Sheridan Miller: Decline in number of new high-school graduates could hurt New England’s economy

At Providence’s prestigious (despite its ugly Brutalist architecture) Classical High School

From The New England Journal of Higher Education, a service of The New England Board of Higher Education (nebhe.org)

BOSTON

The number of new high-school graduates in New England is expected to shrink by nearly 13 percent by 2037, according to the 10th edition of Knocking at the College Door: Projections of High School Graduates, released this week by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE).

Published by WICHE every four years, Knocking at the College Door is a widely recognized source of data and projections more than 15 years forward on the  high school graduate populations for all 50 states.

The latest edition includes projections of high-school graduates through the Class of 2037. The data include estimates for the U.S., regions, and the 50 states and Washington, D.C., for public and private high-school graduates, as well as a forecast of public high-school graduation rates by race/ethnicity.

Among key findings, NEBHE’s analysis of the report finds that, by 2037:

• The number of new high-school graduates in New England is expected to decline from 170,000 to 148,490, a 12.7 percent decrease.

• The number of public high-school graduates in the region is projected to fall by 11 percent, while the much smaller number of students graduating from New England’s private high schools will shrink by 23 percent.

• The region’s high schoolers will continue to become increasingly diverse. Over the next 16 years, the number of white high-school graduates will decline by 29 percent, while Black high-school graduates will increase by 7 percent, Hispanics by 54 percent, Asian and Pacific Islanders by 18 percent, and those who identify as two or more races by 42 percent.

New England’s challenges with an aging population and falling birth rates has been well chronicled. With these new projections and declining state revenues (to say nothing of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which the report does not calculate), the number of public and private high schoolers expected to graduate in the region calls for a closer examination. High-school graduation rates are an especially important indicator of college matriculation and future success. We know that the more education that people have, the more likely they are to have a family-sustaining wage. If high-school graduation rates are declining in the region, this suggests that college graduation rates will do the same and have far-reaching effects on the success of individuals and our region’s economic competitiveness.

The projected overall decline in the number of New England’s high-school graduates will be largely driven by significant declines in Connecticut, New Hampshire and Rhode Island, as each state is projected to see a decline of 18 percent. The initial decline in the region’s number of high-school graduates is expected to be modest, with much steeper drops projected to occur after 2025.

Projected regional graduation declines from 2019 suggest:

• From 2019 to 2020, the number of high-school graduates in the region fell by 0.3 percent.

• Between 2019 and 2025, this group is projected to shrink by 0.5 percent.

• Between 2019 and 2030, the number of high school graduates in New England is projected to drop by 8 percent.

• Between 2019 and 2037, the number of graduates is projected to drop by 12.7 percent.

With the number of high-school graduates expected to fall significantly across New England in the next decade and a half, legislators, educators and leaders in higher education must act proactively to make sure we can mitigate the impact of these declines in our region.

Public and private high schools

Overall, New England public and private high-school graduates constitute 4.5 percent of all high-school graduates in the U.S. New England has a higher percentage of private high school graduates than the rest of the nation. In fact, even though New England comprises a small proportion of the total U.S. population, the region’s private-school graduates made up 7 percent of all private-school graduates in the U.S. in 2020. New England public-school graduates made up only 4 percent of the nation’s total. By 2037, the region’s public high schools are projected to see an 11 percent decline in the number of graduates, and the data anticipate a larger decline of 23 percent among private high schools.

Diversity, equity and inclusion

As mentioned above, because New England’s high-school student population is predominantly white, much of the average decline that is projected to occur over the next 16 years can be explained by the decline of white student graduates and the region’s increasing diversification. Between 2020 and 2037, the number of New England’s white student high-school graduates is expected to decline by 29 percent. Nationally, the number of white graduates during this same period is expected to decline by 19 percent.

By comparison, the number of minoritized high school graduates in New England is expected to increase slightly across certain demographic groups, with the number of Black high school graduates rising by 7 percent over the next 16 years, the number of Hispanic graduates growing by 54 percent, Asian and Pacific Islander graduates growing by 18 percent, and graduates who identity as two or more races growing by 42 percent.

Additionally, the number of Alaska Native and American Indian high- school graduates in New England is expected to decline by 35 percent over the next 16 years. Though this group represents a small fraction of New England’s high-school student population, it is critical that education leaders and policymakers support these students.

As we continue to think about our roles in furthering equity, it is important to remember that our education system has historically been set up to cater to white students. As our student population becomes more diverse, we should focus on learning how best to support students of color while preparing educators in primary, secondary and higher education who also reflect the changing demographics of our students in the region.

Among the many significant implications of WICHE’s report for educators, legislators and higher education leaders, the projected decline in high-school graduates will have long-term effects on the rates of higher-education enrollment in New England and beyond. While this is bad news for the vast majority of the region’s postsecondary institutions that are enrollment-driven, the projected declines could also hurt our regional economy, as fewer individuals will be able to compete for good-paying jobs that require an education beyond high school and eventually fewer employers may be drawn to the region for its educated labor. Additionally, it is critical to consider the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic—both in the short- and long-terms—on high-school graduation rates and individuals’ decisions about whether to pursue higher education.

