Changing Higher Ed

The COVID psychological impact on Higher Ed institutions is the topic of this Changing Higher Ed Podcast with host, Dr. Drumm Mc Naughton and guest, Dr. Tom Marrs. Under discussion is crisis recovery for higher education institutions that will continue to remain challenging as the fallout from the pandemic, including increasing economic issues, continue to emerge. Dr. Tom Marrs, is a licensed psychologist and assistant director for client engagement at the Center for Executive Education at Texas A&M University's Mays Business School. A Rapidly Changing Stream of Challenges Higher education institutions are dealing with the psychological impact of COVID and the multiple challenges, many of which have never been faced before. During this pandemic, many faculty and employees are returning to work exhibiting signs similar to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Employees may have contracted the coronavirus and may be dealing with its implications; they also may have lost loved ones, friends and work colleagues. Additionally, the metaphorical higher education "ship" is trying to right itself in a world that has changed significantly. The challenge of crisis recovery for higher education institutions becomes how to adapt to this emerging new paradigm. The pandemic and the resulting economic issues are causing a pivot in many organizations' business model. This can lead to a purgatory where organizations have to figure out how much money to invest in changing infrastructure while not knowing how much of this will be moot once "business as usual" returns (if it ever does). This situation can result in organization leaders experiencing significant stress that can make decision-making difficult. Every day, solutions emerge for some COVID-related problems while new problems emerge. For example, there is now the reality of the vaccine on the horizon, but that brings up a quandary related to the large section of the population that doesn't want to get the vaccine because they don't trust it. There also are issues with distributions and logistics as well as timelines to be followed in administering the vaccine. Understanding and Coping with High Stress Events Many are describing the stress-induced issues in the general population as being PTSD. While PTSD is well-known as a buzzword, most individuals do not understand what it is, especially since the term is used frequently in social media and by news agencies. In the present circumstances, individuals are facing some element of struggle to function socially, interpersonally, developmentally, educationally, occupationally and physically. Many are lumping these experiences under the term PTSD as a way to give everyone a common language about what an individual is witnessing or experiencing. Many individuals use this term because it is known and there is a set of assumptions about what it means. People want to use this term to describe how severe their symptoms feel because these symptoms are stress-related and lead to a profound reaction. However, this applies a clinical pathology to something that is non-clinical and is instead better explained as a human reaction to a very stressful situation. One needs to look at the primary populations – the military and police – as examples of populations who experience PTSD. The current reaction by faculty and staff look very similar to that at this point. However, in the military, very few soldiers get PTSD given the number who experience severe trauma. That's because the military prepares soldiers for what battle will look like during boot camp and gives them the strategies and tools in order to deal with these stresses psychologically. We don't have that type of training with the general population so people are not prepared for the current situation and the resulting stresses. Extended Levels of Stress The real impact on people's mental and psychological health and mental well-being is yet to be seen because one of the key components to diagnosing someone with a stress disorder is cessation of the thing that is causing the stress. An accurate diagnosis cannot be made if the stressor is continuing. Society now has to deal with other emerging issues. While COVID may go away thanks to the vaccine, there is a new intense stressor on economic conditions. We haven't seen all of the impact of this situation economically and the health symptoms that will emerge because of it. This means our way of life is changing profoundly, which is going to lead to more stress. The first thing that needs to happen is for the dust to settle once the immediate risk for COVID begins to subside. People will have a natural tendency to try to return to homeostasis once the stress alleviates. When this happens, most people return to normal functioning within 3-6 months, but they don't feel that is possible when they are in the middle of severe stress events such as we're experiencing with COVID. Many people may be suffering from an adjustment disorder, which is a very high-functioning level of PTSD that comes from being exposed to a novel situation that is highly stressful and out of the ordinary. The situation overloads individuals psychologically and they start showing signs of PTSD. This is very similar to what is being seen during the pandemic. Managing the Psychological Impact on Higher Ed Employees and Faculty Returning to Campus The question becomes how to prepare these individuals to return to some sense of normalcy when they return to campus. That happens naturally as people regain their sea legs once they determine they can do things the way they used to or they find a new normal that will eventually feel safe. Most people will eventually find a new sense of security and safety in the new normal. However, there will be a group of people who will continue to struggle because they can't get overcome their adjustment disorder. This may emerge in older faculty and employees who are more set in their ways; for example, individuals may exhibit these symptoms because they can have difficulty pivoting to a virtual environment and to the new order of things. An Unequal Psychological Impact – Finances The COVID psychological impact on Higher Ed employees is exacerbated by the resulting economic impacts to staff who are in lower compensation brackets and may be taking a larger financial hit. It's important for higher education leaders to be aware of this because these impacts can cause individuals to develop a palpable fear reaction that can be seen in the workplace. This leads to behavioral issues that have to be dealt with in the workplace, especially because individuals are worried about losing their jobs in the present economic climate. Higher education leaders can make a difference through helping individuals deal with these