Changing Higher Ed

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

Episode Summary Dr. Russ Poulin served on the subcommittee on the recent federal Negotiated Rulemaking (Neg Reg) negotiations where he had the opportunity to provide input on recommendations that were voted on by the full committee. He was recently promoted to be the Executive Director of WCET. In this podcast, he discusses some of the decisions that came out of the Neg Reg and were published. Tying Federal Financial Aid to State Service Neg Reg 2019 solidified the state authorization that ties federal financial aid to the institution that has the approval of the state where it is serving students. Some institutions were hesitating in complying with state authorization and were waiting for this tie to federal financial aid. Now, these institutions need to get those approvals in the states where they serve students. One of the ways to get the necessary approval is through reciprocity provided by the National Council of State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (NC-SARA). In addition, there is a new controversial definition of reciprocity. Previously, there was language that made it seem like a state could enforce any rule that it wanted to as part of reciprocity. However, it isn’t reciprocity if everyone is enforcing the previous rules.  An institution that is a member or participant in NC-SARA is now further down the road in being compliant in this area. This should bode well for institutions in most states. However, there currently is little protection offered California students who are taking classes at out-of-state non-profit or public institutions at a distance. California does have a complaint process, but provides little else in protection for these students. Changes in Accreditation The Neg Reg strengthened the triad of federal, state and accreditation bodies.  One of the changes lead removes any differentiation between regional and national accreditors. Instead, there will be just institutional accrediting bodies. The impact of this decision is still to be determined , but one outcome of this change could potentially remedy the situation in which a regional university will not accept transfer credits from a nationally accredited university. In addition, regionals can now accredit any institution in any state. It will be interesting to see how the accrediting bodies react to this change, as well as how the department will do as far as oversight or pushing this policy forward. Distance Education There is a slight change in the definition of student identity in distance education. The idea all along has been that the institution needed to ensure that the student who registers for a course is the one who is taking the assessments. Previously, institutions used specific passwords, face-to-face proctoring or other types of electronic monitoring. The change requires the accreditors to work with the institutions to see what is really working and what evidence shows that it’s working. While discussed in the Neg Reg negotiations, defining “substantial interaction” did not come out in the published package. However, this issue has led to additional discussions. The definition of distance education that was last updated in 1992 offered a specific definition of regular and substantive interaction. As time has passed, this definition has become outdated and needs to be redefined in a functional way for institutions to know what to do. Much of this was sparked because of competency-based education, which is based on when the student achieves a competency on their own timeline (instead of on a set schedule). Continued discussions agree that there should be interaction, but the initial definition only mentioned the faculty member; that is only one perspective so that doesn’t constitute interaction. There’s since been progress in updating and the proposed changes should come out for comment soon. This also will give accreditors the flexibility to allow for some innovation currently happening or that which will emerge in the future. Additionally, the accreditor gets leeway as long as student outcomes are being properly supported. In addition, there have been discussions about substantial interaction and correspondence courses as well as content-based education vs. credit hour as a measure for learning. Interaction is important; however, the interaction needs to be considered in multiple ways between faculty, students and content. For example, Western Governor’s University has an unbundled faculty model which uses a faculty member doing assessment that is different from the faculty member doing the teaching. Degrees with Licensure The state authorization recommendations also address degree programs that lead to state licensure, such as nursing, psychology and teaching. In the past, the regulation said if institutions were doing this at a distance, students who live in other states must be notified about whether the program fulfills the licensure requirements in their home state. That requirement has not been fully implemented until recently. The recent changes expanded this requirement to include face-to-face programs as well as distance programs. This is something that presidents will need to look at across their entire institution. Additionally, institutions are required to make three types of statements: The institution knows that that the degree program that is offered meets the requirements of a state. The institution knows that the degree program does not meet the requirements of a state. The institution was unable to make a determination. Accreditation bodies also will have to look at how new or current programs meet the requirements of other states. Still Needing Work Areas including TEACH Act, religious-affiliated institutions, distance education, competency-based education and federal financial aid are being reconsidered and rebundled into two packages. The packaging around these areas will be determined on languaging and whether the issue fits with other parts of law. These new packages will be released for comments soon. Three Takeaways: Poulin suggested three take-aways for higher education leaders: There are substantive changes around accreditation. Accreditors are going to have to figure these out and institutions should be watching. State authorization is tied to federal aid. The expansion of state licensure will have significant implications. Watch how this unfolds. Bullet Points Neg Reg 2019 solidified the state authorization that ties federal financial aid to the institution that has the approval of the state where it is serving students. Institutions can get the necessary approval through reciprocity provided by the National Council of State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (NC-SARA). The Neg Reg, which strengthened the triad of federal, state and accreditation bodies, removes differentiation between regional and national accreditors. Instead, there will be just institutional accrediting bodies. A change in relation to distance learning requires the accreditors to work with the institutions to see what is really working and what evidence shows that it’s working in relation to ensuring that the students who take class are the ones who are being assessed for their work. Additionally, discussions about distance learning are ongoing in relation to regular and substantive interaction. These discussions are designed to bring the definition into alignment with current distance learning practice and where technology is allowing learning to go. Institutions that offer degree programs that lead to state licensure, such as nursing, psychology and teaching must let students who participate at a distance from another state know that the program is in alignment with their home state’s licensure requirements. Areas including TEACH Act, religious-affiliated institutions, distance education, competency-based education and federal financial aid are being reconsidered and rebundled into two packages that will be discussed in future Neg Reg discussions. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Negotiated Rulemaking 2019 Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technology Guest Social Media Links: WICHE Twitter: @wicheEDU WCET Twitter: @wcet_info Russ Poulin LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/russellpoulin/ The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

TRACS Annual Meeting Learnings | Changing Higher Ed 028 Episode Summary The Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS), an accreditation body for Christian institutions of higher education, works with approximately 100 institutions. Founded in 1979, the organization is a voluntary non-profit self-governing body that promotes the welfare, interests and development of higher education institutions who have a distinctly Christian purpose. The TRACS Annual Meeting provides opportunities for networking and learning about best and emerging practices among the members. This podcast features the following individuals who attended the recent TRACS Conference: Ann Rill, Chief Academic Officer at Veritas Baptist College. Bryan McCabe, Academic Dean at Bakke Graduate University Steve Hase, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer at Southern Evangelical Seminary Key Learnings from Dr. Ann Rill Veritas Baptist College started as a Bible institute in the 1980s. In the 1990s, the institution became a full-fledged college and received accreditation in 2011. In 2004, Veritas started implementing distance education through video-conferencing while also having some physical sites where classes could be held. The institution’s work expanded to the point where 17 churches along the East Coast offered Veritas’ courses on-site. During that time, institutional leaders realized that additional flexibility was needed in delivering the courses so each course was videotaped and sent out to students. Eventually, Veritas changed its model to utilize Adobe Connect and eventually Zoom. Over time, all of students were drawn to on-line courses through asynchronous lectures so the university ended on-site classes. Veritas now professionally records most faculty lectures. As Veritas moved into online education, faculty were concerned about how they would mentor students and prepare young people with ministry. Faculty now believe online education actually offers more opportunity to mentor because the lectures are prerecorded, thus freeing up their time throughout the week to meet with students either face-to-face or via online meetings. Rill said she appreciated the feeling of community available through attending TRACS events and tries to use these meetings to network and develop relationships with other institutions and their leaders. She believes that these relationships have been very beneficial to Veritas over the years. In discussing the most recent conference, Rill highlighted sessions focused on mentoring, which is a real challenge for online institutions like Veritas. Noting that 51 percent of Veritas’ student body is made up of transfer students, she cited one session that focused specifically on mentoring