NEBHE will be answering questions about the implications of WICHE’s report in a Webinar in the New Year. More details to come soon.

Sheridan Miller is coordinator of state policy engagement at NEBHE. 

Share 

Chris Powell: Conn. can do without higher education for a while; more Bridgeport bathos

Main quad at the University of Connecticut’s flagship campus, in Storrs

— Photo by Daderot

MANCHESTER, Conn

First the University of Connecticut asked state government for an emergency appropriation of more than $100 million. Now the state colleges and universities system, which operates the regional universities and community colleges, is asking for an emergency appropriation of $69 million. UConn's deficit arises largely from mismanagement of its Health Center. The regional universities and community colleges suffer most from falling enrollment.

Ordinarily institutions losing so much money would do more than wring their hands and seek bailouts. They would cut expenses, and since most higher education expenses are personnel, they would cut there. But since state government has been under Democratic administration for 10 years and state government employee union members constitute the party's army, their contract forbids layoffs and reductions in compensation.

So while the universities and colleges can turn off their electricity, heat, and internet service, they can't economize in the most practical and effective way. Even if they closed entirely they still would have to keep paying everyone, at least until the current contract expires.

So what is to be done about higher education's insolvency?

Legislators seem to have nothing to say about it, and they hardly meet anymore even though they still seek re-election next month. Gov. Ned Lamont has yet to offer any ideas, and he may be finding little glory in ruling by decree, since his work increasingly is just a matter of calculating deficits and seeking more federal bailouts. With the state's economy having shrunk by almost a third this year amid the virus epidemic, tax increases can't be seriously talked about until after the election, and even then it will be crazy talk. But the state employee union contract demonstrates Connecticut's infinite capacity for insanity in government.

Actually, while it wouldn't save on payroll right away, closing higher education indefinitely might be best.

For only a fraction of higher education produces any practical value to the state's economy, and while the rest of it theoretically can give students greater understanding and appreciation of life, it is deteriorating.

Most students admitted to the regional universities and community colleges already require remedial high school courses, having been advanced not by learning but mere social promotion. UConn has escaped the remediation scandal but still is being swamped by the political correctness sweeping higher education nationally.

There is less education, more indoctrination and political posturing, and more complaining about "systemic" racism to keep everyone in line with the indoctrination even as no one ever identifies the supposed racists or racist policies. Despite the prattle for "diversity" there is little political diversity among the faculty. People of all ancestries are welcome as long as they think the same. The idea of inviting a non-left-wing speaker sets off alarms.

The problem with education in Connecticut is not higher education but lower education, since most high school graduates fail to master basic high school work. This is worst in the cities. This is always presented as a money problem but decades of spending increases haven't changed anything, since it's a parenting problem.

Until higher education can find a purpose higher than subsidizing educators, Connecticut could do without it.

xxx

FOREVER CROOKED: Add the new corruption in Bridgeport to the long list of disturbing issues being ignored at the state Capitol. Last week the city's former police chief -- a close friend of Mayor Joe Ganim, Armando Perez -- joined former city personnel director David Dunn in pleading guilty to federal charges of rigging the chief's testing and hiring procedure.

The mayor already has served a long prison sentence for the corruption he committed during his first administration, and everyone understood that he wanted Perez to be chief during his second administration. So it is hard to imagine that the test rigging happened without the mayor's approval. But the state's political leaders, Democratic and Republican alike, have nothing to say about the matter.

After all, it's just Bridgeport. It's the state's largest city, but also its poorest, so who cares?

Ganim's spokeswoman says the guilty pleas "help bring closure to this matter." Closure on corruption in Bridgeport? That will be the day.

Chris Powell is a columnist for the Journal Inquirer, in Manchester.

Deborah Danger: Estate planning for college students in the pandemic

“Death on the Pale Horse’’ (1865), by Gustave Dore

Entrance to the Grove Street Cemetery or Grove Street Burial Ground, in New Haven, Conn. It’s surrounded by the Yale University campus. The cemetery was founded in 1796 as the New Haven Burying Ground and incorporated in October 1797 to replace the crowded burial ground on the New Haven Green. Many notable Yale and New Haven luminaries are buried in the cemetery, including 14 Yale presidents.

From The New England Journal of Higher Education, a service of The New England Board of Higher Education (nebhe.org)

NEWTON, Mass.

Eleanor Roosevelt once said, “If life were predictable it would cease to be life, and be without flavor.”

Her words are excellent guideposts as New England colleges and universities navigate the unknowns of educating students during COVID-19. Despite the precautions that institutions are taking, on-campus teaching and research are not totally risk-free.