stress and fear reactions. Higher education leaders should not pathologize behavior, especially when there already is a performance baseline. Personnel issues will continue, regardless of the pandemic. There will continue to be good and poor employees, based on the differences in performance. Leaders have a choice if issues have emerged. These issues can be treated as a sudden onset of performance issues or can be looked at as if the employee has PTSD and needs to be referred to the employee assistance program. Leaders also can consider that these behaviors may be signs of adjustment disorder or extreme stress over a long duration of time. Under these circumstances, leaders need to take a different approach that is focused on getting the best from the team. Therefore, it's important to cut employees a little slack and talk to them about what they need. Leaders also need to normalize the situation and become empathetic. Additionally, leaders need to be careful about the language they use in communicating to faculty and staff (even through emails). The language that is used can help employees to be okay with the situation and to feel the leader's empathy. Leadership Self-Care The psychological impact on higher ed employees means leadership must step up their game while managing their own stress and trauma. When people are under stress, they look to people in power and who they respect for direction. Therefore, it's important for leaders to take care of themselves—and set the example for others. Leaders also can get fixated on specific issues or topics so they are continually ruminating. Leaders need to understand that it is completely normal to have difficulty making decisions when under a lot of stress. They also need to be careful about not pathologizing the current situation for themselves through saying it is terrible and awful, or that they have PTSD because the body will respond to what the individual thinks. The human body is very adaptive based on stress levels. By shutting down, the body helps lower the stress levels. This can show up as depression, where individuals don't want to go out and do things that previously were pleasurable, such as attending social situations. Sleeping patterns can change, which can range from getting no sleep to always sleeping, and even having nightmares. Three Recommendations for Higher Education Leaders and Boards Marrs suggested several takeaways for higher education leaders: Leaders need to help people to not pathologize their situation through being careful about the language they use. During times of stress, change, flux and uncertainty, we should increase the flow of information instead of decreasing it. Stay in touch and keep communicating, be positive and use intentional language to help people feel okay and normal. Leaders should not make decisions based on assumptions that things will go back to normal or the world is ending. Instead, take the approach that this is a severe but temporary condition. While terrible and life-altering, this situation is temporary. Don't overlook opportunities to temporarily increase support services for employees in order to get the most return for investment. This could be increasing funding for programs that provide financial assistance for employees, creating more sessions at employee assistance program or increasing daycare services on campus. Bullet Points The pandemic's psychological impact on Higher Ed institutions has created a ripple effect of both solutions and emerging problems that have resulted in prolonged high stress levels among individuals. Some organizations are in purgatory as leaders have to figure out how much money to invest in changing infrastructure while not knowing how much of this will be moot once "business as usual" returns. This can result in organizational leaders experiencing significant stress that can make decision-making difficult. While PTSD is well-known as a buzzword, most individuals do not understand what it is. It can be triggered by sudden traumatic events such as waking up during surgery or anaphylactic shock. However, in general these events do not include a life-threatening illness or debilitating medical condition such as COVID. The real impact on people's mental and psychological health and mental well-being will not emerge until cessation of the thing that is causing the stress, which in this case is the pandemic. Many individuals may be experiencing an adjustment disorder, which overloads individuals psychologically and leads to signs of PTSD. While most will recover from this disorder once the stress drops, many older faculty and employees may struggle with it post-COVID because they have difficulty pivoting to a new environment. The deteriorating economic conditions is emerging as a new stressor. This may have a profound and continued effect on employees. Staff who are in lower compensation brackets may be taking a larger financial hit due to the current economic situation. Higher education leaders need to be aware of these situations. Individuals may develop a palpable fear reaction that can be seen in the workplace. This leads to behavioral issues that have to be dealt with in the workplace, especially because individuals are worried about losing their jobs in the present economic climate. Higher education leaders should not pathologize behavior, especially when there already is a performance baseline related to that employee. If issues emerge, they can be treated as a sudden onset of performance issues, a case of PTSD where the employee needs to be referred to the employee assistance program, or signs of adjustment disorder or extreme stress that developed over the pandemic's long duration of time. Leaders need to cut employees a little slack and talk to them about what they need. Leaders also need to normalize the situation and become empathetic, especially in their spoken and written communication. Leaders also need to take care of themselves, which sets the example for others. This includes understanding that it is completely normal to have difficulty making decisions when under duress and through not pathologizing the current situation because the body will respond to what the individual thinks. The human body is very adaptive based on stress levels. By shutting down, it helps lower the stress levels. This can show up as depression and changes in sleeping patterns. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Texas A&M University's Center for Executive Development Tom Marrs, PhD Guests Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-marrs-42b30a31/ The Change Leader's Social Media Links: Website: https://thechangeleader.com Website: https://changinghighered.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com Keywords: #crisesrecovery #higheredemployees #university #highereducation #educatio

