Changing Higher Ed

Episode Summary Assessment is critical for ensuring instruction is effective in helping students to learn. This data is even more important as the demographics of students and expectations of what higher education should accomplish change. These instruments need to be part of a curriculum mapping process. In addition, meaningful assessments can be used to make instructional decisions in ways that are more student-centered. Changing Views of Assessment Many years ago, nationally accredited universities defined student learning through data such as retention rates and graduation rates, and used this information to measure institutional success and effectiveness.  However, traditional (regionally) universities used completely different measures for these purposes. These differences created a conundrum r-- What is student learning? Does passing a class means that a student has achieved identified competencies or is proficient in the topic? The role of assessments in classes is especially important due to the changing demographics of students as well as expectations of higher education institutions. Before, the majority of students were 18-years-old coming to college directly out of high school. Instead, 74% of college students are “non-traditional,” i.e., 24-70 years old, and are in the process of changing their career, looking for a job, or looking for a promotion and/or higher pay.  These students are looking for something different from higher education that their predecessors where.  Additionally, employers’ expectations of colleges and universities have changed; they are looking for graduates to be well prepared to jump into a job with the specific skills that they should need (instead of the job providing OJT). Curriculum Mapping Meaningful assessment ensures there is an alignment between the course catalog, the syllabus, the program learning outcomes, course learning objectives, and outcomes, and what is actually being taught (and more importantly, learned). Assessments should be included in the curriculum mapping process when developing a course. This systemic approach identifies the programmatic competencies to be addressed in a class, the sequence in which they are going to be taught and how course learning objectives align to program learning objectives.  Meaningful assessment determines whether students are understanding key concepts and are able to successfully utilize new skills. Therefore, it’s important that the assessment is a valid instrument and that grading is consistent both among the students in one class as well as across classes on the same subject.  A faculty-developed rubric that gauges the level of learning based on the student’s answers on the assessment is an important piece of this system. Assessments in Face-to-Face and Online Education Student outcomes should not differ between face-to-face classes and online classes; they should learn the exact same thing. The easiest way to achieve that is through the mapping process when a faculty member creates an artifact, which is an assignment that matches the learning outcome of the course. Additionally, faculty should create quiz questions, exam questions or an essay that are tied to the course objective statement. This data offers proof that the quality of instruction and outcomes are exactly the same for students taking online courses and those taking face-to-face classes. Competency-based Education vs. Credit-Hour Education CBE and the credit hour were key topics that were discussed during the recent negotiated rulemaking sessions in Washington, D.C. The Department of Education has a specific definition of a credit and that every single credit needs to accounted for based on the Carnegie Unit, i.e., for every hour of lecture a student has two hours of homework; over a term, there should be 45 student hours of effort for one credit hour.  Competency-based education is controversial because it is a new way of learning that is not reliant on the Carnegie Unit, and because of that, student financial aid comes into question. The money paid for credit hour is the same as the money paid for competency-based education, so policymakers want to ensure that all students are learning the same information while making the same level of effort.  CBE considers what skills are necessary and then assesses if students have those skills, instead of the number of hours they need to take to gain those skills. This latter approach would be beneficial for students who want to become a nurse, dietician or physical therapist. However, another approach may be beneficial for students who are majoring in history, liberal arts or education. Faculty and leaders need to consider whether the 45 hours per credit hour make sense in a particular program. This is one of the discussions at Neg Reg (no decision was made to move away from the Carnegie Unit measurement at this time). In some ways, competency-based learning is easier to assess than traditional credit education because it involves a checklist, externship or a list of skills that students need to demonstrate that they understand and can do (vs an arbitrary time in/out of the classroom plus examinations plus signature assignments plus etc.). Assessments as Part of Institutional Improvement Colleges and universities that have a structured plan in which the curriculum, objectives, and outcomes have been clearly mapped can see that the courses fit into the institutional mission. In large institutions, this can be assessed by the institutional research (IR) department/function. However, the dean or program director can take on this role in smaller institutions using an ongoing process. This process entails (1) looking at what is being assessed during the first quarter; (2) reviewing syllabi, competencies, artifacts, and assessments in the second quarter; (3) gathering data in the third quarter; and (4) completing a report in the fourth quarter that goes to administration and the board. Most institutions conduct annual program assessment and five-year program reviews to understand what’s being done and accomplished, how a program is performing and what improvements can be made. In addition, the results from the program review can be used as part of the institution’s annual planning processes. However, many institutions invest much time and money into the institutional planning process, yet forget to use this information to inform campus decision-making. For example, there’s a problem if students who are enrolled in a nursing program are not able to pass the licensure exam.  Having regular meaningful assessments allow faculty and leaders to identify where students are struggling, then make changes in the admissions process (such as requiring certain prerequisite skills), curriculum or budget (for updated equipment that matches what is available in businesses). Therefore, student learning assessment outcomes can also inform admissions, financial aid, enrollment management, staffing and even facilities.  Some accreditation bodies make assessment challenging. For example, WSCUC requires proof that the faculty were involved in the development of curricula and agreed to the important concepts. Once buy-in is achieved, items need to be mapped out to identify the competencies or skills that students need to learn in a course. Institutions that use meaningful assessment to ensure that students are learning also see their endowments and enrollment numbers increase, attract the best faculty and save money because they focus their efforts on areas that really need it. This is true not only for top-tier institutions; even small- and medium-sized institutions can be successful through using this type of informed decision-making. Three Tips for Higher Education Leaders Three pieces of advice for higher education leaders: Meet with the institutional research department. Leaders who have worked in business will have an advantage because they can help streamline the process and focus on improving learning outcomes. Read the previous report to see what data has been used. This report can serve as a starting place for identifying gaps and places for improvement. Walk around and talk to students and faculty. Find out if there is a general consensus that the students are learning and becoming prepared to be a productive part of society. Bullet Points Institutions differ in the way they measure student success, institutional success and institutional effectiveness. Assessments are a critical part of the instructional process because they can ensure faculty remain on topic instead of veering onto tangents, the course’s objectives and outcomes are aligned with what is being taught, and students are learning and can apply new skills. Faculty should consider the placement and type of assessment to be used during the curriculum mapping phase of course development. In addition, a rubric should be used to analyze the quality of learning displayed on an assessment. Assessments can help ensure that instruction and learning are comparable in both face-to-face and online classes. Competency-based education and credit-based education are under the microscope. Each form may require a different type of assessment to be used. Assessments also can and should be part of institutional improvement. This data can be used beyond just instructional decisions; it also can inform admissions policy, financial decisions, hiring of staffing, professional development offerings, and facility updates. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Education Consulting Services Guests Social Media Links: Jamie Morley LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jamie-morley-ph-d-998a273b/ The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

Episode Summary Diversity, equity, and inclusion continue to be critical issues for higher education. Many of these issues are fanned by repercussions of historical events as well as unconscious biases based on unknown U.S. history and individuals tending to remain in monolithic groups. Institutions of higher education have a duty to make their campuses a model of inclusivity where every student, faculty member and staff member is wholeheartedly appreciated. To achieve this, higher education leaders need to find ways to surface their own unconscious biases, diversify campus leadership, create programs and structures to encourage diversity, identify ways to have accountability for these programs and create financial avenues to fund these efforts. Taking this inclusive approach can revitalize organizations through creating a common understanding, developing a community that embraces differences and establishing new and meaningful outcomes. This can include: rethinking faculty diversity in relation to faculty recruitment, retention, tenure and promotion; revising ideas of the quality of scholarship, including the paradigm of publish or perish; and creating community-engaged scholarship. Diversifying Higher Education Leaders Many higher education institutions have become very comfortable (and even robotic) concerning the diversity narrative. This often is determined by the culture of the institution and its cultural artifacts. However, the biggest driver of this narrative is the institution’s president, and how this individual embodies the ideas and promise of inclusivity. This idea extends past the individual’s DNA to include how they actually show up in their role. Students – especially undergraduates – can tell if a president is authentic and being honest in relation to diversity, equity, and inclusion. This is one of the greatest threats to higher education leaders right now; presidents and chancellors are realizing that they need to have the personal capacity to handle the struggles and opportunities that come with diversity. Therefore, it’s important to get more diversity in higher education leadership positions, as these individuals bring a very specific level of consciousness based on their lived experiences. Gaining Momentum When faced with successive leadership moments around an issue, a president can decide what he or she is going to stand for. Then, the president can work with vice presidents and deans to set a priority for these things to take place, thus putting together an institutional effort across the various areas.  The president can create a structure and the associated environment where direct reports know that this is something that matters. Additionally, the president as chief executive officer of the institution can communicate the importance of these efforts.  The board also needs to be involved. Board members need to be diverse and have experience with diversity in their professional lives. These trustees need to be committed to the common good for both the institution and society. Without these types of board members, the president will have difficulty moving these issues forward. Working with the board chair, the president can make the effort an institutional priority, including having initiative progress measured as part of the president’s performance review. This will help create accountability, which then can extend to the president’s direct reports, including the vice president of business and finance, chief operating officer, the provost office and student services. Dealing with Unconscious Bias Much of the United States’ public education system has done a poor job of teaching history that includes all cultures and identities for the last 30-40 years. Americans have a very narrow story of history, which is reinforced by a tendency for individuals to remain in a monolithic community. While many higher education professionals – including senior leaders -- are doing good work, they don’t know what they don’t know in areas of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and can get defensive because they aren’t aware of their unconscious biases. Dealing Effectively with Discomfort Higher education institutions haven’t developed their truth-telling capacity because of the lack of knowledge of history or because the campus environment is created and maintained by leaders who are part of the dominant culture who maintain the same degree of comfort and engagement. Without diversity among institutional leaders, an environment emerges in which conversations are limited by individuals’ lived experiences. When those in academic settings don’t have knowledge of something, they stumble or withdraw and move to the next thing. This can lead to defensiveness and debate. If the leader hasn’t built up the mental and emotional muscles to identify, carry and push through the discomfort of a challenging or difficult topic, opportunities will be continually missed. Wholehearted Leadership Valuing people wholeheartedly is a critical part of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Higher education leaders also are called to be appreciative and reflective to determine patterns of how they have left people behind historically. Diversity is all about representation so that everyone feels good and is welcome on campus. Inclusion means that everyone has a part in it. Equity requires leaders to reconcile the ways in which departments, programs, and organizations operate. This includes identifying when the institution has not fulfilled its mission and identifying the gap between marketing and the actual lived experience. Faculty, staff, and students know when they have a leader who is really in their corner and really is committed to these ideals.  Equity asks these top leaders to address an identified priority through reconciling the institution and its mission as well as the ways it has not been fulfilled. This type of leadership makes a mark in the area of diversity and inclusion and also leaves a legacy. Reconciling the Past Colleges and universities – including leaders and faculty – need to do a better job telling the truth and reconciling their past in relation to diversity. For example, Georgetown University had to come to terms with its history where Jesuit priests sold 272 slaves to slave traders to secure the future of the university. In 2017, institutional leaders held a public ceremony in which they publicly apologized to the descendants of those slaves, some of whom were campus leaders or people who had been educated at Georgetown. This type of truth-telling leads to more respect, particularly from communities that previously have been marginalized. By telling the truth, leaders can help the higher education community reconcile the past to make the community whole and then imagine a better future. The residual of not telling the truth is significant. Therefore, it’s important for anchor institutions like universities and colleges to continue to maintain our place and step even more boldly into the role of taking a moral positionality.  