Neither, of course, is life itself.

As COVID-19 and the upcoming flu season pose new uncertainties, many faculty and administrators are brushing up against less comfortable topics, including extended illness, incapacity and death.

Over the past few weeks, up to 80 percent of the calls I have fielded were from educators and high school and college students wanting to put together estate plans, or update previous plans, as they return to the classroom. These included a 17-year-old high school student who drafted a plan and then signed it on his 18th birthday and two college freshmen who wanted these documents in place before heading to their new campuses.

My informal survey of potential clients finds that less than half have estate planning documents in place, and many who already have them in place discover that named agents have moved away or died, and previously proclaimed wishes no longer accurately reflect their current wishes. The educators and administrators who are taking action now have been spurred on by new “what if” scenarios (e.g., “If I am put on a ventilator and can’t make my wishes known, who will speak for me?” “If both my partner and I become ill, who will care for the children?”).

Estate plan elements

Estate planning is a way for individuals to ensure that: 1) their values and personal priorities will be known and honored, 2) their wishes for their family will be protected and 3) their assets will be available to provide for loved ones.

These plans include:

• A will, which specifies who is to receive prized possessions and other assets when they die … including charities. It is also where they name guardians for their minor children.

• A healthcare proxy, which specifies the person who can make healthcare decisions for them when they cannot. This document should be supplemented with a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Release (HIPAA), so doctors can share their medical information with the proxy.

• Revocable living trust … In most states, a will does not authorize the bypass of probate or the immediate distribution of assets upon a person’s death. The addition of a trust, in most cases, enables heirs to quickly receive what has been left to them. Naming trustees of the trust also provides protection against irresponsible spending by heirs, and premature spending by minor children.

• A durable power of attorney, which grants a trusted spouse, partner, friend, relative or advisor the power to handle their finances and affairs if they become incapacitated.

Moreover, because of the nature of their work, professors should also think about:

• Whether they need a literary executor (to oversee written works).

• Ensuring the continuity and value preservation of “side hustles,” such as part-time teaching or tutoring gigs or running a blog or small company.

• Ownership of intellectual property, such as patents, websites and creative works.

Getting personal

What about the softer and more human side of this process?

Estate planning is an opportunity to express very personal considerations about measures that should be taken to extend life, such as preferences about the use of ventilators and being artificially fed and hydrated. It’s also a way to direct a “legacy of love” and document who should give away and get possessions that have value and possessions that preserve memories. The clearer individuals are about these things, the easier it will be for their family, community and friends to honor their wishes rather than guess and argue over what they are.

For these reasons, individuals should be thoughtful and thorough, and make sure to work with a trusted advisor who can help them think through decisions about these challenging choices.

Once the conversations have been had, and estate planning documents are signed and notarized, the temptation is to close this chapter, but this is the time to share information with everyone who might require it. If one suddenly contracts a more serious case of COVID-19, it is important that every agent/decision-maker can act quickly and in synch with everyone else.

Individuals should share:

• Healthcare proxies: Not only with the designated proxies, but also with each of their caregivers and specialists, their hospital of choice, employers (for Human Resource folders, so colleagues know who to call and which hospitals to request in the event of a sudden illness) and fitness centers (in the event of a heart attack, stroke or injury while working out).

• Durable powers of attorney: In addition to the designated “agents,” others who would benefit from this information include banks, insurance providers, financial advisors, CPAs and college/university employers.

• Will: At least one trusted person should know where the original will is kept, as this document must be filed with the court upon death (copies will not be considered valid).

• Trusts: These instruments will set in motion a chain of other actions that need to be implemented in order for their full benefits to be realized; for example, all assets, including real estate, will need to be retitled in the name of the trustee.

Indeed, this is a good time to centralize all important documents in case of an emergency—from titles and deeds to birth and marriage certificates. For a checklist, click here.

COVID-19 is a wakeup call for all of us that life can instantly change. An estate plan offers a measure of control, enabling one to protect loved ones as they continue their educational work.

Deborah Danger is managing member of DangerLaw, LLC in Newton, Mass., which focuses on estate planning, post death administration, asset protection, family law, small business/entrepreneurship advising and collaborative law.

George McCully: Higher education in crisis and a paradigm shift

Via The England Journal of Higher Education, a service of The New England Board of Higher Education (nebhe.org)

BOSTON

Discussions of the problematic future of higher education were already an exploding industry before COVID-19, producing more to be read than anyone could possibly keep up with. Their main audience was academic administrators and a few faculty, worrying where their institutions and careers were headed, and wanting guidance in strategic decision-making—helping to identify not only where they actually were and were going, but also where they might want to go. Experiments were everywhere, momentous decisions were being made, and there were no signs of any problem-solving consensus.

