Changing Higher Ed

Christian higher education is facing numerous challenges. The Association for Biblical Higher Education (ABHE) conducted a study in collaboration with the Barna Group in 2017 that focused on the marketplace, the dynamics facing member institutions as well as the perceptions of Christian higher education. The study identified a number of actions that Christian higher education institutions need to do to remain or become sustainable. ABHE recently has made board governance a priority. The association received a substantial grant last year and is in the process of enrolling board leadership cohorts from 48 institutions to take them through a rigorous board training and certification process. The first cohort is almost finished and Dr. Enlow hopes this training will be transformational for institutions. Radical Demographic Shifts The United States is seeing significant demographic changes in terms of race and ethnicity. It is anticipated that the current White majority will be well less than a majority in the United States in 10-15 years. The African American population will remain around 12 percent of the population while the Asian population will double from 3 percent to 6 percent. The biggest growth will be in the Hispanic population, which will be the largest of the pluralities. Additionally, with the coming enrollment cliff, Christian institutions will need to shift to focus on recruiting older students instead of the traditional 18-year-old students. A Shift in the Christian Landscape It used to be a fairly accurate to say that the United States was a Christian nation since about 75 percent of citizens would have responded that they were a Christian on a survey. Researchers like Pew and Gallup have more or less clarified that when people answer those questions, they fall into one of three primary categories of Christians: Convictional Christians, who are defined by their convictional belief and behaviors, especially in their regular church attendance; Casual Christians, who attend church on special occasions (primarily Christmas and Easter); and Cultural Christians, who are individuals who would identify themselves on a survey as Christian because they don’t identify with another religion. These three groups traditionally have been evenly divided at 25 percent apiece. However, now there is erosion in the numbers of casual Christians and cultural Christians. Many of these individuals have moved their affiliation to the group known as the “nones” (people who don’t identify with any religious affiliation). With that said, there is no erosion in individuals’ interest in spirituality; in fact, some would argue that interest in spirituality has increased. Additionally, the convictional Christian group is not eroding. This group has remained steadily at 25 percent and even grown a little bit over the past 25-30 years. In recent history, the convictional, casual and cultural Christians aligned from the standpoint of cultural and political coalitions as a voting block. Now, there’s a divergence between convictional Christians and the rest of Americans, thus politically and culturally marginalizing the convictional Christians. Furthermore, a coalition has emerged that includes the casual Christians, the cultural Christians and the nones; this group tends to be an ideological affinity group. Paradigm Shift in Christian Education There are two issues behind higher education’s and, in particular, Christian higher education’s reluctance to change.  The first is the widely held perspective that education is inherently formational; it’s life in community. So education is not just about transmission of knowledge, but instead is transformational. The prevalent idea was the only way to achieve this transformation was through the traditional classroom; this is the mindset that has dominated Christian education. The other issues is the startup costs to master online delivery platforms. The cost is both in equipment and professional development, and the $$$ isn’t small. With that said, Dr. Enlow believes that because of the demographic realities and the perceptions of stakeholders about the purpose of higher education, it is critical for higher education to diversify its learning modalities. Colleges that are reluctant or refusing to diversify their delivery modalities will have a very narrow bandwidth in terms of who they will be able to serve. Colleges will have to think about students and parents “hacking education,” i.e., looking for the simplest, shortest, most convenient way to meet their goals instead of completing a traditional higher education curriculum. The schools that understand that and can diversify their delivery modalities to be seamless will be those that will be most effective. In the sector of church ministry leadership preparation, historically individuals were prepared through experiencing a calling, attending school, getting credentialed and serving. That is no longer the case. The pattern now is serving in a church, and out of that service comes a sense of calling. From there comes a sense of needing education through attending school or training. People then consider credentialing, but this isn’t a requirement. Credentialing now tends to be more of a competency than a licensing level. This pattern is being seen in the mega-churches in which they are growing their own staff, who serve in the church. Out of that sense of serving emerges a reciprocated sense of calling. At this point, the desire training that is tailored to the situation emerges. Dr. Enlow stressed that Christian schools must stop seeing this paradigm shift as a threat and instead embrace it as an opportunity. While it is a threat to the conventional model of full-time schooling, it’s also a vehicle to Christian colleges’ and universities’ mission. Additionally, Christian higher education’s business model has been based on residential education. When Dr. Enlow was working in a higher educational institution setting, the only positive cash flow in the institution was from student housing so the business model was heavily predicated on residential student enrollment. The old model also assumed the need for a lot of subsidy. The typical college, at best, had 70 percent of a student’s education funded by tuition and fees while the remaining 30 percent was covered by gifts or loans. That business model does not work anymore. Christian institutions need to come up with a business model that funds what is needed based on different assumptions of enrollment patterns, etc. In some ways, overhead is lower in these new opportunity areas. Additionally, there doesn’t have be these huge subsidies if these new modalities are done right. Changing Focus Christian colleges and universities in general are seeing a change in focus. These institutions have traditionally prepared students for church occupations, such as pastors and missionaries; Bible studies are a crucial part in the preparation of these individuals. However, many Christian colleges are now preparing individuals for ministerial occupations as well as marketplace helping professions. Because of this change in mission, the requirement to have Biblical and theological understanding at a high level would not be the same for a student who wants to be a public school teacher. Instead, students now are majoring in a subject such as business and then minoring in Bible. Changing Nature of Liberal Arts Many Christian institutions are liberal arts colleges. The initial concept for liberal arts institutions was that they would offer academic rigor, critical thinking skills, and intellectual fodder to prepare students to function highly and contribute significantly in a variety of situations. However, there has been a growing perception among the public that liberal arts institutions are not adequately preparing students for their first job or career. This, however, is not the case. In reality, since World War II, higher education has become more and more focused on preparing individuals for jobs and careers with less emphasis on pure liberal arts. Christian colleges always have been pragmatic because of their small size. In fact, they may be considered even more professional colleges than the historical blue-blood liberal arts colleges. The majority of Christian institutions that would be historically identified as liberal arts institutions have students who are are enrolled in professional degree programs such as business, teacher education and sociology. Two Recommendations for Higher Education Leaders Dr. Enlow suggested several takeaways for higher education leaders: Ensure sustainability. Dr. Enlow believes that to be sustainable over the next 10 years, Christian higher education institutions need to get out of Title IV dependency. Related to that, leaders need to really monitor discounting. They also need to focus on differentiation by showcasing the institution’s unique selling proposition and ensuring its delivery. Finally, institutions need to diversify delivery modalities. These do not need to be silos – online vs. in-person delivery offerings, so you can only do one or the other. These need to be totally integrated, diversified delivery modalities. Focus on the governing board. These boards need to be high-functioning through becoming more agile and better informed. Every stakeholder is going to need to have an exceedingly well defined, mission-driven, brand promise and selling proposition. Both the board and the administration are going to need a high-level of convergent fiscal understanding of margin and contingency. Bullet Points Christian higher education faces major challenges through changing demographics such as race and ethnicity as well as the changing nature of students (from traditional 18-year-olds to older students). There is a shift in how individuals define themselves in relation to Christianity – convictional Christians, casual Christians and cultural Christians. These changing percentages will have deep cultural and political implications as well as a major effect on Christian institutions. The changing nature of how higher education is offered – from traditional classrooms to online education or a blend of traditional education and online education – will alter how Christian colleges and universities operate. Another factor will be the certification process. This will require Christian colleges and universities to develop a different business model in order to survive. Christian institutions are moving from primarily preparing pastors and missionaries to preparing professionals. This requires adapting how Biblical studies are offered. Christian institutions that are liberal arts institutions need to continue to showcase their work in preparing students for professions and careers. Public perception is that students graduating from these schools are not prepared for the workforce when, in fact, most graduates actually earn a professional degree that prepares them for working in business, education and other professions. Higher education leaders need to consider sustainability in moving forward. This needs to include differentiating their institution, finding sustainable ways to fund education and embracing different learning modalities. Christian institutional governing boards must be high-performing, agile and better informed in relation to a well-defined mission, sustainable finances and other governance issues. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Association for Biblical Higher Education Guests Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ralph-enlow-2057145/ 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

