The Liberal Arts and Professional Learning

Some of us swear by our liberal arts education and want to be sure that this kind of learning is preserved in our ever changing society.  Our country has enabled us to partake in what is perhaps higher education’s greatest achievement:  colleges and universities, here and abroad, that provide the opportunity to explore ideas both in the abstract and as they take shape in society, arts, sciences, humanities, professions, business and in our personal lives.  We champion the values of the liberal arts experience.  We cherish the times when we were students and continue as alumni to invest in the privilege that this education provides.  And we recognize that what is included in a liberal arts curriculum will change with the times and believe that it may do so without compromising its core values.

Some, however, question the utility of a liberal arts education, arguing that the subject matter and the degree are irrelevant to everyday life, inappropriate for students lacking a first rate high school education and replaceable with less costly, specialized learning.  Others question whether the liberal arts should include the pre-professional and professional, arguing that these subjects compromise the values and dilute the substance of a classical liberal arts education.

Both views are arrogant and short-sighted.  The American liberal arts curriculum has usually been pragmatic, mixing theory and practice in both general education and the major.  Even humanities majors, often considered the most rarified and abstract, include applications in speaking, writing, research, internships and career planning.  A flexible approach to any course in a liberal arts college may include both critical thinking and real world application.  Sometimes the mix requires a stretch of the imagination, to be sure, but there is no inherent and irreconcilable conflict.  When the stretch is not made to mix theory with practice rigidity can set in.  That deprives us of a humanistic perspective in business and professional programs or a practical perspective in the humanities, social or natural sciences.

A liberal arts degree includes the development of skills that free the mind to approach critically just about any idea or object—anytime and anywhere.  These “liberating skills” subvert blind acceptance of ideas and experiences, inviting reasoned examination and thoughtful reflection.  They enable the questioning of the status quo and encourage reframing of assumptions about what is thought about the world and what works in it.  In this sense the liberal arts experience is revolutionary, providing the student ways to challenge the conventions of living, working and playing and the experience necessary to develop the self-esteem and reasoning skills essential to formulate news ideas and to develop new knowledge.

Given the range of topics and scope of thought applicable to a liberal arts degree, it is hardly surprising that the subject matter considered appropriate in a liberal arts college has been and remains controversial.  Indeed, since the inception of the liberal arts in early medieval times, there have been constructive debates about content and delivery, resulting in a healthy evolution of the subject matter of a liberal arts degree.  If the subject of the original liberal arts was grammar, rhetoric and logic, nowadays the curriculum has come to include pre-professional programs as well as applied programs in the arts, social and natural sciences, engineering, business and finance.

Perhaps more controversial is the way the range of subjects is taught:  by mastery or by critical thinking.  In actuality, most argue today that the best teaching involves a healthy mix of information and critical reflection.  Likewise, it can be controversial whether instruction is better delivered in lecture or discussion format.  Most argue that discussion rather than lecture stimulates critical thinking, although it must be said that some great lecturers can stimulate hypothetical or imagined dialogue between student and instructor.

A long look at the history of the liberal arts, from their inception through modern times, reveals adaptability in both subject and delivery styles.  The constant is critical thinking itself, leading to the continuous reinvention of knowledge, the nurturing of the creative process and the widening of the audience of participants.  Adaptation and accommodation have allowed new approaches to thinking and learning to affect content, approach and delivery.

Given the evolution of the liberal arts, it is possible to include both professional and pre-professional programs provided that they are approached with an open mind and expose students to controversies and challenges to their underlying assumptions.  Critical is the alignment of mission and curriculum. In order to ensure that the mix of the traditional liberal arts, pre-professional and professional programs is consistent with the mission, attention needs to be given to the inclusiveness of the mission statement, the balance between specialized and critical learning in courses and majors, the practical and professional applications of traditional liberal arts majors and the critical implications of any pre-professional or professional study.  Those attending to the development of a college or university curriculum must ensure that the courses and the majors approach the liberal arts inclusively so that professional study is “liberal” and “liberal” study is practical.  The hubris of the humanities and the philistinism of the business world need to be tempered with moderation and an open mind.

Ellen Hurwitz, PhD

Senior Consultant, Stevens Strategy

President Emerita, American University of Central Asia

The Trustees’ Role in Institutional Innovation

Innovation is fine with the stasists among us…as long as nothing changes.

Most people like to think of themselves as wise dynamists (those willing and able to adapt to changes in our environment) as opposed to the silly stasists (those trying to keep things the same despite the plethora of changes consuming their world). The truth is that no-one can really claim righteousness when it comes to mustering the courage required to take significant risks and to make major change. It’s excruciatingly hard! Our commendations for innovators often only arise after their success is obvious. Before that, they can seem quite annoying to most of us. The truth is that nearly all of us have been enemies of necessary change in at least some circumstance, and often it takes a crisis to shake sense into us.

Crisis conditions require that responsible, conservative and even timid folks work to take measured risks and make innovative change happen. In higher education generally, that time is now. And we, as college and university trustees, are the agents responsible for cultivating and overseeing that innovative change.

To make change, we must recognize and deal with the barriers to change. In higher education, the most significant barriers are people and organizations. Many of these enemies of change are goodhearted folks (we trustees, presidents, some faculties, alumni and other true friends of a college) acting out of the security of what they know and an understandable fear of change. At the other end of the spectrum are the self-possessed or self-interested individuals, groups, organizations or guilds (some faculties, educational organizations and accreditors and our current US Department of Education) militantly defending the status quo, holding the fort against those they see or wish to paint as cretins, charlatans or both.