Into that pre-coronavirus maelstrom came Bryan Alexander’s Academia Next: The Futures of Higher Education (Johns Hopkins UP, 2020). Alexander, whose doctorate is in English literature, took care to detail his qualifications and previous experience in futurist studies, and is described in the flyleaf as “an internationally known futurist, researcher, writer, speaker, consultant, and teacher,” currently senior scholar [adjunct] at Georgetown University, founder of the online “Future of Education Observatory” and author of The New Digital Storytelling: Creating Narratives with New Media, and Gearing Up for Learning Beyond K-12.

We note the plural “Futures,” which is commendable because Alexander addresses the wide variety of institutions, from major research universities and state university systems to community colleges and the full range of private liberal arts colleges, each group with its own distinctive future. Alexander’s stated preference for the word “forecast,” as with weather, over “prediction,” as with science, is also appropriate. The method and structure of his book is presented as conventional futurism: to identify “trends,” from them to artfully project multiple “scenarios,” from which to draw conclusions. This is clearly not science—but more about methodology to follow.

The strongest part of the book is the first, which exhaustively details “trends,” or more accurately “innovations,” for whether they are actually historical “trends” is not critically addressed. Moreover, nothing is said about the central issue of scholarship itself, widely recognized as being a major problem—for example, the obsolescence of traditional (mostly 19th Century) multiversity academic disciplines in this century, and the innumerable searches for new strategies and structures. The temporal range of Alexander’s forecasting vision is short: 10 to 15 years, but even so, the imagined “Scenarios” section suffers from rhetorical excess and a lack of carefully analyzed pathways telling us how the innovations might become “trends,” and those might become “scenarios.” The weakest part is the last, purportedly on conclusions, but failing to connect today to tomorrow, or to reach any very helpful conclusions.

Subverting all this however are two fundamental flaws, which the book shares with conventional futurist methodology: first, its tacit assumption that historical change is a consistently evolutionary process; and second, the lack of a precise understanding of historical causation.

Futurist studies arose as a field in the last half of the 20th Century, a relatively stable postwar historical period. Alexander’s assumptions reflect this: “In general, the future never wholly eradicates the past. Instead, the two intertwine and influence each other.” This approach is less well suited, and sometimes not suited at all, to periods of revolutionary change, especially if that is widespread and accelerating, as it is today.

Stable periods of history, whether in particular fields (e.g., sciences, technologies, business, scholarship, higher education, etc.) or in general, derive their order from paradigms, that is, established models governing mature fields of activity. Revolutionary change occurs when a paradigm is overthrown or replaced by unordained means, producing an alternative, incompatible one—in politics for example by an unconstitutional change in the constitution of a polity. This distinctive kind of historical change—”paradigm shift”—usually concerns only individual fields, but in the 21st Century we happen to be living in a highly exceptional entire period of paradigm shifts, powered by the revolution in information technology (IT)—computers and the internet. In higher education, paradigms were shifting even before the pandemic, already invalidating forecasts.

Periods of paradigm shift

Periods of paradigm shift are rare—by my count only four in 2,500 years of Western history. The first was the rise of Classical Western civilization itself, extending roughly from Periclean Athens to the fall of Rome—about 1,000 years. The second was the rise of medieval Christian civilization extending from there to the Renaissance and Reformation—another 1,000 years. The third was the “early-modern” period from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment (also incidentally driven by an IT revolution—Gutenberg’s), including the scientific revolution, global discoveries, the emergence of nation-states and secularization—about 300 years, codified by the familiar 19th Century formulation that Western history had three main periods: ancient, medieval and modern.

Today, however, we are entering a fourth great period—signaled by the ubiquity of paradigm shifts and the fundamental issues it is raising, for example, with AI, robots and what it is to be human. The character of our new age is not yet defined as it is still taking shape, but it may become relatively established in only decades, owing to the vastly increased and accelerating power of technology. In short, even before the pandemic, higher education as an emphatically information-intensive field was undergoing its own IT-revolutionary paradigm shifts, amid other paradigm shifts all around it. For such a period, conventional futurist methodology and forecasting are not well suited; Anderson’s book is unaware of all this.

Causation: how it works

A second fundamental flaw is revealed by the book’s tendency to skip over transitional processes—how innovations become trends, trends yield scenarios, and scenarios reach conclusions. We are not told how these happen, or how they work as historical bridges. Nor are the transitions informed by any disciplined understanding of causation, both as a phenomenon and as an instrument of influence or management. The lack of thought about causation is understandable because it is common even among historians, who tend to be more empirical than theoretical because history is so complex. Nonetheless, a deeper and more precise understanding may clarify this discussion.

Consider: Everything and everybody in the world is an element in history—participating in events and developments, what historians study. Each is defined by a limited range of possible roles or activities, to which it is inclined to be conducive, exerting influence. Chairs, tables, boats, tools, chickens, etc., are known by us according to what they are and do, both actually and potentially. They both exist and are potentially conducive to qualifying or influencing their circumstances in the world around them.