Public institutions as well as faith-based schools can do this. The United States needs institutions such as colleges and universities to join with anchor institutions such as public libraries and other community-based institutions to provide leadership that is morally and principally based. A New Framework for Expanding Leadership Pipeline Utilizing a new frame for identifying aspiring leaders can break patterns that have led to the same types of leaders being placed repeatedly and historically in higher education’s leadership pipeline. Instead, institutions need to look at aspiring leaders’ cultural assets, cultural wealth and lived experiences to expand the leadership spectrum. Three Tips for Higher Education Leaders Higher education leaders should consider: Being willing and open to engage with someone who will challenge their ideas around what diversity, equity and inclusion means.  Leaders also need to seek out a confidential relationship devoted to helping them develop competencies based on performance indicators. Having someone in their inner circle who will assist them campus-wide in doing this type of work. Identifying sustained financial support for diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. One option is to seek funds through the institution’s capital campaign. Bullet Points In today’s increasingly diverse world, it’s critical for higher education leaders to have the personal capacity to handle the struggles and opportunities that come with diversity. One way is through creating a more diverse group of leaders because these individuals will bring a specific level of consciousness based on their lived experiences to their positions. Leaders can develop institutional efforts through engaging their leadership team, creating a structure and associated environment, and then communicating the message to the broader community. Board members need to come from diverse backgrounds so they can bring their own lived experiences to the table. They need to work in partnership with institutional leaders to support institutional efforts. In addition, they need to demand accountability by making it part of the president or chancellor’s performance review. This, in turn, allows the president or chancellor to put accountability measures in place for the institution’s senior leaders. U.S. public schools do not do a good job of teaching history. Thus, many well-intended individuals are not well informed about issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion. They can become defensive because they are not aware of their unconscious biases. Higher education leaders need to build up the mental and emotional muscles to carry and push through the discomfort of a challenging or difficult topic. Otherwise, opportunities continually will be missed because individuals will default into defensiveness and debate. Higher education leaders need to value people wholeheartedly as part of the institution’s diversity, equity and inclusion work. Higher education leaders also are called to be appreciative and reflective to determine patterns of how they (or their institution) may have left people behind historically.  It’s important for leaders to tell the truth based on today’s morals and values, instead of using a historical lens. Institutions need to find ways to identify, groom and hire diverse leaders. This can happen through valuing aspiring leaders’ cultural assets, cultural wealth and lived experience. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Twice as Good, Leadership and Power for Women of Color Guests Social Media Links: Mary Wardell Ghirarduzzi LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mary-j-wardell-ghirarduzzi-2012873/ Mary Wardell Ghirarduzzi Twitter: https://twitter.com/drmjwardell Mary Wardell Ghirarduzzi Website: https://www.usfca.edu/provost/vice-provost-diversity-engagement-and-community-outreach The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

Higher education needs to do a better job of preparing future leaders, especially in terms of leadership development and succession planning.  Some leaders, while academically very bright in their discipline, take on administrative roles with no knowledge of leadership or management. This can have severe ramifications for a department, college or university. Therefore, it’s important to identify and develop high potential leaders before the administrative job is open. Higher education could learn many lessons from counterparts in business and other organizations. For example, General Electric, which emphasizes leadership development, in its heyday, placed more of their executives in CEO roles at other companies than any other organization in the U.S. (and possibly the world).  Identifying Aspiring Leaders The first step to growing higher education leaders is identifying individuals who have potential. This can happen by watching how individuals interact and think during meetings and conversations. The next step is having conversations with these potential leaders. During these conversations, the senior leader can begin to explore the idea of whether the individual is interested in considering a leadership role. If the answer is “yes,” the senior leader can then begin to find ways to help the aspiring leader prepare for future leadership roles. Setting the Next Steps with Potential Leaders Senior leaders can assist aspiring leaders as they start their leadership journey in numerous ways. These include: Encourage faculty who are aspiring leaders to gain leadership skills through participating in specific programs such as a leadership academy for faculty members who have promise. Participation in this type of program could prepare aspiring leaders to become effective mid-level leaders, such as a department chair or associate dean. Even if the faculty member decides not to assume a leadership position, they will have a better understanding of the complexities of leadership. Serve as a mentor or coach, or recommending other leaders who can serve in these capacities. Assign an aspiring leader to serve as a special assistant to the president. Nominate promising mid-level leaders such as deans for specific leadership programs and then eventually nominating them for presidencies. Approaching a Potential Mentor While seasoned leaders need to be on the look-out for aspiring leaders, many leaders don’t think about serving as mentors. Therefore, it’s important for aspiring leaders to proactively seek out mentors and request assistance, such as asking if they could shadow the leader or schedule periodic meetings. Individuals from the Millennial Generation are more willing to reach out and ask a senior leader to serve as a mentor. They may meet a mentor at a conference or strike up a correspondence after reading an article that the mentor has written. Many senior leaders state that their motivation for becoming a mentor is to “pay forward” the kindness of an earlier personal mentor. Many mentors say they were spotted early in their career by a leader who helped groom than for success. Mentoring doesn’t have to be onerous or even formal – it can include providing feedback to young faculty or undergraduate students. These types of relationships create benefits for both the mentor and the mentees. While the senior leader’s schedule may not allow him or her to participate in time-intensive efforts such as shadowing, the leader may (and should) be open to having a conversation with an aspiring leader. This could open doors in the institution to help the aspiring leader grow. Key Steps to Support Aspiring Leaders Three critical steps that higher ed leaders can do to develop aspiring leaders: Identify those individuals that have certain habits of mind and personality traits which indicate they have leadership potential. Have a discussion with the individual about their leadership options. Provide institutional opportunities for leadership development, whether through mentorships, coaching or specific training. Bullet Points Higher education leaders need to do a better job of identifying and nurturing the next generation of leaders. The first step is identifying potential leaders. This can happen during meetings or conversations. After the identification happens, the senior leader should be proactive in reaching out to that individual and schedule a time to talk with them to gauge his or her interest in assuming a leadership role in the future. If the faculty member is interested in leadership, the senior leader can begin to suggest opportunities, such as a leadership development seminar, a mentor or a coach. Aspiring leaders also need to be open to asking higher education leaders to serve as mentors. This could include having regular meetings together or the aspiring leader shadowing the senior leader. Senior leaders can nominate aspiring leaders for roles that would allow them to use their growing leadership toolkit and eventually nominate them for positions such as department head or assistant dean. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Colleges That Change Lives University of Richmond Office of the President Guests Social Media Links: Ronald Crutcher LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ronald-a-crutcher-8160bb4a/ Ronald Crutcher Twitter: https://twitter.com/racrutcher The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

H. Robert Showers Esq. has had a long and storied career in law. Prior to founding Simms Showers LLP, he was a principal at Gammon & Grange in charge of the litigation department, and before that was with the U.S. Department of Justice where he was acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General, a federal prosecutor and Chief of the Civil Section in the US Attorney's Office, and was Founder and Executive Director of what is now the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS). Episode Summary For many years, sexual harassment complaints were filed away without any action taken. This approach exacerbated the issue. These complaints–whether true or false--need to be taken seriously and investigated. Now with the emergence of the #MeToo Movement, institutions increasingly are seeing sexual harassment or sexual misconduct complaints filed by students, staff and faculty members. Therefore, institutional leaders need to be proactive in creating policies, procedures and training regarding these types of allegations. Increasing Number of Sexual Harassment Cases Expected Charges of sexual misconduct, particularly sexual harassment, are increasingly being taken seriously in the public eye. In the wake of the #MeToo movement with many high-profile offenders being found guilty of sexual harassment and sexual violence, higher education leaders need to be aware that their institutions have an increased risk of being caught up in the publicity of these types of allegations. College students have a higher risk of experiencing sexual violence than any other crime. Studies indicate that 80 percent of female students who have suffered an attack do not report sexual violence to law enforcement; however, that number will change. More than 50 percent of the college sexual assaults are against freshmen students, which also triggers child abuse laws that require mandatory reporting and increased scrutiny. These factors may lead to a tsunami of allegations that could swamp both secular and religious institutions of higher education. Therefore, all higher education leaders need to determine if their institution has appropriate policies, training, transparency and preventative measures in place in regards to sexual harassment. The Effects of the Court of Public Opinion The citizens who are selected to serve as jurors during trials are influenced by social and mainstream media. Previously, these jurors may have judged someone accused of sexual harassment or an institution that didn’t handle sexual harassment claims appropriately by saying that they were innocent until proven guilty. However, the #MeToo Movement has shifted the paradigm where many citizens are saying that these individuals and institutions are guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Ramifications of Not Taking Action Showers has worked on numerous cases in which a student lodged a sexual harassment complaint against a professor, who then gave the student the choice of remaining in the class or failing. The institution could have easily put the student in another class or allowed him/her to take another academic avenue to completing the course during the investigation. Instead, the leaders opted to have the student remain in the class with the alleged abuser. In several instances where this type of situation occurred, the students were re-victimized because they had to continue to interact with the alleged abuser. This approach led to a public relations nightmare as well as having additional financial damages awarded to the plaintiff following a court case. In the Michigan State case, additional ramifications included a decline in freshman student applications due to safety concerns. Changes to Title IX The first of the changes narrows the definition of sexual assault. The old standard was “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” and the new standard is “unwelcome sexual conduct; or unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to the recipient’s education program or activity.” The Ed Department justified this by saying it is in line with the Supreme Court guidance, but survivors’ advocates have come out forcefully and said that this new definition will put survivors’ education at risk. The second major change is the standard by which sexual assault is adjudicated. Previously, the standard was that the assault was “likely to have happened.” However, the new guidance provides for a higher standard, i.e., “preponderance of evidence,” the same standard used in civil suits. This is lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the standard used in criminal trials, but it still creates a higher burden on the victim to prove that the incident happened.  In its guidance, the Ed Dept stated that institutions can use either standard, but this potentially opens the institution up to lawsuits, e.g., institutions may face a lawsuit by the accused if they use the lower standard or the victim if the institution uses the higher standard. The third major change has to do with holding universities responsible. Under the previous guidance, universities and colleges could be held responsible if they “knew about or reasonably should have known” about an incident. However, under the new guidelines, the institution must have “actual knowledge” of the incident in order to be held responsible; this requires the victim to make a formal complaint through official channels. Telling a professor or resident adviser isn’t sufficient – it must be reported to someone who can do something about it, such as a school official who is involved in enforcement. Additionally, schools can only be held responsible for incidents that happen on school property or at school-sponsored events, not at private, off-campus residences. Thus, if a fraternity house is located off-campus and an assault takes place there (as was the allegation in the Judge Kavanaugh – Christine Blasey Ford incident), the institution cannot be held liable, even if they have knowledge that these events have taken place in the past. Lastly, the accused will have the chance to cross-examine the victim under the new guidance, and many feel this will discourage victims from coming forward and reporting incidents. A Robust Policy on Sexual Harassment As we all know, the Department of Education released its new Title IX guidance in November, which provides guidance on sexual harassment.  