Changing Higher Ed

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

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

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

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

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

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