transfer students. Rill noted that this type of approach is important because only approximately 40 percent of all transfer students attending non-profit schools complete their academic program. Rill said that Veritas representatives who attended the TRACS conference have started using what they learned to develop new mentoring outreach efforts. For example, Veritas CFO is part of a group that will mentor students on financial planning and how to avoid taking out student loans. Rill also pointed to the need to remove barriers, such as discounting the quality of academic courses taken at other institutions, which hamper students from transferring. Although most institutions want to maintain a high academic standard (and often think that their own academic standard is the gold standard), the fact is that many students will be transferring throughout their academic careers. This makes sense – Millennials and Gen Z’ers are projected to have an average of nine different careers during their lifetime; thus, it is not surprising that they would follow this pattern of regular change in their academic studies. Wise institutional leaders will find ways to help these students transfer their previously earned credit hours, which increasingly will be important as the population of potential students nationally continues and even accelerates its decline. Rill did note that Veritas’ transfer policies are slightly different in relation to undergraduate and graduate programs. Veritas is more open to receiving undergraduate credit from schools that may not be accredited but that have appropriately degreed faculty members and are offering a valid program. She pointed out that accreditation is relatively new in Christian colleges and institutional leaders have been slow to embrace accreditation because they want to make sure that the accreditor’s worldview is in line with the Christian institution. Therefore, students who started their degrees many years ago may not have undergraduate degrees or credits from accredited colleges, so Veritas tries to do its best to accommodate these students without losing any integrity. At the graduate level, Veritas does accept qualified students, even if their degrees do not come from an institution that is accredited. However, as part of their admissions review, Veritas officials may identify academic deficiencies in the student’s background that would affect their graduate studies. The institution may ask the student to take some additional undergraduate courses to close these gaps. Rill also noted that Veritas does hold a high standard when considering requests to transfer graduate courses. In addition, Veritas has a policy that graduate students need to complete at least 25 percent of their program at Veritas to earn their graduate degree. Key Learnings from Dr. Bryan McCabe Bakke Graduate University’s main headquarters are in Dallas, but the university’s students live across the word with 30 percent residing in North America. The university offers an Executive MBA program and a Master’s degree in Transformational Leadership as well as doctoral degrees in Transformational Leadership and Ministry. The university serves business leaders, political leaders, Christian pastors and missionaries. These individuals take classes together, which brings diverse viewpoints to the classroom. In addition, BGU’s faculty are located around the world. Most classes are offered on-line. However, BGU also has an innovative program in which students can attend week-long immersive on-site classes that look at Christian work and issues in a specific city. The institution also has a Board of Regents (which is different that its Board of Trustees) comprised of individuals located across the world that serves as a resource network for coaching and mentoring BGU’s students. McCabe said he appreciated the opportunity to network with the conference’s diverse participants. His biggest takeaway from the TRACS Conference was the need for each of the university’s initiatives to be tied to a visioning and strategic planning process that is aligned with all of the stakeholders within the university. The TRACS conference showcased the need to continually assess progress while also communicating to and involving individuals.   The university just went through the 10-year accreditation process with TRACS and received commendations for their work. However, there is room for fine-tuning and McCabe noted that attunement to a shared vision is a big challenge. Key Learnings from Dr. Steve Hase Southern Evangelical Seminary, which is 26 years old, offers educational programs through integrating classical philosophy and evangelical theology with apologetics. The Seminary is known for a full integration that helps Christians be prepared for a contemplative faith and have influence in their professional and community spheres. Hase experienced three takeaways from the TRACS Conference: The conference improved his own mindset through offering the opportunity to meet peers and learn about everyone’s challenges and successes. He realized that he’s not alone when undertaking these efforts. TRACS regularly pulls together numerous subject-area experts on topics, including strategic planning, building institutional leadership, a data-driven approach to admissions, reporting and measuring, and donor-centric fundraising. Fellowship is a critical part of the TRACS Conference because it allows participants to interact with others who are mission-minded. These individuals are always willing to impart their experiences and wisdom. TRACS leadership coaches individuals to help them become better leaders. In addition, the association creates workshops to help campus leaders do an accreditation self-study and to show ways that the institution can demonstrate it is meeting the accreditation requirements. These resources offer clarity and create templates that help institutions succeed. The conference also offered ideas to help the Board of Trustees understand their roles and be successful. The seminary is considering beginning a capital campaign, but after attending TRACS, Hase realizes that institutional leaders need to figure out how to cultivate a culture of stewardship as well as sustainable donors. The TRACS conference also made him reevaluate whether the institution is ready for this campaign and whether the need exists to sharpen the strategic plan. He now believes he needs to make sure that the Board and the senior leadership are on the same page before reaching out to raise external capital. Bullet Points TRACS conferences offer opportunities to network and develop relationships with leaders from other institutions. These events also provide opportunities to learn from others, both informally and formally. TRACS offers support to members who are going through the accreditation process. In addition, the association’s conferences and meetings create a network that helps members remain on the cutting edge of higher education. Mentoring students – especially those who are transferring into the institution -- is important, especially since the available student population will decline soon. Look for innovative ways to involve leaders and faculty, such as creating mentoring opportunities around personal finance. Additionally, institutions need to look at removing barriers in relation to transferring. This includes finding appropriate ways to accept course credits. Strategic planning and visioning should be at the heart of the institution’s efforts. This process needs to be continually refined and involve regular participation by the institution’s diverse stakeholders. Institutions can take an out-of-the-box approach through creating a network of key individuals around the world who can mentor students. Think through capital campaigns carefully before starting these efforts. These campaigns need to be tied to the strategic plan and continually involve and update all stakeholders. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: TRACS Veritas International University Bakke Graduate University Southern Evangelical Seminary Guests Social Media Links: Ann Rill Bryan McCabe Steve Hase The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

P27 – Washington Update with Tom Netting Episode Summary The Department of Education published final regulations that had achieved unprecedented consensus prior to the reporting deadline for the master calendar. However, two of the three regulations were not finalized in time for the publishing deadline and so will not go into effect on July 1, 2020 but at a later date. The House Democrats completed their comprehensive proposal to reauthorize the Higher Education Act. However, this act is not assured of getting out of the House due to a significant price tag. Many are watching the Senate to see if negotiations between Senator Lamar Alexander and Senator Patty Murray will serve as the impetus for passage of this long-delayed update. Department of Education Regulatory Activity Neg Reg 2019 While the Neg Reg 2019 discussions led to consensus on three areas -- innovation, accreditation, and distance/online education -- only one, accreditation, made it through to completion by the Department of Education in time for publication in the Federal Register by Nov. 1.  The other two packages did not make it to the public comment portion of the process. The package dealing with accreditation and the roles of the various members of the triad (the federal government, the state-level department and the accrediting agency) made it through for publication, and most stakeholders believe the changes are good.  They include: Updating the process for reviewing accrediting bodies. Giving accreditors more flexibility when looking at new programs within institutions to improve innovation vs. “hard and fast” rules. Giving institutions and accreditors more latitude with distance education, as well as the state’s roles and delivery of online education Redefining regular and substantive interaction to give people more access to education at times that are more productive for the individual (think Western Governors University). Encouraging policymakers and accreditors to take institutional and programmatic differences into account during accreditation. Offering new guidance on teach-out plans and the roles and responsibilities of accreditors, states and institutions with regard to these plans. Protecting students’ access to their information and the processes involved when institutions close their doors at the institutional, state and accreditor level. These improvements on innovation could accelerate students’ progress and get them into the workforce more quickly (which costs them less). The higher education community – primarily the publics and the private non-profits -- have been looking for these regulatory changes. In comparison, the failure to publish the other two proposals (or even go out to the public for comment) was disappointing, even though there are legitimate reasons for this. Department officials said that general counsel and other staff found problematic issues in relation to the broader context when they took a hard look at the proposals.  