the proper services when they need it, the college created an early alert system in the faculty’s grade book so they can alert appropriate support staff that they have a student who needs specific assistance. The training also helped faculty members change their paradigm. Faculty were seeing students who were not coming to class and/or sleeping in class as not being successful. The faculty had been internalizing these situation, thinking that they were not able to engage their students. What the poverty training helped highlight is that faculty cannot assume they automatically understand what the student’s behavior means. Instead, faculty need to ask. For example, students who were sleeping in class were working the night shift at the meat-packing plant in the community. Students who were late to class were delayed by unreliable public transit. This understanding freed faculty to see that they weren’t the center of student disengagement, but that they could be the center of supporting students in a more effective learning environment. By giving faculty resources and a few key pieces of information, the college has created an important support system for students. In the Aftermath of COVID The COVID pandemic highlighted the fact that many students don’t have technology resources, a danger which will disparately affect these students by moving everything online. Therefore, Amarillo College focuses on tech-supported learning, as opposed to online learning. Online learning creates fear for many students because they think they don’t have the skills or ability. Tech-support focuses on the learning instead of being online (although that is there).  Additionally, more counseling, tutoring and advising sessions are available through tech-supported learning, although the way these are accessed are different. Amarillo College also had a subset of students who did not have access to technology at home. Dr. Lowery-Hart believed it was important to keep one of the school’s largest computer labs open with every safety protocol imaginable so that these students could access it during the pandemic. The college also moved to the lab’s circle desk and, wearing a mask, Dr. Lowery-Hart pitched in personally by taking students’ temperatures and asking them all the protocol questions. He then connected students to a group of employees who could help students get online or help them access tutoring or advising. Most students didn’t know it was him doing this as his lower face, including his beard, were covered. Dr. Lowery-Hart stated that being on the frontlines at this time was important as the president of the institution. He also believed strongly that the college needed to keep those services available because otherwise students would fail or drop out, and the college would never get them back. He also noted that once students realized that the president was the person helping them in the computer lab, they had a stronger understanding of the institution’s commitment to them. Lessons from the Pandemic One of the biggest lessons involved the counseling center. Robust counseling services were available prior to COVID, but half of these appointments were cancelled. The college found that moving these appointments to a Google Meets environment resulted in fewer cancellations, while also being able to counsel students more profoundly. The same thing is happening with advising. Moving forward, Dr. Lowery-Hart believes that much of the advising and counseling services will be offered through an online platform because the college is seeing more students. The college also is seeing more need as well as more trauma, and is working with Heal the City, a free area clinic, in a partnership. That way, college counselors can connect students to a psychologist who can assist them until they can get more robust psychological intervention. Post-COVID, the college will try to use these new tools that have emerged during the pandemic to serve more students. The counseling and advising centers will remain in a remote environment moving forward because students are accessing these more freely and are being served more effectively. Changes in Academics In the breakneck transition to a remote learning environment online, students have given the college a lot of grace, but by the time the fall semester comes around, that grace period ends and the college needs to be experts at it. Faculty are really embracing professional development opportunities that are being offered and incentivized by the college in relation to doing a better job in creating a remote learning environment. When the college comes back in session in the fall term in whatever form, faculty will be extremely effective in whatever modality of learning is used. COVID has expatiated that transformation. The institution also is assessing which classes are best suited for a remote environment and which should be taught in a hybrid or face-to-face environment. These decisions now can be made using data instead of instructor- or student-comfort level. Three Recommendations for Higher Education Leaders Dr. Lowery-Hart suggested several takeaways for higher education leaders: Develop the composite of who your student is, not who you think she is. Make your typical student the center of your re-imagination of your institution in a post-COVID world. Use a secret shopper process. Dr. Lowery-Hart each year identifies a handful of students and pays them to be a secret shopper so they can report back on their experiences using school processes. These shoppers help him understand the student experience beyond typical survey data. Each year, the focus is different. In the past, these have included the onboarding process, the tutoring process, the learning