Crisis recovery for higher education institutions remains at the top of the to-do list entering 2021. The coronavirus pandemic continues to change the nation's higher education landscape, which includes 1700 private non-profit colleges. This podcast will feature Barbara Mistick, the president of National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. Higher Ed's Crisis Recovery Continues The pandemic has been very personal and many individuals believe that they are in it alone. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports the number of jobs across the higher education sector that have been lost is approximately 500,000, and that about 150,000 of those jobs will not come back after the pandemic. Therefore, this is a significant period of change and adjustment across higher education. Many of these individuals who are affected are dealing with a significant amount of isolation. Higher education didn't have much warning that the pandemic was coming. When the pandemic first started to emerge, the primary concern was how to bring students who were participating in study-abroad programs home. There wasn't a sense that the pandemic was going to be a permanent or semi-permanent situation; instead, the general feeling was that it was going to last only a short period of time. This crisis recovery in higher education has continued for a long period of time, which is difficult. These crisis situations tap into leaders' training and extraordinary good sense in being able to look after a community. Everyone has had to respond differently, depending on their sector and community. People are being asked to rally their energy and do the work for a sustained period of time, which they can do only if there is an inspirational leader who is providing guidance. There is a point where the fatigue factor weighs in, which is starting to happen. Pandemics can last for several years as nations see hot spots continually popping up and higher infection rates emerge in certain places. However, because there also is the prospect of the vaccine on the horizon, people see an end point. BUT …. it hasn't arrived yet, and this leaves leaders having to navigate a crisis situation for an extended period of time. In the fall, faculty were already burned out. They already had faced swapping out courses, moving rapidly back to online education and rapidly changing plans for the semester. This led to increased stress, which ultimately can result in burnout. This uncertainty leaves people looking to the senior leadership team for a response. Higher education leaders' optimistic nature also may have worked against them, since this approach suggested that the chaos from the pandemic would end quickly. The end isn't in sight so everyone across the institution has felt a level of uncertainty. Lack of Political Leadership This situation was compounded by the lack of a national political response, which forced each state to respond on their own, resulting in each state identifying different actions and behaviors based on what was happening in that state. Higher education was challenged because of the number of residential college and institutions that have a student body that comes from others states and nations. This made the question of quarantining much more complicated. While faculty and staff were frustrated with higher education leadership during the pandemic, the college or university president often was frustrated with the political leadership, which made decisions that affected institutions without including higher education leaders in those discussions. Pandemic-Induced Whiplash With ever-changing state guidance and ever-evolving issues related to the pandemic, many institutions had to change from in-person to hybrid instruction to online learning within a semester. This proved very challenging for faculty and students because they wanted some level of certainty. This felt like whiplash for many higher education stakeholders. Some institutions did a good job of adapting to the changing environment due to the pandemic. At the global level, institutions were very flexible—which is not a term commonly associated with higher education. Institutions, to their credit, also put students first by focusing on student safety. This included bringing students back from international trips as well as back to campus, and making changes to academic calendars. Institutions also focused on preparations and change management. Some institutions planned their efforts using four different scenarios through looking at delivery systems and calendaring options. No matter the method that leaders were looking at, the guide star remained consistent – ensuring that students were able to continue their education, that it would be a good experience, and that students would be safe. Support from Surprising Places Institutions also became much more mission-focused on the well-being of students. The pandemic offered the opportunity for Congress and higher education to find common ground on how to help students through a very difficult time. Seeing the institutions' commitment, Congress included higher education funding in the CARES Act, which provided money for students through colleges and universities. This seemingly reversed Congress's declining support for higher education, as evidenced through the decreased funding to the Pell Grant program. Faculty also came on board to make the changes to help institutions survive. Higher education often gets tied up on things that are perceived by the faculty to be not going well. However, when the chips were down, the best of the Academy emerged. Faculty focused on helping students to get through the semester while student life staff worked on different and creative ways to help students be successful. The pandemic also highlighted the gaps related to access to broadband and technology. Students in rural, urban and lower socio-economic areas had had difficulty accessing the internet while some tried to complete their assignments on their phones because they didn't have computers or tablets. To address this, Congress passed a package right before the end of 2020 that will help address these issues, which will help communities as well as higher education. Moving Forward Private higher education institutions are doing things that other institutions should be doing but affordability and accessibility are issues. There are vast areas of the nation that don't have access to education; policymakers and higher education leaders need to make sure that education becomes available in these areas. Students need to be able to go from high school to college and then earn their college degree. There are many markers to support this. The unemployment rate is much lower for college graduates when compared to high