Combinations of historical elements therefore also have limited ranges of mutual cooperation—where their respective potentials and influences overlap, and to which they are mutually conducive. Mutual influences—alliances, collaborations, cooperations—are generally more powerful than individual influence. People and institutions are more powerful together than apart. A chair and table in the same room with a person are more likely to be used together than separately or not at all.

Therefore when combinations occur in time and place, the probabilities that their mutual influences will actually happen increase, other things being equal. This is significant for leadership and management, because it means that by intentionally combining elements—”piling up the conducives”—we can increase our influence on events, promoting and helping to cause certain intended results to happen.

Causation in history may therefore be defined as the “coincidence of conducive conditions”, which produces the result studied or sought.

There are several fairly obvious caveats, however: a) elements and combinations vary in power and potential; and b) elements and combinations thereof can be partially or totally opposed to each other as well as mutually reinforcing. History and its study are extremely complex.

Therefore every historical event or development results from complex combinations of influential factors—causes, qualifiers and impediments. Historians identify and describe the activities and influences of various factors in order to illuminate and explain how events and developments happened. Planners, strategists and managers can likewise identify and use the relevant factors, to make desired events happen, to produce desired results—piling up the conducives and qualifiers, and eliminating, neutralizing, or avoiding the impediments, while ignoring the immaterial. Current events in our country and in higher education offer rich examples for this.

In the midst of one or more paradigm shifts, strategic and tactical planning are further complicated by the fact that the normal processes of change are themselves being violated—avoided, transformed and superseded. Thomas Kuhn, who coined the idea with reference to the Copernican Revolution in science, believed that the results of paradigm shifts are impossible to predict until late in the process—often too late for management. We should also acknowledge that the complexity of history has not yet been reduced to systematic scientific understanding; the study and understanding of history is still more an art than a science.

Higher education in crisis

But now let us consider the already deeply problematic crisis of early 21st Century higher education, into which came coronavirus—a universal disrupter par excellence, leaving no institution or custom unchanged, imposing radical doubts about the future, and in particular forcing re-inventions of traditional practices under new and still unsettled current and future constraints.

There is a key difference between the pre-corona paradigm shifts and those imposed by COVID-19: Whereas the former are a reconstructive phenomenon, driven by the overwhelming power of the IT revolution in every information-intensive field, COVID-19 is an entirely destructive phenomenon, offering no constructive alternative to its victims. What happens when two transformative “conducives”—one constructive, one destructive—collide, especially in an age of paradigm shifts?

So far, the combined effects have been mixed—containing both constructive and destructive parts, as the two forces increasingly coincide. Certainly the rapid and forceful push of often-recalcitrant faculty into socially distanced online instruction is an acceleration of a clearly developing trend under the new IT; but as its effects ramify throughout the problematic business models, residential systems, admissions processes, courses, curricula and even architecture, of diverse colleges and universities, academic administrators have no reliable idea yet what or how viable new institutions might rise from the rubble.

Education vs. training

We need to be clearer than we have been about what values and issues are at stake. Not so long ago, back in the day when I was a student, we had a clear distinction between “education” and “training.” The former referred to the ancient tradition of liberal education, whose focus was self-development, for human fulfillment. Training, by contrast, was the development of technical knowledge and skills, with a focus on professional employment. “Higher education” came after school education, to prepare students for who they would become as human beings in later life; training prepared students for what they would become professionally in jobs and careers—what occupational and societal roles they would play. Undergraduate years were to be devoted to “higher education” and postgraduate studies to focus on professional technical training—law, medicine, architecture, business, research, teaching, etc.

That paradigmatic distinction and practice has obviously been blurred since then by commercialization. Soaring tuition costs and student loan indebtedness tied ever more closely to preparation for future jobs and problematic careers in an increasingly “gig” economy, have forced the flow of student enrollments and funding away from liberal education and the humanities to more immediately practical and materialistic courses, disciplines, curricula and faculty jobs. This has led students and their parents to see themselves as retail consumers, calculating cost-effectiveness and monetary return-on-investment in the training marketplace. Terminology has followed, so that gradually “higher education” and “training” have become virtually synonymous, with training dominant.

The forced  mass movement to online learning and teaching involves radically different participation, financing and business models. It is increasingly clear that their concurrence and connection with artificial intelligence, big data and the gig economy—and with course offerings often segmented for practical convenience—has been building an extremely powerful “coincidence of conducives” that might complete the transit from education to training that has been going on for the last half-century. If so, this could spell for all practical purposes an end to higher education for all but a few very wealthy institutions.

This paradigm shift has operated to the detriment of both education and training, but more dangerously for education. Recent surveys have shown that from 2013 to 2019, the portion of adults regarding college education as “very important” has declined from 70% to 51%; a majority of younger adults ages 18 to 29 now consider getting a job to be the primary purpose of earning a college degree, and they, who are purportedly its beneficiaries, are also the most likely to question its value. Moreover, because online instruction is more readily suited for training than for education, institutions of higher education face stiff competition in credentialing for jobs from specialized for-profit corporations and employers themselves, in effect shoving colleges and universities aside, rendering their dominance in the crucial years of early adult maturation superfluous and obsolete.