experiences and the advising process. You have to understand what your students need on the front line and what your employees on the front line need from you. Bullet Points Community and local commuter colleges may be the linchpin in helping communities maintain economic viability in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Higher education leaders need to ask students about the barriers to learning they are facing, rather than relying solely on conjecture or past history. The institution’s administrators, faculty and staff need to fall in love with the students who are at the institution, instead of focusing on a different type of student who are not in attendance. A composite student that is based on enrollment data can help leaders, faculty and staff have a template of what students are facing and the assistance they need. Generational poverty is a major factor facing many students. Therefore, it is important for leaders, faculty and students to get a better understanding of what this means for students and how to develop meaningful services that will help these students succeed. Support systems can include social workers, counseling, tutoring and advising. These systems need to be built with student need and usage in mind. Faculty are the frontline staff members with students, and they need to have a strong understanding of generational poverty and what services are available so they can make appropriate referrals to support students. Generational poverty also may mean that students are intimidated by online learning. Therefore, tech-supported learning that provides additional assistance may be the best way to go. Some students may not have access to technology to be able to do online learning. Therefore, the college needs to look for innovative ways to make these technology available so that students can succeed. The pandemic has increased the need for many services. In addition, many students are facing increased trauma. Consider forming a partnership with a community organization in order to provide necessary resources to support students. Higher education needs to continue to improve its online course offerings through professional development. In the wake of the pandemic, it’s important for institutions to use data to determine which courses are best taught online, which need to be hybrid and which work best as face-to-face courses. Institutional leaders need to be the face of the institution in times of crisis. By interacting regularly with students, leaders can help underscore how much the institution cares about each student’s issues and success. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Amarillo College Russell Lowery-Hart Guests Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/russellloweryhart/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/loweryhart?lang=en 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 #BlackLivesMatter #HigherEducation

Many higher education institutions are struggling with survival. While many leaders are beginning to consider closing the institution, there are other options available. Some of the most commonly talked about are mergers and acquisitions. However, forming or becoming part of a consortiums can offer important support that can help an institution survive and even thrive. One example of a consortium is TCS Education System, a non-profit system of higher education institutions. TCS stands for The Community Solution in higher education. Dr. Michael Horowitz, president of the TCS Education System, is the guest on today’s podcast. TCS’s Background When Dr. Michael Horowitz founded TCS, he was president of The Chicago School of Professional Psychology. Near the start of his tenure, the institution had about 200 students and was one enrollment cycle from closing. Through concentrated effort, the institution then grew to 2,000 students. Dr. Horowitz realized during this growth process that the institution needed to allocate the responsibility for certain resources—the business side of higher education--to a bigger and broader community. The areas he wanted to delegate were that didn’t directly affect students, teaching or learning. He also believed that the lives of faculty and students would be enriched through creating a bigger community of like-minded institutions. That led to the creation of TCS. After doing initial research, Dr. Horowitz and some colleagues created a formal system in 2009 that had a common commitment to student success and community impact. This system was designed to support small- and medium-sized colleges, and enabled them to work together to do more of the work that didn’t involve students in order to lower costs, create better systems and alleviate pressure on people. This freed up energy and creativity for the colleges that they could focus on teaching and learning. Looking at his own institution’s strengths (psychology and behavioral science), Dr. Horowitz tried to invite institutions that offered logical and complimentary fields—business, health care, medicine, nursing and law. By 2010, two institutions – Pacific Oaks College and Children’s School and Santa Barbara and Ventura Colleges of Law – joined this new system. Today, TCS has six colleges involved and is in discussions with at least one college at any specific time about joining. Services Provided In today’s turbulent environment, higher education leaders should step back and think through every business element that isn’t directly tied to teaching and learning. That’s where organizations like TCS can help – by providing expertise in areas such as accounting, payments, student finance, and the back office of enrollment – things that do not directly involve teaching and academics. TCS offers these