school graduates. In the pandemic, the employment rate is close to 9%; this rate is almost three-fold higher for those who have only a high school degree. Therefore, it's important to make college accessible. This will require looking at financial aid, which includes increasing the Pell Grant. This effort, which would have the potential to help public and private institutions, may see support from the incoming Biden Administration. The best thing is recognizing diversity in the higher education ecosystem. Maintaining both public and private institutions is critical because students have different learning styles; some do better at smaller institutions while others are prepared to attend larger institutions. Many individuals also go between the public and private sector for their undergraduate and graduate degrees. Private institutions have their place in educating society – they enroll about 20% of all students in the nation, but award 30% of the degrees. There's an effectiveness ratio that is higher at private institutions as compared to public institutions. Preparing the Workforce The pandemic has exacerbated the haves and have-nots in our nation. Many are unemployed while others are still employed and safely working from their homes. After the pandemic ends, states will need people who are educated and ready to step into the workforce. States have various educational attainment goals based on the industries in each state. Most states have set a goal for a certain level of college attainment, but the number of students who have attained that are much lower than the percentage that the state needs. States are looking at the needs of the workforce, the level of skills and training that are required, and how many people can meet those skills requirements. If a state can't maintain that, the state can't be competitive in trying to recruit new employers and industries. Moving Forward In order to recover from the pandemic, higher education is going to need to pull together. They need to turn out graduates who are prepared for the workforce. One concern during the pandemic is the lower number of low-income students who are applying to college. This is problematic across the ecosystem since it will impact institutions for a period of time. Congress's financial support is not even close to the needs of the sector. The recently-passed stimulus allocates $23 billion to higher education; however, this is only 15-16% of what higher education needed. There also are new COVID testing requirements on campus as well as efforts to increase social distancing. Still, students want to be back on campus and in classrooms, which leads to significant tension. Therefore, it's important to find ways to support higher education during this pandemic so when this period is over, these institutions can be stronger. Three Recommendations for Higher Education Leaders and Boards Mistick suggested several takeaways for higher education leaders: Given the times that we're in, it's important to figure out how to be resilient. Additionally, institutions can bounce forward. There are silver linings in the pandemic, including Congress's increased support, so we need to do a good job of advocating for this sector. Take a look at what students want from their college experience. Many want the residential option because this is the growing-up aspect of going to college. Institutions understand they are part of the community and are trying to provide support during the pandemic. Bullet Points This is a significant transition period for higher education. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports the number of jobs across the higher education sector that have been lost is approximately 500,000. The bureau projects that about 150,000 of those jobs will not come back after the pandemic. The extent of the pandemic was not expected. This has tested leaders' skills and the resilience of the faculty, staff and students. The lack of a national political response forced each state to respond. This resulted in each state identifying different actions and behaviors based on what happened in that state. Higher education then faced additional challenges, including a number of residential college and institutions that have a student body that comes from others states and nations. This made the question of quarantining much more complicated. Many colleges and universities faced institutional whiplash as they had to move courses online, move students back home and change semesters. However, faculty and staff proved remarkably adaptable—and opted to put students' needs first in the process. This resulted in numerous scenario planning exercises. The pandemic offered the opportunity for Congress and higher education to find common ground on how to help students get through a very difficult time in the nation's history. Seeing this commitment, Congress included higher education in the CARES Act, which provided money for students through higher education institutions. Maintaining both public and private institutions is critical because students have different learning styles; some do better at smaller institutions while others are prepared to attend larger institutions. Private institutions have an important place in this ecosystem. The pandemic has exacerbated the haves (those who are employed) and have-nots (the unemployed) in our nation. After the pandemic ends, states will need people who are educated and ready to step into the workforce. Increased Congressional funding is needed to support higher education. There is a strong possibility that the incoming Biden Administration will support increasing the Pell Grant program. Other funding is needed as well to recover from the pandemic. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities Guests Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/barbarakmistick/ Twitter: @BarbaraMistick The Change Leader's Social Media Links: Website: https://changinghighered.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com Keywords: #university #highereducation #education