Some of these barriers to change are near or within our control and some are exogenous. We trustees are the first barrier, and without the elimination of that barrier, innovation in higher education will not occur.

My colleagues and I at Stevens Strategy study change and help colleges and universities create environments where it is possible thoughtfully to consider and implement major change. Many of our consultants serve as trustees, presidents, faculty and senior administrators of institutions struggling with the process of change and innovation. Let me tell you about my experience (as a trustee, not as a consultant) with innovation at one institution of higher education

I became a trustee at New England College in 1999 when a new president there, who had been a client at her previous institution, asked me if I would be willing to sit on the board to bring a higher education management perspective to it. The college had been declining for some time. Despite her efforts at curricular change and the opening of new markets and venues, the college’s downward spiral continued. Her hard work toward strategic change was rebuffed by the faculty with support from alumni, local residents and students. This push/pull scenario developed and continued despite huge financial losses and depressingly low enrollments that threatened the survival of the college. Were the faculty and alumni not the true enemies of change here, placing their own shortsighted interests above those of the college? The honest answer we found was “no,” the true enemies were we, the members of the board. Over time, we had created a confused governance structure (where cozy relationships between faculty, alumni and board members preserved stasis by promoting quid pro quo decision-making) and weakened our chief executive. The path to this outcome was a board mixing passive attributes (abrogating its big picture policy-making and measurement responsibilities) with operating attributes (focusing on crisis decision-making and day-to-day matters often frustrating the president’s plans). Our board had found a way to utilize the two extremes of poor board decision-making. Our president, who had struggled mightily to move the college in the direction of innovation, resigned amid faculty assault.

Terrible enrollment, deep financial distress, threatened survival, a recalcitrant and angry faculty and then no president: That’s a pretty good definition of crisis…and a real incentive to change. I’ve learned as a long-time consultant that colleges in deep trouble almost always have poorly performing boards. Before these colleges can mediate their troubles, they need to fix their boards. New England College was no exception. This low point showed the New England College board that, before the college’s death spiral could be halted, it needed to remove the first barrier to change.

It needed to change the way it governed.

Then it had systematically to remove the other barriers. It needed to teach the college community about their proper roles in the governance of the institution, and not waiver when good governance policy was challenged. Finally, it needed to create internal structures that would support innovative change. I am proud to say our board was successful in removing the barriers to change over which it had reasonable control, and it has made enough progress with the exogenous barriers (more on them later) to provide enough freedom to offer some innovative programming.

I served as board chair during much of this transition period, and for about a year I served simultaneously as board chair and interim president. I should note here that my service was provided on a pro bono basis. And I don’t know that I would recommend that every board chair try the chair/president stunt at home. I believe the board asked me to try it because the institution was in a leadership crisis and I had consulting experience helping boards to do their jobs better and helping college communities to learn to work together to make difficult decisions. Nonetheless, some internal constituents, like faculty and alumni and some of my trustee colleagues, and external observers, like accreditors and some governance aficionados, wondered whether I was a self-serving charlatan seeking the permanent presidency, a kook or both. I think the accreditors resisted the temptation to object because it caught them by surprise and it was kind of fun to watch anyway. Thank goodness, because we wouldn’t have been able to fix things if they had objected. The internal objectors saw that I and the board were turning the New England College governance world upside down, and some fought hard to maintain the power they had amassed under the board’s long standing quid pro quo governance paradigm. My job was to teach governance discipline to the board and to show the campus community that a truly shared governance system would give them honest participation in the decisions to move the college forward; but regardless, forward the college would move. In retrospect, I can understand the kook allegation.

The blueprint for innovative change that we followed is described below. Certainly there was a period of initial tumult, but the board stood firm, and today, less than a decade later, New England College can boast about its exceptional president and an enrollment four times that which it had recorded at its nadir. About half of the college’s students are enrolled in its traditional undergraduate programs. The other half is enrolled in a variety of offsite, distance learning and limited residence (hybrid) undergraduate and graduate programs. Its president, administration and faculty offer and develop quickly new market sensitive programs with a modicum of contentiousness (it is the real world after all). Nearly all of these non-traditional programs are cohort based, meaning that the college doesn’t commit to a program unless sufficient enrollment is in place to sustain it financially. The college will move soon to a 12-month calendar and a trimester system to optimize on-campus space, and it will seek another doubling of enrollment by continuing to institute additional market sensitive traditional and non-traditional programs that utilize technology effectively. As it hasn’t achieved its optimum size yet, its finances, like those of any small college, require constant vigilance. With infrequent exception, the college enjoys substantial annual surpluses, and its endowment is growing.

So, here’s the blueprint for boards of trustees to battle the enemies of innovative change.

1. Realize that if your college is in stasis mode, you are likely enemy number one. Take action to change the behavior of your board. To do that, you need to know your job:
   1. Realize that you, and only you, have the duty and ultimate responsibility for all matters at your institution.
   2. Focus your attention on institutional mission, direction, values, clientele, programs, services and finances. There are people at your institution who know more than you in each of these areas. Listen to them, but never abrogate to them your duty and responsibility to make the policy decisions in these areas.
   3. Hire a great president. Delegate management of the institution to your president. Support your president in every possible way. But step up, and replace a weak president quickly and decisively.
   4. Measure and evaluate your performance, the performance of the president and of the institution in each of the areas listed above.




