Should Branch Campuses Consider Separate Accreditation?

Over the past year, I’ve spoken with several people whose institutions are considering whether to pursue separate regional accreditation for their branch campuses.  The University of South Florida did that, just a few years ago, but now I wonder if there might be broader interest in the idea.

In the past, I’ve made a strong distinction between multi-campus institutions, such as the University of North Carolina, where campuses have a relatively high level of autonomy, and institutions with a main campus and branches.  Shared accreditation and curriculum oversight from the main campus are almost part of defining what it is to be a “branch.”  (See my previous posts on branch characteristics; the blog is searchable.)

Nevertheless, I can understand why separate accreditation for branches might be attractive.  As branch campuses become more deeply engaged in their communities and mature as institutions in their own right, they need to provide those courses and programs that students seek.  Separate accreditation might provide relief from arbitrary, unreasonable interference from main campus departments. 

In addition, the most attractive programs on branch campuses are likely to be in business, health care, and education.  In other words, programs that often are accredited at the program level, as well as falling under the broader umbrella of the institution’s regional accreditation.

In many cases, the requirements of program accreditors apply on all campuses, and at times they may be difficult to achieve on branch campuses.  For example, if your business program is AACSB accredited, your branches should meet the same requirements for faculty credentials as your main campus.  If that means hiring faculty with Ph.D.’s in business, it can be very expensive, provided you can even recruit qualified individuals.  Other AACSB limits placed on teaching loads may make it difficult to work efficiently with main campus faculty members, as well.

A third consideration is that more institutions seem to be developing unique programs on their branches.  I don’t believe unique programs necessarily require separate regional accreditation—it certainly didn’t at Ohio University—but maybe there are some advantages to giving campuses more freedom to develop curriculum, without undue interference from the main campus’s process.  I can imagine this being especially true if the branch is in a clearly distinct service environment.

I still believe that branches gain more than they lose by being an integral part of their home institution.  The “brand” supports marketing and recruitment, a single curriculum helps assure quality, and most institutions award the same diploma to students, regardless of which campus they attended.  Much is at stake in a world with heightened competition, and many students care more about program, flexibility and cost than they care about brand.  Leaders should take care about seeking separate regional accreditation, but maybe it isn’t the non-starter that I thought it was.

Where are the Tipping Points?

If you don’t know much about branch campuses, you could be forgiven for thinking that the only innovation in higher education is happening through MOOCs (massive open online courses) or the creation of branch campuses in Asia and the Middle East.  It’s not nearly that simple.

MOOCs will continue to evolve in interesting directions, including the direction of awarding academic credit for course completion and offering badges or certificates for completing a set of related courses.  I find international branches much less interesting, because I think other countries will develop their own programs, over time, and invite American institutions to go home.

More importantly, however, there is much, much more going on than MOOCs and international branches.  The range of online and hybrid/blended programs is astonishing, and no one knows which approaches will prove to be most attractive.  For sure, however, we know that online enrollment continues to grow faster than other categories, and my personal sense is that, when all is said and done, the cost of enrollment in online courses is likely to be much less than the cost to attend a physical campus.  In fact, it won’t surprise me if the price of online general education courses falls to near zero, which would create a budget nightmare for a lot of institutions.

There also are complicating conditions that have all sorts of implications.  The 18-year-old population is declining, which is a negative for traditional enrollment, and that knowledge led many institutions to work harder to attract adult learners.  But, then, this fall there was a nation-wide decline in enrollment of approximately 500,000 students, and about 80% of those were adult learners.  Distinguishing between macro and micro trends isn’t easy!

Moreover, although lots of people worry about the way tuition has increased faster than almost anything else, the implication is subject to debate.  Certainly, the trend for athletic spending and spending on student “amenities” continues to grow, and many institutions continue to take on debt that I believe will become a heavy anchor if competitors begin dropping prices.

In the private non-profit world, a small but growing number of institutions are choosing to dramatically cut their so-called “sticker price,” instead of stating a high price, presumably to demonstrate quality, then discounting that price by 40% or more.  The effectiveness of deep tuition cuts vs. the risk of maintaining the higher rates is yet to be determined.