For example, department officials had concerns about how to measure competency-based education using the credit hour.   There were many areas that were not considered because they are divisive and fly in the face of regulatory and congressional personnel who are far more familiar with the old model (face-to-face/bricks and mortar).  These areas require groups to look at issues from new perspectives, e.g., delivery, cost, accelerating students’ education to get them into the workforce quicker by taking into account a student’s previous experience (CBE), and work study and apprenticeships. This can be difficult for individuals who haven’t participated in programs outside of traditional delivery systems or in non-traditional work study opportunities that involve mentorships.  For these policymakers, the proposed changes were seen to be jarring. The changes to the consensus packages will require taking them back to the original participants in the process to attempt to regain consensus – potentially pushing this out to next year or even later because of the upcoming presidential election. Title IX and Cleary Act Changes Despite its inability to publish two consensus packages, the Department is getting closer to rolling out two additional regulatory packages – changes to Title IX and Cleary Act. There has been considerable commentary and discussion on the Title IX package – over 150,000 comments. The public comments are about the victim’s rights, the adjudication process, and the investigation process in relation to the rights of both the accused and the accuser. The Education Department has culled through the comments, and has sent the guidelines to OMB for its review, the final step before publishing it in the Federal Register (and making it official).  OMB has scheduled meetings through mid-December with multiple interested parties.   The Department is looking to publish a final rule in the next few months. However, some House Democrats as well as Sens. Murray and Durbin have concerns about the proposed Title IX changes and are using those concerns to hold up reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Higher Education Act Reauthorization of the Higher Education Authorization Act is moving forward in the House. The proposed legislation is designed, among other things, to protect minority-serving institutions, as Hispanic-serving institutions and other groups of institutions were facing the end of funding. The House Democrats are proposing reauthorization with major changes. Some of the proposals that have attracted major attention include Partnership programs between the state and federal governments that would lead to free community college education; A significant revamping of the roles and responsibilities of the Department in relation to the direct loan program; Significant changes in assessment; and A review of financial need to broaden the ability for students to get financial assistance through Pell Grants. The plan also would provide a greater amount of consumer information but also would consolidate that information under the Net Price Calculator and the College Scorecard that would be accessible to both consumers and legislators. Another section of the proposal focuses on for-profit higher education, especially focusing on recent institutional closures. The Democrats are seeking to legislate gainful employment for all programs. There also are a number of areas focused on accountability of the for-profit higher education community, including establishing an oversight and enforcement entity to review for-profit institutions.  The Pell Grants for short-term programs and incarcerated students would not be eligible to participate. The Ability to Benefit program that serves students who don’t have a high school diploma or GED who can show the ability to matriculate by completing six credit hours was modified to bring greater access. The Democrats also looked at regulatory issues around Title IX and specifically prohibited the Secretary of Education from publishing any revisions to Title IX. This bill, which underwent a three-day mark-up, also has other changes, including reframing substance abuse into substance misuse. The bill was voted out of committee with a straight party-line vote. The next step is to take the bill to the House floor, but there is no guarantee that this bill will make it out of the House since there is a considerable price tag attached – some estimates are north of $400 million in new spending, and much of this money would go to institutions serving minority student populations. This leaves a number of moderate and fiscally conservative Democrats wondering whether they can support this legislation because of its price tag. In the Senate, Sen. Alexander is looking to create a legislative vehicle that will burnish his policymaking legacy through passage of the Higher Education Act before his retirement from public office. He reached out to House Democrats with input on their bill in an attempt to make the proposal palatable to both Democrats and Republicans. These include FAFSA simplification, Pell Grants for short-term programs and Pell Grants for incarcerated individuals. The House Democrat and the Alexander plans are being analyzed to determine if a compromise can be developed. Several individuals in Washington D.C. are working toward this, even though the nation is heading into an election year. Three Takeaways for Higher Education Leaders: Take a look at the changes in relation to the accreditation process. This is a divergence from the norm and many institutional leaders will approve of these changes. Being able to think outside of the box and outside of the rigid standards will encourage innovation both online and for bricks-and-mortar institutions. Watch whether Sen. Alexander and Sen. Murray are able to get on the same page and get momentum in relation to a smaller bill, and whether this bill will be acceptable to the House. Watch for Title IX regulations to come out at the end of the year. There is much that institutions were looking for, but there will be many new details to digest for implementation. Bullet Points Only one area – accreditation -- was published in November. Other regulations that achieved consensus were pulled down by Department of Education counsel and staff. The accreditation changes provide for a more individualized approach that will take into account differences in institutions and programs within institutions. Competency-based education and assessment were not published due to concerns raised by Department of Education legal counsel and staff. These areas will go back to discussions. Title IX and Cleary Act continue to be a hot button issue. This area also is influencing House Democrats in their efforts to create a Higher Education Act. The House will consider a proposal created by Democrats to reauthorize the Higher Education Act; however, the cost of this act may be too much to receive full House approval. Sen. Alexander is trying to find ways to make this proposal more palatable to Republicans and Democrats. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Lamar Alexander Patti Murray Congressman Bobby Scott Virginia Foxx 2019 Negotiated Rulemaking process Neg Reg list of participants Department of Education Guests Social Media Links: Tom Netting LinkedIn – https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-netting-9214755/ CSPEN LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/groups/6954716/ Tom Netting Twitter - @t_netting The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com      

Assessment Ed 026 – Grant Aldrich Episode Summary This program focused on the future of online program management (OPM). When online education began to emerge, many higher education institutions didn’t have the wherewithal and talent to ramp up online programs so many companies started offering OPM services in program conception and creation. Over time, OPMs have expanded to include student recruitment, student retention and support. These additional services provided by an external company can actually be beneficial to colleges and universities because most higher education institutions don’t do these things very well. However, the role of OPMs in higher education continues to spark controversy. For instance, the most recent negotiated rulemaking process at the federal level saw a push by OPMs and some for-profits to allow outside entities to develop and provide 100% of the curriculum, thus bypassing university faculty. However, that proposal did not pass. A shifting model Today, higher education institutions see OPMs as a necessary evil because the institutions don’t have in-house knowledge to offer these services. There is a growing sentiment that the price to hire an OPM is too high since these companies take a significant percentage of the tuition as part of their services. The contracts also are very lengthy and institutions face an increasingly competitive recruitment environment to find students to enroll in these programs. The combination of those issues are causing a sea-change in the market in which more services are becoming available and those services are becoming commoditized. However, there currently is a gap in the market for an OPM that operates with a focus on the student’s best interest. While OPMs need to continue to serve universities and colleges ultimately it should be up to the students to decide the best academic fit. New opportunities Aldrich believes that a very dramatic shift will happen soon in how the OPM market is structured. This shift would be from a university-centric model to a student-centric model, which could require OPM providers to take a lower share of tuition rates. This model could include many facets, such as: Offering free classes to students, thus eliminating the barrier of tuition. Meeting the needs of non-traditional students who have jobs and families that they must juggle. Creating an environment of support to enhance retention and other student needs. Having a better understanding of students’ capacity, due to quality assessments built into the OPM. Developing a better recruitment pipeline for universities and colleges. When marketing to meet enrollment numbers, many higher education institutions will bring in students who aren’t ready for college or are not a great fit for that institution. Because of the incentive structure in which an agency is trying to fill as many seats as possible, it’s not in the institution’s best interest to look at student fit. That’s a paradigm that needs to shift with online adult students. As higher education enrollment dramatically evolves from primarily service the traditional student who is enrolling directly after graduating high school to the adult learner, institutions will need to rethink their tactics, recruiting pipeline and advertising messages. Furthermore many of the working adults in this current higher education demographic are choosing higher education alternatives in greater numbers. Their decision is being based on factors outside of cost so institutions need to start reflecting on what’s behind these choices. A student-centric approach The student-centric approach gives institutions a new paradigm to solve this issue. For example, Aldrich’s company, OnlineDegree.com, is designed as a bridge to higher education to help students successfully begin their degree program, thus encouraging student preparation, confidence, motivation and persistence. This approach also could help institutions recruit students at a lower cost.  