At New England College, these four steps toward doing our job well were integral to the transformation of the college. We experienced some changes in the membership of the board when some of us were not comfortable with the new role required.

2. Work with your president to teach everyone in your campus community their roles in the governance of the institution. At New England College, our board participated in a broad-based collaborative discussion that resulted in clear definition and codification of everyone’s governance roles. And then the college conducted a highly collaborative strategic planning process, reinforcing those governance roles. Boards also need to let the college know you will never engage in or second-guess the president’s responsibility to manage the institution. It is vitally important to let the faculty know that while their domain of authority includes the delivery of academic programs, the board—and only the board—decides which programs the institution will offer based upon the faculty’s and the president’s advice. Never blink when your governance role is challenged.




3. Work with your president to set up institutional decision-making structures that foster innovation. At New England College, distance education and graduate programs were set up as separate divisions with separate faculties. Our undergraduate faculty, despite all the best intentions, was not equipped for innovative thinking at that time, so the president set up new structures that respected the domain of the faculty. Even so, our regional accrediting agency paid some attention to this structural change and was skeptical and limiting for some time with respect to our distance education and off-site programs. They are more comfortable now. When we collaboratively redrafted campus policy documents, including the faculty handbook, we made sure that the board had the option to set hard time limits for faculty to consider academic program matters. Not meeting a time limit means passing on the issue.




4. You must insist on strategic planning, financial modeling and regular reporting on institutional performance with the implementation of your institution’s strategic plan. But to be innovative, that’s not enough. You and your president must engage your institution in regular generative discussions, which Dick Chait and his colleagues describe as explorations that challenge traditional boundaries and thinking and envision new ways of doing business that respect your institution’s values. In other words, identifying sacred cows and de-sanctifying those unworthy of the status. At New England College, we held generative sessions at every meeting of the board. Many of our efforts in areas like distance education and hybrid programs, for instance, resulted from these institution-wide discussions with the board.

That’s what took New England College from damaging stasis toward measured innovation. But for higher education in America to become a truly innovative industry, we need to consider and test significantly scarier ideas; ideas like Mike Townsley’s 3-year undergraduate college of professional education with a very limited liberal arts core (click here to review Mike’s blog). Or a breakthrough idea developed by two Stevens Strategy consultants that revolutionizes the delivery of instruction and the role of faculty in undergraduate residential colleges (potential investors are invited to review a confidential prospectus by contacting me at JStevens@Chronosco.com).

With these scarier ideas, the enemies of innovation are also exogenous, not in any individual college’s direct control. Unfortunately, under the leadership of our current US Department of Education and as a result of the pressures they are exerting on accreditors, we are currently being led toward stasis. I must note that this sort of overreaching by DOE has occurred in some Republican administrations as well.

But the current DOE’s assault on distance education is a major example of stasist thinking in regulatory organizations that inhibits innovation. Here are just some of the new DOE rules barring entry into the distance education market and making continuing delivery difficult for all but the most sophisticated institutions:

• Required authorization from other state for home-state distance education degree programs that
  • enroll just one student resident in the other state; or
  • employ just one administrator or faculty member resident in the other state; or
  • maintain a PO Box, phone number or server located in the other state; or
  • advertise in the other state
• Rules that bar an institution from assessing recruiter performance based upon application and admittance outcomes
• A traditional classroom-based definition of a credit hour incompatible with distance education
• A definition of “last day of attendance” that is prejudiced against distance learning

The non-profit sector of higher education was caught napping with these new DOE regulations, because many thought they would affect the for-profit sector only. That is not the case, and even now, the fight against these stasist policies is being fought primarily by the for-profits.

This is where trustees, college presidents and other institutional leaders working in organizations like ACE, AGB, CIC, NAICU, NACUBO, SHEEO, AASCU and the myriad other national education organizations need to bring united pressure on the US Department of Education and regional accrediting associations to recognize legitimate experiments that are not anticipated by their regulations and standards or that run counter to their orthodoxy. Only then will American higher education be able to become truly innovative.

John A. Stevens, EdD
President, Stevens Strategy

Are Private and Public Tuition Rates Converging?

The Chronicle of Higher Education recently reported tuition increases at public colleges outpaced private colleges over the last 10 years.  The total increase in sticker price above the rate of inflation for public colleges was 72% versus 29% for privates.  The divergence in price increases raises this question:  Will the divergence lead to a convergence in prices between public and private colleges at some point in the future?  This blog covers a dialogue on this issue between John Stevens, President of Stevens Strategy and Mike Townsley, Senior Consultant.  The dialogue emerged from an email that Mike Townsley sent to John Stevens asking if he had seen the Chronicle article on pricing.

John Stevens

The problem for the public sector is a loss of state funding due to on-going declines in state tax revenue.  The loss of state funding has pushed up the public sector’s sticker price at an average rate of more than 7% per year above the rate of inflation for the last ten years.  A net reduction in the public sector discount rate (also caused by the same tax shortfall) caused the public sector net price to increase by even more over the same period, nearly 9% per year above the rate of inflation.  Meanwhile the average ten-year change in the private sector book price and net price was about 3% and 0% above the rate of inflation, respectively.  Private sector discount rates basically offset any increases in sticker price relative to inflation.  So despite public and federal government perception, private sector net tuition has changed roughly at the rate of inflation.  The increase in net price overall is wholly due to the public sector’s 9% increase.  The unintended consequence of this de facto public sector policy could lead to the end of the automatic subsidy for all students in public sector, be they rich or poor; maybe not a bad policy result if financial aid is distributed primarily based upon need.  The following charts show the rate of change in public and private sector sticker and net price over the last 5 years.