types of services. For example, in a regular college, admissions teams spend an inordinate amount of time on computers processing applications. TCS handles that part of the work so that the admissions team can spend more of its time interacting directly with prospective students. Additionally, TCS handles negotiations for the major health care insurance contracts and retirement plans. The nonprofit has a marketing team whose only clients are the system’s six colleges in the system as well as a technology team to handle technology systems on campuses. A TCS team also facilitates the logistics for global engagement and partnerships. This thoughtful delegation allows institutional leaders and faculty to focus on student success as well as those things that shouldn’t be centralized, such as fundraising and community relations. Therefore, a consortium such as TCS allows institutional leaders to spend their limited time focusing on these important issues instead of the details of a healthcare plan. Dr. Horowitz also noted that there are other existing models of shared services in other industries that higher education can learn from. For example, Zingerman’s Deli offers a model that includes a number of food companies as well as a consulting arm, Zing Train. The Secret Sauce: Community TCS’s model is unique in that institutions are part of a formally governed system. Dr. Horowitz describes the “secret sauce” as the creation of community and goodwill that is not a top-down mandate. For example, there is an academic assembly in which faculty from participating institutions come together to share best practices. They talk about how to share curriculum and courses as well as how to share dual degrees. No one tells them they have to do this; instead, they feed off the excitement of being with colleagues from across the country. Additionally, TCS brings consortium institutions’ board members together annually, whether at a TCS-sponsored event or another conference. This gives board members from different institutions a chance to come together to discuss what is working and how they are handling different issues in relation to finance and innovation while also creating a level of community. This community also offers support beyond these meetings. For example, one member institution has board members from other institutions providing valuable input on issues related to starting a new medical school. A Different Model TCS is not the type of vendor that is trying to create a profit through shared services. In fact, TCS’s assets remain at and belong to the college and the institution has seen its financial strength grow by being part of TCS. When the TCS IT or marketing team works with a college, the team feels very much part of that college’s mission. Dr. Horowitz also noted that TCS partner instutions will never have a key position go down – if one college in the consortium loses a leader, other colleges offer to share leaders to cover the gap until a new person is hired. This creates a family, team and community environment that feels unprecedented 10 years after its founding. Dr. Horowitz supports consortia arrangements, because higher education is lacking in the spirit of this type of cooperation. He sees higher education as a team spirit. Consortiums tend to get limited because leaders are taking energy to make a choice, such as sharing the parking lot, library or purchasing function. However, the real benefits are seen when institutions opt in to a model in which they are sharing the whole decision-making process, while in tandem with each college has its own operating board. Differentiating Responsibilities The college’s board is responsible for and critical to the operation of each institution. The role of the system’s board is to maintain the overall health, resources and alignment of the entire system. These are two separate and distinct functions and roles. The system’s board never takes up business that is the college’s board. Instead, TCS’s role is to facilitate the mission and strategic plan for each college. For example, one college wanted to purchase its campus. The role of the system in this situation is to assist and provide the financial acumen to do that. Then its responsibility extends to getting the best arrangement at the lowest terms for the college. However, the system board is not responsible for deciding whether the institution should take this action. A Neglected Model Many institutions seem to want to close or merge rather than join a system such as TCS’s. Dr. Horowitz believes that many institutions have a misplaced idea that their autonomy and identity are based on doing all activities (including the ones that TCS offers). They also may suffer from embarrassment about mistakes they’ve made and why they might be in dire-straights. Once boards get comfortable after joining, they see that they can look at what’s happening in other colleges within the system and learn from best practices. That creates a higher level of performance for boards and leadership. Dr. Horowitz also points to the proof of the model’s power. TCS’s members have grown academically in terms of their accreditation review and their scope and impact. Today they all have more employees—faculty and student-facing employees as opposed to accountants--as compared to when they joined the system. These institutions also have better facilities and technology and are developing new programs, modalities and outreach opportunities. Dr. Horowitz doesn’t believe that TCS should be the only non-profit model of this sort in higher education. A number of institutions, especially those that are religious institutions that have a common faith or order, could easily form this type of system. In the Wake