However, some universities and colleges – especially religious institutions – are not subject to these rules. Therefore, it’s important for these leaders to review their institutional policies to identify and close gaps that would make it easier for individuals to bring sexual assault and sexual harassment charges against the college or university. A sexual harassment policy that will stand up to scrutiny includes: A clear definition of sexual harassment A statement that unambiguously says that this type of conduct is strictly prohibited A clear description of how to lodge a complaint and the process for starting and completing an investigation A prohibition of retaliation for reporting harassment A confidentiality statement about complainants An assurance that complaints are promptly investigated by objective professionals A way to separate the alleged victim from the alleged perpetrator A clear statement that makes clear that if the allegations are substantiated, a disciplinary action will follow and the investigation will be concluded A training process that moves the policy into practice so that all employees and volunteers are on the same page Training Employees and Volunteers The training process for recognizing and dealing with sexual harassment and sexual assault should offer awareness so that employees and volunteers understand what is considered to be sexual harassment. This training should include: The definition of what sexual harassment or sexual assault is, which involves unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. For example, Title IX’s standard is unwelcome sexual conduct or unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it effectively denies someone equal access to education. This is significantly different than the previous guidance from the Obama administration, which was “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.” All allegations should be taken seriously. The individual who brings the allegation needs to be reassured that their voice will be heard and the charges will be investigated without delay or bias. The person who leads the investigation needs to be someone who is objective, thorough and timely. Investigations Institutional leaders need to decide how to maintain an objective investigation that’s unbiased. Many cases can be investigated internally. However, internal investigators may know the alleged abuser so the investigation may be tainted, regardless of what is discovered, because the decision will not be taken seriously. In some cases an external investigation is needed. In these situations, Showers recommends that institutional leaders hire a law firm that is skilled in this area and is able to maintain appropriate protections for both the university and the victim. These types of cases provide tangible but objective results. Sexual harassment claims are particularly difficult to investigate because oftentimes it’s a “he said, she said” situation without much (if any) corroborating evidence.  These cases often have a lot of direct testimony where one person says that “This happened” and then the other person said, “No, it didn’t happen.” This is one reason why it’s important to retain an objective, unbiased and professional investigator who will keep confidentiality for both the alleged victims and perpetrators, as well as the university. Most colleges have outside or internal legal counsel. These types of cases need to be run by counsel because their expertise can help guide the decision as to whether an internal or external investigation is needed. This is important because the stakes today are high financially as well as in regards to the institutional image. It’s important that colleges and universities get these investigations right the first time. Additionally, historical sex abuse allegations, as illustrated by the Brett Kavanaugh case, are very, very complex to investigate. These cases, which happened years or decades ago, are especially difficult because memories fade, witnesses are lost and any tangible evidence is lost. Therefore, these cases provide even more reason to hire someone who understands and has done these cases before and who will be objective. Changes to Title IX The first of the changes narrows the definition of sexual assault. The old standard was “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” and the new standard is “unwelcome sexual conduct; or unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to the recipient’s education program or activity.” The Ed Department justified this by saying it is in line with the Supreme Court guidance, but survivors’ advocates have come out forcefully and said that this new definition will put survivors’ education at risk. The second major change is the standard by which sexual assault is adjudicated. Previously, the standard was that the assault was “likely to have happened.” However, the new guidance provides for a higher standard, i.e., “preponderance of evidence,” the same standard that is used in civil suits. This is lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the standard which is used in criminal trials, but it still creates a higher burden on the victim to prove that the incident happened. In its guidance, the Ed Dept stated that institutions can use either standard, but this potentially opens the institution up to lawsuits, e.g., institutions may face a lawsuit by the accused if they use the lower standard or the victim if the institution uses the higher standard. The third major change has to do with holding universities responsible. Under the previous guidance, universities and colleges could be held responsible if they “knew about or reasonably should have known” about an incident. However, under the new guidelines, the institution must have “actual knowledge” of the incident in order to be held responsible; this requires the victim to make a formal complaint through official channels. Telling a professor or resident adviser isn’t sufficient – it must be reported to someone who can do something about it, such as a school official who is involved in enforcement. Additionally, schools can only be held responsible for incidents that happen on school property or at school-sponsored events, not at private, off-campus residences. Thus, if a fraternity house is located off-campus and an assault takes place there (as was the allegation in the Judge Kavanaugh – Christine Blasey Ford incident), the institution cannot be held liable, even if they have knowledge that these events have taken place in the past. Lastly, the accused will have the chance to cross-examine the victim under the new guidance, and many feel this will discourage victims from coming forward and reporting incidents. Bullet Points The #MeToo Movement, the resulting cultural shift related to sexual harassment and data related to sexual harassment of students suggests that higher education institutions will increasingly be dealing with sexual harassment and sexual abuse issues. Studies indicate that 80 percent of female students never report sexual violence to law enforcement. More than 50 percent of the college sexual assaults are against freshmen students, which triggers sexual harassment as well as child abuse laws that require mandatory reporting and increased scrutiny. Citizens who are selected to serve as jurors during trials are influenced by social and mainstream media. The #MeToo Movement has shifted the paradigm in favor of the victim and institutions are getting caught in the whirlwind. Higher education leaders need to review their institutional policies to identify and close gaps that would allow individuals to bring sexual assault and sexual harassment charges against the college of university. Institutions also need a strong training program to help educate employees and volunteers about the university’s processes related to charges of sexual harassment. This training should include defining sexual harassment and sexual assault, identifying the investigation process and ensuring that the process will be objective and concluded in a timely manner. Investigations need to be objective, thorough and done in a timely manner. Some cases can be investigated by internal team; however, these cases may be tainted by perception since some investigators may know the alleged perpetrator.  External investigations offer an outside viewpoint that can be seen as neutral in high-profile cases. It’s important to have a law firm that can offer appropriate protections for the victim and alleged perpetrator as well as the university. Higher education leaders should seek their institution’s internal or external counsel to get feedback on whether to create an internal or external investigation. This is important because of potential settlements as well as public relations fallout on specific cases. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Simms Showers LLP Title IX Guidance Guests Social Media Links: H. Robert Showers LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/robert-showers-133a618/ Simms Showers LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/simms-showers-llp/about/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/simmsshowerslaw Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SimmsShowersLLP The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

Online education continues to grow. And with the constant developments in technology, the delivery systems are rapidly evolving. Therefore, institutional need to be thoughtful about which programs they offer online, who they contract with to offer these services, what types of systems and support structures they put into place and how they get faculty buy-in. Background on WICHE and WCET Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) is a regional organization that was created in 1953 to facilitate resource sharing among higher education systems in western states and territories. WICHE’s members include New Mexico, Montana, Arizona, Utah, Oregon, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska, Washington, California, Nevada, Hawaii, North Dakota, South Dakota and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. WICHE analyzes student access, policy and research issues among these states. One of WICHE’s key initiatives is the WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies (WCET), which is the leader in the policy, practice and advocacy of technology-enhanced learning in higher education. The group’s work concentrates on four focuses areas: institutional success, policy and regulation, student success and technology. WCET had a long history of working in distance education. Growth of Online Learning The U.S. Department of Education’s annual survey of fall enrollments over the past seven years shows that while higher education enrollment has been declining, distance education is growing. Currently, approximately 15 percent of students are taking all of their courses online. An additional 15 percent of students are taking at least one course online. Therefore, approximately one third of students are participating at some level in distance education. This increase is driven by a number of factors: Millennials and Gen Z are very comfortable with technology K-12 schools are increasingly offering more online courses, especially with dual credit or concurrent enrollment courses that allow high school students to take college courses. The educational market has shifted, thanks to for-profit higher education institutions. An Increasingly Crowded Marketplace Public and private institutions have joined for-profit institutions in growing their online presence. This has led to a crowded marketplace. For example, Western Governors University, which is entirely online, has over 100,000 students. Southern New Hampshire University, which has a large online component, is approaching 100,000 students. Arizona State University has grown its online presence and projections suggest about half of its enrollment will primarily be distance education within five years. These types of institutions are building a national presence instead of just serving as a regional institution. Online Program Management Online program management (OPM) allows an institution to outsource some operations to a company that focuses on these areas. Some of these operations could include getting programs online, instructional design or working with faculty to design online courses. OPM can offer many benefits, such as providing assistance reaching populations that the higher education institution hasn’t marketed to before. However, issues can emerge. For instance, faculty, accreditors and regulators may have concerns about whether the higher education institution is just selling its name. Concerns about who controls content are also common. In some instances, the company has tried to expand the curriculum or to create a new one without faculty input. And some states have laws that do not allow higher education institutions to have certain types of OPM relationships. Therefore, it’s important that higher education leaders use OPM with caution and make sure that they have done due diligence before signing any agreement. Faculty Buy-in Most institutions have some faculty who need to be “coaxed” into teaching online. It’s an iterative process in terms of trying to bring people along. Often, naysayers need to see others succeed in online learning. One way to get buy-in is through educating faculty about the growing interest in online education, which can translate into hiring more faculty. Open Educational Resources The cost of textbooks continues to increase, causing another economic barrier for prospective students.  However, there is a trend to create open textbooks that are available online for free or for a relatively low cost to students. These open educational resources (OER) are being created by a group of faculty working together. Because these texts are online, students have access once they enroll in the class or on the first day of class. WCET has received a grant from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation to analyze open educational resources in relation to policies, faculty support, library usage, bookstore usage. The goal is to see how to expand adoption of these types of resources and find ways to make OER sustainable. Adaptive Learning Adaptive learning through the use of technology involves little tests or quizzes that gauge whether the student is understanding concepts. If a student is having issues, the software sends the student to a reminder section to help them understand the lesson better. In addition, the student may be sent to a tutor or the professor or may get additional support that will help with understanding. If a student is doing very well, the software allows the student to progress at his or her own pace and may allow them to skip some modules because they understand those concepts. Adaptive learning is allowing some institutions to have improved learning outcomes because students get help on areas that they’re weak and are able to advance in other areas where they are strong. Providing Support Local centers for support offer a place where students can physically go and get help. This concept – which is similar to an Apple Store where people can get in-person, hands-on experience – is starting to be utilized by a variety of institutions, including the University of Phoenix, Georgia Tech and Southern New Hampshire. Other institutions are finding ways to use technology to provide additional support. Embry-Riddle is a good example. The institution has gone from being almost exclusively face-to-face to now having approximately 50 percent of their students at a distance. The institution increasingly is using virtual reality to connect with students and provide assistance. Learning Management Systems A Learning Management System (LMS) keeps information utilized in an online course, such as the syllabus, resources, and videos. Companies such as Canvas are capturing a larger and larger share of the market in this area. However, some companies are also putting as much effort in creating side services so they are able to provide more support beyond just being an LMS. These types of arrangements are helpful in times of a crisis such as the recent earthquakes in Alaska or fires in California that cause an institution to physically close. In these cases, online courses can continue all of the software and courses are maintained at another location. Advice to Higher Education Leaders Prior to creating an online learning presence, higher education leaders need to consider their goal, the institution’s mission and which programs would be best served in this type of learning environment. They also need to consider what already is in the marketplace and do a market analysis to see if they can differentiate their proposed online learning programs from their competitors. The third step is to create staff positions – such as a chief online officer or chief learning officer – who are responsible for overseeing online education and who will maintain a high level of quality. They also need to identify if they are going to use an external company or build the online program internally. Leaders then need to set goals related to the program and come up with appropriate strategies