Higher education change management was critical in 2020 as college and university leaders dealt with crises brought on by COVID, and will remain so for 2021. This podcast features Dr. Drumm McNaughton and Deb Maue, and looks back at 2020 and predicts what 2021 has in store for higher ed. Overcoming 2020's Challenges through Change Management The year 2020 was completely unpredictable with crises such as the pandemic emerging seemingly overnight. The nation and higher education have not recovered from what has happened—and it will be a long time before that recovery happens. However, significant good also came out of this year. For example, many people—such as Dr. Russell Lowery-Hart, the president of Amarillo College—stepped up in showing what it means to be a servant leader. This meant getting out on the frontlines, helping to test individuals for COVID, using a mask, demonstrating behaviors to protect everyone, and being very present for the students. These leaders also embraced transparency and strategic communications. Institutions also were able to turn on a dime as the pandemic emerged. Faculty at many colleges and universities converted their entire course load to online over a span of only a few weeks. It was incredible to see the speed that people willingly adapted and how institutions worked to get ready for people to return to campus. The pandemic also forced institutions to really figure out what their mission is—educating students. Dr. Billy Hawkins, the president of Talladega College, checked in regularly with students. This was noticed by both students and parents. Dr. Hawkins continues to meet monthly with student leaders to find out what is going on. These kinds of communications make the college experience so important for students. Academic prioritization also came to the forefront. A great template for this process was led by Dr. Lori Varlotta when she was at Hiram College. They cut a number of programs that were not benefitting the students or the university. What made this effort unique is that Dr. Varlotta raised funds to provide a salary and benefits for a full year for faculty who were in programs that were terminated. This humane approach offers guidance for other institutions as they move forward in prioritizing academic programs in the wake of the pandemic and economic fall-out. Student needs also increased and many institutions stepped up to provide support. Amarillo College again was in the spotlight as it put in new counseling services for students and doing campus visits online. Additionally, some institutions raised and earmarked financial support to help students who were struggling financially. Employee needs also increased. Dr. Tom Marrs of Texas A&M University pointed out how employees are burning out due to the prolonged stress. Many employees have contracted COVID and also seen loved ones and friends struggle with it—and in some cases lose their lives. With no relief in sight for most of the year, the continued stress took a toll, which also impacted people's ability to perform their jobs. That's where employee assistance programs and other efforts focused on supporting staff have become even more meaningful. The pandemic has helped underscore the importance of humanity and thinking of others before oneself. 2020's Student Enrollment Challenges The nation and the world have never experienced a pandemic like this for over a century. The death rate is huge—the daily death rate exceeds that of 9/11. This is fundamentally changing everything on our planet and in our nation. Enrollment was the top challenge facing higher education. College enrollment fell 2.5% from Fall 2019 to Fall 2020, which was almost twice the rate of decline. This represented almost 500,000 students. There were 327,000 fewer first-time students this fall, which was unprecedented. International student enrollment was down 43%. Public institutions experienced a 4% decline in enrollment while privates remained flat—and would have been lower if the graduate enrollments hadn't helped boost them back up. Community colleges' enrollment fell over 13%. Transfer students dropped. There were some bright lights, enrollment-wise. For-profits increased enrollments over 5% while graduates were up 3.6%. Community colleges were hit harder than expected. The challenge may be because prospective students often are from lower socioeconomic households who are looking for ways to get into a four-year institution. With the transfer rates between community colleges and four-year institutions being down, it could be possible that the drop in community college enrollments may be due to demographic and financial issues. Finances also are an issue. Moody's is predicting that the net tuition revenue will decline in about 75% of private schools and 60% of publics. That's a huge decline in revenues. Private universities have room and board as about 40% of their revenues, which makes it challenging. The publics faced major issues after the Great Recession when the cost didn't change, but the state government allocations dropped; the tuition burden fell more on students than on states. Student costs and tuition continue to go up. There currently is $1.7 trillion in student debt. This is unsustainable. However, some institutions are trying to find sustainable financial models. For example, Southern New Hampshire University just set a limit to their annual tuition at $10,000 a year for on-line and $15,000 for face-to-face. Many students are transferring to online education because costs are less. This will challenge institutions to find ways to compete. Black Lives Matter and Societal Issues Higher education had to deal with four major issues this year: COVID, Black Lives Matter, climate change and the economy. Each of these issues on their own would be huge; together, they created a perfect storm. This is forcing higher education—and everyone else—to wake up. Long-time higher education leader Dr. Gordon Gee said, "The pandemic has accelerated needed change in higher education by a decade or more." Black Lives Matter affected higher education in a major way through giving this type of activism a renewed sense of urgency. Protests emerged and grew, especially around the election. Both faculty and students were demanding more emphasis and attention be given to these types of issues, especially in regards to police. Some institutions said they were not going to have police on campus any more. Many buildings are being renamed and statutes are coming down. The superintendent of Virginia Military Institute resigned after racist accusations that were going on at that school. Higher Education Policy Changes Major issues happened with Title IX at the federal level. The Department of Education changed many of the rules on adjudication. Many of these decisions are going to be set aside under the Biden Administration. Distance education also was a significant change point. Higher education had to embrace distance education due to the pandemic. With the Negotiated Rulemaking from 2019 that just went into effect, there's a significant number of changes to the rules. In some cases, decisions--such as substantive interaction—are good; in this case, that's going to give rise to institutions similar to Western Governor's where they are doing competency-based education. It's not going to be the faculty member being the "sage on the stage" as much. Instead, there will be flipped classrooms and students being more in charge of their learning. Faculty interactions need to be good, but they only need to be