of the Pandemic This type of model probably will come to the forefront in the post-coronavirus era since many institutions will find that they are not able to afford the backend functions. Institutions can share these types of services through working together. The sense of community also pays off in other ways in relation to surviving the pandemic. TCS has convened its member presidents as a group to discuss the best response to COVID. They also looked at policies and plans in relation to re-opening campuses. The TCS internal group also is discussing the best way to spend federal funding offered in the wake of the pandemic. Part of these funds will go to students while part will be spent institutionally. Three Recommendations for Higher Education Leaders Dr. Horowitz suggested three takeaways for higher education leaders: Adaptability is the most important thing and this crisis is amplifying that. The most effect leaders in higher education have accepted that change is a constant. Be willing to break conventional wisdom and come up with your own model and response. Leaders need to place more attention on financial health. This extends beyond balancing of the budget. Leaders need to look at institutional aspirations for distance education, new programs and additional student services to determine whether the institution has the capacity to do it. If not, leaders should be looking at other models for operating, such as an acquisition, merger or consortium. Keep your core mission in mind at all times. Are your students successful in terms of retention, graduation, and are they prepared for their future careers? Do they look back and say that they are happy that they spent time pursuing higher education? Bullet Points Many struggling higher education institutions are considering closing, mergers or acquisitions. However, joining a consortia can provide life-saving support both financially and programmatically. Institutions should consider creating or joining a consortium that has institutions with similar sizes, missions or approaches. Consortia can provide support in business functions (accounting and contracts), human resources functions (health insurance and retirement plans), admissions (inputting applications), marketing, technology, and international partnerships. Most institutions want to remain independent and aren’t used to collaborating. However, a consortia provides an opportunity to work as a team in a collaborative environment. Consortia remove some of the more mundane tasks from leaders’ agendas so they have time to focus on students, faculty, teaching, learning, fundraising and other more critical responsibilities. Consortia also can provide a sense of community where board members, leaders and faculty members can interact with other members to learn about what is happening across the system, identify best practices, and find additional ways to work together and support each other. The system’s board and the college’s board are responsible for different areas. The system would look at feasibility, capacity and contractual issues whereas the college’s board would be responsible for making the campus-level decision. This approach makes sense in terms of dealing with the financial challenges of the pandemic. It also gives leaders a forum to share ideas for re-opening and moving forward in the “new normal.” Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: TCS Education System Guests Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drmichaelhorowitz/   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 #HigherEd #University    

The coronavirus pandemic has accelerated the changes already facing higher education.  These issues include financial, structural and enrollment. Mike Goldstein, one of the top higher education attorneys in the country, offers his insights on how higher education leaders can navigating these challenges. Fall-out from Remote Learning Goldstein sees many implications for higher education that started during the pandemic. One long-term implication involves the necessity to move from some form of face-to-face instruction to remote learning because of the pandemic. He felt it was important to distinguish between online learning and remote learning. Zoom uses the Internet but it is not online learning. What Zoom does is take face-to-face synchronous interaction and moves it to remote synchronous interaction. This is essentially the same thing and this approach works in a lot of settings. In comparison, he defines online learning as involving more advanced platforms and different kinds of platforms. This change is important in relation to student enrollment and retention. Higher education leaders are concerned that enrollments will drop between 20-40 percent in September; the latter would be cataclysmic for most institutions. Goldstein believes online learning is part of the problem because students have been catapulted from sitting in class to sitting in front of a screen with a lot of other distractions. Their reaction is, “That’s not what I expected.” Institutions need to find ways around those perceptions in a way that can keep students engaged and enrolled, while also getting past this immediate emergency. For example, the University of Cambridge just announced that they are discontinuing their large live lectures, which are going to instead be offered online. However, their small classes – known as tutorials, which have characterized Cambridge for the past 300 years – will continue face-to-face but with social distancing. That is the ultimate hybrid system because it’s the tutorial that is the hallmark of the nature of a Cambridge or Oxford education. These institutions are preserving that hallmark, but turning to technology