Conflict resolution

In short, the “coincidence of conducive conditions” for the demise of what used to be called “higher education” is now actively in place, and with the power of the pandemic behind it, the timing is ripe. Reversal is now impossible. We need to ask whether survival is still possible, and if so, how to cause it—how to identify and mobilize sufficient counter-conducives and qualifiers at least to avoid destruction and to achieve some sort of synthesis of both training and education.

The range of possibilities and probabilities is huge, far wider than can be summarized here. But one strategic possibility might be opportunistically to take advantage of the universal disruptive flux as opening up previously foreclosed possibilities—specifically, to reinstitute the traditional distinction between training and education and to combine both at the college level in courses and curricula. The value of the traditional definitions is that they constitute an inevitable complementary and mutually reinforcing bonded pair—developing both who and what students will necessarily become for the rest of their lives. How to combine them will be an unavoidable faculty responsibility, empowered and reinforced by administrative reforms in financial and business models. The result will constitute a radical re-invention of colleges and universities, featuring a rebirth, at long last, of humanistic higher education.

George McCully is a historian, former professor and faculty dean at higher education institutions in the Northeast, then professional philanthropist and founder and CEO of the Catalogue for Philanthropy.

Alex Parnia: A survival kit for small colleges

Nichols College, in Dudley, Mass., with about 1,500 students. The author served as provost there.

Via the New England Board of Higher Education (nebhe.org)

The future looks very bleak for many small and medium-sized colleges and universities in the U.S. According to a report published in Inside Higher Education, the high school graduation rate is expected to drop over the next seven years, and the numbers are aggravated by up to 4.5 million fewer babies being born since the financial crisis of 2008.

U.S. colleges and universities can no longer meet their operational budgets and can finance expansion only by continuing to increase tuition, which is not sustainable. Furthermore, colleges and universities have poured millions of dollars into marketing and advertising in the past 15 years, which has fueled massive competition to attract domestic students; these initiatives have resulted in stiff competition for market share in different regions of the country. Adding insult to injury, Clayton Christensen, the Harvard guru on disruptive innovation, predicts that 50 percent of American colleges and universities will close within the next 10 years. Amid all the gloom and doom, though, there is one strategic opportunity for small to medium-sized universities: incorporating carefully designed international student recruitment into the overall recruitment plan for the next five to seven years.

The landscape of international recruitment has been changing rapidly. Up until 15 years ago, there was a steady stream of international students to the U.S., meaning that some small and medium-sized universities and colleges were able to attract international students to their campuses

In the 1990s and early 2000s, the United Kingdom and Australia made strategic forays into international recruitment. In 2000, the percentage of international students in these countries stood at 5 percent of total higher education students. Today, both nations have reached a 20 percent figure and are probably at their limits. In August 2018, the United Kingdom government decided to include international students in overall immigration numbers to slow down the intake of international students.

In the meantime, Canada has emerged as the next favorable destination for international students, and recent comments from the Trump administration have accelerated the rate of international students heading to Canada by scaring students away from the U.S. Most colleges and universities in Canada are bursting at the seams with international students; therefore, sooner rather than later, the pace of international students choosing to study in Canada will slow.

As a result, the U.S. remains an attractive destination for international students, and the ratio of international students in higher education remains at about 5 percent. However, there is one new hurdle for U.S. colleges and universities: the emergence of multinational companies that have entered into the international student recruitment market in the U.S.

These multinationals, such as Kaplan, Navitas, Shorelight and INTO, and a few other smaller firms are now guiding many students toward attending large public, private, and nonprofit universities. These companies are not interested in working with small to medium-sized liberal arts universities, but they have certainly become a major force in recruiting students on a large scale. This new environment has reached a tipping point in market share, which makes it more difficult for small and medium-sized universities and colleges to recruit directly on their own given their limited resources.

A series of articles in Inside Higher Education revealed a massive infusion of commissions by these corporate recruitment companies, which makes it almost impossible for any small to medium-sized university to mount and sustain long-term international recruitment efforts and compete effectively.

In addition, international recruitment remains a treacherous road. Stories abound of university presidents traveling overseas and coming back empty-handed. There are plenty of land mines, with many fly-by-night agents and bad apples in the mix of overseas recruiting agencies. Consequently, international recruitment requires seasoned staff, who come with expensive price tags.

That’s why it is realistically almost impossible for any small to medium-sized college or university to put together an international recruitment team. In addition, international recruitment requires a substantial upfront investment in marketing, which is impossible to stage. Several colleges coming together to form a recruitment partnership is an idea that faces the same obstacles as the individual universities, such as a lack of expertise, limited resources and the massive upfront marketing and other investments that are required to recruit in more than 100 attractive international markets.