Higher education already was facing major challenges, but an unprecedented black swan event – the COVID-19 pandemic—is testing the resiliency of colleges and universities across the country. Long-time education leader Dr. E. Gordon Gee offers the wisdom he has gained from serving as a university president for 40 years. Dr. Gee believes that serving in this role is one of the most important callings in this nation.  Dr. Gee has led five institutions (West Virginia University, University of Colorado, The Ohio State University, Brown University and Vanderbilt University), and served twice as president of The Ohio State University and West Virginia University. He’s had 24 individuals who have worked for him who are currently serving as university presidents.   Navigating Turbulent Waters  Dr. Gee has not seen anything like what higher education is currently experiencing. While he went through the stock market crash of 1987-88 while at the University of Colorado and led other institutions during several recessions and meltdowns, he believes the COVID-19 pandemic offers a different type of challenge because this is a national issue that affects everyone at the human level.   This pandemic has effectively shut down the entire nation and its commerce. While that is unsustainable over the long haul, this shutdown also shows a sense of spirit and commitment that will bring us together.  Dr. Gee believes that we have lived in a toxic world in which we yell at each other instead of having conversations. He suggests that social distancing may bring people together because we’ll realize there’s more to life than the daily commerce of being ornery.  Learning on the Job  Dr. Gee states that there is no playbook for being a university president, that each university is different and each institution changes over time. One of the mistakes that some presidents make is that when they assume a presidency for a second time, they believe they know what they’re stepping into. That is an incorrect assumption. Dr. Gee noted that during both of his second presidencies, he had to de-learn the institution in order to relearn them. That proved to be a real challenge.  In addition, leaders are playing in a field (the pandemic) where they don’t have previous knowledge.  Education in general is the fuel that runs the nation’s democracy and will continue to be an important part of the country’s future. However, education will be dramatically different after the pandemic and that new model is still emerging.  Dr. Gee stated that faculty and colleagues who were Luddites have shifted to being online over a two-week period, and they are discovering that they can be effective and engaged, and are doing many wonderful things. He points out that opportunities do abound when individuals are forced to do something outside their comfort zone.  Finding the Institutional Calling  While this is a global black swan event, this also is a situation where we can use our ingenuity, inspiration and creativity to move to what’s next. Dr. Gee encourages higher education leaders to lead their institutions in such a way that adds to the national conversation and the value of higher education, in particular.   Dr. Gee believes that each institution needs to find its individual calling, its own unique mission and differentiation. He cautions that ratings and rankings such as those in U.S. News and World Report have caused institutions to lose what is unique about them, which leads to institutional mediocrity.  He believes higher education institutions need to return to their respective roots, whether that’s public, private, religious or some other mission/focus. Institutions have their own unique character and culture that evolves so leaders have to figure out the culture in order to change it.  Dr. Gee also believes that identifying the institutional soul is important. This allows colleges and universities to attract the best and brightest both in terms of students and faculty who align with this viewpoint.   He also higher education has lost that focus in many ways, and that institutions need to stop being ivory towers and instead become helping hands.  Responding to the COVID-19 Pandemic  West Virginia University has had a wide-ranging response to the pandemic. The institution has numerous hospitals so they are the major health provider in the state.  The university immediately told students not to come back to campus and moved classes online.  Dr. Gee also worked closely with state government to come up with the state’s response. In addition, the university’s vice president for health sciences is the state’s Coronavirus czar and is overseeing the state’s response. Dr. Gee believes that the university is playing a major leadership role due to the institution’s academic offerings as well as its hospitals.  Dr. Gee also is focused on helping the university move forward organizationally. He meets every Monday morning with the communications and recruitment teams to come up with plans. He also sends out regular “Gee-Mails” but he also does small vignettes, calls graduating and new students, and offers ideas (such as reading lists) to share with interested stakeholders.   During this time, he believes that institutions need to be proactive in recruiting and retaining students, faculty and staff, even though the financial implications are going to be immense. This recruitment and retention needs to be based on the institution’s uniqueness.  Increased Pressure to Differentiate  The response to the COVID-19 pandemic is accelerating the changes in higher education by a decade or more. Dr. Gee believes this will require higher education to think about differentiation more deeply. He has found that institutions historically have moved into a common amalgamation in which they all want to look like each other instead of differentiating themselves. He believes that successful universities and colleges in the future will have figured out how to set themselves apart.   He also is concerned that land grant institutions have drifted toward being like every other higher education institutions. Dr. Gee pointed out that President Abraham Lincoln established these institutions to create comity and community in order to overcome daily cycles that exist in the lives of individuals. He believes Lincoln would be very disappointed in some of today’s land grant institutions.   Dr. Gee points out that in West Virginia, which is a small state with every imaginable problem, the university has the opportunity to create solutions. He believes West Virginia University’s calling is to make 1.8 million West Virginians feel valued and that they have an opportunity in life.   Moving Forward  Pointing out that large universities have a number of moving parts, Dr. Gee noted that any time there is complexity, it makes it difficult for people to determine which way to go. He believes in strategic action (instead of strategic planning) and taking advantage of what happens in the moment.   Dr. Gee noted that when people reach the top of the mountain, they tend to want to slide down the other side to get to normal as they previously defined it. However, we won’t be going back to the “previous” normal; instead, we’ll be in a “new normal” that will emerge out of the current situation.  He suggested that leaders can be architects of this moment or they can be victims. He believes that leaders and institutions should learn, reinvent themselves, and move on in ways that weren’t being considered 1-2 months earlier.  Dr. Gee also emphasized that the ability to take advantage of the change, to aggressively differentiate oneself, and continue to look to the horizon has not diminished. He said that those who look only to the moment are going to be increasingly irrelevant and mediocre; these institutions may not survive. However, if institutions use the wisdom of the moment and make tough decisions, they have a better chance of survival.   Reinventing Higher Education   Dr. Gee and his team are taking a careful look at their recruitment and retention of faculty, staff, and students. They also are looking carefully at the programs being offered and he anticipates that West Virginia University will move to a hybrid approach that includes online and in-person instruction.   However, Dr. Gee said the most important thing that West Virginia University is doing is focusing on its culture. Higher education institutions have very bright faculty, staff, and students, but also can have toxic cultures that can cause stakeholders to migrate into their silos as well as departments and colleges to aggressively compete with each other. Dr. Gee believes this configuration of the academy is antithetical to change.   To combat this, West Virginia University is moving to a more horizontal instead of a vertical approach. This involves moving across the institution so that the intellectual breadth draws on all the strengths of the university instead of being limited by departmental and college boundaries. He also advocates or the creation of centers, institutes, and working groups.   Dr. Gee believes that institutions that are wise enough to say that “the emperor has no clothes” and then move on to a new configuration that is more aggressively modern and agile will be the ones that will make a difference in the world. This change effort involves taking the institution and rearranging it based on ideas and how we think, as opposed to how the institution was structured when it started 100 years ago.  He is a great believer in a one-university model in which everyone is connected by the intellectual ideas, research opportunities, and teaching that allow individuals to connect in much different ways. He also believes that disciplines should be integrated. For example, neuroscience and biostatistics should not be isolated; they should be part of the human wellness program that incorporates all of the institutional assets.   Dr. Gee also said that higher education needs to get rid of the old reward and recognition structure. He advocates for individuals being recognized and rewarding for doing individual work.  For example, some faculty will be able to write the great American novel while others are great teachers. Each should be able to shine in the areas where they excel versus the old model of 40 percent research, 40 percent teaching, and 20 percent service. This will greatly change how universities move forward.   Three Recommendations for Higher Education Leaders  Dr. Gee suggested three takeaways for higher education leaders:  Make certain you are constantly informing and communicating and probing the campus. Commit to creating a culture of understanding and community.  Use this black swan moment to learn about your institutional strengths and weaknesses. Think about what to sustain and what is not sustainable. Make the tough choices.  Differentiate your institution. Identify what is unique and why you are there. What will make your institution one of the future and not of the past?  Bullet Points  The COVID-19 pandemic is a black-swan event that will cause immense change in higher education, and accelerate needed changes by 10 or more years.   To be successful, higher education leaders need to learn on the job. This pandemic offer a new opportunity to do just that.   The pandemic provides an important opportunity for institutions to begin to differentiate themselves.  COVID-19 offers an opportunity for higher education to forego the ivory tower image and instead offer a hand of support.  Institutions of higher education need to be proactive in recruiting and retaining faculty, staff, and students during the pandemic.  Colleges and universities need to use this time to differentiate themselves. Highlighting those unique capacities can be the difference in surviving this current global crisis.   Moving forward, institutions need to rethink the higher education model and culture. There needs to be more of a horizontal focus so that colleges and departments no longer dictate what happens within an institution. Instead, colleges and universities can bring together the best minds across campus as well as celebrate and reward each individual faculty member’s creative gifts.  Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview:  West Virginia University  Guests Social Media Links:  Dr. E. Gordon Gee  Twitter: @gordongee   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

Higher education traditionally does not move quickly when it comes to innovation. However, the current situation with the COVID-19 pandemic is forcing higher education institutions to do just that. Which is where the University Innovation Alliance (UIA) comes in. UIA, which is led by Dr. Bridget Burns, is a group of 11 universities that are committed to innovating together, scaling up what works and then sharing their efforts. These institutions are Oregon State University, University of California Riverside, Arizona State University, University of Texas at Austin, University of Kansas, Iowa State University, Purdue University, Michigan State University, Ohio State University, Georgia State University and University of Central Florida. Stemming the Crisis Up until now, UIA’s focus has been on closing the achievement gap, producing more high-quality degrees and fundamentally changing the higher education sector. Now in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, UIA has shifted to identifying and sharing best practices for the rapidly changing higher education landscape. For example, higher education institutions need to address the pressing challenges facing the most vulnerable students in real time. Students are hungry, homeless, displaced and dealing with extra circumstances that weren’t anticipated. One institution had to spend an additional $5 million in a one-week period to provide transportation and to purchase housing, WIFI hot-spots and laptops for students who were being displaced. In addition, institutions are facing major unanticipated costs due to transitioning to online education. To facilitate this, Dr. Burns is currently focused on connecting institutions that are innovating in real-time during this crisis and then sharing their learning. Each institution is advancing in their work to address the challenges, while also being dependent on navigating their state’s policies and the community context. These challenges will continue to evolve and she is focused on helping institutions move more quickly through them. Stemming the Crisis Dr. Burns noted that the world is in a different place that it was at the beginning of the semester and communication has increased. Fortunately, there are individuals – such as former Tulane University President Scott Cowen, who led the institution in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina—who have been involved in major crisis situations and can provide counsel. These individuals help remind leaders about how to transition from day-to-day responsibilities and leading transformational efforts to what Burns describes as “rowing in high seas with a squall.” This is a completely different type of leadership, and involves a fundamentally different skill set. Institutions also are facing additional challenges to decision-making as higher education leaders need to work with state leaders, community leaders, university system leaders and accreditors to navigate this situation. Campus leaders must make brave and bold decisions; they often are also being deluged with negative feedback from online trolls once information is shared. Higher education leaders currently need to be focused on the daily issues they are facing. The situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic is going to affect different populations, such as vulnerable low-income, first-generation students, in different ways. For example, students who came out s as LBGTQ and were kicked out of their homes; low-income, first-generation students who may be food-insecure or housing-insecure; international students who cannot return to their home countries – these are complicated situations that must be dealt with individually. Funders who have available resources need to get these money to higher education leaders, who are already identifying how to best use the money to support students, faculty and staff during this crisis. Crisis-fueled Student-Centered Innovation There is also a broader psychic stress in dealing with a layer-upon-layer challenge such as higher ed faces.  