Dr. Judy Kjelstrom is a pioneer in creating interdisciplinary programs that create well-rounded students who are well-equipped to thrive in today’s rapidly changing world. Kjelstrom, the director emerita of University of California Davis’ Biotechnology Program, now serves as the academic coordinator for the UC Davis Graduate School of Management. For her significant body of work, Kjelstrom was named the 2018 recipient of the James H. Meyer Award for Lifetime Achievement, which is the UC Davis Academic Federation’s highest honor. Prior to joining UC Davis, Kjelstrom spent 12 years as a hospital clinical laboratory scientist, and brings both academic and industry experience to her work. She said that she wanted to do something impactful on translational medicine; however, that type of doctoral program was unavailable she went to school. In her work with UC Davis’s Biotechnology Program, Kjelstrom saw her role as the captain of the ship and remains deeply appreciative of the team she led. She credits UC Davis’s visionary and collaborative atmosphere for allowing faculty and students to find ways to begin addressing big problems, such as infectious diseases, cancer and global warning. “This is 21st century science,” she said. “It’s big science and it’s team science.” This type of team science requires complexity and collaboration between different disciplines; one individual cannot do it all anymore. Kjelstrom believes UC Davis’s work in the area of biotechnology provides a good example of how this collaboration can be accomplished since it encompasses engineering, cell biology, microbiology and business. “The visionaries at UC David said, ‘We need to create a special program that could be layered onto a student’s Ph.D. in which they have that deep and narrow expertise, but we need to add that second layer where they come together and fertilize,” she said. The university’s Designated Emphasis in Biotechnology Program (DEB) was approved in 1997, but this sea change required significant work to get student and faculty buy-in. In 1999 Kjelstrom joined the DEB, where she worked with 10 students from a variety of disciplines. The DEB has grown exponentially. When Kjelstrom retired, the program had 240 students from 29 different disciplines. She remembers having difficulty getting the students to sign up for extra work, even though they would receive a paid internship. The faculty also were reluctant to let their students go to do this extra work. Eventually, the faculty realized the benefits of the approach. “Little by little, we had buy-in from the student population and the professors,” Kjelstrom said, adding that an NIH grant helped fund this effort. Kjelstrom – who serves on the executive board of the Powerhouse Science Center, the advisory committee of the US Davis Health Clinical Laboratory Science Training Program and is an alumni of Leadership California -- also built strong relationships with the biotech community. This led to conversations about the quality of UC Davis graduates. The company partners offered feedback that while the students’ technical skills were strong, they didn’t know anything about important areas such as patents, teamwork or collaborative communication. This helped her realize that the program needed to help students learn the wide skill set of social and emotional intelligence as well as leadership. This knowledge helps translate into students being able to take a leadership role in both their professional and personal lives. UC Davis also empowered students to take leadership during their coursework. “I want to position my students to the point where if they’re (a company) looking for a strong woman leader or a man of color, they’re going to look at our students who come out of the DEB program because they are learning to do that right now,” Kjelstrom said. For example, one group of female students who were concerned about inequities in the workplace decided to form a group called Equity in STEM and Entrepreneurship (ESTEME). The group, which is designed to encourage diversity in biotechnology, brings guest panelists from major companies to talk about topics related to create diverse teams. These students also are responsible for all aspects of planning these events so they learn leadership and fundraising skills. Kjelstrom encourages higher education institution leaders who want to replicate UC Davis’s success to get to know the stakeholders in their own area and develop partnerships that value the needs of both partners and that put students at the center. “It’s getting out of the ivory tower and getting out among the people,” said Kjelstrom. “Don’t use your Ph.D. title and go people-to-people, but ask them, ‘what is it that we need to be successful on both sides?’” Bullet Points: Today’s science is extremely complex and specialized.  To be successful, you must find ways to break down barriers between faculty from different disciplines and encourage collaboration. Reach out to stakeholders to find out how graduates are doing both in terms of technical skills as well as soft skills such as teamwork, communication, and leadership. Encourage students to go the extra mile through specific focused work that will help them stretch and gain knowledge in areas outside of their discipline. In addition, give students the opportunity to take on real leadership roles during their time in school. Guests Social Media Links: Website: http://biotech.ucdavis.edu    Twitter: @JKjelstrom Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/judith-kjelstrom-97b91b4/ Your Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

We find ourselves in a political climate where many say that college graduates are not ready to join the workforce.  This is true in many respects, but the greater truth is that the majority of higher ed has lost its way when it comes to preparing students for life, something equally if not more important than being prepared to assume a position in the workforce. Then there is Texas A&M. Like the service academies (e.g., West Point, Annapolis, etc.), Texas A&M takes a holistic approach to education – preparing students for life, not just for a job. This holistic approach has resulted in Texas A&M’s undergraduate employment rate being second only to Penn State’s, and is tied for the most CEOs of Fortune 100 companies (four).  These are testaments to the quality and talent its students bring to employers on day one after graduating.  This is one reason for the well-known statement in Aggieland: “What do you call an Aggie five years after they graduate? Boss.” Background and TAMU History Founded in 1876, Texas A&M has had a tight alignment with the military. In fact, for its first 90 years, the school only admitted male students and they were required to serve in the Corps of Cadets. After graduation, these students went on to active duty in the military while others went into the workforce, often rising through the ranks to top leadership roles. This laid the groundwork for the fundamental principles that continue to this day of preparing young men (and now women) to lead in the world. During this time, the university started empowering and enabling students to find self-solutions, identify problems and begin to identify means to solve an issue. That concept of a student-led, student-run process began at the infancy of Texas A&M. Operationalizing Texas A&M’s Six Core Values Texas A&M has six core values -- excellence, integrity, leadership, loyalty, respect and selfless service. These values, which not well-specified early on, have informed the university in many ways over the years. For instance, the Holocaust Museum Houston recently recognized Texas A&M for producing more than 20,000 Aggies who stepped forward to serve in World War II and made an incredible difference in the outcome of that war on a global scale. This ties back to the core value of selfless service. Starting approximately 20 years ago, past Texas A&M presidents and staff began an exercise in which they looked back at the institution’s 100-plus-year history and then put the core values on paper. That exercise became the foundational pieces through which TAMU recruits students and how it communicates with former students These core values are shared in recruitment materials and are prominently displayed across campus and permeate Texas A&M’s programs and culture. They are discussed in orientation and residence halls and during a variety of leadership training programs. By the end of their college experience, students can talk about the six core values with a very specific framework and how that led them to be able to achieve certain aspects of their undergraduate and graduate experience. Texas A&M also embeds the core values as learning outcomes when developing and reviewing programs and courses. For example, when the university thinks about developing a new initiative, they don’t talk about a baseline. Instead, the conversation is about whether the program is excellent, is it right and is there integrity and what is the right thing to do. The conversation is not about what might be expedient or put the university in the best light, but what is the right thing to do for the students and building individual character. Building the Next Generation of Leaders Texas A&M takes this one step further by putting students (instead of faculty or staff) in charge of organizing groups and major events. The faculty and staff members serve in advisory roles instead of being in charge of the activity. Texas A&M is very conscious and deliberate in focusing on the core values and encourages students to focus on their work ethic and the value of the work that brings the rewards. Instead of making assumptions about salary and title, the Aggies understand that they need to make appropriate progress to begin to get promotions, a process that starts with their roles at TAMU. For example, students begin their “training” as underclassmen when they join a variety of organizations. Each year, they have the opportunity to move into leadership roles as they begin to narrow their focus. In these roles, they are responsible for operations, training, budgeting or marketing. This enables students to get real-time leadership experience while in school which translates into students being ready to take on significant roles early in their careers. Texas A&M’s Enrollment Processes Whereas many institutions of higher education are seeing enrollment declines and some are being forced to shutter their doors, Texas A&M, which articulates its core values and what being an Aggie is about in its recruitment materials, enrollment selection process is highly competitive (this year, over 50,000 applicants for 10,000 spaces) and it always has a wait list. The number of applications in 2018 were 20-25 percent higher than in 2016. (The 2017 applications were skewed by Hurricane Harvey.) The interest in attending the university is indicative of not only the quality of education, but also the experiences that students will have. Legacy students are not an automatic admit, but at least 25 percent do come from families with Aggie ties. The legacy student typically has the desire to attend Texas A&M as well as the drive to make top grades and a strong work ethic. In one instance, Dr. Pugh could track the Aggie heritage of a recent Texas A&M Yell Leader back to his great-great-great-great grandfather who was the first student ever to enroll at Texas A&M. Hiring Faculty Members and Staff Texas A&M’s values also go out to how they hire faculty and staff. It looks for the qualities of the individual in relation to the quality of their knowledge, their ethics, and their integrity. The expectation is that these individuals will be leaders when they come to Texas A&M. Faculty are expected to be outstanding researchers, which goes hand-in-hand with the core values, and faculty are expected to be part of the local and A&M community. The Division of Student Affairs looks for candidates who align with the university’s core values so they can model those values and take a leadership role. These staff members understand the role of mentorship and are expected to adopt a facilitative, advising stance so that students learn how to take ownership and solve their own problems. The staff also models service leadership concepts and encourages reflection so that students learn from both their successes and their failures, and then are able to move forward. Taking a Longer View Texas A&M is in the process of envisioning what higher education will look like in 2030 and what Texas A&M needs to be proactive in creating that vision. They are involving faculty, staff and students in these discussions and finding ways to embrace these changes. The Texas A&M Foundation has a capital campaign, Lead by Example, that includes three principles: transformational experiences for students, faculty and staff; discovery and innovation, to tackle the major problems in the world; and impact on the state, nation and world, to bring out the servant leadership. They want to encourage students to lead a life of value to commit to the betterment of the world. Wrapping Up Texas A&M offers an important example of how higher education can create an environment in which students learn not only their core discipline but also the softer skills of leadership.  Texas A&M’s core values infuse everything they do, from recruitment brochures and signage to their coursework and how student activities are run. This type of approach offers a way to quiet naysayers who question the value of higher education as to whether institutions prepare their graduates to succeed in the work environment. This state university puts a premium on creating a life of value – and it shows in its current and former students, the faculty, staff and administration. Bullet Points Texas A&M offers an important example of how higher education can create an environment in which students learn not only their core discipline but also the softer skills of leadership.  Texas A&M’s core values infuse everything they do, from recruitment brochures and signage to their coursework and how student activities are run. This type of approach offers a way to quiet naysayers who question the value of higher education as to whether institutions prepare their graduates to succeed in the work environment. The university puts a premium on creating a life of value – and it shows in its current and former students, the faculty, staff, and administration. Texas A&M, like the service academies (e.g., West Point, Annapolis, etc.), takes a holistic approach to education – preparing students for life, not just for a job. This is one reason why their job placement rate for graduates is 2nd in the nation behind Penn State, and it is tied for the most CEOs of Fortune 100 companies (four).  These are testaments to the quality and talent its students bring to employers on day one after graduating. Texas A&M has six core values -- excellence, integrity, leadership, loyalty, respect and selfless service. These values, which not well-specified early on, have informed the university in many ways over the years. They are shared in recruitment materials and are prominently displayed across campus and permeate Texas A&M’s programs and culture. They are discussed in orientation and residence halls and during a variety of leadership training programs. By the end of their college experience, students can talk about the six core values with a very specific framework and how that led them to be able to achieve certain aspects of their undergraduate and graduate experience. Texas A&M takes leadership development and core values one step further by putting students (instead of faculty or staff) in charge of organizing groups and major events. The faculty and staff members serve in advisory roles instead of being in charge of the activity. Texas A&M is very conscious and deliberate in focusing on the core values and encourages students to focus on their work ethic and the value of the work that brings the rewards. Instead of making assumptions about salary and title, the Aggies understand that they need to make appropriate progress to begin to get promotions, a process that starts with their roles at TAMU. Whereas many institutions of higher education are seeing enrollment declines and some are being forced to shutter their doors, Texas A&M, which articulates its core values and what being an Aggie is about in its recruitment materials, enrollment selection process is highly competitive and it always has a wait list. The number of applications in 2018 were 20-25 percent higher than in 2016 (50,000+ for 10,000 spaces). The 2017 applications were skewed by Hurricane Harvey. The interest in attending the university is indicative of not only the quality of education, but also the experiences that students will have. Texas A&M’s values also go out to how they hire faculty and staff. It looks for the qualities of the individual in relation to the quality of their knowledge, their ethics and their integrity. The expectation is that these individuals will be leaders when they come to Texas A&M. Texas A&M is in the process of envisioning what higher education will look like in 2030 and what Texas A&M needs to be proactive in creating that vision. They are involving faculty, staff and students in these discussions and finding ways to embrace these changes. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Texas A&M University Undergraduate hiring Fortune 100 CEOs from TAMU TAMU’s Core Values Dr. Dan Pugh Guests Social Media Links: Texas A&M Twitter: @TAMU ‏ Dan Pugh LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/daniel-pugh-a797663?lipi=urn%3Ali%3Apage%3Ad_flagship3_profile_view_base_contact_details%3BOOVdvvyLRMao8HbjpzpHiQ%3D%3D Your Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