Therefore, the solution lies in forming partnerships with reputable private-sector companies with strong track records that specialize in recruiting for small to medium-sized colleges. There are only a handful of these companies, and they must be vetted and selected carefully to make sure they are the right fit for a specific institution. It is very important that colleges and universities consider forming quality recruitment partnerships with private international companies, given that such partnerships can generate new revenue streams and contribute to campus diversity.

Forming a partnership is the first of many steps that must be taken to internationalize a campus. It is a strategy that requires careful planning; institutions must work closely with the partnering entity to outline successful strategies for bringing international students to campus and orienting them to campus life. The partnership development is the foundation for determining how to serve the international students while also benefiting the host higher education institution. Though not a panacea for the ills of higher education, small to medium-sized American colleges and universities must consider international recruitment as part of their overall strategy for a sustainable future.

Alex Parnia is the executive chairman of Global Education Access, LLC. He previously served as president of EC Higher Education from 2016 to 2018. He was president at Pacific Oaks College & Children’s School from 2012-2015. He also served as provost of Nichols College, in Dudley, Mass,, and executive vice president at Cambridge College, which is now in Boston.

Matthew A. Morris: GOP's shortsighted tax on colleges

Via the New England Board of Higher Education (nebhe.org):

If there is one area of common ground between the Republican leadership in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, it is that the time has finally come for those entities that are not currently paying their fair share of taxes to step forward and be held accountable. Both the Senate and House tax reform bills propose that these entities—which have traditionally been afforded favorable tax treatment under the Internal Revenue Code—should no longer be entitled to shield their revenues from U.S. income tax. What are these taxpayer-subsidized entities that the Senate and House both agree should be subject to new tax burdens? Many readers will be surprised to hear that the answer to this question is private, non-profit U.S. colleges and universities rather than multinational, for-profit corporations.

The following is a summary of the common threads and points of departure for the portions of the Senate and House tax reform bills relating to college and university endowments and tuition assistance programs.

Common threads

Both the Senate and House bills propose an excise tax equal to 1.4% of the net investment income of an “applicable educational institution.” This proposal generally means that private colleges and universities with an annual endowment of $125 million (at least 500 students at $250,000 each student) or more would be subject to the new net investment income tax (“NIIT”) on investment income. Although the threshold for determining which institutions will be subject to the NIIT is based on the amount of the institution’s annual endowment, the 1.4% tax will apply only to the institution’s investment earnings rather than the annual total of its endowments.

Both the Senate and House bills propose to essentially double the standard deduction for individuals, which the Tax Policy Center projects will reduce the number of taxpayers who itemize their deductions by 84%. Increasing the number of taxpayers who claim the standard deduction will generally reduce the tax incentive for taxpayers to make deductible contributions to colleges and universities, although both bills also propose to increase the income-based percentage limit for individual charitable contributions from 50% to 60%.

Points of departure

The House bill proposes to repeal Code section 127, which excludes tuition waivers and discounts from the gross incomes of undergraduate and graduate students, whereas these waivers and discounts would continue to be tax-free for students under the Senate bill.

The House bill proposes to replace the two standard tuition credits under current law—the American Opportunity Credit worth a maximum of $2,500 per year for each eligible undergraduate student and the Lifetime Learning Credit worth a maximum of $2,000 for each eligible undergraduate or graduate student—with a single American Opportunity Credit worth a maximum of $2,500 for each eligible four-year undergraduate student with a 50%-reduced credit in the fifth year, which essentially means that there are no tuition credits for graduate students under the House bill. The Senate bill does not propose any changes to the current tuition credit structure.

The House bill proposes to repeal the current employer-paid tuition credit worth as much as $5,250 for each eligible student, whereas the Senate bill would retain that credit.

The House bill proposes to eliminate tax-exempt private activity bonds (PABs), which many colleges and universities issue in order to finance major development projects by paying tax-free interest to bondholders at very low interest rates. The Senate bill does not propose any changes to the current tax treatment of PABs.

The House bill proposes to eliminate the individual deduction for student loan interest, whereas the Senate bill retains this deduction.

Bottom line

Subsidizing corporate tax cuts by increasing tax burdens on universities and their students is shortsighted tax policy

The House bill and, to a lesser extent, the Senate bill include a package of comprehensive revisions to the traditional tax-exempt status of colleges and universities that would be unlikely to withstand scrutiny if proposed independently of major tax reform legislation. But in the context of so many other significant tax reform proposals—most notably, reducing the corporate income tax rate to 25% and shifting to a territorial corporate tax system—these proposed tax changes for colleges, universities, and their students fly relatively low on our collective radar.