Chart I

Chart II

 Mike Townsley

While the ending of the universal public subsidy is a laudatory goal, is it realistic?  What would have to happen to reach a time when private and public net tuition are equalized?  Achieving equalization would require first, a conscious decision by state legislatures to change a popular policy of low tuitions for all citizens, and second it would have to take place over many years.  Chart III shows that net price (constant dollars) convergence would take thirty-nine years based upon the ten year rate of change for tuition increases and current private college discount rates.  This chart suggests that “many a slip could occur between cup and lip” before convergence occurs.

Chart III

John Stevens

My argument rests on the position that state legislators might eventually realize that a public subsidy to rich kids meets no sound policy objective relative to access (a few states have already done so).  Once they reach that conclusion, logic should lead them to let the book price of public sector tuition rise to private sector levels and the level of discount to increase so that access for the neediest students is maintained; a quite positive result at far less cost to the states.  If the private sector continues its current
trend of no increase in net price relative to inflation, convergence will occur at some point.  The result will create balanced competition between the public sector and private, with more competition based upon quality, improving higher education generally.

Mike Townsley

The Chronicle article was taken from a report on the College Boards publication 2011 Trend in College Pricing that uses a broader definition of tuition discount that includes grants, tax credits, tax deductions, and federal loan subsidies.   The Wall Street Journal on October 29^th reported that there are nine separate tax or savings subsidies provided by the federal government that can make substantial additions to the computation of tuition discounts.  The problem with federal subsidies or tax subsidies is that they can change on a dime.  Often they can change dramatically within a few years depending upon policy, politics, and the economy.  Of course, the same can be said of state subsidies.  The uncertainty of future state and federal subsidies would render the issue of net tuition convergence too unpredictable given the long-time line required for the convergence.

John Stevens

Since federal tax and loan subsidies are income based, reductions in these subsidies will reduce the rate of convergence.  Reductions in federal support should not obviate the convergence as long as across the board tuition subsidies from the state support do not return to the high levels that existed before 2008.

What could happen should not obscure the fact that net tuition at private colleges have not increased faster than the rate of inflation over the past 10 years and public sector tuition has increased at 9% above the rate of inflations annually.

Mike Townsley

There is a way for private colleges to accelerate the convergence given their willingness to moderate net price increases.  Net price is dependent on the tuition discount rate and the rate of growth of the sticker price.  Private colleges have managed the zero rate of growth in net price by increasing tuition discounts more than book price.  If private colleges held sticker price increases to the rate of inflation, if they kept tuition discounts at the current rate, and if public institutions continued on their current path, convergence could occur in thirteen years instead of thirty-nine years shown in Chart III.  Chart IV illustrates the change in this convergence trend.

Chart IV

John Stevens

State legislatures, Congress and public and private colleges should be thinking carefully now about the benefits of a convergence strategy.  Convergence will make
more fair competition on price between public and private colleges, maintain access for poorer students at a lower overall cost to state governments and increase the overall quality of higher education through more focused competition.  It will require private colleges to control price and costs strategically and public colleges to control costs, increase price and increase discounts strategically.

We would be delighted to hear your thoughts on this subject and to discuss the issue of conversion strategy with you.  Email us any time at info@stevensstrategy.com.

John Stevens, EdD

President, Stevens Strategy

              and

Michael Townsley, PhD

Senior Consultant, Stevens Strategy

A Modest Proposal for An Alternative to the Classic Four-Year Degree

Most bachelor’s degrees are typically structured around a strong liberal arts component with the remaining courses aimed at developing expertise in a major that may or may not be useful when a graduate enters the job market.  For instance, in a 124 hour degree program, nearly 50% of the credits are devoted to general education credits, which are heavily ladened with liberal arts courses.  Then the balance of the courses is allocated between a common core of credits for the major and specific credits.  A typical curriculum would look like the following:

• General Education:             58 credits                    47%  of the total credits
• Major Core:                          42 credits                    34%  of the total credits
• Concentration:                     24 credits                    19%  of the total credits

Total Credits:                             124 credits

Since 2006, nearly 94% of college graduates entered the job market.  For these students, it may be reasonable to assume that their primary interest is how their college courses will prepare them for employment.  Under the traditional bachelor degree structure nearly two years of their tuition and course work is spent on courses that do not directly prepare them for employment.  Given that the average degree cost for 2009-10 was $109,172 (College Board) with a net tuition charge after financial aid of $63,172, those two years would cost the average graduate paying the posted price $51,310 – or $29,994 for those paying the net tuition charge.  Of course, the real cost depends on where a student enrolls.  The range in costs for a four-year degree can run from a posted $224,000 tuition bill at the most expensive private college to $39,000 at a commuter college.

While net tuition seems to be modest, not every student receives the average net tuition benefit and the balance after net tuition is often paid either from a family’s discretionary income or by taking loans.  Since discretionary income has not kept pace with the rise in tuition rates over the last decade, students have had to take on ever larger amounts of debt to finance their degree.  In addition, the salary for their first jobs has to carry the burden for courses that did not directly improve their skills for employment.