once a week. Mergers and closures will continue. There was a big one this year as University of Arizona acquired Ashford University. This consolidation helps the University of Arizona expand its online programs. Additionally, some colleges face sudden closures based on financial crises. Last Year's Predictions One of last year's predictions involved the restructuring of the NCAA. The issues that are currently happening in regards to football exposed the NCAA's inner workings, especially in that some conferences have significantly more power than others. The NCAA will face changes. For example, the current case before the Supreme Court may lead to athlete compensation when their image is used. This will make the rich universities richer because students will want to play at colleges and universities where they can get more publicity. Another prediction from last year was that fundraising would change. This proved to be true, although because of COVID not in the way that was predicted. Fundraising also changed based on Black Lives Matter, especially in relation to naming buildings. There will be more due diligence. Mergers and closures were also predicted. While this also has happened, it hasn't happened at quite the rate that was predicted. A lot of that has to do with the CARES Act, which infused critical funds into higher education. Another prediction was that higher education would develop partnerships with businesses to increase opportunities for employees to gain credentials. This is now starting but it isn't at the degree originally predicted because of COVID. Looking Forward - Predictions for 2021 Enrollment declines will continue due to the enrollment cliff and the economic downturn caused by the pandemic. This also is part of the finances because of the COVID pandemic. Enrollments may be down the same amount or more than this year as foreshadowed by the decline in applications and FAFSA filings. Finances combined with the enrollment cliff are coming into play. The positive note is that graduate education and degree completion is moving up, which is balancing the loss of enrollment. Institutions need to be positioned properly and understand their mission and the programs that speak to their ideal student. Traditional students will be moving to online universities in larger numbers. Universities with strong online presences, such as Western Governor's University, University of Arizona, and Southern New Hampshire University are doing well—and will gobble up other programs or create alliances with MOOCs to keep costs down. This also is forcing many institutions to reconsider online education options for their traditional undergraduate students, who now are demanding this option. Non-traditional students also are making up more of the online enrollment; this group needs the flexibility that online education offers. With the Biden Administration taking office, education is going to come back to being in more in the forefront. President Trump and Secretary Betsy DeVos focused on choice; this will be curtailed in the new administration. The new Secretary of Education has a strong educational background from Connecticut, which should be very good for public institutions. If there is a new CARES Act, more money should be steered toward higher education. Free college is a great idea for individuals in certain income levels but this may not happen. The forgiveness of debt is far more realistic. The question becomes how much to forgive and what is fair. Also, having Dr. Jill Biden in the White House will be significant; she will have a big influence on education. Also, hopefully there will be less politicization of education in the future because people realize that education is the awakening of people's minds. Mergers and acquisitions will continue to come forward. While many institutions have survived the pandemic to this point, many have been bled deeply. These institutions may not be able to survive; in fact, 75% of CFOs in higher education are expressing concerns. The game changer for next year will be the vaccine. The go-go years leading up to the Great Recession are gone. Higher education needs to do a better job of partnering with businesses and employers about what they need. Additionally, the purpose of higher education is for the greater good and to develop life-long learners. So while higher education does need to prepare students for their first jobs, it also needs to instill the understanding of the need for life-long learning. Bullet Points 2020 was completely unpredictable. It will take a lengthy period of time before the nation and higher education return to normal. Higher education had to deal with four major issues this year: COVID, Black Lives Matter, climate change and the economy. Each of these issues on their own would be huge; together, they created a perfect storm. Servant leaders emerged on the frontlines, helping to test individuals for COVID, using a mask, demonstrating behaviors to protect everyone, being very present for the students, and embracing transparency and strategic communications. Institutions turned on a dime as the pandemic emerged. Faculty converted their entire course load to online over a span of only a few weeks while other employees worked to make campuses safe for people to return. The pandemic forced institutions to really focus on what their mission is—educating students. Academic prioritization also came to the forefront as institutions tried to determine how to move forward during the pandemic and the ensuing economic downturn. The challenge is to create a process that treats employees and faculty who are laid-off humanely. Student needs also increased and many institutions stepped up to provide support through counseling and finances. Employees also needed support so many institutions utilized counseling, employee assistance programs and financial support programs to provide assistance. Enrollment was the top challenge facing higher education with declines in most areas. The pandemic may cause up to 20% of higher institutions to close or be acquired due to financial issues. Finances also are an issue. Moody's is predicting that the net tuition revenue will decline in about 75% of private schools and 60% of publics. Student costs and tuition continue to go up, and there currently is $1.7 trillion in student debt. This is unsustainable. Institutions are starting to develop new models that are more affordable for students. Black Lives Matter brought activism back to campus. This movement forced institutions to look closely at policies, procedures and practices. It also forced institutions to do due diligence before accepting major gifts with naming rights. Title IX shifted to protect the accused, but this probably will shift again once the Biden Administration comes into