However overshadowed these college and university tax changes may be, they will nevertheless have a major impact on endowment programs nationwide. The House bill would impose significant additional individual tax burdens by repealing tuition waivers and graduate tuition credits and would impose additional college and university-level development burdens by repealing PABs, but the Senate’s reluctance to repeal these particular tax benefits indicates that some form of compromise is likely on the horizon. In contrast to these House-specific provisions, the 1.4% tax on investment income—which would have the most immediate and detrimental impact on colleges and universities with high endowment-to-student ratios—is present in both the Senate and House bills and is therefore likely to remain in the final version of the legislation.

What are the stakes associated with these tax changes for colleges and universities? As Paula A. Johnson, president of Wellesley College, aptly states in her most recent letter to the Wellesley community, “Congress’ tax bill as proposed would take a damaging toll on Wellesley’s ability to sustain the financial aid policy that enables the college to enroll a socioeconomically diverse student body.” A healthy endowment is essential for colleges and universities to keep pace with changing technology and to recruit those students whose academic potential significantly exceeds their families’ financial means.

In the midst of the pervasive narrative that the proposed tax legislation represents an across-the-board tax decrease, New England colleges and universities must vigilantly defend the position that corporate tax cuts should not even be partially subsidized by reversing tax advantages for academic institutions that have persevered as a matter of public policy for over 100 years.

Matthew A. Morris is a partner at the law firm of Bowditch & Dewey LLP. He focuses his practice on federal, state, and international tax planning and tax controversy resolution for businesses, individuals and nonprofit entities.

The tricky challenge of managing public speech on campuses

BOSTON

Via the New England Journal of Higher Education. See nebhe.org)

Free speech is fast becoming a hot-button issue at colleges in New England across America, with campus protests often mirroring those of the public-at-large on issues such as racism or tackling institution-specific matters such as college governance. On the surface, the issue of campus free speech may seem like a purely legal concern, yet in reality, colleges should also treat it as a public relations problem.

What the public does not generally understand is that the First Amendment right to free speech is not absolute. It is much more nuanced. People cannot just say what they want whenever they want, and certainly not on college campuses. There is no right to free speech at private educational institutions, and speech can be restricted to a certain degree at public institutions. To be clear, even a public higher-education institution has the right to impose certain restrictions on protest activities.

Yet just because a college can limit speech does not mean that it should. Colleges are loathe to take any action perceived as encroaching on free speech, thus undermining their image as centers of learning, creative thinking and open discourse. College campuses should be seen as places that encourage independent thought and social awareness even to the point of protest. But, at the same time, higher ed institutions must always keep safety and the educational mission at the forefront of their daily operations.

So how can colleges avoid damaging their educational franchise while still maintaining a safe and orderly campus? The answer is planning, communication and positive messaging.

From an institutional perspective, protests today bear little resemblance to those that stole the headlines in the 1960s and 1970s. Back then, there were no computers, cell phones, Internet or e-mail, and schools were often blindsided by student activism. Today, schools know protest plans well in advance, since most are coordinated through social media. That means the administration has the opportunity to work with protestors, actually helping to shape the protest and establish expectations.

Viewed this way, campus protest is much like an organized chess match, in which both the school and the students have the opportunity to anticipate and plan for the opposition’s next moves. Doing that effectively requires advance planning.

Delegating protest oversight and control to a small and nimble decision-making team is one approach that has proven effective. Members of the team might include the provost, the VP for student affairs, the director of public safety and the VP of communication. A few student affairs professionals can then be designated to work closely and proactively with protest leaders.

Having school officials on the ground level of a protest ensures that the school has all the inside information it needs to formulate its game plan. Such plans can then be customized to each individual demonstration, whether the protest be over racial discrimination, college governance or endowment investment.

Creating and disseminating protest restrictions well in advance (preferably in student handbooks at student orientations) establishes the rules of engagement. Schools should make clear that these guidelines comply with federal, state and local laws, and they should articulate institutional policies and procedures. Schools can then rely on these rules to work with protestors to set limits on the time, place and manner of the demonstration. For example, a school may choose to prohibit protests during final exams. Or it may allow protests on the college green, but not within the administration building. Managing expectations well in advance of a protest diminishes the potential for the type of confusion or emotion that causes unmanageable disruptions.

Communications before, during and after a protest are critical. A college should use social media to its advantage, engaging directly with students, setting expectations and boundaries, and controlling its public image. With a media plan in place, press releases and social media posts can be drafted well in advance of the day of the protest. This way, a school can tailor its message and ensure that anyone speaking on its behalf stays on message when dealing with the media. The goal is to avoid those cringe-worthy public comments made when unprepared school officials speak off the cuff. It does not help the school’s public image if it appears that the administration and the students are at odds.

By working with protesters, colleges and universities can present demonstrations and campus dissent as an opportunity for discourse. That, in turn, can turn a potential public relations problem into a positive and sanctioned part of the educational experience.

AiVi Nguyen is a partner and Anthony Dragga an associate at the Boston law firm of Bowditch & Dewey, LLP. Both focus their practices on business and employment litigation.