Dr. Burns stressed that during this crisis the UIA members are focusing on a student-centered approach, which is not how higher education traditionally has operated. This crisis will change the processes, structures, and how institutions work to focus around the needs of students, as opposed to faculty and administrators. There also will be innovation in the chaos and crisis – the “silver lining” if you will. Millions of faculty members have had to transition their style to online learning, thus learning how to evolve teaching and assets into this new paradigm. In another unexpected benefit, Dr. Burns believes people will be very grateful to be in school because it will offer a healthy and productive distraction. Virtual Opportunities We have long lived in an increasingly virtual world. However, higher education leaders now must learn how to take care of people through a virtual workplace. Campus administrators are used to face-to-face interactions, but now must learn how to manage teams and spot trends from a distance. All university employees are having to rearrange life to be able to work at home. Additionally, many people are getting laid off. Dr. Burns said she expects some institutions to begin unveiling opportunities for individuals who are being forced to change careers to retool. While it’s too late to start a new term, she suggests that institutions should investigate smaller modules that can serve these potential students, e.g., micro credentials and perhaps stackable certificates. These offer real opportunity, and accreditors will need to flow with this. However, there still needs to be vigilance because some institutions do prey on individuals in these situations. She recommends that potential students only consider attending accredited institutions. 3 Recommendations for Higher Education Leaders Dr. Burns suggested takeaways for higher education leaders who are dealing with the COVID-19 crisis: Your instincts are solid. You are making good decisions to help students, faculty, and staff make it through this. You do not need to lead perfectly right now. It’s important to show your humanity. People will follow a leader who is also experiencing the effects of this crisis. Take care of yourself. Leaders are older and shouldn’t put themselves at risk. Bullet Points The COVID-19 pandemic offers an opportunity for rapid innovation in higher education. The most important thing to do currently is take care of the needs of students. This will differ by student group. Be sure to focus on a student-centered approach. Higher education leaders are making good decisions in a time of crisis, even though they are receiving blowback from some. Some decisions have to be slowed due to the need to get feedback from state policymakers, community members, university system leaders and accreditors. Learn from other leaders who have been through similar trial-by-fire situations. This pandemic will speed up higher education’s use of online education and will lead to innovative teaching models. Higher education leaders also will have to learn to manage a virtual office. This again can lead to innovative practices. There also is an emerging opportunity to create modules to serve individuals who have been laid off during the COVID-19 pandemic. These individuals will want to retool their professional abilities. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: The University Innovation Alliance Bridget Burns Guests Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/bridgetfburns/ Twitter: @BBurnsEDU The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: Website: https://thechangeleader.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

Palo Alto University (PAU) has faced several crises over the past few years that ended up serving the institution well in dealing the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Risa Dickson, the university’s interim vice president for academic affairs, said the institution is committed to putting the students first, followed by the faculty in order to move through this crisis. The institution is located in Santa Clara County, which was one of the first places in the nation where the virus emerged. Getting Ahead of the Curve Like many private non-profit higher ed institutions, Palo Alto University had no formal risk planning or contingency plans in place to deal with a black swan event such as the COVID-19 crisis. However, several recent challenges prompted institutional leaders to start considering moving to online learning. After these situations happened, Dr. Dickson believed that another crisis would emerge so she and other key staff members were aware of the quasi-structure that had already been sketched out.  Palo Alto was fortunate to be ahead of the curve when the pandemic started to emerge, as its institutional leaders had anticipated what was coming and the need for moving classes online. The week before Palo Alto decided to go online, Dr. Dickson initially contacted the institution’s academic technology director to request a plan for going online, including a budget. Thus, institutional leaders knew early on what the plan looked like, what resources would be needed, and what would be needed to be done to prepare faculty and students to move online for the remainder of the quarter. They were able to address the big issues (e.g., enough Zoom licenses) early on so now they could focus on different issues, such as finding bandwidth extenders. The institution already had a number of classes online so some faculty were already well versed in the Zoom technology. On Saturday, March 7, the Palo Alto president called an emergency meeting where the decision was made to put all classes on-line over a three-week period. This led to a period of whip-saw changes due to feedback from external sources, but the institution continued moving forward. An Immersive Lesson in Leadership A crisis requires an institution to muster its resources very quickly. Palo Alto’s leaders had been through the two previous crises as a cabinet, but still were not totally prepared for how different this crisis was. While often leadership styles depend on the context of the crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic was a universal crisis that is affecting everyone’s professional AND personal lives, i.e., how they live day-to-day. In situations like this, emotions bleed over and anxiety as well as personalization impact relationships and how an institution can move forward / react to the crisis, especially since individuals deal with the fear, anxiety and panic very differently. She described seeing two types of leadership styles coming forward. The first group encompasses individuals who are command-and-control leaders or crisis management leaders. These individuals want to know how to move forward, including plans and assignments. The second group of leaders focus on ministering to people who are scared and anxious. This group wants to make sure that everyone is on the same page and that stakeholders felt they are being cared for emotionally and psychologically. This style of leadership often isn’t as pronounced during a crisis, but is becoming more evident in this pandemic. The Palo Alto cabinet bumped into situations when both of these types of leaders emerged during the pandemic. Dr. Dickson has a more command-and-control style of leadership whereas the university’s president is much more relational; they were and do work in a complementary nature. Dr. Dickson observed in the current situation that leaders who embrace command and control tend to get impatient with relational leaders. However, she realizes that the relational leaders are using their skill set to prepare people to come along on the journey through the crisis; this approach is equally as important and valid as the command-and-control approach. She said it was important to identify these types of relational leaders and use their skill set to hold town halls, talk to people and collect feedback to identify the language that needs to be used. She pointed out that there is a much stronger human element in this crisis. She gave an example where faculty members are learning to teach online from home which in some cases (given that PAU is in the heart of Silicon Valley) is a one-bedroom apartment with a spouse and two children. These individuals are having trouble seeing how to go forward. They had anxiety about the quick pivot as well as doubts about how to accomplish this task for the next few months. Strategic Communications Dr. Dickson has become more attuned to the language being used in communication to stakeholders, i.e., if people are anxious, that comes through in their language. She noted that early on that PAU’s communications and messages were going out to the institution’s community often had language that could cause more anxiety and send the wrong image. Dr. Dickson also became acutely aware during the pandemic that if faculty are anxious, those emotions come through in their communication to students. She started noting that the institution’s leaders, faculty and staff are “ethically obligated” to make sure that the language that comes through the institution is not unintentionally agitating people. Strategic messaging in the proper order is very important. For example, if the communication is about an institutional decision, it needs to come from the institution first before a division puts out information about how to deal with the situation. This strategic use of communication helps faculty and students realize that there is an individual who is in control and who is guiding them. Dr. Dickson also stated that if institutions send out too many messages, people stop reading them. Therefore, she recommends sending timely and informative messages so that people know if a message comes into their inbox, it’s worth taking the time to read. These messages need to be substantial, clear and clean so that stakeholders know that decisions are being made with their best interests at heart. Prioritizing Coordinating work in a crisis can be hard to do remotely. Dr. Dickson has started twice-a-week Zoom meeting with her immediate staff where they put everything on the table. She uses this opportunity to tell staff that this is something that they need to do, even if it’s something they normally do not do or there may be less coordination. She believes higher education leaders need to work with their teams to move things forward so people don’t feel alienated or hunker down blaming other people. She finds that her team is working together really well, despite frustrations. In a time of crisis, she believes leaders can’t give too much positive feedback. Leaders also need to say verbally that it’s safe to check in. Agendas also are really important right now because people have a lot of noise in their head. Dr. Dickson encourages individuals to share what’s going on personally for 30-seconds during these weekly meetings; however, she notes that at times individuals are not self-aware so leaders may need to rein in people’s comments without making the person feel shutdown. Trust is important and needs to have been built before a crisis occurs where people’s anxiety and fear can get the best of them, causing them to attack each other. Strong leaders need to be able to intervene in these moments to say, “Stop! We’re not doing that right now!” They need to kindly call people out while also still acknowledging anxiety. Dr. Dickson said she is doing a lot of this with people she works with to make sure they’re not getting hung up on their own frustrations. People also may conflate the check-in with the business that needs to get down. Dr. Dickson encourages people to stay in their lanes and focus on the task at hand at that time. Therefore, if the time is presently being dedicated to talking about an individual’s emotional state, the discussion does not need to veer into work-related discussions about challenges in setting meetings, etc. Going Online When PAU put together the protocol in anticipation of the possibility of going online, the leaders knew that the majority of the faculty were going to need significant training since they didn’t know how to teach online. The leaders tapped institutional experts to develop a resources guide and created mandatory training for faculty. Many faculty had to learn how to meet course-learning outcomes in a new format in a way that wasn’t going to drain them. They also had to learn to teach in ways that didn’t rely on a three-hour Zoom class.  