To achieve this approach, Aldrich and his team have created a platform that offering a credit-bearing immersion program. A student can take foundational college-level courses and the company has worked out articulation agreements with a variety of institutions to earn credit for courses. OnlineDegree.com is completely free for the student. Aldrich said the first part of the equation to create this approach is looking at the needs of working adults; they are cost-sensitive and busy with children and jobs. Enrolling in college and taking classes often can be a very scary and time-consuming endeavor; often these adults don’t know if they have the mental, emotional and physical capacity to do so. Gaining traction This novel approach, which is the next generation of OPM, tears down the barriers and helps students see if higher education is right for them. Students can evaluate their time-management skills to see if they have the acumen they have to be successful in a self-paced format. This approach also prepares them to enroll in an institution. This approach has been working very well. In the first 30 days, over 1,000 students pre-enrolled without the company doing any marketing. Since then, there has been immense interest as the company gets traction in publications in Forbes and other publications. This indicates the company is figuring out how to remove the barriers for adults. Institutions including large state universities, private universities and private non-profit institutions also are working with Aldrich’s company. In addition, the company is seeing good outcomes for students getting the support they need and helping them find good placements. This approach also helps higher education institutions solve many of the problems they face.  For example, Aldrich’s company is a bundled service provider that provides student recruitment, retention and support for students that use that platform. So all the barriers for institutions to work with Aldrich’s company have been removed. By creating a platform built specifically to serve the student, the OPM also offers surprising benefits for the university. For instance, if the OPM provides really good coaching, students can determine the best pathway related to the program that they want to pursue. Additionally, a strong assessment system helps the OPM better understand the student’s academic capacity. This enables the OPM to help both the student and the higher education to determine whether they would be a good “fit” as the student continues his/her academic journey. Thus, a useful and well-targeted recruitment pipeline opens up between the OPM and the institution. In addition, there’s no lengthy contract, no exclusivity, and the economics are far better than a traditional OPM provider. Changing the market Aldrich also foresees another shift in which institutions won’t work with one OPM company but instead develop relationships with many companies like his. That’s because there will be better economics by not avoiding exclusivity. The combination of offering a degree at no cost to the student along with student advisement is the way forward, Aldrich believes. Community colleges are limited resource-wise in being able to provide this type of support to students. Traditional institutions also don’t offer the flexibility schedule-wise as well the support needed for non-traditional students who need to work or care for family. This approach also should benefit faculty, who don’t want to teach these introductory general education courses. These faculty would rather work with more advanced students who have a passion for the subject matter. The work that Aldrich’s company and others do allows these courses to be offered at a far lower cost. Initially, there has been some concern about whether institutions would push back. However, this student-centric approach is making the pie larger because this program is available. This is a much greater value for institutions. Three Recommendations for Higher Education Leaders Aldrich offered three recommendation for higher education leaders who are considering an OPM model: Take an introspective and analytical approach to see if the institution should tackle this type of program internally or whether external help is needed. If contracting with a company, make sure that the institution can work with OPM providers who are coming from a student-centered approach. Embrace the student-centered programs who focus on non-traditional students.    Bullet Points Many higher education institutions didn’t have the internal resources to be able to offer online education. They have increasingly turned companies that offer OPM services in program conception and creation. Over time, OPMs have expanded to include student recruitment, student retention and support. A very dramatic shift will happen soon in how the OPM market is structured. This shift would be from a university-centric model to a student-centric model. This could include free tuition, strong student services and a recruitment pathway to universities. These next generation of OPMs also can be enticing to the growing number of adult learners, who need flexibility, low costs and additional academic support. A student-centric OPM model can help students successfully begin their degree program by helping them develop time-management and study skills, confidence, motivation and persistence. In this new paradigm, higher education institutions won’t work with only one OPM company but instead develop relationships with many companies. This approach also should benefit faculty, who don’t want to teach introductory general education courses and would rather focus on upper-level students who are focused on the subject area. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: https://www.onlinedegree.com/ Guests Social Media Links: Grant Aldrich LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/grant-aldrich-56721b31/ The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com Website: https://thechangeleader.com

Federal legislators and policymakers continue to try to work through policy and legislative changes that will have significant impacts on higher education. These include efforts by the U.S. Department of Education to alter rules developed during the Obama Administration. In addition, Congress continues to focus on trying to come up with a workable plan to update the Higher Education Act. Regulatory Activity The Department of Education has been attempting to make a number of revisions to rules created during the Obama Administration. Most recently, the Department made a seismic shift on gainful employment on June 28. The department soft-launched a final rule that overturns the 2009-2010 regulations as well as the 2014 regulations, including Subpart Q and R, and drops the mandated reporting requirements, student warnings for programs that were deemed failing and any further notification or follow-up of pending appeals with the department. Because of the master calendar, the full rescission was to be effective on July 1, 2020; however, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos used her authority to allow institutions to begin to follow this new rule after it was published in the Federal Register. The Department did attempt to fill the void in accountability after rescinding the rules. The Department plans to make significant changes to the College Scorecard by adapting much of the previously required information and create additions that would address disclosures. This change would offer transparency by allowing students to see this information (although it doesn’t address programs that are performing at a “lesser than” level). Some people have expressed frustrations and concerns about these changes but it’s good to remember that over the years, educational policymakers and stakeholders have learned a lot. Therefore, this approach to disclosure may be better than using a guillotine on institutions. Moving forward, policymakers and institutions can continue to learn more about improving institutional assessment using the three-legged stool: accreditation’s oversight of curriculum; state review of institutions based on their role and responsibilities; and the Department of Education’s focus on oversight and financial aid. Additionally, more changes are expected on the regulatory side. The Borrower Defense to Repayment regulations have been approved to go forward, although they are expected to be subject to court challenges once published. They are now with the Office of Management and Budget and should be published in the near future. In addition, three packages that were part of the most recent round of federal negotiation and rulemaking on accreditation and innovation were approved by consensus. The Department published a notice in May/June that the first of those packages was subject to notice of proposed rulemaking so that interested parties could review. That feedback was due by July 12. The other two packages still have to come out. Because there was consensus, these packages are on their way to final rule by Nov. 1. However, there are three major areas where disagreements still continue. These areas includes institutional eligibility and accountability, Title IX/Cleary and loan repayment. The concerns about Title IX/Cleary are at the forefront of the Senate HELP Committee’s discussion about reauthorization. These final rules probably won’t be agreeable to both parties. Democrats are concerned about protecting the interest of the victims while Republicans are focused on providing protection to the accused. Thus, the Senate committee is having difficulty finding a balance between offering protections to both parties. Upper-level legislative staff are currently in dialogue to try to find common ground. Concerns also exist about loan repayment. These include the opportunity for public service loan forgiveness, other types of loan forgiveness and the reduction of overall repayment plans. Higher Education Act With a short timeline available in the legislative process before the election cycle takes over, it’s becoming less likely that the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act will take place. Sen. Alexander, Sen. Murray and staff continue to hold weekly meetings as well as have discussions with members of their respective parties to see if they can come up with a comprehensive bill. There are pieces of reauthorization that everyone can come to terms with because they are much needed and in the best needs of students. These areas include student loan interest rates, financial literacy, loan repayment and simplification of the FAFSA. Sen. Alexander is focused on his burnishing his legacy by trying to pass revisions to the Higher Education