Changing Higher Ed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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