Even elite liberal arts colleges are beginning to question their business model of high tuition coupled to traditional four-year degree programs.  Smith College has recently published a discussion paper titled Future Initiatives.  This paper discusses the concerns that they have about the viability of their business model, in particular, the effect of high tuition rates on access, the use of a four-year instructional model based mainly upon classroom instruction, and whether the student market will continue to support this model.

Many parents, students, and government agencies have already come to the conclusion that the traditional four-year liberal arts model is too expensive.  They are asking how colleges can reduce the cost of a degree that also produces the skills for a career that produces sufficient income to repay their loans.  If we focus solely on those students who seek a degree so that they can immediately go to work, the financial problem is how a student can purchase a degree that imposes the smallest debt load and debt service on future income.  This question is particularly acute for first generation students who often attend college on a shoe string.

Moreover, in the US we are trying to funnel about 60% of high school graduates through this delivery system.  A significant portion of them are underprepared and require remedial education to grasp basic college level course-work, and still a large number never complete their degree programs.  Demographic analysis tells us that in the future even more students will enter college underprepared for its rigors.  The liberal arts core is and will remain beyond the grasp of large numbers of these potential college students.  They have the innate intelligence to enter a highly skilled workforce, but do not have the essential preparation to succeed in a college program with a strong liberal arts core.

Concern about the structure of the curriculum – whether it should be directed toward specific technical skills or continue the existing liberal arts model of general study – is being widely debated in higher education, the government, employers, and among parents and students.  One example of this debate is a recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education titled “Which Core Matters More?” (September 30, 2011).   This article indicates that many schools are carefully looking at the problem of what students should know and be able to do when they graduate.  There is a growing consensus that higher education should not be solely within the confines of a liberal arts curriculum, but new models should be considered that allow students to focus on skills needed to be proficient in their chosen field of work.  Another Chronicle article from October 7^th asks the question what would happen “…if colleges lose their monopoly on credentials?”  This question becomes relevant as employers try to determine if it makes sense to pay high salaries or for government to allocate huge tuition subsidies for poorly prepared graduates.  The question is also relevant for students who are sinking large sums of money that burdens them with debt in excess of $75,000 that require first time salaries in excess of $50,000 to cover debt, taxes, and basic living expenses.

Questions about cost and skill proficiency are not trivial because they involve the very foundation of what a college degree is supposed to certify.  Is a college degree a valid certification of a skilled and capable graduate with well honed problem solving skills or simply a piece of paper that is a ticket to be punched on the way to a high-paying job?

Ther are alternative models for degrees, however, that produce technically skilled graduates within a shorter time period, reduce the total cost of earning a degree and the total debt graduates must repay.  These degrees currently exist outside the US and have been shaped by the Bologna Agreement on higher education that guides Europe and many countries, such as Mexico, Canada and in the Commonwealth of the UK.

An Alternative Model

The alternative to the traditional bachelor’s degree program is a three-year technical program, which rigorously focuses on technical and problem solving skills that prepares a student for a particular type of employment. The curriculum would be designed to respond to employers’ need that they want graduates with these skills: be able to write coherently and concisely, perform basic mathematics and technical skills required for a position, and competently solve problems common to the field by specifying the problem, selecting an optimal solution, developing a well-conceived plan of operation, and setting-out a plan to report on performance outcomes.

Components:

• The model must be designed around the skills required for a specific career
• Performance must be assessed in terms of performance objectives
• Faculty must have experience in the field rather than pure academic experience
• Curriculum should include a mix of courses, simulations, and internships
• Support services should include internship and student performance coordinators and counselors
• Program courses should be designed around intensive work on developing technical skills that fit the requirements of a particular career set
• There would be a capstone course which involves an intensive problem-solving simulation
• English courses should focus on writing skills based on the requirements of a particular career set
• Math courses should focus on developing strong math skills based on the requirements of a particular career set (If the career set depends on strong arithmetic and basic algebra skills that would be the focus of the math courses. If the career set does not employ advanced math such as calculus; these skills would not be included in the math courses)
• Program should be completed with the equivalent of thirty courses or ninety credits of courses that could be completed upon an accelerated schedule
• The program will accept transfer credits and work experience subject to these credits meeting specific course skill objectives of the program
• Businesses and nonprofit organizations will sign-off on accepting students for employment who have completed the program
• Financing of the model will be a combination of direct costs, direct support costs, subsidy by third parties (no traditional financial aid), and a limited assignment of institutional costs (general administration, registration, etc)
• Assessment will be continuous at the level of student skills, program objectives, and post graduation (the latter would inform the program of the strengths, weaknesses, and changes in skill requirements)

Conditions:

Because this program does not fit traditional associate or bachelor degree models, the program would have to be accepted by state licensure authorities, regional accreditation commissions and the US Department of Education so that students could receive Title IV financial aid.  In addition, employers would need to accept that the alternative produces graduates that have appropriate skills.  Furthermore, the faculty should not force the program into a standard bachelor’s degree model.