Act. The question becomes whether he will be able to negotiate a bill that Democrats agree with or will end up crafting one that is specific to the Republican agenda. He also may focus on developing smaller bills that are bipartisan in nature that move smaller chunks through the legislative process. Discussions already have begun about alternate plans in case a comprehensive bill is not agreed upon. In the House, Chairman Scott has completed five bipartisan hearings that he and ranking member Fox agreed to. The committee will have one more hearing on apprenticeships. There remains a question about whether the House would take up the Higher Education Act in different forms, such as the piecemeal version mentioned earlier. Some insiders suggest that Chairman Scott is only interested in taking up a comprehensive bill. As we enter the second half of 2019, there is a lot of movement going on in the Congress -- and no assurance as to how things will play out. Netting will be surprised if reauthorization is completed this year. The Democrats probably won’t have time to put together a comprehensive bill unless they simply use the AIM Higher Act. However, that act has major issues from a scoring perspective and would need to be trimmed to make it fiscally palatable to Republicans. Trying to find middle ground going into an election year makes it tough. However, history shows that this type of collaborative effort can happen in an election year. Higher education—especially in areas such as student cost, student debt and academics--has changed significantly since the last authorization in 2008. Therefore, college students and the higher education system deserve a more timely authorization process. Recommendations for Higher Education Leaders: Keep an eye on what is happening on the regulatory front. This could especially impact the functions of the financial aid office, human resources office and law enforcement office. Take the opportunity to make comments about proposed rules. Higher education leaders’ comments need to come from a holistic institutional perspective. Watch for a Senate bill to reauthorize the Higher Education Act moving forward between July and the end of September. If legislation doesn’t start moving in September, the chance that Congress will pass legislation will start dwindling as the election cycle approaches. Review the College Scorecard and the proposals in relation to it for the upcoming changes. Bullet Points The U.S. Department of Education continues to revise and reverse rules created during the Obama Administration. The most recent revision involves gainful employment. This revision drops the reporting requirements. The department plans to include some of these deleted reporting elements in the College Scorecard. The Borrower Defense to Repayment regulations have been approved to go forward. These are now with the Office of Management and Budget and should be published in the near future. Three packages that were part of the most recent round of federal negotiation and rulemaking on accreditation and innovation were able to achieve consensus. Major disagreements still are evident in the rule-making process for institutional eligibility and accountability, Title IX/Cleary and loan repayment. With the election cycle on the horizon, it’s becoming less likely that Congress will complete the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Therefore, there may be an effort to offer piecemeal solutions to areas where Republicans and Democrats can find common ground. These areas include student loan interest rates, financial literacy, loan repayment and simplification of the FAFSA. Lamar Alexander Patti Murray Congressman Bobby Scott Virginia Foxx 2019 Negotiated Rulemaking process Neg Reg list of participants Department of Education Guests Social Media Links: Tom Netting LinkedIn – https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-netting-9214755/ CSPEN LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/groups/6954716/ Tom Netting Twitter - @t_netting The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

Dr. Karen Haynes retired as president of Cal State San Marcos on June 30, 2019. She was the longest-seated president in the CSU system and the first woman to hold this role in history. Haynes began her presidency in 2004 when the institution had a student population of 7,000 and an alumni base of 13,000. Through her leadership, the campus grew to serve 17,000 students and now has approximately 45,000 alumni. More than 100 new academic programs were launched during her tenure, including the first engineering program in 2019. Haynes also has overseen the addition of 15 new buildings as well as the planning for the university’s Extended Learning Building, which opens in fall 2019 through a one-of-a-kind public-private partnership. Establishing Bold Goals Haynes believes that holding a university presidency offers the opportunity to work with faculty and the community to envision what a truly 21st-century university can look like. In her own case, she pointed to the richness of the San Diego region, the area’s diverse demographics (which include the military and 18 tribal communities) and the ongoing population growth as fuel that helped Cal State San Marco, which is 100 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border and the only higher education institution in this area, to evolve and prosper. Haynes entered Cal State San Marcos’s presidency when the university was 13 years old. The fact that she was able to set what she described as “audacious” institutional goals and then go on to achieve them was due to a supportive faculty and community as well as having a legislature that was supportive of Cal State San Marcos’ efforts. These goals included: Raising the educational attainment rate for the entire region. Diversifying the student population to mirror the diversity of the region. Changing the narrative so that Cal State San Marcos was no longer the best-kept secret in North County; instead, the institution connected through partnerships to different constituent groups and organizations who understood the institution’s value. In addition to setting goals, the institution identified strategies to create, execute, annually measure, refine and revise these goals. Increasing Educational Attainment One example of how these goals made a difference was in relation to the institution’s education attainment rate. To begin to understand this rate, Haynes looked at the college-going rate of the area’s school districts. At that time, most school districts were not adequately preparing students to enroll in college following their graduation from high school. In addition, the majority (70%) of the students who were academically ready for college were white. Realizing the gap that existed, Hayes worked with CSU San Marcos administrators and faculty to establish numerous bold goals. The institution also identified strategies to create, execute, annually measure, refine and revise these goals. The results of their work included: A 50% increase in first-generation students attending Cal State San Marcos. Graduating classes have grown to between 50-55 percent first-generation students. The university grew from 7,000 students to 17,000 students during Haynes’ tenure. Data-Driven Decision-Making Ultimately, Cal State San Marcos’ decision to be data-driven to identify what practices worked and what was less successful put the institution ahead of the curve when the Cal State System started to focus on specific achievement gap. Haynes noted these sustained efforts resulted in Cal State San Marcos enjoying a 0 percent gap between majority and under-represented students from first year to second year, which often indicates whether a student will complete their degree and graduate from college. Working with School Districts Haynes noted that achieving these results required non-traditional thinking involving both the university as well as the school district. She pointed out that some Cal State San Marcos stakeholders (especially faculty) belived that working with school districts was outside of the university’s scope and mission. However, Haynes disagreed, saying that without creating these partnerships and helping teachers understand what students needed to start learning and by what grade, students would not be ready for college. CSU San Marcos established multiple partnerships with local school districts, and as part of these partnerships, the university created guaranteed admission for K-12 students if they followed the pathway identified by the University.These efforts raised attainment rates and diversified Cal State San Marcos’ student population. More importantly, these partnerships brought more students to the institution who were prepared for college work and didn’t need remediation. Faculty and other stakeholders worked with K-12 school districts, which ultimately saved CSU San Marcos money and faculty time. Extensive Partnerships Haynes formed a number of key relationships with North San Diego County communities and businesses in a strategic effort to reach out and operationalize the president’s initiatives. For example, Cal State San Marcos created Chamber Champions that involved the city chambers and economic development companies from the 11 communities in the institution’s service area. Through this effort, 6-8 Cal State San Marcos administrators or faculty were involved with those chambers. These individuals were the university’s voice while also serving as a conduit for the businesses to express their feedback on workforce issues to the university. These connections increased Cal State San Marcos’ visibility in the county. In addition, the university and each of its colleges had an advisory board that served as a sounding board in which to get stakeholders’ input. When she took over the presidency, Haynes inherited a small (10-member) council that wasn’t representative of the region’s sectors or demographics. She used this as a starting point, but also began to diversity and increase it to where it now has 40 members. These advisory boards give the institution input that helps it identify workforce issues as well as emerging areas where new programs are needed. A great example of this is Cal State San Marcos’ new biotechnology and engineering programs.Haynes used this feedback to create these new programs as well as other degree and certificate programs. There was an added benefit to these boards in that they also helped the university communicate its needs with the legislature and community, as well as developed its outreach efforts to Temecula.These efforts led to its creating an off-campus center in Riverside County, thus helping students who lived there and expanding CSU San Marcos’ footprint in the region. Real World Experiences Cal State San Marcos has developed and continues to develop programs that give students real-world experience prior to graduation. For instance, the school’s business school has implemented a program called Senior Experience, a required credit course, that requires its students to work in a team and to do a high-quality project with a local