Learning Resources

Abstract: Part 1 of this series described a major contraction in the pool of college-going 18-year-olds that will reverse decades of growth and stability for higher education. Part 2 explored how we can shape a planning context that supports success in the coming 10 or 20 years. Part 3 suggests how our approach to planning must shift to prepare for abrupt change.

Abstract: Higher Education Business Models Under Stress: Achieving Graceful Transitions in the Academy
by Melody Rose and Larry D. Large
AGP: Washington, DC: 2021
140 Pages
ISBN: 978-1-951635-12-1

Abstract: Part 1 of this series described a major contraction in the pool of college-going 18-year-olds that will reverse decades of growth and stability for higher education. Drawing on the path-breaking analysis of Carleton College economist Nathan Grawe, it outlined how widespread but variable the change will be, and discussed some of the effects—on enrollment, revenue, facilities, staffing, and more—for which colleges and universities should be preparing. This Part 2 explores these implications: How can we shape a planning context that supports success in the coming 10 or 20 years? What attitudes and skillsets will remain useful, and what may need to change?

Abstract: The global COVID-19 pandemic has fundamentally changed the world of higher education. As institutions look to the future, beyond the end of the pandemic, significant uncertainty exists. There is little question that colleges and universities will have to do a better job at planning, and boards at governing, to flourish in the years ahead. In this article an integrated model centered around three different time horizons, three areas of planning, and three types of governance is presented. The model can serve as a framework to demonstrate how these are all related, self-reinforcing, and usable as an aid for institutional leadership.

Abstract: A long-term decline in birth rates raises fundamental planning questions for higher education as the pool of 18-year-olds contracts after 2025. This Planning for Higher Education series explores how planners and leaders can use the time we have to prepare for some of the most wrenching changes in a generation. This article, Part 1, surveys the planning horizon as we emerge from COVID-19 and describes the challenges ahead. Part 2 considers specific planning strategies institutions can adopt to meet the challenge. Part 3 tackles perhaps the most daunting challenge: how to mobilize institutions to actually do what needs to be done, however inconvenient (or worse) that may be.

Abstract: Having been on both the inside of regional accreditation and outside looking back on it, Lynn Priddy knows that accreditation has long tried to revolutionize itself, while at the same time increasingly becoming subject to federal regulatory burdens and expectations from the Department of Education. That has backed it into becoming a bureaucracy at the very time it needed to break out to focus on innovation, learning, and student success.

Abstract: The education sector is excluded from the 16 official “Critical Infrastructure Sectors” managed by the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency. As the world grapples with a pandemic, this omission lays bare a disconnection between critical infrastructures serving daily life and the ground plane of learning and knowledge creation on which they are built; such a severing between ground plane and structure does not bode well for the entire assembly. For us to flourish as a society, higher education institutions—already grounded in a landscape of learning and knowledge creation—need to be a foundational support to essential infrastructures sustaining daily life in communities small and large.

Abstract: by Jason Owen-Smith
Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA 2018
213 pages
ISBN 9781503607095

Abstract: For most institutions of higher learning to thrive amid the shifting demographics, financial outlooks, and value propositions of the 21st century, they must design and implement change that is comprehensive rather than compartmental. Since such change comes hard to institutions steeped in century-old traditions, there are few colleges or universities that have undertaken it. Hiram College (OH) is an exception. Given the dearth of lessons from the field, the Hiram College president offers this constructive and realistic example of systemic change and the five possible steps that academic leaders and trustees elsewhere might consider before triggering it.

Abstract: This article applies the three stages of change (mobilization, implementation, and institutionalization) to the academic curricular process change that occurred during the 2014–2015 academic year at the Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Reflecting on the manner in which this major initiative was conceptualized and executed has revealed an inadvertent yet seamless application of Curry’s (1992) organizational change model. Throughout each stage of this organizational change, some inherent principles were maintained while balancing the required condensed timeline for completion. These principles included consistent and transparent consultation with many branches of the university community and revision of proposed processes based on feedback from community members. The goal of the authors in sharing the change process at IUP is to provide potential insights for others on recognizing a need for organizational process revision. The authors highlight the actions taken at IUP, offer recommendations, and identify potential hazards to institutions contemplating organizational change.