Since seating the 116th Congress three weeks ago, there has been a lot going on in Washington. Tom Netting of CSPEN, the Central States Private Education Network, which represents schools nationwide to public policymakers in Washington and throughout the nation, joins us to give an update on what we can expect out of the 116th Congress with respect to higher education, the 2019 Negotiated Rulemaking process, and the Education Department reorganization. The 116th Congress Given a split Congress, we can expect some changes in higher ed, and perhaps this may be what is needed to move the Higher Education Act and other policies through.  Changing Players The big news coming out of the Senate is that Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn) has announced this will be his last two years in Congress. He has led the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee since 2015, and he, along with Sen. Patti Murray (D-WA), ranking member of the Democratic party, have done a considerable amount of work in a bipartisan fashion. The new chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee is Congressman Bobby Scott (D-VA). Rep. Scott has served in multiple roles on the committee, including chairman and ranking member, and is very familiar with the process and leadership of the committee. Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), the former committee chair, will be the ranking member. The good news is that similar to Alexander and Murray in the Senate, Scott, and Fox have good rapport and have worked in a bipartisan fashion, and we have four individuals who, despite their differences, can work together and have the opportunity to push things across the finish line. Higher Education Act Reauthorizing the Higher Education Act is one of those things which needs pushing. Reauthorization is should happen every 5 to 6 years, but has been delayed the last three times – it has been 11 years since the last reauthorization, and the previous two were in 2008 and 1998, 10 years apart. Getting this to the finish line is critical. In the last 11 years, there have been a number of changes that require legislative action. For example, students need revisions to help support them in their access to higher education; institutions need help in bringing innovation and other aspects forward; and Congress and the Department and the community need the opportunity to bring necessary reforms to the table. The HEA is one of the few remaining education issues on which Sen. Alexander has not put his stamp. Given he's a former Secretary of Education and former chancellor of the University of Tennessee, this is something very near and dear to his heart, and we expect this is high on his list of things to accomplish. Negotiated Rule Making The first session of the 2019 Negotiated Rulemaking process began last week with the Accreditation and Innovation (full) committee in session, and the three subcommittees met on Friday. For those who are unfamiliar with the Neg Reg process as it is sometimes called, there is a full committee comprised of 16 primary and 16 alternate members representing the various constituencies in higher education, and three subcommittees focusing on faith-based entities, TEACH grants, and distance learning. A significant amount of the work will be done at the subcommittee level, who will report out to the full committee for approval/disapproval of the recommendations. There are two significant differences between this and previous Neg Reg processes. First, the Department is using what they are calling consensus buckets in an attempt to gain consensus around individual issues or proposals so that if one set does contain full consensus, they can move that forward as a consensus proposal even if others do not. This is a distinct difference from the all or nothing proposals of the past negotiated rulemaking processes, and gives hope that negotiators might have a shot at completing a very ambitious agenda, or at least some pieces of it. The alternative is that for those areas which are not completed to consensus, the Department will issue its guidance which may be in opposition to many constituencies’ desires. The other difference is who is permitted to speak at committee meetings. The Department attempted to limit discussion to the primary negotiator and allow the alternate only to speak if the primary was not in attendance, (in the past you had both the primary and alternate negotiator being able to speak as they saw fit), but there was pushback from the committee. Ultimately, the protocol was modified to provide for limited circumstances in which both the primary and the alternate would speak. This seemed to work out well in the full committee deliberations. Committee Meetings Report The full committee got off to a good (but late because of weather) start with discussions about accreditation and the agenda. There was some drama at the beginning – seating the state higher education executive officers (SHEEAs) and state attorneys general in the groups. It was ultimately decided that the SHEEAs would be seated on the full committee and states attorneys general will be seated as primary negotiator at a distance education and educational innovation subcommittee. Some of the biggest issues that negotiators will be examining are credit hour and substantive interaction definitions and how those impact competency-based education and federal financial aid. Much of this work will be done at the subcommittee level, and it will be interesting to see how this plays out with the consensus buckets. Schedule The current schedule is that the full committee will meet the weeks of February 10 and March 25, and subcommittees will meet in the week prior to the full committee. The formal Neg Reg process will end on March 28 if all things remain on schedule, but that is predicated on getting all the work done that is necessary, as well as achieving consensus on one or more of the various consensus buckets. We can expect to see interim reports coming out from CSPEN and the various news agencies that report on higher ed news following each of the sessions. Final Report Out Expect to see summaries for those items for which consensus was reached in early April, but for those areas that did not reach consensus, we will be left to speculate on where the conversations of the negotiations left off, where the department positioning was and what we might anticipate it to be as the process goes forward. As is the case with previously negotiated rulemaking, the Department will have the months of April and May (and probably into June) to develop its notice of proposed rulemaking, and probably will publish it in the summer for comments. The final regulations should be published on or about November 1 of this year in order for them to become effective by July 1, 2020. Giving Input to the Process If someone wishes to give input, they can find the list of participants at the Department of Education's website. Also, if you would like to access the live YouTube and streaming videos of the of the negotiations as they take place, here is the link. Department of Education Reorganization The Department of Education recently announced a reorganization, much of which is linked to the Department’s notion of next-generation FSA (federal student financial aid). The Department is looking to first reform the delivery mechanism for federal student financial aid and the backend. They have started building the new system infrastructure geared towards getting better and more accessible information to the individual borrowers and students. They intend to use platforms that utilize mobile devices, as well as the web and the Internet, to bring more information to the consumer in real time on everything from their past applications to their specific loan data. The next step is how to deal with the responsibilities of the Department as it relates to the delivery of FSA. This includes the servicers and the collection activities on the far back end. There have been a couple of starts and stops with this that have resulted in the courts being involved to determine who should be involved and how they should be involved, but hopefully this will lead to a better way to do FSA. As part of the reorg, they have filled 24+ vacancies. These are high- to mid-level individuals across the entire spectrum of the higher education, including elementary, secondary, office of civil rights, and others. Hopefully, filling these vacancies will allow the Department to provide more guidance and information in areas such as Borrower Defense to Repayment Regulations and Gainful Employment. This reorg is not without some concern. There is downsizing going on at the same time, and many are concerned this is a signal to those that believe that the Department should be abolished. Additionally, there are those who view this as yet another way support both the Trump and the Republican agenda by putting people in place who favor some communities to the detriment of others, e.g. for-profit over community colleges or traditional higher education institutions. Government Shutdown The current Washington shut down has not affected the Department of Education too much as it was part of the Labor HHS appropriations bill previously passed by the Senate. However, there are a number of other agencies that affect the Department, e.g., the Federal Register – until guidance is published in the Federal Register, it cannot take effect. Thus, the Department may have completed the BDR guidance, but it cannot go into effect. Cybersecurity Cybersecurity is coming up on people’s radar again, not that it should have ever left. The issue was raised at the FSA conference in two presentations by Department of Ed personnel, who stressed that this area is ever-changing. Institutional leadership must be mindful of cybersecurity as it relates to protection of personal data and compliance. The Department is saying that they can help, so reach out to them. Bullet Points: Drill down on key points of the interview:   Given a split Congress, we can expect some changes in higher ed, and perhaps this may be what is needed to move the Higher Education Act and other policies through. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn) has announced this will be his last two years in Congress.  He chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The new chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee is Congressman Bobby Scott (D-VA). The good news is that similar to Alexander and Murray in the Senate, Scott and Fox have good rapport and have worked in a bipartisan fashion, and we have four individuals who, despite their differences, can work together and have the opportunity to push things across the finish line. Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act is should happen every 5 to 6 years, but has been delayed the last three times – it has been 11 years since the last reauthorization, and the previous two were in 2008 and 1998, 10 years apart. The first session of the 2019 Negotiated Rule Making process began last week with the Accreditation and Innovation (full) committee in session, and the three subcommittees, faith-based entities, TEACH grants, and distance learning, met on Friday. Some of the biggest issues that negotiators will be examining are credit hour and substantive interaction definitions and how those impact competency-based education and federal financial aid. The current Neg Reg schedule is that the full committee will meet the weeks of February 10 and March 25, and subcommittees will meet in the week prior to the full committee. The formal Neg Reg process will end on March 28 if all things remain on schedule. Expect to see summaries for those items for which consensus was reached in early April, but for those areas that did not reach consensus, we will be left to speculate on where the conversations of the negotiations left off, where the department positioning was and what we might anticipate it to be as the process goes forward. If someone wishes to give input, they can find the list of participants at the Department of Education's website. Also, if you would like to access the live YouTube and streaming videos of the of the negotiations as they take place, here is the link. The Department of Education recently announced a reorganization, much of which is linked to the Department’s notion of next-generation FSA (federal student financial aid). As part of the reorg, they have filled 24+ vacancies. These are high- to mid-level individuals across the entire spectrum of the higher education, including elementary, secondary, office of civil rights, and others. Hopefully, filling these vacancies will allow the Department to provide more guidance and information in areas such as Borrower Defense to Repayment Regulations and Gainful Employment. The current Washington shut down has not affected the Department of Education too much as it was part of the Labor HHS appropriations bill previously passed by the Senate. However, there are a number of other agencies that affect the Department, e.g., the Federal Register – until guidance is published in the Federal Register, it cannot take effect. Cybersecurity is coming up on people’s radar again, not that it should have ever left. The issue was raised at the FSA conference in two presentations by Department of Ed personnel, who stressed that this area is ever-changing. Institutional leadership must be mindful of cybersecurity as it relates to protection of personal data and compliance. The Department is saying that they can help, so reach out to them. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Sen. Lamar Alexander Sen. Patti Murray Congressman Bobby Scott Rep. Virginia Foxx 2019 Negotiated Rulemaking process Neg Reg list of participants Department of Education Live streaming link 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 Your Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