company during their senior year. This project gives students work experiences that are more extensive than an internship.Many students get job offers from the businesses that participate in these experiences. These projects also serve as good publicity about the quality of Cal State San Marcos programs. Another business school program, the mentor program, involves MBA students, who are assigned a mentor that they can rely on. The program has grown and is drawing high-caliber mentors who love working with students. Three Tips for New University Presidents Three pieces of advice for new university presidents: Start by actively listening. Whatever experience or vision you have that you can bring to the new job, you also need to hear the stories and aspirations of the people on campus. Otherwise, it will be difficult to get these individuals to follow and align with you. Pace yourself. Everyone will want a piece of you. Within that pacing, the preponderance of time and focus needs to be internal to listen to these constituencies. Take the position very seriously. University presidencies are important to complex organizations. However, don’t take yourself seriously. Be authentic and have fun. Bullet Points Higher education institutions can set “audacious” institutional goals if they have faculty and community support. To reach these goals requires the institution to identify strategies to create, execute, annually measure, refine and revise these goals. Some goals require innovative partnerships to be successful. For instance, Cal State San Marcos formed a partnership with school districts to increase educational attainment. This effort enabled university representatives to educate K-12 administrators and faculty about college-level work and to increase high school students’ level of knowledge by graduation. This meant that Cal State San Marcos could forego the cost and time needed to remediate these students. Cal State San Marcos created a number of innovative programs, including advisory programs and Chamber Champions. This latter outreach effort involved the city chambers and economic development companies from the 11 communities in the institution’s service area. This effort placed university administrators and faculty as representatives to the chambers so they could learn about industry needs and also communicate the university’s programs. Cal State San Marcos is increasingly trying to provide more real-world opportunities to students prior to graduation. For instance, business students work in teams during their senior year to assist a business or organization on a project. This enables the students to get experience beyond their internship and often results in a job offer. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Cal State San Marcos Guests Social Media Links: Karen Haynes LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/karen-haynes-7465988/ The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com  

Episode Summary Facing declining enrollments due to changing demographics and societal factors, many higher education institutions are engaging in marketing practices that don’t make sense.  Instead, institutions should consider embracing marketing strategies that are based on informal and formal market research. Developing these strategies should include reviewing current messages, crafting new messages, and reallocating resources from ineffective marketing efforts to promising pilot programs. Changing the Paradigm Higher education marketing departments get a bad rap because many don’t have marketing experience that corporations or other industries have. However, the majority of higher education’s marketing issues are not due to failures of the marketing department. Instead, these issues are due to the institution’s inability to identify the type of students who enroll, the reasons why they come to the institution and why are they successful. Research tells us that most current students enroll in an institution within a 40-mile radius of their home so they can be a commuter student. An example of this is Aurora University outside of Chicago. Instead of thinking about how to market to more students from a wider geographic location to fill up dorms, Aurora realized it needed to meet the needs of commuter students who want to complete their degree program quickly at a very low price. The institution is trying to attract more of these types of students by offering top-quality programs attractive to commuter students. In addition, institutional leaders realize this approach may mean that some dorms may need to close. Refining Marketing Efforts Most institutions are trying to be “all things to all people” through casting a wide net for students, but this approach waters down the marketing message because the institution generally is not clear about what they offer--and do not offer—to prospective students. Smart institutions are realizing that they have to stop this, and they are becoming more targeted in their marketing efforts.  This leads to greater efficiency and more cost-effective marketing.  They increasingly are able to recognize who their target market is and then use that information to attract those types of students. These institutions look at the students who enroll and complete their degree programs in order to analyze several factors: Who are these students? What do they look like? What do they want? Why are they coming to the institution? Why are they successful?   Institutions then can use this information to craft marketing messages to attract more of these types of students. Market Research Institutions that take a blanket marketing approach (instead of a targeted personalized marketing approach) create a tremendous amount of institutional waste. The vast majority of institutions don’t have a large budget for formal market research, and consequently, don’t do the positioning and differentiation that’s important in marketing. Fortunately, College Board and ACT have resources and data to identify where an institution’s students are coming from and how to reach those students. Informal market research can be helpful too, especially through anecdotal information such as feedback from current students. Conversations such as these can provide rich data and are supplemented by having similar conversations with faculty, staff, and alumni, and will help institutions craft their messages on how they can differentiate themselves from competitors, as well as identify gaps in the university’s marketing materials. Finding New Avenues One area that is ripe for plucking is that many students do not have the realization that their career will require a lot of work on projects that have a messy start and require continual refinements until project completion. This has huge marketing implications. Institutions can highlight the number of students enrolled and educational outcomes, as well as the programs that help students be successful. This makes the degree worth it, thus offsetting questions about the value of a college degree, and can differentiate the institution from its competitors. Furthermore, it’s important for higher education institutions to look at today’s markets to identify what students want and then develop plans for how to offer these types of programs. For example, the traditional MBA program in which people take time off from their jobs to pursue this graduate degree is no longer working for many people, and consequently, the number of traditional MBA programs is declining. Aurora University has developed a plus-one program in which students who have completed their undergraduate degree can complete an extra year of business coursework, including an internship, to earn an MBA, thus helping students become more marketable.  Some institutions (Cal State San Marcos) are offering undergrad seniors practical work experience through a serious work project (vs. a fluff internship). These experiences give college seniors a chance to earn course credit by working as part of a team on a real-world project for a local business or non-profit, and they gain direct experience in their major and makes them more attractive to employers. Stacked credentials also make a lot of sense. In addition, some institutions are marketing credentials to businesses so that the businesses will pay for their employees to return to school. There’s a large market for higher education institutions to help businesses, which in turns balances higher education’s revenue streams. It also helps train people and creates a pipeline for high-demand jobs, such as coding and cybersecurity. However, because institutional accreditation can limit the flexibility in creating those types of mini-courses, it’s important to identify how to shift the higher education paradigm to become more nimble. Three Tips for Higher Education Leaders Three pieces of advice for higher education leaders: Do market research. At the very least, talk to students and recent graduates, faculty, and staff to get a solid understanding of who you are. Craft marketing messages to reach prospective students who want what you’re really offering. Give your marketing department the freedom to stop doing some things that aren’t working. This will free up some dollars to pilot new marketing efforts that will help the institution personalize and target the right students. Bullet Points Higher education institutions need to do a better job of identifying who their ideal students are and then developing marketing strategies to reach those prospective students. Casting a wide net for students is an inefficient and costly approach, especially during a time when enrollments are declining and funds are limited. Therefore, institutions should review marketing efforts to determine what truly works to increase enrollments (and what doesn’t work). This analysis can help institutions build efficiency by refocusing marketing efforts. Market research is important. However, a formal market research effort – which can be costly – is not required. Informal marketing research can be conducted through having conversations with students, faculty, staff and graduates. Creating new programs that meet prospective students’ needs can make marketing more efficient. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Aurora University Senior Experience, Cal State San Marcos Guests Social Media Links: Deb Maue Twitter: https://twitter.com/debmaue Deb Maue LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/deborahmaue/ The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