The campus provided resources to help the faculty learn to do this in a humane and efficient way because they only had 1-2 days to get up-to-speed. During a crisis, the institution needs to prioritize what it can tackle in a crisis. Dr. Dickson was committed to serving the students first and then the faculty. For example, students were worried that they would lose their work-study or jobs on campus. Dr. Dickson sent a list out of students who had financial aid, work study or campus jobs and asked supervisors to verify that those jobs could be done remotely. If those jobs couldn’t be done remotely, the campus committed to finding jobs for these students that could be performed online. 3 Recommendations for Higher Education Leaders Dr. Dickson suggested takeaways for higher education leaders: There is a very important place for both a command-and-control, military-type leader and a relational style of leader in this type of crisis. It is important to identify who is good at each type of leadership styles and what roles these individuals should play in navigating the crisis. Clarity of roles is important. People need to stay in their lanes but also know where they need to hand things across to someone else. For example, academic technology is in Dr. Dickson’s area of responsibility while technology is part of facilities. They had to learn how to work together to make sure that everything is being taken care of. People must have a lot of grace with each other. So many individuals are facing a new paradigm of work and everyone needs to give others a break by understanding that everyone is under pressure. You also need to honor your own self-care as well as others’ need for space for personal self-care and to take care of their families and loved ones. Otherwise, this will lead to anxiety and high levels of stress. Bullet Points As soon as a crisis begins to emerge, begin taking action steps to develop a plan of action and budget. If possible, tap into previous institutional experiences that might offer some previous lessons that can be updated and adopted. In the COVID-19 pandemic, two different types of leaders are emerging. The first is command-and-control leaders, who want to think about plans and next steps to accomplish goals. The second group are relational leaders, who help stakeholders come to terms about what is happening. There is a place for both types of leaders in an institution. Identify who these people are and then find the best use of their leadership talents. Communication needs to be very strategic. Be concise, clear and thorough. Make sure that institutional messages come out before departmental messages that offer steps for implementation. Be very cognizant about the language being used, which can cause increased anxiety and stress. Remind faculty and staff that they are “ethically obligated” to be clear and kind in their communication. The way they communicate can bring additional stress to students and other stakeholders. Working remotely can be a challenge. Schedule regular meetings and have an agenda. Offer time for individuals to share what’s going on personally, but be willing to rein them back in kindly. Don’t mix personal time with business time; keep both separate in a meeting. Encourage individuals to stay in their lane while working on their assignments. With that said, find ways to effectively collaborate across areas when needed. Prioritize what’s important. Dr. Dickson committed to putting students first and faculty next in her decision-making. Help faculty be prepared to teach online. Also understand that there may be personal issues that challenge their ability to do so effectively. Help them work through these challenges. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Palo Alto University Guests Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/risadickson/ The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

Crises offer many common lessons once they are over. That’s the case now as higher education faces the latest crises, the COVID19 pandemic.   This episode of Changing Higher Ed features Dr. Scott Cowen, the former president of Tulane University. Dr. Cowen, who is now a faculty member, as shares his insights of surviving a crisis, which in his case was Hurricane Katrina.  He believes that out of every disaster, we have an obligation to make something better. He encourages institutions to chronicle what they are learning so it could help inform future crises.  The Differences and Similarities between Coronavirus and Katrina  Whereas the coronavirus is affecting the US and the globe, Hurricane Katrina affected a very specific region of the United States. About two weeks after the storm, Tulane leaders were able to determine the physical damage that was done to the institution and to New Orleans. Then plans were developed to remediate and renew the university as well as the city.  That took many years to complete. In Tulane’s case, this recovery took seven years to get back to normal in terms of damage to both the physical plant, enrollment and the institutional reputation.  In the case of the COVID19, the effect and the impact continue to unfold every day. No one knows the duration or how bad it’s going to be. It also is kicking off a meltdown in the stock market.   There are similarities between these two crises. There is no playbook for what’s happening. People are feeling very anxious and very scared. They don’t know what the future holds. Now college campuses are closing and dispersing their faculty, staff and students.   Four Key Areas to Focus on  If the COVID19 crisis goes 3-4 months, there will be impacts, especially if the market remains on a decline. Dr. Cowen believes that institutions could return to normal operations in the Fall. There will still be a lot to do because it will have significant impact on finances.   Dr. Cowen suggests doing the following planning steps:  Make plans for the safety and welfare of students, faculty and students. By and large, institutions are doing a good job in this area.  Focus on what you can and can’t control. What institutions currently can control is the closure of campuses and putting everything online. However, there is a lot that is currently out of our control. Therefore, it is important to start doing scenario planning and developing work streams focused on when the institution potentially could reopen or what the financial impact will be. Look at three-month, five-month and nine-month projections for reopening.  Communicate like crazy. When people are anxious and nervous, they want information. There needs to be a rhythm to communication. Give stakeholders a realistic view of what’s happening right now, what is being worked on, and a sense of realistic hope. This common message, which requires a very well-planned communications plan for all stakeholders, needs to come from the president and board chair.  Constantly monitor chat rooms online. This is a fruitful site to see what is on stakeholders’ minds and then address these in communications.  Communicate with People’s Hearts  The president and board chair should be focused on calming everyone’s fears. Fortunately, technology allows this to happen instantaneously. There is video, messaging and electronic town hall meetings.  Dr. Cowen also encourages university presidents to stop using a teleprompter. Scripted content loses the speaker’s authenticity, which is important right now because people want to feel that you’re in this too. Instead, use talking points and be open to making mistakes, something which makes your human in the eyes of listeners.   Make sure you have your facts and data right. One of the worst things you can do is “shoot from the hip” and get your facts wrong. Know what is actually happening. It’s also OK to admit that you don’t have all the answers, but also describe what you are doing to get all those answers. Provide stakeholders a timeline in which you anticipate to have those answers.  Scenario Planning  After Hurricane Katrina, everybody went back to the risk enterprise programs to look at scenarios. They became more focused on developing scenarios that included weather-related issues or an active shooter. However, Dr. Cowen believes that most institutions did not project a scenario of a pandemic, even though a lot has been written over the past 15 years about this type of scenario, and in fact, many if not most do not do risk planning. Now that it has happened, institutions are having to lead on the fly.  Student Recruitment Moving Forward  Student recruitment also will be an area of concern. Many institutions are pushing back deadlines due to the pandemic. After Katrina, about 85 percent of Tulane’s undergraduate and graduate students returned to campus in January 2006. This was higher than institutional leaders had believed would happen.   However, Tulane did not anticipate what would happen the following Fall. They normally had an entering class of 1,600, but instead, they had an entering class of 860. It took the institution six years to rebuild that population, taking a tremendous toll on Tulane’s budget and everything that the university did.  Dr. Cowen does not believe this will be as severe an issue now, but it will be an issue. Some students may decide to attend an institution closer to their home instead of going away. Given the meltdown of the stock market, some may opt out of attending the expensive private school, while others may opt to take a gap year to make sure that the aftereffects of the COVID19 pandemic have settled out. Therefore, this may have an effect on yield rates going into the fall.  Finances Issues Moving Forward  Additionally, many colleges and universities were on the cusp financially before COVID19 hit, and this situation could accelerate their demise. He encourages institutional leaders in these situations to do serious thinking about the future, including pursuing mergers or being acquired. Additionally, these leaders need to reach out to other institutions about taking care of current students. For example, Tulane restructured after Katrina and cut down its number of departments. Tulane leaders reached out to other institutions that had those departments and asked them to give consideration to Tulane students if they applied to the other institution. This proved to work out for the Tulane students who were impacted.  Finding Informal Advisors  Dr. Cowen and his team also created an informal board and cabinet to get feedback in fall 2005 once they realized the institution could not reopen as it had previously been. The Tulane formal board was very helpful in doing scenario planning around issues.   He also asked five university presidents from across the nation to work with him in developing a renewal plan in fall 2005. This group helped him to develop an objective long-term picture and key issues while he was dealing with life-and-death situations, helping him focus to develop the renewal plan. Additionally, the Higher Education Association of America was very helpful because they encouraged other universities to take Tulane’s students.  Dr. Cowen encouraged institutional leaders to embrace “plagiarism,” i.e., borrow from what other institutions are doing and saying, to get through this situation and to identify solutions that are working. Then these solutions can be implemented across the nation.  Moving to Online Education  One positive impact of the current situation is the need to move to online education. Everybody needs to learn how to do online courses. This could lead to additional opportunities to expand reach, lower the cost of education and appeal to additional populations. This also will get faculty more experienced in online and open up new opportunities.  Faculty also can use technology to meet with students online. Dr. Cowen meets with his students via Zoom without any agenda to keep students connected with Tulane. Having faculty do this beyond the scope of the course and during the closure will help with student retention as well as the institutional reputation. That relationship is critical right now.  4 Recommendations for Higher Education Leaders  Dr. Cowen suggested takeaways for higher education leaders:  Ensure the health and welfare of students and faculty.  Make sure you focus on what you control and do serious scenario planning for those things you can’t control.  Have a robust communication plan that addresses all of the institution’s stakeholders. This plan needs to have a rhythm to it to help people deal with stress and anxiety.  Follow chat rooms on the Internet to hear what stakeholders are saying and doing so you can address that in future messaging.  Bullet Points  There are many lessons from previous crises. Learn from situations such as Tulane’s response after Hurricane Katrina.  Focus on present-day matters such as student and faculty safety, but also begin scenario planning using different time frames.  Communicate extensively and with a rhythm. Avoid teleprompters and speak from the heart. Make sure that you have your facts correct but also be willing to say that you don’t know and how you are trying to determine an answer. Constantly review online comments and chatrooms to see what stakeholders are saying about your institution so you can address these in subsequent communications.  Look at your financial situation and begin to reach out to potential partners who may be able to provide support to your institution and/or merger candidates.  Find informal advisors who can help you get a big-picture long-term view, even though you are focused on the day-to-day issues of managing the COVID19 pandemic.  Find ways to reach out to students during this time. Encourage faculty to stay engaged using technology so that relationships remain strong. This could translate into improved retention for the fall 2020 semester.  Look for silver linings, such as the emergence of more online learning opportunities.  Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview:  Winnebagos on Wednesdays: How Visionary Vision Can Transform Higher Education  Scott Cowen: http://www.scottcowen.com/   Guests Social Media Links:  Twitter: https://twitter.com/TulaneScott   The Change Leader’s Social Media Links:  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/  Twitter: @thechangeldr   Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