Curriculum General Model

• Program would be designed to develop skills for work that requires rigorous understanding of specific technical and problem solving skills
• Goal: Provide a three year program of career skills development
• Total Credits: 87 credits
• Total Courses: approximately 29 courses depending upon the number of credit hours assigned to specific classes
• Public and Group Facilitation classes would be designed as simulations focused on specific problems
• Career Specific Technical Skills; classes would be designed to develop rigorous use and understanding of technical skills and to develop problem solving skills for the field
• General Required Courses could focus on subjects that are important to understanding and living in a complex political and economic system
• Course Methodological Options:
  • Skill understanding, training, and practice of skills to proficiency
  • Simulations to develop and hone skills
  • Simulations to test problem solving skills for the field (major) selected by the student
• Curriculum Structure
  • Writing Skills: total 9 credits
  • Math Skills: total 9 credits
  • Computer Skills: total 9 credits
  • Public and Group Facilitation (simulations): total 9 credits
  • Career Specific Technical Skills: total 42 credits
  • General Required Courses: total 9 credits

Michael Townsley, PhD

Senior Consultant, Stevens Strategy

Do not Cross State Lines – Is the New Online Regulatory Environment Preventing Opportunity and Access?

The higher education press is filled with coverage of the “new” online regulatory environment.  Focused on ensuring the quality of online programs and “protecting” the student consumer, states have put forth an array of requirements.  But, is this the best
path to achieve those “protections” and are there unintended results?

Institutions with online and blended programs, which include most of us, are working to inquire and comply.  State regulatory agencies, many reeling from severe budget and staffing cuts, are working to clarify and respond.  Backlogs and lengthy processing times at the state level, plus institutional costs in staff and fees, are significant.  Despite the hopes of many that this too will pass, states are not pulling back.  Institutions currently “sitting on the sidelines” should activate compliance processes on their campuses and connect with those states from which they draw their students and faculty—as such activities may trigger a “presence” in the state.

As many institutions work to comply, policy leaders in higher education are beginning to question whether the morass of state regulations is moving American higher education backward.  Are we limiting opportunity and access?  While states have had the legal ability to regulate online activities that involve students residing in their state, few had sought to do so apart from regional accreditation and general institutional review or defined “physical presence” in such a way that required a state review, until now.  Given this history and practice, institutions, agencies, students and faculty have worked to enjoy
the richness of higher education across the United States.  Faculty and institutions have collaborated across state borders, with such collaboration highlighted and praised.   Students have benefitted from new course offerings via these collaborations and associations and they have enjoyed returning to their “home state” on breaks and vacations, enrolling in online courses with the blessing of their institution.

Now I am dating myself here, but I view being barred from higher education in another state with the same angst I once had on the basketball court when in women’s basketball players could not cross mid-court.  The play continued, but you could not.  I am pleased to say that eventually the rules did change and women were able to play with a full court opportunity.  Similarly, as an undergraduate, my parents drove across three states to take me to college.  We were not stopped in any of the states, nor did I think the institution I was attending, in my “new“ state, was of any less quality than those in my home state.  I selected the institution because it had a combination of unique qualities I desired:  programs, size, faculty, activities, and location.  Today, would I be able to do the same if the program was offered online…and my home state had not sought “permission”?

Deep in the throes of processing institutional applications and requests for clarity, and collecting their fees, state regulatory offices do not seem anxious or in a position to address larger policy issues—the unintended consequences of this new online regulatory
environment.  But national, regional and state higher education policy leaders are beginning to do so through organizations such as the President’s Forum at Excelsior College, SHEEO and SREB.  This effort is just beginning.  Working to find common language, guidelines and procedures from state to state will take both time and determination.  As Stevens Strategy works with institutions on compliance, we will join this effort and assist institutions as they communicate these “unintended consequences” to their state higher education policy leaders.  With greater demands for higher education and a skilled workforce needed in this economy, is it not the time to have the advantages of playing on the full court?

Sue Lane, PhD

Senior Consultant, Stevens Strategy

How to Manage Effectively Your Institution’s Policies

When I initially started working with higher education clients to develop their policies, it quickly became evident that the typical higher education organizational structure leads to a “silo” approach to policy development.  That is, responsibility for managing policy tends to be distributed across several departments within the school, which in many cases function as independently operating “silos”.  This can result in several problems.  Most importantly, the institution runs the risk that policy development becomes a low departmental priority, thereby increasing the likelihood of non-compliance with U.S. Department of Education requirements, federal and state laws, and accreditation standards.  Enforcement may also be inconsistent and sporadic.  The “silo” approach also lends itself to informal policy coordination, resulting in an unclear understanding amongst campus members as to which policies apply to them and, perhaps even more dangerous from a risk management point of view, the development of inconsistent or contradictory policies.

Effectively run colleges and universities understand the pitfalls associated with the “silo” method and the importance of adopting a strategic approach to managing policies from an institutional perspective.  They regard as imperative a coordinated institution-wide response to policy development that ensures compliance with Department of Education regulations, federal and state laws, and accreditation standards.  Similarly, staff and faculty productivity, guided by well-written, compliant policies that are effectively communicated and consistently enforced, is viewed as vital to successful administrative and scholarly operations.

So, how do colleges and universities overcome the “silo” policy challenge?  From our perspective, there are four high level, basic principles that well-administered schools follow to effectively manage their policies:

• They create an institution-wide policy system;
• They develop a standardized, formal policy development and approval process that allows for a coordinated response to policy need;
• They draft well-written, consistent policies that address operational needs, Department of Education, legal, and accreditation regulations and standards; and
• They invest in a web-based application to facilitate the communication and updating of policies.