to bring the easiest thing to present online – a face on a screen. Goldstein is a trustee of two low-residency institutions. In these, small tutorial groups work independently either electronically or personally, and then gather together for short periods of time during the year. These sessions also can switch to an online environment very easily. Enrollment has gone up in these institutions since the pandemic hit. Financial Changes Goldstein believes the short-term problem that institutions are facing involves weathering this storm and enabling themselves to make necessary changes and have the resources to do that. The bulk of institutions are going to have to figure out how to deal with the financial hurdles association with this situation. Institutions that are already near the margin – which includes a significant portion of smaller private colleges—are in particularly difficult straits. If a small college loses 10 percent of its enrollment, its ability to operate is going to be severely damaged. A Possible Remedy Many are talking about the reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Act; however, this is not available to institutions of higher education in the United States, even though it’s available to every other business. The reason for that is the Higher Education Act, which states that institutions that declare bankruptcy immediately lose access to federal student loans and grants, and that loss is permanent. Basically this serves as a death penalty. Many now recognize that businesses that go through Chapter 11 reorganizations often come out the other side stronger than when they started. This organization involves restructuring overhanging debt and contracts, while also making their business model more efficient. This is a standard way that businesses work in the United States. Higher education is a business, even if it is a non-profit. One thing that is promising is that the urgency created by COVID-19 is now forcing policymakers in the Congress and U.S. Department to seriously consider taking steps to change this situation. This would allow higher education institutions to use Chapter 11 reorganization to climb out of the hole that the pandemic made deeper. Short-term Decisions Goldstein believes the short term decision-making process for higher education institutions involves several characteristics. The first complex decision is whether to reopen or stay online. California State will remain online for the fall semester, while others will reopen with social distancing. For a commuter campus, it’s easier to hold class on campus, but transportation becomes an issue if students have to rely on public transit. The residential institutions that have dormitories with occupancy of 2-3 students in a room or 3-5 students to an apartment will also face difficult economic challenges if they to drop that occupancy to one student to a room or two students to an apartment. However, Goldstein feels the real challenge that leaders face is how to structure the institution so that people will want to come back and feel it’s safe to return to campus. That is the hard question. This comes down safety and priorities. The college experience, which includes the social environment and social interaction, goes beyond the classroom. Adult learners will be less affected and more likely to adapt to an online environment. However, traditional college-age students have different expectations of college and are interested in the campus experience. Moving forward in the wake of this pandemic, leaders may find it more challenging to appeal to these students. In fact, some students and their families are bringing lawsuits that suggest the quality of education has diminished in the post-pandemic higher education environment. They also argue that they are paying for the college experience in its totality and that’s not what they are getting. They believe that they shouldn’t be paying high tuition (or any tuition, in some cases) if they are going to be forced to experience less. While there is legal protection for institutions moving to online education in the spring, the issue becomes hazier in the fall. Goldstein expects legal challenges if institutions decide to charge exactly the same amount if students aren’t going to be living on campus and won’t have the same campus experience. However, he is not sure if this argument will stand since there are many institutions that charge the same price for online and on-campus education. Some would suggest that the educational program between these two is comparable. The institutions also will argue that students are paying per-credit hour (the cost of classes and the credential being earned). However, students and families may note that while the online and on-campus educational program may be comparable, campus life factored into their enrollment decision. He is not sure how these cases will evolve. The relationships that a student builds while earning their degree also is part of the deal, and this also may be an issue.  