Finally, there are those pesky accreditors, legislators, and both state and federal bureaucrats.  To me, they represent wild cards that can distort, slow, or speed up change, but they are unlikely to determine the ultimate outcome.  Employers, another important stakeholder, could have significant impact, but I’m not convinced that people in business have any clearer idea of what they really want than do governors and legislators.  All of them would do well to take a refresher course on the difference between causation and correlation.

Remember, tipping points only become apparent after the fact, and in a disruptive environment, risk is high for everyone.  Pay attention!

Getting Strategic With Branch Campuses

How strategic is your institution in considering the role of its satellite operations?  Based on my experience, I’d guess that the answer for most is “not very.”  (I'm not addressing the recent trend of some institutions opening overseas branches, which I assume involve more strategic considerations.)

Typically, branch campuses and other outreach programs were created to serve some relatively specific purpose:  To block expansion of another institution, to respond to political pressure, or (most commonly) to pick up additional revenue.  In that context, branches have much in common with main campus programs for adult learners, as well as those sorts of online programs that represent a cautious exploration, rather than a major strategic commitment.  And none of these efforts has been approached strategically at the highest levels of leadership, at least at most institutions.

Given the relatively radical experiments that we’ve seen in the past few years, it is easy to imagine that cash-strapped institutions might prefer to focus on scalable online programs, investing in course design and student support, rather than considering growth at branch campuses.  Indeed, at first glance, main campus academic units might imagine that online programs will do more for their budgets, depending on how revenue is shared and expenses recognized.  It’s that phenomenon of being drawn to bright shiny objects:  The new stuff seems sexier than empowering growth on the branches.

As I’ve written many times before, the development of branch campuses reflected the technology of the time.  Branches provided a space for faculty members to teach, advisors to offer advice, and so on.  Interactive television brought an additional element of cost effective outreach, but branches remained a relatively straightforward extension of what happens on the main campus, and generally, institutional leaders didn’t expect them to grow all that much.

Today, a comprehensive enrollment strategy might well include new recruitment and retention strategies at the main campus, as well as the selective pursuit of online enrollment from students located almost anywhere in the world.  Nevertheless, I think most institutions will find that branches still bring certain advantages that should be developed, not marginalized.

At least at present, there is a strong argument to be made that blended or hybrid programs are more appealing and tend to produce stronger learning outcomes than fully online programs.  Note also that, with hybrid delivery, commuter campuses can expand their recruitment radius to 75, or even to 100 miles.

We know that adult learners and other place bound students are concerned about flexibility and price, in addition to getting access to the program they want.  All the pieces for a strong branch strategy are in place:  Pick the right programs, develop focused services and an aggressive marketing plan, and provide a facility that is comfortable and includes state of the art technology.

Given the opportunity, branches can attract more enrollment than ever.  Institutions still can seek growth online and at the main campus, but there is no reason to hand over your potential branch enrollment to more aggressive institutions that recognize the hybrid advantage.

Five Concerns That Can Interfere With Branch Campus Growth (Continued)

Last time I wrote about two concerns I have, regarding branch campus administration, if institutions hope to see an entrepreneurial attitude and significant enrollment growth.  These choices stem from not understanding innovation and entrepreneurship, and they get in the way of an outreach mission.

My third concern came as a shock to me, when I began consulting.  Many institutions actually have their academic departments at the main campus develop the class schedule for their branch campuses.  This never, ever works well. When the schedule is set at the main campus, I hear about courses required for graduation that are scheduled at 10:00 am, when the intended audience is working adult learners.  I hear about courses added and deleted, without anyone bothering to tell the branch administration about the changes.  Even worse, I hear about programs being offered without any predictable plan for delivery of required courses, at all.  Stop it!

The fourth concern may be less certain, but it reflects my strong opinion about the importance of establishing structures that encourage collaboration.  I believe it is unwise to have separate units pursuing online and branch campus growth, without some structural element that assures cooperation and cost efficiency. 