The latest Neg Reg (negotiated rulemaking) process examined the fundamental rules that guide higher education institutions’ interactions with the Department of Education with regards to student aid and related programs.  The Department has used access to student aid to bring a lot of aspects of higher education under federal supervision. The process, which ended in April 2019, focused on accreditation and innovation and will have wide-ranging implications on multiple areas that potentially affect student outcomes. This Neg Reg represents a critical shift, one that bears watching, because of the competing tensions among federal oversight, institutions and accreditors, and the higher ed marketplace which is shifting toward a more dynamic, more open, learner-centered postsecondary system. This also will result in increased partnerships, including public-private partnerships. Looking at Accreditation When Higher Education Act was passed in the 1960s, Congress set up a three-legged stool to manage the process: (1) Congress would provide the money; (s) states would approve the institution; and (3) the institution would need to be accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the Secretary of Education. While this initially sound s straight-forward, what emerged was a very extensive list of rules, especially when applied to the accreditors’ role in ensuring institutional quality so that they could participate in the federal loan programs. Over the years, the accreditors have become in many ways subordinate to the Department in terms of how they go about doing their business. The recent Neg Reg process focused on accreditation and innovation. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and other Department officials argued that the rules should be changed to encourage innovation and competition among accreditation agencies, and this process led to major changes that could have profound implications for higher education institutions. Surprisingly, the Neg Reg ended in consensus (agreement) among the various stakeholders / negotiating parties, e.g., colleges, accreditors, consumer groups, states.  This is a critical conclusion, because when consensus is reached, the law requires that the rule that will be followed is based on the consensus – the Secretary does not have the discretion to change what was agreed upon. This finding of consensus means that higher education is at an interesting inflection point in the relationship between the federal and accrediting agencies. Now, with having consensus, the accrediting agencies are setting policies, vs having them handed down by the Department.  Previous examples where consensus was not reached include Title IX and Borrower Defense to Repayment, instances where negotiations proved to be contentious. Encouraging Innovation Many of the provisions that reached consensus (approval) are groundbreaking in many respects, including the strong emphasis on new programmatic approaches, which sends a strong message to accreditors. Instead of being penalized for thinking about the box, the new rules encourage finding faster, cheaper and better delivery of education. In the early stages of discussions leading up to the Neg Reg session, Department of Education leaders floated some very aggressive ideas but made it clear that these ideas were opening positions to enable negotiators to think outside the box so as to find ways to make the accreditation process innovative. For example, department officials set a target and encouraged negotiations to reach that target. This was different than in previous Neg Reg efforts. For instance, the Department proposed that an accredited institution that participates in federal student aid could contract out a program to an entity that is not accredited, with the approval of its accrediting agency. The process led to a decision to let the accrediting agency do a staff review of these types of proposals. This has two major effects – it simplifies the process and reduces the time from proposal to approval from months to a few weeks. That is a dramatic change; to date, innovation has been inhibited by the significant review time it takes for accreditation to consider this type of request and make a decision, as well as the expense of going through the review process. Additionally, this will open up more opportunities for relationships between academic institutions and non-accredited providers who provide a wide variety of academic services. This decision also makes it clear that rather than being exception, the relationship between higher ed institutions and OPMs / alternative providers should be considered “favored.” In many cases, these are more efficient, less expensive and substantially better ways of providing educational services than what are currently available in the institution. This type of innovation isn’t necessarily bad for higher education. When MOOCs first appeared and changed the marketplace, the assumption was that these would radically change higher education. That death was greatly exaggerated, but it has created a substantial industry of companies that are using private capital to create quality educational experiences. This regulatory change will make it easier for institutions to pick and choose and make these products part of their educational program. One note with this – the Department had proposed eliminating the 50% outsourcing limit, but the negotiators retained this limit for outsourcing courses if. Innovations in Courses These changes could make a difference in the scope and quality of courses. While a faculty-developed course relies on the developer’s expertise, it may not be as broad as it could be. Outside resources could help make course content more current than the faculty’s knowledge. Furthermore, it also lets faculty, department heads, program directors and deans be more creative about seeing what is available in the broader universe of educational services. The existing rule said that if a course was not created at the institution, it couldn’t be used; however, the new rules are encouraging faculty to realize that there is an enormous amount of services in the marketplace. This new reg gives institutional leaders and faculty the chance to identify and use the best services possible. For example, StraighterLine, an educational program provider, focuses on lower-division undergraduate courses that make up core curriculum. These lower-division courses are a very expensive enterprise for a school to provide and more often than not, these courses have little innovation. StraighterLine provides innovative approaches to these courses, enabling adult learners to fulfill their general education requirements without going to the institution, allowing the institution to focus on their own programs that are innovative. This is a very critical development. This new regulation also gives an institution the opportunity to pick and choose specific and complex programs that are outside of the institution’s core capability but still important to what they are doing. For example, Trilogy Education Services is collaborating with Harvard and other institutions to provide coding programs that many schools don’t necessarily want to provide or don’t have the capacity to provide on their own. If Competency-based Education vs. Credit-Hour Education The Neg Reg process made it very clear that the Department wants to move away from the credit hour as the benchmark for post secondary education. The credit hour was created in the 1920s for determining the hours of work by elementary and secondary teachers back when the first union agreements were being negotiated, and rightly or wrongly, was brought into use in higher education in 1965 through the Higher Education Act. The Neg Reg process is one among many that are encouraging discussions about alternate ways of measuring student outcomes. This would change the process from measuring “time in seat” to “what the student actually learned.” This is the idea behind competency-based education – what is the outcome of the education / what is the student learn. Many institutions are moving rapidly in this direction, including Western Governors and Southern New Hampshire. This change also will require more emphasis on assessment to measure what competency the student has gained vs. what they know. This is the difference between memory and mastery. The credit hour measures memory whereas competency learning and direct assessment measure mastery, i.e., skill vs. what a student can do with that knowledge. In terms of Bloom’s, credit hour measures the lower levels whereas competency and direct assessment measure the higher levels. Defining Faculty Interaction Substantive interaction with faculty was another important piece that came out of the Neg Reg. This was based on Western Governors University’s academic teams, which didn’t include traditional faculty. The Department’s Inspector General had ruled that faculty members need to be part of this interaction with students. However, Western Governors argued that the federal government was determining who made up faculty; instead, this decision should be left up to the university in collaboration with accreditors. In fact, the accreditor felt that the team approach to learning did include faculty because subject-matter experts were involved and helped guide students through the course process. There was significant support for Western Governor’s approach, which will result in a very radical change by opening up innovative learning environments by stating that online education doesn’t need to replicate a traditional classroom. Instead, online learning should be allowed to create a learning environment and that people who are involved in the faculty-side of the ledger add to the learning process (vs. them actually being a faculty member). By leaving the defining of faculty up to the institution and their accreditors, this will be beneficial for student/learners. Changes for States Some people involved in the Neg Reg process expressed concern that the current administration has loosened regulations which will result in institutions that are bad actors will continue to get a free ride or less rules being imposed on them. However, some states are stepping in to fill what they see is the regulatory void as the federal government continues to deregulate and not enforce current regulations. What we are seeing is that the states are stepping in to fill the regulatory void, and that is totally appropriate – the only role that the federal government should have is the handing out of federal financial aid. In California, there is a reactive set of laws that have been proposed that will be restrictive on institutional innovation. This may result in a tug-of-war between states and the federal government. While state attorneys general were left out of the Neg Reg process, the state education higher ed officials were in attendance. This allowed states’ voices to be heard. The Department has been compelled by the courts to put into effect the state authorization rule created by the Obama administration and suspended by the Trump administration. States have moved from focusing on authorizing institutions individually for distance learning because of state-authorization reciprocity agreements (NC-SARA) but now are focused on professional licensure. A new regulation that is similar but different would go into effect July 1, 2020. Three Tips for Higher Education Leaders Three pieces of advice for higher education leaders: Follow what is happening in Neg Reg and implementation closely. These rule changes go to the heart of the core academic functions. Presidents, provosts, deans, and programs chairs need to be aware of these changes. Be aware of how accreditation