This episode addresses the upcoming enrollment cliff that institutions of higher education are facing. Bill Conley is vice president for enrollment at Bucknell University, which is in an enviable position with a 30-percent admittance rate and a strong alumni base. The institution offers nationally recognized programs in arts, science, engineering and management.   Conley, who began his career in admissions in 1980, wrote the article, The Great Enrollment Crash, published in The Chronicle of Higher Education. He will retire in June and begin consulting in enrollment management.   A Seismic Change  Since 1980, there have been periodic declines in high school graduation rates, lingering recessions, and short-term economic and demographic impacts that affected higher education enrollment. However, colleges and universities were always able to adapt and adjust to these.  However, that changed with the Great Recession of 2008 and 2009. Some colleges lost as much as 50 percent of their endowments during those years. In addition, families lost jobs and income and took huge hits in relation to their wealth, especially in home equity. This led to the decline in population growth.  The Birth Dirth in the Midwest and the Northeast, when combined with the decline in high school graduation levels projected to culminate in 2030, has precipitated this structural reality. Conley said this situation is turning into a true trough instead of a rough decline.   Conley pointed to demographics not being in higher education’s favor, especially in the Northeast and Midwest. In the Northeast and Midwest, higher education is looking at a declining pool of qualified traditional students, with an expected 20 percent decline in the number of high school graduates in 2030. The projected growth areas in the Southeast and Southwest will not be sufficient to replace this decline. Additionally, the students in these growth areas are more likely to be first-generation, lower-income college attendees.   Conley also pointed to two other factors that are part of this equation. Firstly, college students by and large attend institutions located with 100 miles of home. Secondly, the cost of higher education is increasingly out of reach for most families.  Becoming a Commodity  Several institutions have done a “tuition reset” during the past decade. To the consumer, it looked as if these institutions had reduced their tuition by 35-50 percent. At the same time, the model eliminated the institution’s responsibility for providing financial aid. Very few of these models have worked on a sustained basis.   Conley hypothesized that in these cases, many consumers’ opinion is that institutions that charge less are worth less. Additionally, everyone wants to feel like they are getting a deal, whether through receiving a scholarship or a cut price on tuition (e.g., think J.C. Penney). Thus, higher education increasingly is being viewed as a commodity.   Unsustainable Finances  Part of the current dilemma has been caused by state policymakers. Conley pointed to the states’ decisions to create tax cuts and reduce spending on higher education. He noted that in 2005, Rutgers University received 81 percent of its budget from the state; now, only 16 percent of this institution’s budget comes from the state. That difference must be covered through tuition hikes. This is resulting in public universities–especially flagships—recruiting prospective students from across its state border to enroll out-of-state students who will pay out-of-state tuition. This reduces the space for in-state residents in university classes.   Since 2000, the tuition to attend the average public institution has increased by 60 percent. The tuition at private institutions has increased by 45 percent. The discount rate in 2007 was about 38 cents of each dollar being repurposed as financial aid. It’s now over 50 percent.   However, some of the schools that are contemplating or undertaking closures or mergers are above 70 percent. This percentage is unsustainable because an institution only has 30 cents left to invest or cover institutional costs. Nearing this point should be a warning signal to the institution that they are running out of time to enroll students at a price point that will sustain a thriving university.  The Court of Public Opinion  The public continues to be concerned about whether they can trust higher education. People ask about return on investment and whether the student will be prepared for careers. Varsity Blues didn’t help the situation.   Institutions need to look closely at mission, money and majors to be able to successfully navigate the headwind to move forward.  Mission: Many institutions have a mission statement that was created when they were founded and may have been tweaked a little bit with empty language in the ensuing years. Conley recommended a rigorous review and assessment of the mission to determine whether it needs to be updated in a compelling manner. This updated version could help the institution be viewed as a distinctive, differentiated place.   Money includes focusing on identifying the potential group of students. For example, schools may need to change their focus to recruiting post-traditional learners as their service area no longer has a significant group of prospective students between the ages of 18-22. This will require institutions to realign their offerings to the emerging demand.  Majors: While considering himself a strong proponent of liberal arts education, Conley believes that liberal arts colleges need to undergo a significant re-imagination of their curriculum to prepare students for having 5-10 careers during their lifetime. Conley suggests that the focus needs to shift to competencies that can be developed in both liberal arts and preprofessional environments. Higher education needs to reimagine how English, history and political science are relevant in ensuring graduates are job-ready. This is being reflected across the higher education landscape; Tulsa University announced that it was closing down significant majors in arts and humanities, and instead shifting more toward STEM education.  Metrics and Measurement  Metrics and measurement will continue to play a critical role in guiding institutions on the emerging path. For example, Bucknell has a powerful student success intelligence model that helps measure when a student is struggling academically and/or socially. This allows Bucknell administration, faculty and staff to be attentive to every student.  Conley also pointed out that identifying metrics that measure what matters will become increasingly important. Additionally, Retention is going to be as important as recruitment.   Three Recommendations for Higher Education Leaders  Conley suggested three takeaways for higher education leaders:  Recruitment efforts need to be measured (metrics) and effective.  Retention efforts need to be state-of-the-art. These efforts can (and should) include leveraging technology and reimagining priorities.  Examine your curriculum and its long-term relevancy for the smaller group of traditional students who will be attending college over the next 20-30 years.  Bullet Points  The current demographic changes that are forecast are ones that are going to cause seismic shifts in the higher education landscape.  Higher education needs to reimagine itself so it doesn’t become a commodity.  A major issue is many institution’s financial models, which are unsustainable due to the combination of budget cuts, less state funding and growing discount rates.  Higher education also is facing backlash in public opinion due to situations such as Varsity Blue. Therefore, it’s imperative that higher education institutions make every effort to rebuild trust and goodwill.  Institutions need to reconsider their missions, money and majors in order to remain viable.   Metrics and measurement needs to be valued. It’s important to establish what metrics are the most meaningful. For example, retention will be as important as recruitment in coming years.   Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview:  The Great Enrollment Crash  Guests Social Media Links:  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/william-conley-5688a637/   The Change Leader’s Social Media Links:  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/  Twitter: @thechangeldr   Email: podcast@changinghighered.com  

Dr. Philip Rous is provost and senior vice president for academic affairs of University of Maryland Baltimore County. He has been at UMBC for 29 years, both as a faculty member and administrator. He tries to facilitate the community as a whole to grow and expand.  Founded in 1966, UMBC is a relatively young public research university that is building a new model of a modern university. The campus, which currently has 14,000 students, emphasizes a liberal arts foundation at the undergraduate level, and science, engineering, information technology, human services and public policy at the graduate level.   Weighing in on Shared Responsibility  Dr. Rous prefers the term “shared responsibility” instead of shared governance, believing that this term recognizes that universities cannot function without some degree of shared responsibilities. This ranges from the faculty taking primary responsibly for curriculum and program design while administration takes responsibility for some aspects of the budget. However, everyone on the campus shares in the responsibility, which is derived from a set of shared values.  This reframing opens up the conversation and also reveals solutions that are encountered with shared governance. Individuals also are able to think more deeply about values as well as to consider the values that different stakeholders share.  Dr. Rous feels that taking this approach helps governance move forward through a weighted decision-making process, i.e., that while decisions are shared, they are differently weighted based on the type of decision. For example, faculty’ voices are given more weight in making decisions in certain specific areas such as curriculum and programs, while administration carries more weight regarding decisions in other areas such as parking lots, budgets, and the like. There also are some areas where there is sufficient overlap in decision-making, requiring faculty and administration to work together.  Shared Values  Founding shared responsibility on shared values helps guide stakeholders when making sticky decisions. These shared values quickly become evident across campus. For example, Dr. Rous typically meets with teams from other universities after they have visited UMBC. These teams often ask him how he was able to get everyone to tell the same stories on campus. Dr. Rous responds that this is a characteristic of the institution, even though the institution doesn’t have a values statement. He credits these common values to the institution’s relatively young age and that the individuals who are part of UMBC’s founding and growth were very intentional in emphasizing the values that they felt were important. This carries through to current times; for example, when hiring for a position, the university seeks and hires only individuals who share both the institutional values and strong expertise.   A Faculty Flow to Leadership  Many of the individuals who move into UMBC’s top leadership positions, including provost and deans, also have been active in shared governance on the faculty side before taking on these roles. For example, Dr. Rous is a former president of the university’s faculty senate. The former dean of arts, humanities and social sciences also was a UMBC’s faculty senate president while the current dean and the associate provost also served in that role with the faculty senate at other institutions.   Because of this pipeline, Dr. Rous believes the people who are moving into these leadership positions understand the responsibilities, share the institutional values, and want to make a difference.  They often see part of their career spent serving in administration and supporting the institution as a whole.  Leadership Development  Early in the institution’s history, there was no formal leadership development training. However, the early leaders realize that leadership development was really needed on the campus and began to develop avenues to support emerging leaders. Dr. Rous believes that one of the fundamental responsibilities of a leader is to nurture the next generation of leaders.   There now is a formal training available for individuals who are incoming department chairs. The institution now taps national organizations’ training, such as the American Council on Education Fellows Program through hosting its fellows on campus and nominating UMBC faculty who have leadership potential to serve as fellows for a year. Many of these individuals have moved into leadership positions or are capable of doing so, thus creating a leadership pipeline.   