office. A significant number of changes to the rules about distance education just went into effect due to the negotiated rulemaking process in 2019. In some cases, decisions--such as substantive interaction—are good. Mergers are starting to happen. Some allow institutions to increase their reach, such as into the distance education market. Some institutions are also facing a financial cliff that can lead to sudden closure. The NCAA will continue to face changes. For example, the current Supreme Court case may lead to athlete compensation when their image is used. While mergers and closures were predicted last year, the rate didn't match what was predicted. This has to do with the CARES Act, which provided a lifeline to struggling institutions. Another prediction was increased partnerships with businesses to increase opportunities for employees to gain credentials. This is now starting but it isn't at the degree because of COVID. Another prediction that was impacted by COVID was that higher education would develop partnerships with businesses to increase opportunities for employees to gain credentials. This is now starting to emerge. Predictions for 2021 Enrollment drops will continue, due to the combination of the enrollment cliff and students' and families' financial issues due to COVID. The positive note is that graduate education and degree completion is moving up, which helps to balance the loss of undergrad enrollment. Institutions need to be positioned properly and understand their mission and the programs that speak to their ideal student. Traditional students will be moving to online universities in larger numbers. Universities with strong online presences will continue to find ways to increase their market share. Other institutions will focus on creating or bringing more programs online. Education will move back to the forefront in the Biden Administration, especially having a Dr (Jill Biden) in the White House. Mergers and acquisitions will continue to emerge as many institutions have been financially bled to death during the pandemic. The COVID vaccine will be the game change. With that said, higher education needs to develop partnerships with businesses and also stress the concept of life-long learning in current students. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: National Student Clearinghouse Research Center Guests Social Media Links: Guest Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/deborahmaue/ The Change Leader's Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-change-leader/about/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com Keywords: #change management #governance #university #highereducation #education

Strategic board leadership is an emerging paradigm of university governance that can help higher education institutions navigate the multiple challenges. This podcast will feature Henry Stoever, president of AGB. Changing Paradigm of University Governance Typically, higher education boards are made up of individuals who are appointed as trustees because they have made significant philanthropic contributions, either to the institution or, in the case of public universities, to a political party candidate who then appoints the individual once elected. This approach is shifting as boards and institutional leadership teams begin to develop strategic partnerships. In the strategic board leadership approach, both individual trustees as well as the entire board need to learn how to work in strategic partnerships with higher education presidents and the institution's leadership team. This approach shifts the focus so that the board and its members become a built-in consulting team for the higher education president and cabinet. Additionally, the board no longer serves as a rubber stamp for the institution's proposed strategies and initiatives; instead, trustees need to proactively engage as thought partners. In the current environment, both student success and long-term institutional vitality are part of the crisis recovery for higher education institutions due to the pandemic and the resulting online and hybrid learning environments. These issues have increased the importance of strategic board leadership in order to create well-informed, more holistic strategies for both student success and long-term institutional vitality. Strategic thought partnerships between presidents and boards are becoming increasingly important as the pressure mounts on higher education presidents due to the pandemic. These individuals are on call 24/7 and can face unrest at any time. At the same time, the roles and expectations of board members have never been more challenging. By working together, presidents and boards can leverage their work for the institutional and student good. Trustee Recruitment Strategy This approach changes the way higher education governing boards are recruited. Previously, the primary driver for board member selection has been philanthropic (or political donation) capacity and relationships. In this new paradigm, philanthropy remains important, but selection of board members also must be based on other attributes, including their knowledge of key areas such as academic affairs, finance, marketing, strategy and risk, operations, legal, regulatory and international experience. Boards should be proactively identifying these necessary skills through using a skill set matrix. This matrix builds and informs the composition of the board through analyzing individual board members' skills and those that are needed on the board, and balancing them against individual trustees' terms. This approach ensures that appropriate trustees are seated who can oversee the creation of the strategy for the institution's future, instead of focusing on the institutional past. Evolution of Board Governance Over the past year, boards have been forced to change how they work. They have been required to meet much more frequently as institutions face a myriad of challenges due to the pandemic and social unrest. Boards also have had to lean in from an oversight perspective. This requires working in partnership with the higher education leadership, but not doing the work of the management team. Boards must listen to all key stakeholders, both on and off campus, while also listening to and working with the institution's leadership team to ask insightful and probing questions. Trustees are being asked to consider alternatives and also to analyze both the intended and unintended implications of potential strategic directions. The mnemonic NIFO (nose in – fingers out), or in other words, not micromanaging is critical in today's higher education governance environment. The board's role is to listen and ask the difficult questions of administration. Making suggestions in a limited way is acceptable (and