Expecting these units to partner in good faith generally will not work.  They need to see each other as collaborators, and there should be financial advantages to the online unit for supporting growth at the branches, through hybrid courses that make use of online content.  Without an executive (not the academic vice president, who lacks the necessary time) bringing oversight, they are more likely to compete than to collaborate.

Finally, in nearly all cases, marketing and recruitment need to be audience specific.  Understaffed main campus offices that are not engaged in the branch communities on a daily basis cannot effectively recruit or make marketing judgments for their branches.  They can and should partner, and the main campus has a legitimate need to insist on consistency of messaging and design, but people who get up every day thinking about the branches, not something else, should lead the principal work.

After more or less ranting in my last few posts, I think it is time for me to take a break and concentrate on other projects, for the summer.  Creating access and opportunity is important, and if I can be of help, either as a consultant or as a coach, please get in touch.

Five Concerns That Can Interfere With Branch Campus Growth

If it isn’t apparent, my recent posts reflect growing concern and frustration with the way institutions administer their branch campuses.  Having spent some years working with online programs, as well as studying the implications of disruptive environments on organizations, I also see important strategic connections between branches and online delivery.

Moreover, virtually every consulting role I’ve filled was at least in part tied to a president who wanted to see enrollment growth at their branches and in their online programs.  Although I’m pleased and impressed that these presidents recognize the potential significance of branch growth, the press of day-to-day crises at the main campus makes it nearly impossible for presidents to personally lead specific initiatives.

I should add that, again in my own experience, provosts or academic vice presidents seem less consistently concerned than presidents about enrollment growth through new audiences.  Deans have been mixed in their engagement, as well, but typically seem most focused on their main campus mission.  (This is not meant as a sweeping generalization, but simply my own too-common observation.  I’ve known and worked with some terrific deans and vice presidents.)

Although this is understandable, given their background and priorities, it means that presidents and branch campus leaders may be on one page, whereas the administrators between them are, at best, less committed to branch growth.  That is just one reason for my belief that presidents and boards should create relatively autonomous units to attract and serve adult learners and others who prioritize cost and flexibility over a residential experience.

With that overview, in this post and the one to follow, I will raise five concerns I have about the way branch campuses are administered that will reduce the likelihood of enrollment and revenue growth.  Similar points can be made about online programs, as well.

The first concern is that branches typically are buried in an institutional structure that is designed for predictability, not entrepreneurship.  The branch structure should allow nimble, quick response to opportunities, assure that branches can offer the courses and programs for which they have local demand, and encourage deep, engaged partnerships with the community served.  Moreover, both branches and online program executives should understand entrepreneurship and be aggressive in pursuit of enrollment growth.

The second concern arises if the budget covering faculty salaries and the delivery of courses on branch campuses resides in the main campus academic units.  Truthfully, this seems so obviously wrong to me that I’m stunned by how often I see it happen. Deans and department chairs need to see clear financial benefit from supporting branch courses, or else they will see branch courses as a drain on their resources.  

Put the academic budget on the branches, and then let units receive a share of the revenue generated, outside of their normal operating budget.  If you choose to pursue responsibility-centered budgets, which I endorse, treat branch campuses and online programs as revenue centers, not as service units.  The dollars still can eventually wind up in the academic units, but it is those units that are serving the branch audience, not the branches that are serving academic units.

Next time, three more concerns!

The How of Disruption in Higher Education

I have not written about innovation or disruption in higher education, on Creating the Future, for a while, although I do write about it on my branch campus blog.  This post will be published on both.  (The blog addresses are www.branchcampus.blogspot.com and www.drcharlesbird.com/creatingthefuture.)

I’m intrigued by the rapid progress of MOOCs (massive open online courses) and other online options, but the trigger for this post is the pushback we see, especially from some faculty members.  The defense of traditional classroom education seems disingenuous, appearing to suggest that all faculty members create vibrant learning environments and transform students into sophisticated critical thinkers, even as students also acquire undefined benefits from the residential experience.