In addition to enjoying the holidays, December is a good time to pause and take stock of the past year. This also is an opportune time to get out the crystal ball to contemplate what might happen in 2019. 2018: The Year in Review There were a number of very nice gifts under the tree this year, but also a lot of lumps of coal. In 2018, we saw four big themes: marketplace dynamics; Washington follies; higher ed governance failures (which includes higher ed’s version of #MeToo); and the Harvard admissions lawsuit. Marketplace Dynamics: The Maturing and Decline of Higher Ed Markets In our previous blog and podcast on M&A activity in higher ed, we discussed the product life cycle and where higher ed stands in relation to this concept.  To briefly recap, the product life cycle (PLC) is a marketing tool that is applied to products, but also is relevant when examining market segments or industries. The PLC is made up of four stages: The introduction stage, which is characterized by the organization building brand awareness; The growth stage, which is characterized by strong growth as the organization builds brand preference and increases market share; The maturity stage, which is characterized by diminishing growth as “competition” increases and competitors offer similar “products.” This results in the implementation of multiple marketing strategies, such as cutting prices, rethinking positioning and branding, and market consolidation; and The decline stage, which is characterized by a decline in sales (which may be potentially significant). In many cases, the product (or organization) goes out of business or, as a last result, finds a buyer (leading to a merger or acquisition). Higher ed finds itself straddling the stages of maturity and decline, which is characterized by decreasing enrollment, lack of differentiation in the higher ed marketplace, and an increase in market consolidation and/or college closings. Which brings us to now. Breaking Down the Numbers.  Over the last few years (2016-2018), more than 100 colleges haves closed. Many can be directly attributed to the decertification of ACICS by the Obama administration. However, the more relevant reason for many of these closures is the lifecycle and current operating environment of higher education.  Over the past few years, 65 for-profits closed and seven merged with other institutions. Some of those mergers were huge (Purdue acquiring Kaplan, Strayer acquiring Capella, National University System acquiring Northcentral). In addition, 14 nonprofit universities closed and five merged while 36 public institutions merged or consolidated. This merger and acquisition activity makes perfect sense given that higher education is in the maturing to declining portions of the lifecycle. Transfer Students and Reducing Costs. We’ve also seen community colleges assume more of a role in reducing the costs of higher ed, as well as in degree completion.  State (and other) colleges are beginning to put more emphasis on attracting transfer students.  For example, Gov. Jerry Brown (D-Cal) is withholding $50 million from the University of California system until the system increases the acceptance and enrollment of transfer students while also meeting auditor requests to fix accounting issues. Brown’s decision was based on his commitment to a 2-to-1 ratio of freshmen to transfer students. However, several system’s institutions reported a ratio closer to 4-to-1. Privates are also emphasizing outreach to transfer students due to the costs to both the institution and the students.  Some privates are renting space at community college, thus giving students an easily available and direct track to a four-year degree.   This makes a lot of sense, especially given the current high cost of private education (e.g., one California private is charging $55,000 a year for undergraduate programs, amounts we see at Ivy League schools).  Thus, students find more affordable options by first attending a community college and then transferring to a public or private institution. This approach reduces the amount of student loans needed to complete a degree. This type of approach is especially important with students who start college without a clear idea of what they want to study or their pathway to earning their degree and end up dropping out due to cost.  This accounts for why we are seeing so many post-traditional students in higher education; they initially started college without understanding what they wanted to study and now are returning to complete their degrees. Having this community college low-cost option that transfers coursework to four-year colleges and university makes good sense because it minimizes the student’s time to completion and cost. College Closures and Rejuvenation. We continue to see higher education closures. While higher education leaders may point to the resurrection of Sweet Briar, those types of reemergence are few and far between.    Sweet Briar was an interesting case. Although the school had a substantial endowment (unlike most schools), those funds were legally earmarked for specific things and could not be used for operating funds.  This is an interesting (and possibly unique) situation and will make a great case study for future grad students who want to study the process of bringing a school back from the dead. Department of Education and Washington The second theme for 2018 is all about Washington, D.C. Frankly, there are so many things, it’s hard to know where to start. ACICS. ACICS is (in)famous for its accreditation of Corinthian and ITT, both of which folded, leaving 100s of 1000s of students stranded. Not surprisingly, ACICS was decertified by the Obama administration in 2016. At its height, ACICS accredited 200+ universities, but in 2016 (when ACICS lost its accreditation), most of the institutions accredited by ACICS have moved to other accrediting bodies.    However, the Trump Administration has other ideas on accreditation. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos reinstated ACICS’ accreditation authority this year in a process that had many missteps. However, the most egregious was that the department’s senior official who made the case for ACICS’ reinstatement is a former lobbyist who worked with for-profit universities, a clear conflict of interest. In her justification for reinstatement, the former lobbyist, Diane Auer Jones, said the Department of Education determined that ACICS was in compliance on 19 of the 21 applicable criteria. Equally as important, she stated that ACICS was likely in compliance with these criteria when President Obama’s Education Secretary John King, Jr. removed ACICS’ accreditation certification. According to the Education Department, ACICS is still “out of compliance” with federal standards in the remaining two areas but has been given another 12 months to come back into compliance.  The carnage from ACICS’ original accreditation still continues. Just this month, the Education Corporation of America (ECA), which was once accredited by ACICS and oversaw Virginia College, shuttered its doors, leaving 20,000 students up a creek without a paddle. In fairness to ACICS, they removed Virginia College’s accreditation, but only after the college attempted to get accreditation from another accreditor and failed miserably. Gainful Employment and Borrower Defense. Changes in gainful employment and borrower defense also emerged in 2018. In relation to the former, the Education Department missed the filing deadline for the gainful employment rule so these changes cannot come into play until mid-2020. Furthermore, the Social Security Administration -- which provides the earnings data needed to calculate gainful employment -- decided not to renew the information-sharing agreement that expired in May. Because of this, the Education Department will not have the data they need to calculate earnings data. So, in essence, gainful employment is dead for now. Borrower defense is another area on which Washington gets raspberries. Regulations put in place by the Obama administration protected students whose colleges (e.g., Corinthian and ITT) closed, leaving them with degrees that were considered worthless. However, the Ed Department under Secretary DeVos rejected the vast majority of the claims. It took Congressional pressure to turn the process around, and although the process has gotten better, it still not where it needs to be. I think we can expect to see some new regulations coming out of Washington over the next year in this area. Title IX and Sexual Abuse. The Education Department put out their draft ruling on new Title IX guidance in November and, overall, colleges are not happy. The revisions make major changes to the standard that, in many cases, are as clear as mud and/or will discourage victims from coming forward. New Title IX Guidance. The first of the changes narrows the definition of sexual assault. The old standard was “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” and the new standard is “unwelcome sexual conduct; or unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to the recipient’s education program or activity.” The Ed Department justified this by saying it is in line with the Supreme Court guidance, but survivors’ advocates have come out forcefully and said that this new definition will put survivors’ education at risk. The second major change is the standard by which sexual assault is adjudicated. Previously, the standard was that the assault was “likely to have happened.” However, the new guidance provides for a higher standard, i.e., “preponderance of evidence,” the same standard that is used in civil suits. This is lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the standard which is used in criminal trials, but it still creates a higher burden on the victim to prove that the incident happened. In its guidance, the Ed Dept stated that institutions can use either standard, but this potentially opens the institution up to lawsuits, e.g., institutions may face a lawsuit by the accused if they use the lower standard or the victim if the institution uses the higher standard. The third major change has to do with holding universities responsible. Under the previous guidance, universities and colleges could be held responsible if they “knew about or reasonably should have known” about an incident. However, under the new guidelines, the institution must have “actual knowledge” of the incident in order to be held responsible; this requires the victim to make a formal complaint through official channels. Telling a professor or resident adviser isn’t sufficient – it must be reported to someone who can do something about it, such as a school official who is involved in enforcement. Additionally, schools can only be held responsible for incidents that happen on school property or at school-sponsored events, not at private, off-campus residences. Thus, if a fraternity house is located off-campus and an assault takes place there (as was the allegation in the Judge Kavanaugh – Christine Blasey Ford incident), the institution cannot be held liable, even if they have knowledge that these events have taken place in the past. Lastly, the accused will have the chance to cross-examine the victim under the new guidance, and many feel this will discourage victims from coming forward and reporting incidents. Whenever you get into sexual assault or similar types of accusations, the resolution process must be more than he said/she said. However, that is what it could come down to because of the cross-examination requirement. Many victims’ advocates and lawyers are concerned that we will revert to a previous time when a woman who accused a man of sexual assault would ultimately be the one on trial because of her dress or behaviors or whatever. MSU and Sexual Assault / Harassment in Education. A subset of this area brings to light the #MeToo movement in higher ed, especially in the aftermath of the Supreme Court hearings with Justice Kavanaugh.  It took a tremendous amount of courage for Christine Blasey Ford to bring up what happened to her after so many years and in such a public venue. Sadly, look at what ultimately happened – the good ol’ boys network derailed the investigation before it was able to go through to a conclusion. We also are seeing the fallout from the Michigan State sexual assault case. MSU’s former president has been brought up on felony charges for lying to the police, and the institution’s undergraduate applications have fallen by almost 8.5 percent in the wake of the scandal. Not only is this situation tarnishing MSU’s reputation, it is hitting them in the pocketbook. And maybe that's what has to happen for people to change. Higher Ed Governance Failures and the Role of the Board We are seeing a failure in the governance process in many higher ed schools. Three cases fall into this area at the following institutions: Penn State, Michigan State, and the University of Maryland. We must ask ourselves in all these situations, “Where were the Board of Directors/Regents/Trustees?” In the Penn State scandal, some Regents were brought up on criminal charges. We haven't seen that yet in the Michigan State scandal, but I believe we will.  MSU’s interim president has not done a great job in reaching out to the victims – it has been pretty nasty in many respects, but one must ask where are their Board of Regents? Same with the University of Maryland football coach after the player died – the board directed the university president to retain the football coach, but the president refused (rightly so). From all appearances, the majority of boards and Regents do not understand what their role is. Regents at state schools generally are political appointees, and it is considered to be a feather in one’s cap to be appointed to a Board of Regents/Trustees for a state university.  However, just because one is a political appointee to a board doesn’t remove their fiduciary duties as a board member.  More training needs to be done to ensure Regents understand their duties as well as how governance has changed over the years. This also goes for boards of private universities. The vast majority of these types of higher ed boards are made up of “friends of the president” or other large donors. This is especially egregious with many Christian colleges, whose boards are made up of religious affiliates or ecumenical personnel who have no experience sitting on the board of a multimillion-dollar organization and/or an understanding of higher ed. Fallout from the Harvard Admissions Lawsuit The Harvard lawsuit, in which a group of Asian Americans sued the university over its admissions policies, ultimately will impact a majority of higher ed institutions. Even though Harvard says that they are following the guidance from the Supreme Court, they get sued. Same with UCLA – they have been sued as well. Although a ruling is still forthcoming on the Harvard case, I think there will be ripple effects and we haven’t seen the end of this. Predictions for 2019 While much of the crystal ball’s foretelling for 2019 is cloudy, there are some clear indications of what lies in the future. An Acceleration of Consolidation and Closures First, we will see an acceleration of consolidations and closures in higher ed. For example, just in the last couple weeks, Moody's Investors Service and Fitch ratings both have declared a negative outlook for the higher ed sector for 2019. This is huge. We have a marketplace that is saturated. In these types of markets, smarter institutions focus on economies of scale (mergers), as well as positioning and differentiation (why is my university and/or degree different)? Carnegie Mellon and MIT have done this very well. This is one way to combat saturation, but not a lot of schools understand marketing positioning and differentiation. Consolidation (mergers) occurs for one of three reasons. Acquisition of a new technology; Market expansion and/or growth; or Eliminate competition and/or create market efficiencies. Consolidation will continue to accelerate. One need not look any further than what is happening with Pennsylvania’s 21 state universities. These institutions are vying for a smaller number of students graduating from high school, so are closing multiple campuses and realigning programs to eliminate duplication. This impacts the towns in which they are located since they are the major employers, and any change they make in consolidating degrees and/or reorganizing the system affects jobs, creating a ripple effect. Closures will also increase, but we think there will be far more consolidation rather than outright closings. The trend will continue toward the mega universities -- the merger of Strayer and Capella or Purdue and Kaplan -- or more shared services between universities. We will start to see far more of this with the privates as they struggle to survive. The biggest challenge is going to be for the smaller universities that don’t have strong endowments. What are they going to do? Most of these universities rely solely on tuition and/or state and federal funding to keep their doors open. They have limited research dollars coming in as compared to the Tier 1/R1 institutions. Right now, the closure rate is below 1%, but it will accelerate. The one wildcard in this is a potential recession, which could result in people going back to school to gain new skills and earn a different degree. Maybe that will help universities. The other trend that we have not talked about is how many people are disparaging higher ed, saying a college degree is not worth the money that you pay for it. This is going to hurt higher ed and its ability to bring in more students. This too may lead to more mergers and closures. Changing the Higher Ed Business Model The business model for higher ed must change. We don’t see rapid transformational change in the next year. However, there will be many changes in the next five years that people will realize was part of a changing higher ed landscape as they look in the rearview mirror. Neg Reg 2019 and its Implications.  