Transparency  Sharing information also is important to good shared governance. At UMBC, the shared governance heads (e.g., president of the faculty senate) serve on the president’s council with all the deans and vice presidents. Their inclusion helps advance the shared governance heads’ understanding of how the university works and how top administrators interact in relation to complicated issues.   Communication also is important. Dr. Rous believes there can never be enough communication and transparency, especially in complex institutions such as colleges and universities. Often, when there is a disagreement, it arises because one stakeholder doesn’t have a piece of information that the other one does. Dr. Rous noted that as a faculty member, he didn’t fully understand many of the key decisions made by the administration. He began to learn to take into account the complexity of these decisions once he served as faculty senate president.  Faculty members who are involved in research and teaching shouldn’t be expected to understand the ins and outs of the budget – this isn’t what the institution is asking the faculty member to do. With shared governance, it’s important to provide enough transparency and information to faculty members to help them understand the various aspects of a decision.  3 Recommendations for Higher Education Leaders  Dr. Rous suggested three take-aways for university presidents:  Institutions must have a common set of shared values and have stakeholders realize there are these shared values, especially during moments of disagreement.  Trust is vital and must be earned. Trust doesn’t come automatically. It comes through developing the trust by demonstrating it continuously through doing what you say it will do and listening. Trust goes both ways among leadership and faculty. Sometimes it takes time to develop trust.  There must be respect for shared governance. The administrators need to make sure that what they say or do is in alignment with shared governance. It’s also important for administrators to personally demonstrate their own commitment to shared governance and protect it at the institution, even though it may take more time to make a decision.  Bullet Points  Shared responsibility provides another way of thinking about shared governance.  Weighting decision-making responsibility can help smooth out discord.   Having shared institutional values can give a point of reference when various stakeholders make decisions.  Open communication and transparency are crucial to foster shared governance and shared responsibility.   Faculty leaders should be developed for institutional administration positions. These individuals have experience at the faculty level as well as in faculty leadership. Those perspectives will help them navigate the challenges faced at the institutional level.  Faculty as well as faculty leaders need to be provided with a wide range of information to help them fully understand complex issues. They often do not have complete information so they may have a limited perspective and be making (or resisting) decisions from an uninformed place.  Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview:  President Speaks: Shared governance key to becoming an “empowered university”  University of Maryland – Baltimore County (UMBC)  Bio of Dr. Philip Rous  Guests Social Media Links:  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/philip-rous-1804a325/   The Change Leader’s Social Media Links:  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/  Twitter: @thechangeldr   Email: podcast@changinghighered.com  

In the summer of 2011, conversations began with the Governor’s office about potential mergers. Toward the end of the year an announcement was made that four mergers would occur. This resulted in eight institutions being merged into four. The most complex merger involved Georgia Health Sciences University and Augusta State University, which created one larger and more comprehensive institution than either had been separately. The University System of Georgia has had waves of mergers. Therefore much of the planning for the merger that resulted in Augusta University was done by the board and the administrative level of the University System of Georgia. Dr. Ricardo Azziz was instrumental in implementing that merger. Azziz continues to analyze the process that was used to create this complex merger. He co-authored a 2017 report for the TIA Institute and a book, Strategic Mergers and Higher Education, published by John Hopkins Press. Higher Ed Mergers: A Leadership Challenge Higher education mergers tend to be tenuous for multiple reasons, the biggest reason being that most mergers are not planned in advance – few institutions take the time to proactively consider the aspects of mergers and appoint appropriately experienced leaders.  Additionally, most institutions don’t have access to consultants with this expertise. Azziz believes that many higher education leaders who guide a merger are not anxious to be part of another merger. At the time of the Augusta merger, there was little information available about how to execute a merger between universities. Institutional leaders had no roadmap – only theoretical research about completing mergers had been published at the time, so leaders were in some ways flying by the seat of their pants.  One thing that helped was that the University of Georgia system hired a consultant to help with the accreditation of those mergers, as it took something off the already overflowing plates of the merger team. Higher education leaders who are leading mergers make every effort to network with those who have guided these types of organizational change and/or use an experienced consultant to guide the process. This will help leaders access the many tools needed to be successful. Seven Essential Elements There are seven essential elements that need to be in place for a successful merger: Supportive and understanding board The right kind of institutional leaders A vision that encompasses and drives the merger so the university community sees itself as part of the merger A sense of urgency so people understand why this needs to happen A communication plan A robust project management system Resources Most institutions wait too long to begin the merger process. These institutions may be facing a number of serious challenges, including budgetary issues and/or declining enrollment. The University of Georgia System leadership and state leadership took a proactive approach before the eight institutions were seriously in trouble and had reached a point of no return. However, the system officials had difficulty injecting a new vision or a sense of urgency because much of the data regarding the institutional selections was kept at the system level. Reasons for Mergers There can be many reasons for mergers; first and foremost should be to preserve a tradition or programs for students. Therefore, it is important to bring a focus of what’s best for students and how best to develop a higher quality education, experiences and training for students. This is the right focus that creates both a sense of urgency and focus. Emphasizing financial gain as the primary factor in creating a merger is the wrong approach to creating a sense of urgency because a merger is going to cost money. In fact, there will be additional costs in finances and personnel since the mergers need their own staffing and finances beyond what is available in the two institutions that are merging. Success vs. Failure Success is not an exact term when talking about mergers, but the bottom line should be about the students. If leaders keep the students and the quality of their education, experiences, and programs at the forefront of the vision of the merger, it becomes easier to see how the creation of a larger institution can offer more programs for students as well as more sustainable programs than what each smaller institution could provide. Failures of mergers can mean different things. These failures can include the institutions remaining apart because the administrations never fully combined. Even in cases such as these, whereas some institutions fail at merging, they use the experience to rejuvenate because they are forced to examine themselves carefully. Strategic Planning Mergers are usually discounted (or not even considered) as part of an institution’s strategic plan, but they should be.  The American Quality Foundation and Ernst and Young published a study several years ago that looked across a number of different organizations in the U.S., Canada and Japan. The researchers analyzed what would create positive growth from a market capital perspective. There were three common findings which align with Azziz’s experiences in mergers: Strategy with good implementation Business process improvement that is focused on the customer Depth and breadth of leadership management practices. When building their institution’s strategic plan, it is important leaders and governing boards consider all options, including mergers, acquisitions and strategic alliances, in their planning process. This allows these concepts to be part of the lexicon and planning. Transformational Change Many mergers are coming as a result of revolutionary change in the higher education sector, such as some institutions offering free on-line courses or a life-long learning process that is cumulative. Higher education also is under significant pressure with societal changes, including technology, the need and ability of individuals to regularly expand their knowledge base as well as rapidly changing demographics.  Unfortunately, higher education as a whole tends to be more comfortable with incremental change, and its leaders must expand their understanding and in fact embrace transformational change in the form of a merger. Azziz believes that higher education leaders must now adopt a more proactive and transformational leadership approach to ensure that future students get the best quality of education (which may not – and probably will not -- be the same type of education as they receive today).  For example, the current generation of students are hesitant to seek higher degrees immediately – they want to go into the workforce and because they know they will be experiencing a number of jobs during their career, they know they need to take a continuous life-long learning approach to adapt and develop skills and knowledge that haven’t been developed yet. To successfully meet this challenge, higher education will have to adapt by creating different badging and certificate processes, using wider technology and embracing a more diverse range of learning materials. Higher education needs to respond more decisively and planfully in what is happening in the external environment, which is revolutionary. Meeting these challenges requires a visionary governing board and leaders. However, these boards often don’t embrace their strategic responsibilities in relation to the schools they lead – the experience of most boards and higher education institutions is one of times when change wasn’t as radical.  In addition, board members often come from different industries and may not understand what is happening in higher education and don’t take the time to educate themselves. Clear Communication One of the critical things in mergers is communications. It is important to have a comprehensive communications strategy with concise messages that allows all members of the leadership chain involved in the mergers to deliver the same messages consistently. You cannot over-communicate, but conflicting messages and wordings are extremely problematic, especially because in academics, words matter. Project Management Project management is essential for a successful merger. Like dominos, a merger needs to have the individual pieces fall in the right direction at the right time to be successful – there can be severe implications for the institution if something is not done in a timely manner. Azziz was fortunate to have an experienced internal project management team who understood the complexity of the transaction, including having the numerous groups from accreditors to financial institutions involved. This comprehensive approach helped smooth the merger process. He recommended that smaller institutions hire an external project management team if an institution does not have one in-house. Resources Mergers require additional resources, both financial and personnel, beyond the needs of operating the two separate institutions that will be merging. In the case of Augusta, they merged a health sciences institution with a liberal arts / masters institution. The health sciences center had resources that could be diverted to fund the merger, whereas the liberal arts institution had less resources to dedicate. Culture The culture of a university campus is special and recognized. It also can be very difficult to cultivate when doing a merger. It takes a long time for a new culture to develop. Leaders need to remember to preserve the original culture so that everyone feels engaged while also creating a new culture that reflects the merger. These two perspectives do not have to be contradictory. Additionally, leaders need to realize that academic cultures in larger institutions tend to be heterogeneous; the culture in the college of engineering differs from the business school, which differs from the college of liberal arts. Leaders should not try to force the creation of a homogeneous institutional culture that has artificial parameters. 