Formal Institution-wide Policy System

Colleges and universities with smooth administrative and scholarly operations design and maintain policy systems that facilitate policy coordination across the institution.  These systems serve to logically organize and make available institution-wide policies (those with broad application throughout the institution that require either board or trustee or presidential review and approval) in a central location––preferably via a searchable, web-based application.  In developing such systems, policies are more easily maintained and greater policy compliance is achieved as the campus community has improved access to policies.  Moreover, the risk for policy redundancies and contradictions is eliminated.  Consistency in presentation is also promoted and resources are potentially conserved.

To create such a system, an initial collection of the institution’s current policies from each “silo” of the institution needs to be undertaken.  There are a large number of policy sources to draw from and it is critical that the collection is comprehensive.  Once collected, the policies then need to be organized to minimize inefficiencies.  How a school chooses to organize its policies is institutional preference.  The key is to adopt an organizational system that is intuitive, logical, and easy to maintain.  At Stevens Strategy, we advocate a volume approach that systematizes policies according to broad policy topic areas such as governance, campus community (i.e., security, environmental safety, information technology, public relations, advancement), human resources, faculty, academic, student life, and business and financial affairs.

After the policies are organized, it is essential that they be audited for clarity, accuracy, and completeness.  There should be no policy redundancies or contradictions.  Current
policy should be consistent with actual school practices and presented in a uniform manner and tone.  Finally, and most importantly, there should be a determination as to whether current policies address and/or comply with relevant Department of Education regulations, accreditation standards, federal and state laws, and industry best practices.  Auditing should be performed by teams of dedicated staff with requisite expertise in a given policy topic area under the direction of area vice presidents or department directors.  Where applicable, legal counsel should be consulted.

Standardized Policy Development and Approval Process

Colleges and universities with smooth administrative and scholarly operations further ensure policy coordination across the institution through a standardized policy approval process.  The following factors are critical to their success:

• The process is inclusive and transparent;
• The process adheres to shared governance practices;
•  The process is consistently followed;
• Final policy approval rests with the Board of Trustees or the president (or designee) as applicable.

With these key success factors in mind, what does the typical policy approval process look like?  Schools have nuanced approaches, but, in general, three basic steps are followed:

1. Pre-Development Phase: The pre-development phase centers upon the identification of a need to develop a new policy or revise a current policy.  Any member of the campus community or existing body has the ability to submit a policy plan to either the president’s executive team or, if applicable, a standing policy committee.  If there is agreement to proceed with the policy plan, a policy owner(s) (i.e., administrator, standing committee, task force, etc.) is identified and assigned drafting responsibility.
2. Development Phase: In the development phase, the policy, under the leadership of the policy owner, is drafted.  Drafting best practices are followed and key stakeholders, committees or task forces, and/or governance bodies are engaged for input, comment, and, if applicable, approval.  In addition, policies of legal import are drafted in consultation with or vetted by legal counsel.
3. Policy Approval Phase:
   1. Once the policy is in final draft form, it is submitted to the president’s executive team or standing policy committee, which will review the policy for consistency in format and presentation, conflicts between the proposed policy and other school policies, consistency with laws or other external regulations germane to the policy, and compatibility with the school’s mission.  It then recommends the policy to the president for adoption; refers the policy for further development with suggested changes; or recommends to the president that the policy not be adopted.
   2. Upon receipt by the president, he or she approves the policy, refers it to the policy owner for further development with suggested changes, or decides not to approve the policy.
   3. Where required by the school’s bylaws, board policy, legitimate past practice, or decision of the president, the policy is then forwarded to the Board of Trustees for approval.
   4. Once approved, the policy is published in the school’s institution-wide policy system and, under the direction of the policy owner, training is conducted if applicable.
   5. Following training, the policy owner monitors the policy for compliance and reviews the policy according to an established review cycle.

Compliant and Well-Written Policies

The third key best practice followed by colleges and universities that most effectively manage their policies is to draft compliant and well written policies.  These institutions develop well-researched, benchmarked policies that are compliant with industry best practices and Department of Education, legal, and accreditation regulations and standards.  In drafting their policies, they use plain, easy to understand English in the active voice with commonality in presentation, tone, and definition.  Many larger schools utilize a standardized policy form.  Gender-specific references are typically avoided, as is legalese and colloquial phrasing.  Charts and graphics are commonly utilized to increase stakeholder understanding and related policies, typically through the use of hyperlinks, are cross-referenced.  Finally, the history of policy revisions is documented.

Web-Based Application

Finally, institutions that effectively manage their policies use a web-based application to publish their policies.  Such applications are user friendly, expedient, and include an advanced search component, resulting in improved efficiency and overall policy compliance.  Superior systems can also play a role in the policy development process.  Web-based policy systems are also environmentally friendly.

Stevens Strategy has recently partnered with IMPACT Management after witnessing first hand the efficiency and benefits of theirP2 Policy system.  For more information on the P2 System, email Stephen Lazarus.

Conclusion

Well-administered colleges and universities appreciate the role policies play in achieving their mission and have adopted strategies to manage their policies from an institutional perspective.  They focus on developing an institution-wide policy system that includes well-written, compliant policies and a standardized policy development and approval process.  They also invest in web-based application systems to facilitate staff compliance.