The upcoming negotiated rulemaking process by the Ed Department focusing on accreditation and innovation could be very impactful, especially with its focus on credit hours and online education. Credit Hours. Moving away from credit hours as a measure of learning could be one of those breakthrough transformations that could spur the changing of higher ed’s business model. Once the Ed Department makes these changes, we will begin to see more institutions using CBE and giving credit for previous learning and life experiences. If you take a look at the three colleges that have done very well using these models (Western Governors who is the poster child for CBE, Capella, and Southern New Hampshire), they have seen tremendous growth while reducing the cost to students. This is a win-win and I think we’ll see more of this.  Online Education.  Although online education is an area that is beginning to get saturated because of for-profits, we will see far more privates and state schools moving into this area, as well as continued consolidations with online providers (OPMs), such as Learning House. Because so many OPMs exist, some of the smaller colleges will be able to expand into this area at a reasonably low-cost investment, and more for-profits will be acquisition targets. We will start seeing institutions embrace the opportunity to share online courses. This too will require changes from the Neg Reg process with respect to accreditation, but once these types of changes come out, we will start seeing sharing of courses and services as we have not seen in the education industry. Negotiations with Faculty. We will begin to see higher ed leaders toughen their stance with faculty. Market saturation with institutions and programs has resulted in price discounting, sometimes at a rate of more than 60%. This is not sustainable. According to Inside Higher Ed’s 2018 Annual Survey of Chief Business Officers (CFOs), 48% of respondents strongly agree or agree that their college tuition discount rate is unsustainable. This is up from 34% in 2017. Furthermore, two-thirds of CFOs at the privates say the same thing. This is huge. Institutions must start cutting programs that are not “profitable,” but in doing this, they must deal with faculty. Unfortunately, faculty look at programmatic cuts through the lens of job security instead of what graduates need to be attractive in the job market.  When faculty start to do this, there will be security and jobs for nearly all.  Faculty Promotion and Tenure. We will start seeing changes in how faculty are promoted and assessed.  Currently, faculty are promoted and assessed by their publication records. Going forward, we’ll see less reliance on citations and publications and more on teaching. Additionally, faculty hiring and tenure will change. We will start seeing a review of tenured faculty every 5 to 10 years, instead of having a job for life. I don’t see tenure going away anytime soon – it is too institutionalized – but employment for life will become a thing of the past in five years. Knowing Who Your Customers Are and What They Need. Many higher ed leaders have locked themselves in the ivory tower for too long, and it's time they understood what students need to be taught and what industry needs to be successful. Texas A&M is another really good example of this. They talk with stakeholder groups on a regular basis, including just completing a values survey. The institutional leaders currently are engaging in what they call Aggie 2030 to understand the future of higher education as a whole and where Texas A&M is going. This is the type of strategic planning that universities need to be doing with their alumni, stakeholders and the people who hire their graduates. Student Enrollment and Impact on Marketing Research and Spending. Another trend involves students making enrollment decisions based on their own proximity to a college. This is important for universities to realize and understand. Unless you are a R1 or major university, your students are more than likely going to come from a limited geographical pool. This has implications as to how and where you spend marketing dollars, but unfortunately, many institutions are wasting marketing dollars. As much as institutions would like to draw from a larger geographical area, institutions must put a greater emphasis on doing market research to understand where their students live and then spend the marketing dollars to get more students from that area. As the saying goes, fish where the fish are, because it's a waste of money otherwise. Harvard Lawsuit and Admissions. The Harvard lawsuit has the potential going all the way to the Supreme Court, and who knows how that will be decided with the current makeup of the Court. Cost Containment. We also will start to see far more cost containment as institutions no longer have the same level of disposable income. I think we will also start seeing the salaries of chief executives start to come down, especially as transparency hits the budgeting process. Higher Ed Funding. Cities and states will begin to fund college for students. The City of Chicago recently announced a new program where students will receive scholarships to cover costs of associate degrees that will be set up through DePaul University. And in another example, Starbucks is funding college for their people. We will start to see more of this as an employee benefit, but also as a way for businesses to invest in and retain quality employees. International Students. International students attending U.S. universities will continue to be an issue so long as the Trump administration continues to mess with immigration. This will continue to impact U.S. institutions as international students pay full tuition and universities use those funds to keep their bottom lines in the green. This is especially true with Chinese students.  Because of trade wars and increased emphasis on background checks, we will see fewer Chinese students enrolling in the nation’s higher education institutions. HBCUs.  I think the other one to look at HBCUs. I think there could be some really good things to come out of the HBCUs over the next few years. I've no idea what it is, but the crystal ball says to keep an eye on them.    Wrapping Up So long as the Trump administration is in office, we will continue to see turbulence coming out of the Department of Education and the rest of the government.  One thing is for sure: it will not be boring! Merry Christmas / happy Hanukkah, and wishing all the very best for 2019. Bullet Points Looking Back – The Highlights from 2018 Higher ed finds itself in the maturity to declining stages as characterized by declining enrollments, lack of differentiation in the higher ed marketplace, and an increase in market consolidation (M&A activity) and/or college closings. Over the last few years, 2016-2018, more than 100 colleges haves closed. Many can be directly attributed to ACICS being decertified by the Obama administration, but more relevant is where education is in the lifecycle and current operating environment.  State (and other) colleges are beginning to put more of an emphasis on attracting transfer students.  Privates are also getting into this space due to costs to both them and their students.  Some privates are co-locating at community colleges, renting space from them, and this gives their students a direct track to a four-year degree.    ACICS was decertified by the Obama administration in 2016, but Secretary DeVos reinstated its accreditation authority this year. There were many missteps with this whole process, but the most egregious of these was because of a conflict of interest (or appearance thereof) of the department senior official who made the case for ACICS’ reinstatement. Gainful employment is essentially dead for two reasons: The Education Department missed the filing deadline for the gainful employment rule so the changes that they want to make to gainful employment cannot come into play until mid-2020. Because of an inter-agency dispute over data sharing, the Ed Dept cannot get the data it needs to calculate gainful employment, thus essentially killing gainful employment. The Ed Department in November put out their draft ruling on new Title IX guidance. Overall, colleges and victims’ advocates are not happy with the changes. There are four major changes: The narrowing of the definition of sexual assault. Suggesting a higher standard for adjudication be used, i.e., “preponderance of evidence,” the same standard that is used in civil suits. Lessening the culpability of institutions and narrowing the reporting requirements. Giving the accused the right to cross-examine the victim. There is a failure in the governance process in many higher ed schools as exemplified by the Michigan State University sexual abuse scandal, and the death of a University of Maryland football player and the retaining of the football coach. More training needs to be done to ensure Regents understand their duties, and how governance has changed over the years. Looking Forward – Predictions for 2019 We will see an acceleration of mergers, consolidations and closures in higher ed. The 2019 Neg Reg process will begin a transformation of higher ed and its business model. Online education will continue its growth over the next 2-3 years. Much of this will be spurred by consolidation and strategic alliances with online providers. We will begin to see faculty promotion and tenure processes changing as a result of the need for universities to cull programs that are not financially viable. Market research will increasingly take root in higher ed, as institutions need to make smarter use of their marketing dollars by determining where their true prospective students are. Cost containment will continue to accelerate in higher ed, especially in privates where discounting has been the norm. This will find its way to the C suite and we will start to see a reduction of presidential salaries, especially at privates. We will start seeing more “interesting” ways for education to be funded. Part of this will come out of the Neg Reg process, but more city, state, and private entities will invest in their residents’ and employees’ futures. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Product Lifecycle: http://www.quickmba.com/marketing/product/lifecycle/ National University System: https://nu.edu Department of Education: https://www.ed.gov/ Neg Reg 2019 Process: www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2018/index.html Your Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

The higher ed sector has been relatively immune (or perhaps resistant?) to change since its inception, but in the past 10-15 years, and especially since the Great Recession, multiple things have changed, forcing changes on it. We now are seeing market forces unleashed, including consolidation, mergers/acquisitions, and closures as we’ve rarely seen before (and not in my lifetime). Understanding Higher Ed’s Situation To put what is happening in higher ed in perspective, we examine the higher ed marketplace through the lens of the product lifecycle (PLC). This is a tool marketing applies to products, but it also is relevant when examining market segments or industries. The PLC is made up of four stages: introduction, growth, maturity, and decline. The introduction stage is characterized by the organization building brand awareness; The growth stage is characterized by strong growth, and the organization building brand preference and increasing market share; The maturity stage is characterized by strong growth diminishing as “competition” rise and competitors offer similar “products.” This results in multiple possible marketing strategies including cutting prices, rethinking positioning and branding, and market consolidation; and The decline stage is characterized by sales significantly declining or having declined. In many cases, the product (or business) goes out of business or, as a last result, finds an acquirer (merger or acquisition). Higher ed finds itself in the maturity to declining stages as characterized by declining enrollments, lack of differentiation in the higher ed marketplace, and an increase in market consolidation (M&A activity) and/or college closings. There are many reasons why higher ed finds itself in this situation.    First, higher ed enrollment has decreased for a myriad of factors, not the least of which is changing demographics, i.e., the numbers of the “traditional” college age student has decreased.  Compounding this decrease, higher ed is becoming perceived as elitist, and many cannot afford its cost and/or the resultant student debt.  In other words, institutions are competing for a shrinking pool of students, and it costs more for an education that some feel isn’t worth the money spent or debt incurred. Second, there is an overabundance of education institutions – too many colleges and universities, and, with rare exceptions, they are offering the same types of programs, e.g., how many MBA programs do we need???  This has resulted in significant economic pressure on those small- to medium-sized colleges and universities who have a relatively small (or no) endowment. This pressure is compounded by cost curves that have been carved into stone over the last several decades. This is played out by larger institutions undercutting smaller institutions on price.  For example, the president of the University of Virginia recently announced that tuition will be free for families earning less than $80,000 a year, and if they earn less than $30,000 a year, they will get room and board. In another example, New York University is not charging their medical school students any tuition. Both of these institutions have large endowments to be able to do this, but how can the small- to mid-sized institutions compete? Lastly, there is pressure for the nonprofit higher ed sector to figure out what to do about the out-of-favor for-profit institutions. These three reasons, aside from the fact that there are market dynamics at play – there is more supply than demand – are driving many of the changes we’re seeing right now in higher ed. Mature and Declining Markets Give Rise to M&A Activity Some smaller colleges and universities under financial stress are looking for ways to solve their problems, and one way is merging with or being merged into another institution. The for-profit sector is a great example of where there has been significant M&A activity, e.g., Purdue and Kaplan forming Purdue Global, Strayer acquiring Capella, etc., as for-profits figure out their future when nonprofits are clearly in favor (and for-profits are clearly out-of-favor). This not completely changed, even with the change in administration. Mergers aren’t the only solution for this problem. Many for-profits are attempting the transition to nonprofit status, e.g., Grand Canyon University and University of Phoenix. However, this isn't always the easiest thing to do because of the regulatory permissions required from the Dept of Education and the institution’s accreditation body. Additionally, it doesn't solve their perception problems, at least immediately. Multiple Reasons for M&A Activity There are multiple reasons for increased M&A activity in the higher ed sector besides market forces at work, and we need to look at the reasons why M&A activity occurs.  