3 Recommendations for Higher Education Leaders Azziz suggested three take-aways for university presidents: Consider mergers and acquisitions as part of the strategic planning process’s environmental scanning. This doesn’t mean that they have to merge or acquire. However, they will have taken the idea of the merger into consideration. Understand that the external environment is changing in a very rapid pace. Taking an approach that only focuses on incremental change will no longer work. Bullet Points Most institutional leaders do not have experience in leading mergers, nor are there a plethora of consultants who can assist in a merger. There are seven elements that are critical in leading a successful merger: Supportive and understanding board; the right kind of institutional leaders; a vision that encompasses and drives the merger so the university community sees itself as part of the merger; a sense of urgency so people understand why this needs to happen; a communications plan; a robust project management system; and resources. Mergers should be undertaken for improving student education, programs and experiences. The primary drivers should not be financial. The possibility of a merger should be considered in the environmental scanning portion of a strategic planning process. This enable institutional leaders to begin to think proactively about this process instead of reactively when it is forced onto them by top leaders or external factors. Institutional leaders need to adopt a transformational change mentality, which differs greatly from the incremental change that has traditionally been taken in higher education. Leaders also need to be aware of and take into account the revolutionary changes that are impacting the higher education sector. Clear, concise and consistent communication is key in the merger process. All leaders need to be on the same page and use the same wording. A project management team – whether internal or external – are invaluable since this team will consider the various complexities of a merger. Additional personnel and financial resources are needed in a merger. These are beyond what each merging institution brings to the table. Creating a vital common culture is critical in a merger. However, it’s important to maintain the previous institutional culture for a period of time as well as not attempt to create a homogenous institutional culture that doesn’t fit every college / department. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Ricardo Azziz Strategic Mergers in Higher Education Guests Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ricardo-azziz-0a8b0396/ The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

Dr. Lori Varlotta is president of Hiram College, a small liberal arts college with approximately 1,000 students in the traditional college and 200 in the adult program. She is the campus’ 22nd president, the first female to serve in that role. Hiram recently completed a major organizational redesign that followed closely on the heels of a very inclusive strategic planning process. The strategic plan had two overarching goals – to grow enrollment and to increase the campus’s financial sustainability. However, to achieve those two goals, the plan called for several action items, one of which was an academic prioritization process. An Inclusive Approach The strategic planning process was a year-long process that included approximately half of the institution’s 80 faculty and 100 staff.  When it came time to do the academic prioritization process, Varlotta and her team invited all faculty to the table to participate, as well as student government, staff assembly, the Board of Trustees and the administration. During both the strategic planning and the academic prioritization processes, the institution’s mantra was that the outcomes would be shaped by the hands of many so everyone could see their fingerprints on the end product. This approach helped with getting stakeholder buy-in. Varlotta noted that the means by which these were accomplished, i.e., the transparency and inclusiveness that were front and center, were as important as the ends in moving through these processes. Action Steps The steps in the implementation process, which were led by the college’s chief academic dean, Dr. Judy Muyskens, included: The dean worked with faculty to identify the intellectual framework that would guide the academic reprioritization process. Muyskens worked with faculty to review the types of metrics from the Delaware Study. This benchmarking study provides suggested metrics that help administrators and faculty members do an analysis of departmental costs, instructional costs, scholarly activity, etc. A timeline for the academic reprioritization process was created. This timeline projected when the administration would seek approval from the Board of Trustees and then worked backwards to set up key deadlines. This helped ensure that stakeholders were not surprised by how the planning process was proceeding. While there was a data-driven process with benchmarks and milestones, the administration clearly communicated that they would not be beholden to the process. The administrators wanted to make the process iterative and allow for changes and mid-course adjustments. If there needed to be more time for discussions –or an acceleration of the process—administrators wanted to embrace having that latitude. A Strategic Academic Team was created. This ad-hoc committee of five faculty members, each from separate programs, was appointed jointly by the dean and the chair of the Faculty Senate. This group represented various stakeholders across campus in relation to the academic background, diverse populations and research backgrounds. The individuals also had to agree to put the needs of the campus before any departmental needs. The SAT, which met weekly and also worked with the entire faculty, were charged with working with the academic dean on the self-assessment and developing the criteria that programs would be evaluated by. They then helped prioritize the college’s programs. This ranking included programs that the college needed to add or grow, programs that the college needed to keep in place, and programs that the college needed to reduce or cut. This was very emotional and difficult work. Later in the process, the administrators were criticized for not having this committee elected by the faculty as a whole; however, the chair and the dean both felt that the need for diversity among committee members was more important when making the selection of who to serve. Develop criteria for the prioritization. Through a collective and inclusive process, the SAT identified criteria to guide the prioritization process. These criteria, which were endorsed by the faculty as a whole, included: departmental connection to the college’s mission; the level of departmental faculty work and faculty productivity as defined in large part by metrics laid out in the Delaware Study; faculty had to demonstrate that they were helping bring institutional priorities to fruition; the departments had to show a track record of securing external resources through gifts, grants or regional acclaim; and student interest and workforce demand. These were agreed upon by all before prioritization took place. Significant research went into identifying institutional priorities and criteria. The administrators and SAT were guided by the research of Dr. Robert Dickenson, who authored a seminal work on academic prioritization. In addition, Varlotta was able to tap into her network of other presidents who are members of the Council of Independent Colleges to identify those who went through processes like the one at Hiram College. She also talked to several consultants that she had worked with in the past to provide a reality check about the criteria being used. Criteria and related prompts were disseminated to every faculty member. The SAT and administrators sent the criteria out and asked faculty to join with their departmental colleagues to address the prompts and then post the responses on a faculty portal. This offered a significant level of transparency for all faculty members, administrators and student government. Data analysis took place in Spring 2018. The SAT was charged with reviewing the data while the Academic Program Committee, which was charged with the college’s shared governance, shared the task. These two committees separately downloaded the information from the portal, analyzed the information and prioritized the programs, majors, minors and programs of distinction. Creating a faculty committee designed to focus on innovation. A third group, brought to Dr. Varlotta by two senior faculty members, was stood up to focus on innovations, i.e., what kinds of priorities needed to be added to keep the college forward-looking. Recommendations included overhauling the first-year experience and reorganizing all of the departments into 4-5 interdisciplinary schools, which created more collegiality among students and faculty. Making the Hard Decisions The SAT worked for 2-3 months prioritizing the programs. The hardest decisions were focused on which programs, majors or minors would be reduced or cut. They also identified which programs should remain at the same level and which programs should grow through the addition of faculty members or resources. These were data-driven decisions which included fact-checking against the CFO’s metrics and doing one-on-one interviews. These recommendations were forwarded to Dr. Varlotta in May 2018. At the same time, the shared governance committee brought a list, which paralleled the SAT’s recommendations. That confirmed that the work had been thorough, rational and practical. All of these recommendations were forwarded back to the faculty as a whole to review and make commentary. This commentary was part of the package that Dr. Varlotta brought to the Board of Trustees. She supported both sets of recommendations in entirety. In addition, the Board, which includes 38 trustees, voted on each recommendation separately and gave each their unanimous approval. The Cuts As part of this process, the college decided to end its religious studies program, downgrade five majors into minors and eliminate six faculty positions. Dr. Varlotta and the college’s vice president of development worked together to raise funds to give each of the affected faculty members a full-year buy-out and full-year benefits. Hiccups and Challenges Dr. Varlotta said it was important to have a sound rationale when forming specific committees prior to doing an academic prioritization process.  Transparency was critically important.  In addition, leaders needed to translate the rhetoric into reality. For example, Dr. Varlotta held 100 different meetings with various stakeholders while the vice presidents held 80 additional meetings during the spring semester. 3 Recommendations for Higher Education Leaders Dr. Varlotta suggested three take-aways for university presidents: If an institution embarks on an academic prioritization process, it can’t just be about cuts and reduction. There also needs to be opportunities for growth and augmentation. Institutions with financial issues must grow while making reductions at the same time. “You cannot cut your way to growth.” There is an enormous amount of training that needs to take place to help faculty members become data-driven in order to translate the rhetoric into reality. Faculty members are extraordinary intelligent and know their disciplines well, but often don’t have the understanding of how to use organizational data to make evidence-based institutional decisions. A public timeline needs to be created to ensure that stakeholders know what’s coming next. Bullet Points During both the strategic planning process and the academic prioritization process, Varlotta and her team invited stakeholders from across the campus to be involved. Administrators need to identify the intellectual framework that will guide the academic reprioritization process. This should be done in concert with faculty members and should include metrics that will guide decision-making. It’s important to set up and publicize a timeline that allows all stakeholders to understand the decision-making process. An iterative process that allows for changes and mid-course adjustments will help keep stakeholder buy-in strong. A small committee of faculty members who represent the span of the institution and its diverse interests should be involved in the academic prioritization process. This group can serve as an intermediary with other faculty members and also can provide critical leadership in helping make difficult decisions. In addition, this group needs to agree to put the institution’s well-being above departmental needs. Institutional priorities were identified, based on research. Agreed-upon metrics were identified that gauged departmental connection to the college’s mission, faculty work/productivity, faculty’s ability to bring institution priorities to fruition, departmental external fundraising, student interest and workforce demand. All faculty and departments were asked to respond to the criteria through specifically written prompts. These responses were then reviewed and analyzed by the SAT committee. A separate innovation committee was created through faculty suggestion. This committee focused on offering ideas of where the institution should move in the future. The SAT committee took 2-3 months to review faculty and departmental feedback in order to prioritize programs. They also worked with the CFO to look at budgetary issues. Ultimately, the committee made recommendations to the president and dean of which programs, majors and minors to eliminate/downgrade as well as which to remain the same or expand. The shared governance committee also did their own analysis and came up with similar recommendations. These recommendations went to the Board of Trustees, which considered each recommendation separately and gave separate votes. President Varlotta and the college’s development officer worked to secure funds to provide a generous severance package to each faculty member whose position was eliminated in the academic prioritization process. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Delaware Study Judith Muyskens Guests Social Media Links: Lori Varlotta The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