The social interactions, connections, decisions and maturation that happen in college are important. Institutions need to figure out how to create those connections without the same level of physical interactions. The Costs for these Changes Goldstein believes there will be a wholesale change in how higher education is done. For a lot of institutions, affordability will be a grave issue. Institutions are going to have to look at alternative ways of financing their operations. They may be dipping into their reserves or endowments. Institutions will be declaring financial exigency and changing their faculty financial structures. There also will need to be more governmental support of both private and public higher education because in almost every case, tuition is the primary budgetary source for the institution at this point. States and the federal government will need to step up to prevent a wholesale loss of educational opportunity. Policymakers will also have to reckon with past decisions in relation to higher education. The nation has made a paradigm shift away from education’s role as supporting the public good. While the GI Bill and Student Aid programs focused on grants and low-cost loans increased higher education’s access and availability initially, policy decisions made over the years migrated to expensive student loans with the idea that the student would pay it off over his or her lifetime. As higher education became more expensive, these loans became more burdensome. However, if we are going to sustain the availability of higher education, we’re going to have to put more money in. Simply subsidizing student tuition will not be sufficient due to the changes in enrollment and costs, which are going to imperil the institution’s ability to survive. Before the current crisis, there were estimates that between 20-40 percent of private institutions would not be around a decade now. Goldstein thinks the high end initially was excessively pessimistic. Now, the risk and the likelihood of failure of private higher education is high. He foresees a number of institutions merging or creating partnerships or affiliations with other institutions, including public and private institutions. Public universities have started absorbing private institutions that can’t sustain themselves. He also foresees belt tightening in public universities. Some smaller campuses may close, hopefully for only the short term. This decisions is difficult due to student access. Additionally, these institutions are often the economic engines for their communities. If they go away, the impact on their community could be very significant. The Silver Lining One of the ironies of higher education is the student aid system. Higher education has been counter cyclical in that if people can’t find work, they’re more likely to go back to school to improve their education.   If students go back to school and get a student loan, that loan also will include the cost of living. Students can pay for rent, food, car loans and their electric bill, although they will still have debt. The question is whether the government will do something to make this loan less burdensome. The people who are most likely to go back to school are adult learners, which may be the silver lining of this pandemic. These adult learners also will often want quality online education instead of the campus experience. That may help institutions survive the issues brought on by this pandemic. Three Recommendations for Higher Education Leaders Goldstein suggested several takeaways for higher education leaders: Don’t give up. Be imaginative. Work collaboratively across the institution to make it both safe and attractive. Look at every possible option educationally and financially. Think the unthinkable, other than closing. Think of the opportunities to keep the institution alive, whether through restructuring, merger, transition to different program, using a different faculty model or reaching out to a different type of student.   Bullet Points Many students are not enamored with how online education is being offered in the wake of the pandemic. Identify new models online learning to use in your favor. For example, Cambridge is moving its large lectures online, but keeping its signature smaller groups face-to-face and socially distant. Policymakers are beginning to consider opening the Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization to higher education. This would enable some institutions to survive their current financial situations. There are many short-term decisions that need to be made. At the top of the list is whether to remain online or to bring students back to campus. While this is a complex decision, the real issue is whether students want to come back to campus and whether they feel safe returning. Adult learners are more interested in the online environment. This may prove a blessing since many of these individuals may enroll in order to retool their careers after being laid off in the recession. Some families of traditional experience are starting to bring lawsuits if they are charged the same tuition rates but don’t get the same college experience. Institutions need to consider how to create this experience in this new environment. Federal and state governments are going to need to provide more financial support for higher education institutions if they are to survive. Many institutions also are going to need to consider merging or creating partnerships or alliances to survive this situation. In some university systems, some smaller campuses may be closed. Hopefully this will be a short-term decision since these campuses provide access for students and serve as an economic driver for their community. Student loans may actually help students return to college in this current situation because they cover the student’s daily expenses. However, there is an issue of debt and repayment, which needs to be addressed by the federal government. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Department of Education: https://www.ed.gov/ Guests Social Media Links: Mike Goldstein Bio: https://www.cooley.com/people/mike-goldstein Mike Goldstein LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelbgoldstein/ Cooley LLP: https://www.cooley.com/ Cooley’s Higher Ed Newsletter: https://ed.cooley.com/2019/04/17/surprise-accreditation-and-innovation-neg-reg-reaches-consensus/ 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