Basically, there are three main reasons: New markets / customers New technologies Gain efficiencies in operations National University System is a good example of this – they’re on a buying spree and for all the right reasons. The National University System, a not-for-profit, currently has three nonprofit institutions under its umbrella: National University, the original mothership; JFK University in northern California, and the City University of Seattle, but over the past year, it has acquired Patten University for its technology and Northcentral University for its students and programs. M&A for New Technologies. In its acquisition of Patten University, NU acquired one of the best LMS systems in the marketplace. The system, which was called University Now, has been renamed Flex Course, and NU has adapted it for their own use. As part of the acquisition, National also acquired Patten’s courses which were heavily competency-based. This is also a good advantage in that they have been able to teach out the Patten programs and integrate the learnings into their current undergraduate programs. One thing that was critical in the acquisition was the ability to modify the LMS to ensure NU was able to continue to satisfy Title IV funding requirements which are driven by Carnegie units. Again, due diligence was critical in this respect. The technology was relatively new, and therefore it was easier to adapt it to satisfy Title IV funding requirements when doing CBE. Ultimately, NU has great hopes that this acquisition will help them to transform the online learning experience at all its universities. In other words, National did a great job in completing its due diligence. M&A as a Growth Strategy. There are two ways that institution grow. One is through organic growth, i.e., you decide you will move into the online sector and you build your program from scratch. Many institutions have done this, and the most recent (and possibly the most famous) of these is the announced online undergraduate program at the University of Pennsylvania, the first of the Ivy League institutions to go online with a program. The second strategy is acquisition, which is how the National University System is expanding their doctoral offerings. NU acquired Northcentral University (pending appropriate WSCUC and DOE approvals), an online for-profit university that offers mostly graduate education programs at the master and doctoral levels. This fills a gap that NU had at the doctoral level and adds to its ability to offer online and blended courses. National is already predominantly online – 51 percent of its students are in synchronous or asynchronous online programs – but its acquisition of Northcentral was critical in three ways. First, Northcentral is completely online and has 24 programs, the majority of which are doctoral, an area NU wanted to expand its offerings. Second, the Northcentral faculty are high quality and located in nearly all of the 50 states. The model that they use is one-on-one similar to the Oxford Tutorial Model, which having your faculty are distributed across the country is an advantage when using this pedagogy. Lastly, National acquires a pretty efficient OPM support back-office. As far as the culture goes, NU expects they will get some real experience bringing the for-profit Northcentral University into the NU System and converting it to a not-for-profit. National’s acquisitions have been very strategic in nature – they have looked at multiple opportunities and walked away from many. With these two, they’ve made good choices in line with their overall strategic plan and done the due diligence to ensure they are picking the right horse. Remember that Culture Issue We Had… Culture is critical when considering a merger. Years ago, when HP acquired Compaq, it was the culture differences that most impacted the success (or lack thereof) of the merger. The Purdue Global situation is a good example of the challenges merger entities can face. Purdue “bought” Kaplan, i.e., Purdue got the franchise of the online courseware from the Kaplan organization, while Kaplan retained the back-office processing and support, and the OPM.  Kaplan’s portion of the entity, still for-profit, is being paid for by the profits they're going to make, while the courses are offered through the not-for-profit Purdue Global. Many consider the merger between Purdue, a Tier 1 research university with a very high reputation and traditional faculty, and Kaplan, a good institution in its own right but a for-profit online, a very gutsy move – especially when one considers the faculty culture aspects. Why is there resistance to this change is relatively simple to understand. Culture. The integration of cultures is never easy.  Sometimes, when two cultures come together as Purdue and Kaplan are attempting to do, they merge like oil and water. And that's one of the most important things that folks doing mergers and acquisitions must think about – how the cultures align – because more than anything else, it is culture that can destroy a merger and eliminate the efficiencies that the merger is designed to take advantage of. Take for instance the merger of Kaplan and Purdue. Kaplan, a for-profit, and Purdue, a R1 university, are very different cultures, especially when it comes to faculty.  Regardless of the high quality of Kaplan, an institution which has stayed pretty much out of trouble in terms of the scrutiny of the for-profit community, Kaplan’s online degree programs themselves are a challenge to Purdue’s “in classroom” campus programs that a R1 institutions are experienced in providing. Faculty, and especially traditional, research faculty, generally tend not to like a lot of change, nor are they wild about online education. And we can just imagine what a traditional, research faculty such as Purdue’s felt about merging with a for-profit online institution. From all reports, the faculty was furious when the merger was first announced – their “brand” was being diluted by this incorporated new global entity called Purdue Global that included a for-profit institution. The merger has progressed, and faculty and administration appear to have come to a truce, at least for now. That said, Purdue is spending significantly to market Purdue Global – it is in almost every market with TV and radio ads – while trying to keep marketing positioning separate between Purdue and Purdue Global.  It has yet to be seen as to whether they are able to keep their faculty happy about it or the branding separate, but that’s a whole different kettle of fish. The Future of the For-Profit Sector The for-profit sector is not going to disappear, as much as much of higher ed would like it to. However, there are market forces at play here too, and the for-profit sector may morph its way towards a higher concentration of those who survived to be distributors of OPM or programs.  An example of this is MOOCs.  When you look at several of the MOOC organizations, e.g., Udacity, EDX, etc., these organizations are not just providing learning experiences, they are turning into distributors of traditional degree programs, including even graduate programs for R1 universities. This, plus being obvious merger targets, will continue the upheaval in this sector. We believe that we will see more mergers and less of the organic growth from for-profits, including for-profits becoming part of nonprofits similar to what is happened with Purdue Global, as well as mergers to share back office services. One example of this is TCS Education System, who provides back-office services for a number of institutions. These types of mergers could have a major impact in the online space, especially for small to medium-sized institutions, as it is almost impossible for them to establish the infrastructure to do an effective job in online education – the only way for them to get and/or stay competitive in the online space is to “outsource” back-office functionality. Federal Funding and Accreditation There are also a number of changes in regulatory and accreditation factors between Obama and the Trump administrations that are impacting higher ed. Federal Funding. In a recent talk given by Secretary DeVos, her current position is focused not on the change in the standards but rather more on making Title IV funds available for a broader variety of learning experiences. She conveyed a pretty strong feeling that we should not be committing all postsecondary education funding to what we now call hire traditional higher ed, but to improve the flow of federal funds to retraining programs. Accreditation. There are not a lot of people who believe that we will move dramatically away from the kind of accreditation process we currently have for a myriad of reasons, despite the upcoming Neg Reg process which begins in early 2019 focusing on accreditation and innovation. Big changes from in accreditation will need to include a willingness to think in competency-based terms. This will require a major shift away from the strict Carnegie method of determining learning, to more of a competency-based approach to assessing learning outcomes.  Simply put, it is much more important to know that people are learning and being able to demonstrate learning outcomes than it is to demonstrate how long they sat in a seat. However, changing this mindset will be very challenging as it has been this way for well over 100 years. Additionally, those with marketing backgrounds know that accreditation is the university system's greatest barrier to entry. It is important that universities meet a quality level, but the current system requires institutions develop prima facie evidence of quality, and many potential competitors get frustrated before they get accredited. This could be one reason why the accreditation system as we currently know it does not (and will not) change. Three Things University Presidents Should Consider Before Merger If you are considering merging with another institution, there are three things you should consider. First, culture. You must examine the cultures of the two organizations to ensure that they are mergeable, i.e., that the two cultures are not contrary to one another. There are clear differences between for-profit and not-for-profit cultures, and you must “test the water” and see just how much of a business the for-profit institution sees themselves as vs. it being a learning institution. Second, regardless as to whether it is a for-profit or not-for-profit entity, does the acquired institution have the programs, faculty and administrative support that is consistent and that will integrate effectively with your own. This is critical but especially critical with respect to faculty. Faculty generates and own the content, and it is essential you have a group who can drive the learning experience for students. That's not something that you can import easily – you must make sure that it fits your own model about how it's going to work. Thirdly, you have to look at the institution as a business. You (obviously) don’t want to take on something that is so broken that it cannot be fixed no matter how hard you try. For example, you have to ask yourself, are they hopelessly lost as a business model? Are their programs of interest to the marketplace? One of the biggest challenges institutions are having today is pruning and culling their programs, and leaders must have the courage to look faculty in the eye and say, “by the way, that course is costing us lots of money, and you only have five people in it. We know you may like it, but we can't continue to teach a course that students don't want.” That can be a really tough academic decision, but one that must be made. Wrapping Up We believe that the disruption going on in higher ed has just started and that surviving and thriving in the higher ed space will take intense focus to fine tune the systems, processes, and cost structure if institutions are going to compete and survive. Competition for the adult student has heated up dramatically. Whether we like it or not, this is not only because more traditional institutions have decided to get into the market, but also because multiple institutions are now competing on price, including those that have state subsidies federal subsidies, and/or have large endowments. This can make it very difficult for smaller institutions to compete against as it allows larger institutions to “give away” of their offerings. Bullet Points: The higher ed sector has been relatively immune (or perhaps resistant?) to change since its inception, but in the past 10-15 years, and especially since the Great Recession, multiple things have changed, forcing changes on it. We now are seeing market forces unleashed, including consolidation, mergers/acquisitions, and closures as we’ve rarely seen before (and not in my lifetime). Higher ed finds itself in the maturity to declining stages of the product lifecycle as characterized by declining enrollments, lack of differentiation in the higher ed marketplace, and an increase in market consolidation (M&A activity) and/or college closings. Some smaller colleges and universities under financial stress are looking for ways to solve their problems, and one way is merging with or being merged into another institution. There are multiple reasons for increased M&A activity in the higher ed sector besides market forces at work, and we need to look at the reasons why M&A activity occurs.  Basically, there are three main reasons: New markets/customers, new technologies, or gains in efficiencies in operations. Culture is critical when considering a merger, but the integration of cultures is never easy.  We believe that we will see more mergers and less of the organic growth from for-profits, including for-profits becoming part of nonprofits. The Ed Department under Secretary DeVos believes it should not be committing all postsecondary education funding to what we now call hire traditional higher ed, but to improve the flow of federal funds to retraining programs. Big changes from in accreditation will need to include a willingness to think in competency-based terms. This will require a major shift away from the strict Carnegie method of determining learning, to more of a competency-based approach to assessing learning outcomes.  One reason why the accreditation system as we currently know it does not (and will not) change is that accreditation is the university system's greatest barrier to entry. If you are considering merging with another institution, there are three things you should consider: Are the cultures mergeable? Does the acquired institution see themselves as a business vs. being a learning institution (or vice versa)? Does the acquired institution have the programs, faculty and administrative support that is consistent and that will integrate effectively with your own? Is the acquired institution in good financial situation, or is it so broken that it cannot be fixed no matter how hard you try?  Are they hopelessly lost as a business model? Are their programs of interest to the marketplace? The disruption going on in higher ed has just started, and that surviving and thriving in the higher ed space will take intense focus to fine tune the systems, processes, and cost structure if institutions are going to compete and survive. Competition for the adult student has heated up dramatically.   Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Product Lifecycle: http://www.quickmba.com/marketing/product/lifecycle/ National University System: https://nu.edu Department of Education: https://www.ed.gov/ WASC Senior College and University Commission: https://www.wscuc.org/ Guests Social Media Links: Gerry Czarnecki Twitter: https://twitter.com/gerryczarnecki?lang=en Gerry Czarnecki Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/theczar/ Gerry Czarnecki website: http://gerryczarnecki.com/  Your Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com and drumm@thechangeleader.com