Episode Summary The Change Leader CEO and President Drumm McNaughton and Aurora University Vice President for Marketing and Communications Deb Maue share their insights during the second annual wrap-up of happenings in higher education. This show notes offers a follow-up on the pair’s predictions for 2019 as well as insights on what to prepare for in 2020. Mergers, Consolidates and Closures 2018 Prediction for 2019: There would be an acceleration of mergers, consolidations and closures in higher education. What happened: This proved to be true. In November 2019, Education Dive reported that from 2014-2018, there were 1,234 colleges and universities that closed, including 129 non-profits, 11 publics and 1,094 for-profits. It shows that higher education is in a mature or declining market and will continue to experience headwinds in the future. The most surprising example of this was University of Alaska, where the governor initially wanted to cut $80 million from the budget, but dropped the amount to $40 million. This level of cuts is unheard of and it had to do with campaign promises. The university system was looking at consolidating three campuses into one, but geographically, this made no sense. System leaders also are looking at programmatic and faculty cuts. This will have far-reaching consequences, and may put the institution’s accreditation into jeopardy. However, several mergers made strategic sense. For example, National University System acquired Northcentral University, which is fully online with masters and doctoral programs. This merger allows the system to provide more programs for its students. Another example is Arkansas System, which absorbed Henderson State, a private non-profit. This opportunity to share services helps Henderson financially; in addition, its brand equity will increase by being part of the system. In both cases, these institutions moved quickly instead of waiting. They viewed the opportunity to merge as a strategic decision instead of being forced into making the move as a last resort. Neg Reg 2019 2018 Prediction for 2019:  The Neg Reg 2019 process would begin a transformation of higher education and its business model. What happened: This process proved to be groundbreaking in many ways. For instance, the Neg Reg negotiators came to consensus on every topic, which is unheard of. The Department of Education did put forward a number of ambitious goals and participants pushed back on a number of them before coming to consensus. The negotiators put the items under consideration into three buckets – accreditation agencies, innovation (including distance education and CBE), and teach grants and religious schools. The Department published the rules on accreditation agencies on November 1 in the Federal Register so these rules will go into effect July 1.  Some of the critical things include Accreditors are no longer delineated as regional or national and they now can compete against each other. Accreditors also can now reach out beyond the state or region they initially were restricted to and work with institutions in other parts of the nation. Student transfers should become much easier because of these changes. However, the innovation bucket was not finalized. People are anticipating that new guidance will come out for discussion shortly because the Department of Education just ended its Competency-based Education (CBE) experiment. However, because this guidance wasn’t published by November 1, these changes won’t go into effect on July 1, 2020. If President Trump is not re-elected, these changes will be up for reconsideration. A major issue for this bucket is how to measure learning. Right now, accreditors and institutions primarily measure learning by credit hours. However, this isn’t truly a good measure of learning.  Competency-based education looks at the knowledge and skills that a student acquires (or has coming into a program). Moving toward this way of measuring learning would be a major shift for higher education, especially for distance education. There also is talk coming out of Washington, D.C. about how to engage the business community more to identify the proficiencies that students need. This could also be put in the innovation bucket, The future of the third bucket -- TEACH grants and guidance for religious colleges and universities – is still unclear. Online Education 2018 Prediction for 2019: Online education will continue to grow in the next 2-3 years, spurred by consolidations and strategic alliances with online providers. What happened: This happened over the last year with the increase of online students; however, the rate of increase slowed. Western Governors and Southern New Hampshire University both topped 100,000 students and Grand Canyon University topped 90,000. However, there also have been major drops, including Phoenix (which was at 490,000 students at the beginning of the decade but now has about 90,000, a significantly lower enrollment). The most interesting thing is online program management (OPM). Bridgepoint Education continues to expand into this market as is Grand Canyon. Then there is Online Degree, which is turning the OPM marketing on its head. This company, which is growing, is attracting college dropouts to earn their GE requirements for free. Additionally, the movement from for-profit to non-profit is in a disarray. Grand Canyon illustrates this, having received approval for non-profit status by the IRS. However, the institution will still be treated as a for-profit by the Department of Education for the purposes of receiving federal funding. Universities that got into online education thought they would draw students nationally. However, online is now becoming hyper-local outside of the big players. The student base for online is the same as the prospective student base who would attend classes in person. This makes the marketing to these students easier. The number of post-traditional students is decreasing. Whether this will continue will be based on the economy. If it sours, people will go back to school to distinguish themselves. On a positive note, Moody changed its outlook from negative to neutral because they’ve seen some growth in some sectors. However, the demographic changes are beginning to be felt and will culminate in The Cliff in 2025.  Additionally, 1 in 3 higher ed CFOs believe that the sector is in trouble, and they are the ones that know what is going on the best. Tenure and promotion 2018 Prediction for 2019: Changing faculty tenure and promotion policies as a result of universities needing to cull programs that are not financially viable. What happened: This is still emerging. We believe that faculty are not getting tenured as quickly, especially at private institutions. Additionally, tenure doesn’t mean lifetime employment anywhere given that low-performing programs will be cut, putting faculty at risk for losing jobs.  One way this may play out is through alliances that may allow faculty to be shared between institutions. Market Research 2018 Prediction for 2019: Market research will increasingly have a place in higher education as they focus on identifying where students are coming from. What happened: We agreed that this hasn’t come true. Deb noted that there are some institutions that are doing a solid job in doing market research using statistical methods and other research methods to position the institution. However, there are still “haves” (which are big institutions) and “have-nots” based on funding being available to do this type of research. Cost Containment 2018 Prediction for 2019: Cost containment will accelerate, especially in private schools. This will find its way to the C suite where there will be a reduction of presidential salaries, especially in private universities. What happened: There wasn’t a reduction in salaries, but cost containment is becoming more evident. One-third of CFOs are concerned about their finances. Student debt exceeds $1.5 trillion, the highest ever. Low income students must work 15+ hours a week to afford their education. The discounting rate is commonly at 60 percent. Higher education enrollments are under 18 million, the first time since the Great Recession. However, institutions can’t cut their way to grow; instead, it’s important – and CFOs are increasingly trying to find ways -- to put money into areas that will give a good return on the investment. These include market research and proactive boards to steer the institution. Additionally, faculty and staff are starting to understand that higher education is a business and there is a relationship between revenues and expenses. Presidents are being more transparent about budgets as a way to education the institutional stakeholders. 2018 Prediction for 2019: We will start to see more interesting ways for education to be funded. Part of this will come from the NegReg process. More cities, state and companies will invest in their employees’ future. What happened: While there hasn’t been much movement on this, we note that the movement in the OPM markets, as well as the changing accreditation process. There has been growth but not as far as funding of education. This is part of the reason why there have been so many mergers and closures – institutions still are too reliant on tuition for their budgets. Higher education is beginning to partner with businesses to provide stackable and micro credentials for employees. However faculty buy-in is needed because they will be responsible for providing the content. 2019 Surprises We also note a number of things that happened in 2019 that surprised us. These included: Varsity Blues. This represents the worst in higher education and U.S. society when people with money can buy dishonesty at universities. Admissions lawsuits. The federal judge upheld Harvard’s use of affirmative action in its admission decisions, but it’s going to be appealed. There’s a similar lawsuit against UNC from the same group. Title IX. Three undergraduate women from Yale filed a class action lawsuit against Yale and its fraternities alleging that the fraternities control the campus social scene in a biased manner against women and fostering a culture of sexual harassment runs rampant. Lawsuits about false marketing. Career Education Corporation settled a five-year lawsuit brought by 49 state attorney generals over its marketing. A similar lawsuit happened to Phoenix, which is now considered to have a toxic brand. These lawsuits taint the for-profit education sector. Title IX. New guidance, which is at OPM, is coming out that changes the criteria from preponderance of evidence instead of clear and convincing evidence, the same as what is required in civil suits. This process had over 100,000 comments on this and will have major landmines. Predictions for 2020 Changes are coming in how fundraising is done at major institutions. Donor relations are changing in that people are returning donations and unnaming buildings. Institutions are going to be far more wary of accepting donations without doing significant background checks. There will be an acceleration of closures and mergers. There were big ones in 2019, such as Purdue with Kaplan and Strayer with Capella. There will be more closures in private non-profits. There is an overabundance in the market and a correction. Rising costs and discount rates of 60 percent or more will be common. Institutions will increase their partnerships with businesses to develop curriculum and credentials tailored to the businesses. Free tuition will not be the norm. Otherwise, taxes will need to be increased. More lawsuits about free speech, admissions policies and sexual assault will be filed. The Title IX rollout will be a mess. NCAA will need to look at restructuring, such as paying Division I athletes. This has other ramifications. For instance, this decision would give student-athletes the status of employees, which then gives them disability. That has additional cost ramifications for institutions. NegReg 2019 will turn into NegReg 2020 and things won’t be rolled out in a timely basis. If there is a new president, there could be significant rollbacks in the guidelines. There will not be any resolution in credit hours vs. competency-based education in relation to learning. The Department of Education will punt this issue to the accreditors. With the changes to the NACAC regulations, there will be decreased ability to predict the size of incoming fall class. May 1 will be less of a critical date in knowing what the fall enrollment will be and the recruiting cycle will change.   Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Guests Social Media Links: Guest Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/deborahmaue/ https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-change-leader/about/ The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com