encouraged), but there is a fine line between oversight and suggestions vs. micromanagement. Unfortunately, the difference between oversight and suggestions versus micromanagement is not cut and dry – it varies among boards and administrations. One of the ways that boards can be in touch with stakeholders is through establishing board committees that have both board members and key stakeholders on them. This enables board members to gain deeper insight into what is going on in the college or university, as well as giving institutional stakeholders a direct opportunity to interact directly with the board. Institutional members must be clear that this is NOT an invitation or process to short-circuit or make an "end run" around the university president. Issues that are brought to the committee must be "blessed" by the president. One way to get this right is to have the president as an ex-officio member of all committees of the board, and this does not preclude the committee from going into executive session if there is an issue that must be discussed without the president in attendance. Shared governance also needs to be embraced more by higher education boards. This approach, which involves sitting down and interacting with faculty, administration, staff and alumni, has strong implications in higher education. A lack of shared governance and/or ignoring key stakeholders' inputs can result in faculty or other groups sending a vote of no confidence about the administration or board, which sends a negative signal about the institution to the broader institutional community. Justice, diversity, equity and inclusion also have been highlighted in recent months. While much work has been done at the administrative level, most boards have not leveraged these values into strategic policies and decisions. From an optics perspective, student enrollment has become much more diverse; however, faculty and board composition have not evolved to align with their customers, and board must take a proactive approach to DEI, especially in relation to representation on the board. Strategic relationships require listening and hearing differences of opinion. Unrest is becoming more common, so boards and administration need to be prepared to establish justice and equity. The pandemic has extended the levels of inequity since the historically marginalized communities have been disproportionately weighted by the impacts of the pandemic. Boards also need to engage in building strategic crisis communications playbooks to be prepared when this societal unrest comes to campus. Continuing Fiduciary Duties Trustees still have a responsibility to ensure that students receive a quality education and the institution remains sustainable. Trustees' fiduciary duties of care, loyalty and obedience are the same for higher education boards as they are for corporate boards. Boards also need to be involved in the strategic planning for the institution, but should not micromanage. Instead, they should focus on ensuring that planning is done holistically and there are sufficient risk mitigation processes in place. More and more, people are looking for work-force education, but at the same time, institutions need to be creating lifelong learners and collaborative participants in society. However, boards and institutions often don't know who the institution's customers are. While the main focus needs to remain on students, there also is a difference between customer and consumer. In higher education, the person paying the bill—often the parent—is the customer. Students are the consumers since they absorb the content. Three Recommendations for Higher Education Boards and Leaders Stoever suggested several takeaways for higher education leaders: Strategic transformation is critically important because higher education won't be the same once the pandemic is over. Both the general population and the number of traditional students are declining so the demand for higher education may decline. Therefore, boards need to be thinking strategically about transformation. Justice, diversity, equity and inclusion need to be part of every conversation, board agenda and strategy. Board membership should not viewed as an honorific position. Instead, board members need to be actively engaged and contributing their talents and time to further the higher education institution's mission during this pandemic. Bullet Points Higher education boards frequently are made up of individuals who are appointed as trustees because they have made significant philanthropic contributions. However, this approach is shifting. The selection of board members should be based on individual attributes, including specific knowledge of key areas, such as finance, marketing, strategy, legal, regulatory and international experience. Boards are proactively identifying these necessary skills through using a skill set matrix. Both individual trustees as well as the entire board need to learn how to work in strategic partnerships with higher education presidents and the institution's leadership team. Christian institutions are moving from primarily preparing pastors and missionaries to preparing professionals. Strategic board leadership can create well-informed, more holistic strategies for both student success and long-term institutional vitality. Boards have to lean in from an oversight perspective, which requires working in partnership with the higher education leadership, but not doing the work of the management team. Shared governance and listening to differences are important. This approach involves the board sitting down and interacting with faculty, administration, staff and alumni, which has significant implications in higher education. Justice, diversity, equity and inclusion are important for the board to consider. This needs to involve creating board policies as well as the composition of the board. Trustees continue to have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that students receive a quality education and the institution remains sustainable. These responsibilities include care, loyalty and obedience. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges Guests Social Media Links LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/henrystoever/ Twitter: @henrystoever The Change Leader's Social Media Links Website: https://staging9.changinghighered.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com Keywords #governance #university #highereducation #education

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

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

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

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

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

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