agencies are responding to these changes. Higher education is currently in a dynamic state. Leaders need to aware of how to accommodate new learners, new learning opportunities, new markets and new demands created by those markets, particularly from employers. The rules are changing in favor of those opportunities and institutions need to learn how to take advantage of them. Bullet Points Neg Reg is a critical shift to the higher ed landscape. First of all, it was adopted through consensus. In addition, it focuses on innovation, defining student learning and recasting the definition of faculty. The new rules encourage finding faster, cheaper and better delivery of education. For instance, accreditors can now do a staff review when considering an institution’s request to use an outside entity to provide academic coursework support. The new rules will encourage institutions to create agreements with preferred external partners for areas such as undergraduate core courses so they can concentrate their time and financial resources on innovative areas in a college or department. These discussions continue to encourage institutions and accreditors to measure competencies instead of class hours. This will require more focus on meaningful assessments. The Neg Reg also begins to redefine a faculty member. This is necessary based on online education, which in some cases uses a team to guide students. These team members are subject experts, even if they are not the faculty-of-record for the class. Some states are concerned about the implications of Neg Reg. They also are looking at different areas such as professional licensure in relation to holding institutions accountable. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: DoE Neg Reg Background: https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2018/index.html Neg Reg Outcomes: https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/reports/negotiated-rulemaking-2019/ Guests Social Media Links: Mike Goldstein Bio: https://www.cooley.com/people/mike-goldstein Mike Goldstein LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelbgoldstein/ Cooley LLP: https://www.cooley.com/  Cooley’s Higher Ed Newsletter: https://ed.cooley.com/2019/04/17/surprise-accreditation-and-innovation-neg-reg-reaches-consensus/ The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

Episode Summary New market forces are leading to disruption in higher education and institutions. Not surprisingly, tremendous innovation in technology-enhanced education, including the ways that students are taught and learn, continues to emerge. Institutions like Drexel University are testing new models that allow them to individualize education and diversifying their portfolio of programs to fit employers’ expectation Shifting Demographics Institutions need to be watching the rapidly changing demographics. Serious shifts will be happening in the United States during the next five years. Institutions that are not taking these shifts into consideration in their planning processes will have a major shock. Many institutions are getting ready now through initiating new projects, models, and activities on campuses in order to navigate these changes while also taking advantage of these shifts. For example, the book, Demographics and the Demand for Higher Education by Nathan Grawe, describes the impact that the 2008 economic crash had on the nation’s birthrates. The birthrates have not recovered over time. The greatest impact is in the Northeast as well as the Midwest. There also are pockets across the nation that will be impacted by this declining rate. The timing for the major decline in student enrollment will be in 2025-2026. This is due to the declining birthrate as well as fewer high school graduates. Institutions will be competing for high performing students; however, there will be fewer of these students coming through K-12 education. Institutions will face a challenge to create a brand that will allow it to recruit nationally instead of just regionally. Building a Brand The brand of the institution is important because it can help students feel like they are getting a quality education. For example, Drexel has created a brand that offers both face-to-face educational opportunities to regional students and online education that serves students in all 50 states and 30 foreign countries. That flexibility has been important since 90 percent of Drexel students work can’t attend face-to-face campuses on a regular basis. Many of these students, especially adult students, are seeking academic programs to enhance their credentials for a promotion, change jobs or careers. This population bases their enrollment decision on the quality of the program and the credentials that are offered as opposed to the institution’s location.  These students are savvy researchers who will search online to find the credential they will need to leverage their career. With thousands of institutions offering similar programs, it’s difficult to have visibility in this environment without very sophisticated search engine optimization teams, In addition, institutions are competing using the same word searches so institutions are driving up the cost of student acquisition for each other. Personalized Approach Drexel has worked diligently at personalization. This allows the institution to connect and build a relationship with the student that starts at the first contact where the prospect shows interest and continues through graduation. The technologies that are now available support personalization while creating efficiency and effectiveness, thus driving down personnel costs. Drexel believes that these technologies are an investment in the institution’s future. Optimizing the Prospective Student Experience Students have very high expectations and are willing to pay for their degree. However, they also expect to receive value for that investment through their experience at the institution. Therefore, institutions have to manage the student’s experience from beginning to end There are a number of ways that Drexel is trying to address this. For example, the institution originally outsourced its call center but has since brought it back in-house in order to ensure that every touchpoint where prospective students interface with the institution reflects the institutional brand. The institution also focuses on individualizing their approach to prospective students. They ask students how they want to receive messages. The institution also utilizes a system, which is based on student preference and allows counselors and advisors to communicate with the students. This system includes video-conferencing, chat, email or phone. There also is smart routing system that recognizes the prospective student when he/she calls and then automatically directs the candidate to the individual who specializes in that academic area (health care, business, etc.). While a call is being routed, multiple computer screens pop up so that the counselor has information regarding previous communications with that student, the student’s preferences of how to be contacted, and if that student spent time on specific web pages (such as how to finance an education). Drexel is committed to using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to manage this flow, including routing and staffing decisions as to the counselors’ schedule. This analysis includes the number of calls that come in at certain periods of time and also which times candidates with specific academic interests call. In addition, AI is used for efficiency. This includes lead scoring, which analyzes each caller’s attributes to see which ones are most likely to be successful.  Candidates who have specific characteristics that indicate they will be successful at Drexel are routed to the counselors first. Drexel then personalizes follow-up messages so students feel connected and create a sense of urgency to complete the application process. Recommendations for how Drexel personalizes and improves its communication comes from the frontline staff. Drexel staff go out of their way to get feedback about each student’s experiences and then use this data to improve operations. Successfully Competing Competition will increase among higher education institutions. Many institutional leaders and boards are concerned about some of the new institutions that are coming into the online education marketplace, such as the Ivy League schools. These institutions have a known brand, are changing their pricing structure for online students, and have created a pathway for students to earn their way in. To compete, institutions need to focus on creating value for students’ investment. This type of focus can also lead to a strong relationship to the student will return to the institution to earn certificates, advanced degrees or professional development. In addition, Drexel wants these students to become donors. Therefore, institutions need to be very clear about their market niches and strategic in their investments. They need to figure out where students can find value and where the institution can serve at a national level. In addition, institutions that can adapt and create tailored programs that companies need will be successful in the future. Innovations Drexel has created a free website, Virtually Inspired, which focuses on innovation in technology-enhanced education. It covers a variety of technology as well as case studies. The institution also created V Artifacts portfolio that is open-sourced. These resources are designed to help faculty create more robust online courses. Bullet Points Higher education will face major demographic shifts in the next five years. To survive, institutions need to take a strategic approach to their brand as well as the programs they offer.  Institutions need to focus on building their brand to set themselves apart from their competitors. This brand needs to take online students as well as traditional students into account. A focus on personalization can help institutions create a relationship with students that starts with the first contact and then continues through graduation. This relationship can lead to additional opportunities to educate the student through certification programs, graduate programs, etc. as well as the cultivation of a potential donor. Optimizing student engagement allows institutions to incorporate the student’s preferences, technology and data to refine interactions. This also leads to effectiveness (enrolling students who are a good match for the institution) and efficiency (such as staffing rates of counselors, better use of data to engage candidates, etc.) Creating value, being strategic about market niches and developing tailored services can help institutions succeed in the future. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Demographics and the Demand for Higher Education by Nathan Grawe Virtually Inspired Guests Social Media Links: Susan Aldridge Twitter: https://twitter.com/DrSusanAldridge Susan Aldridge LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drsusanaldridge/ The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com