Developing such a system can admittedly be a daunting and time consuming undertaking.  Depending on internal capabilities, institutions may need to conduct staff training, add staff or use consulting services.  The consultants at Stevens Strategy have extensive experience developing institution-wide policy manuals for higher education clients with a proven methodology and we would be happy to be of service.  For more information, you can reach us at Info@StevensStrategy.com.

Stephen Lazarus, JD

Senior Consultant, Stevens Strategy

Delta Cost Project Summary

The Delta Cost Project (sponsored by the Lumina Foundation) analyzes and reports on the implications of major spending trends in public and private institutions of higher education.  Because the report is lengthy and time is valuable for presidents and chief administrators, Stevens Strategy is sharing our review of the latest Delta report for the period 1999 to 2009.

There are five areas in the report that we believe are most valuable to our readership: revenue, market share, expenses, the cost of personnel, and degree production.  Our summary focuses on these areas because they deal with trends that have had a powerful effect on the financial conditions in higher education over the last decade.  (The discussion follows the general practice of categorizing private institutions as bachelors, masters, or research. Even though if an institution is categorized as a bachelor’s college, it may offer
graduate programs as will be seen in market share discussions.)

Revenue

1. Private four-year institutions responded to the recession by increasing sticker prices roughly 4.5% in 2009.  Most of the increase was discounted with financial aid.  As a result little of the new tuition revenue made it into net income.
2. Net price at some private colleges may be competitive with tuition rates at public institutions as they increase tuition to offset reductions in state funding.
3. Tuition revenue in private institutions covers almost 90% of the costs in the master’s sector, and 70% to 75% of the costs in the research and bachelor’s sectors. 

Market Share

1. Private bachelors, masters and research institutions reported market share losses in their undergraduate programs between 0.5% and 0.7%.  Graduate programs for private institutions showed that private bachelor colleges gained 0.7% in market share, and private master colleges increased their market share 1.6%.  Private research institutions, on the other hand, reported a 2.3% decline in market share.  The report notes that  private bachelors and masters institutions may find more graduate level opportunities to add growth and to reduce enrollment pressure on their bachelors programs.
2. Enrollment growth was greatest for public community colleges and for-profit institutions.  Nevertheless, enrollment grew for all institutional categories between 1% and 2%.  Private colleges and universities in some geographic regions will find it more difficult to offset market share losses as demographic trends for high school students continue their decline during this decade.

Expenses

1. There were no dramatic spending cuts at private nonprofit institutions.  Reports indicate that their spending increases continued “unabated” by the recession.
2. The following is a summary of the changes in spending over the last ten years and for the one year period 2008-09.
1. Greatest increases over the ten and one year period for private institutions were usually found in student services and academic support.  Data from other studies support the Delta Study findings that private institutions have made substantial increased funding allocations for student services and academic support.
2. It is not clear why operations and maintenance expenses have required increased spending levels in all three sectors.  It could be due to the age of buildings, addition of new buildings, or increased costs to reduce liabilities.
3. Except for bachelor’s institutions, public services funding declined suggesting that these funds were redeployed elsewhere.  Also cutbacks in grants probably accounts for the reduction in funds for research in the master’s and bachelor’s sector.
4. Spending on instruction, though not a high priority, improved for all sectors except for the bachelor’s sector during the one year period.

Employee Compensation

1. The proportion of expenses spent on faculty has remained steady or fallen slightly.  Compensation for full-time faculty at private institutions increased
   modestly.  At four-year institutions, full-time professors represent between 40% and 60% of faculty.  Reliance on part-time faculty has kept faculty costs down.
2. The addition of a large number of new staff positions at private institutions has more than offset cost reduction per FTE for faculty.  Staffing costs increased 11% at private research universities and 4% at other private institutions.  The higher costs of staffing can be directly seen in the pace of expense increases over ten years for student services and academic support.
3. As the Delta Study points out, neither public nor private institutions “have controlled compensations costs (due tothe hiring of more staff) on a per student basis”.  Higher staffing costs absorb scarce tuition dollars and push expense allocations away from the primary responsibilities of colleges and universities to educate students and conduct research. 

Degree Production

1. Private research and master’s institutions have the highest degree productivity (measured by degrees to enrollments).
2. Private bachelor’s institutions credit hour productivity per degree remained flat, while credit hours credit productivity per degree improved at master’s and research institutions improved as the number of credit hours per degree declined.

The Delta Study suggests that private institutions need to continue to monitor the relationship between revenue and expenses closely if they intend to reduce pressure to increase tuition rates.  This could mean that enrolling students will become more competitive as colleges seek more students in new geographic and demographic markets.
Private colleges and universities will also need to manage expenses more closely.  They will need to develop new ways to assess the costs of hiring and compensating new and existing staff and faculty and assessing the costs of non-personnel expenses.  Productivity metrics will need to become commonplace as institutions in the private sector respond to tougher price competition and new governmental regulations.  Of necessity, this will mean the development of productivity measures, budget funding rules, and management tools to manage tuition rates and to control costs.

Stevens Strategy has the proven experience and skills to help colleges and universities develop mechanisms to measure productivity and to formulate budgets that effectively allocate and manage resources.  Brendan Leonard, who has developed our highly respected financial models, and Michael Townsley, an acknowledged national expert on financial management in higher education, can work with you to develop powerful financial strategies and financial management assessment systems.

Michael Townsley, PhD

Senior Consultant, Stevens Strategy