Actually, there are remarkable professors out there, and I know full well that important growth can come through the traditional experience.  The issue is how consistently this happens, whether we might find less expensive ways of creating these experiences, and whether the level of debt students are taking on is worth the gain (still undefined and unmeasured).

That said, I also think many defenders of the status quo fail to understand how new developments will disrupt traditional higher education.  Remember, disruptive improvements begin by serving current nonconsumers.  In this case, they attract audiences that are unserved or poorly served by traditional options.

In the case of higher education’s future, like it or not, the issue is money.  Residential education, specifically, has become so expensive that nearly all non-elite institutions fail to cover their cost of operation, especially given declining state support for public education, without extraordinary increases in tuition.  What some have called an “arms race” to compete for students has gone too far. 

The result, as I’ve written many times, is that many institutions require the revenue from branch campuses, online programs and other sources, to survive.  If the “primary” activity is going to lose money, then something else has to offset that loss.

To cause disruption, it isn’t necessary that most students turn to MOOCs or other low-cost options.  All that has to happen is for main campus financial losses to grow larger, and for enough nontraditional students to choose lower cost routes to their goals, to cause many institutions to begin a slide into oblivion.  Add in the developing trend of some employers to value the credentialing of skills over degrees, and we have the opportunity for disruption.

Once institutions pass the tipping point, change will seem to come quickly, but the reality is that it is happening across a much longer period of time, as a result of traditional campuses over-reaching.  This is why second- or third-tier institutions will suffer the most.  Elite public and private institutions will be fine, although they will need to make some adjustments.

Finally, when critics attack new delivery options, especially with regard to quality, they essentially are attacking a straw man.  Disruption moves upstream, from serving nonconsumers to serving traditional consumers, by improving quality through experience.  I believe our culture values education, and few are addressing how the “psychology of going to school” will impact choice.  Nevertheless, even if many people prefer a traditional, residential education, institutions have an unworkable financial model that seems ready to collapse.

As always, leaders who understand how to empower branch campuses and online programs for entrepreneurial outreach have the advantage.  Some institutions will thrive, but to do so, they must understand the challenge.

Revisiting Revenue Sharing and Entrepreneurship as Tools for Branch Campus Growth

The second most viewed post on this blog is titled, “Revenue Sharing and Support for Branch Campus Growth.”  (http://branchcampus.blogspot.com/2010/02/revenue-sharing-and-support-for-branch.html).  I tend to write shorter, more focused posts, these days, but so it goes.  Among other things, I described the approach to funding in Ohio, which worked well for a very long time.  Unfortunately, recent changes may make things harder for university branches; I am concerned about the long-term implications for enrollment.

In the same month, I also wrote a post titled, “On Being an Entrepreneur in Higher Education.” (http://branchcampus.blogspot.com/2010/02/on-being-entrepreneur-in-higher.html)  That post stemmed from my frustration with institutional leaders who claim to be entrepreneurs, but do not appear to understand what it means to empower innovation, especially in a disruptive environment.

Good information is available on how to develop and empower strengths-based teams that can release energy and creativity in organizations.  There are people who really “get it,” and they are more likely to be found on branch campuses and in those units that have experience in continuing education or lifelong learning than in the offices of those whose career focus has been within traditional academic units.

I do not question the good intentions of presidents, vice presidents, and deans, but in typical academic fashion, too many try to be “innovative” or “entrepreneurial,” without ever talking seriously with people who have been there and done that.  It’s frustrating, in part because I believe there is a lot at stake for most institutions.

Entrepreneurial efforts are intended to develop products and services that will attract new audiences to the institution or that will significantly change its competitive position with existing audiences.  Therefore, units charged with innovation require autonomy to allow flexible, quick engagement with audiences and partners, as well as the ability to make investments consistent with their rate of growth.  When universities bury these efforts in their colleges or hinder their progress with policies and practices that are inconsistent with speed and responsiveness, innovation will proceed slowly, if at all.

I think most institutional leaders would be well served if they think of their institution as a kind of holding company, with a variety of businesses, each of which can and should be managed on its own terms.  (I know some people don’t like business-related metaphors, but I’ve long since stopped worrying about that.)  Each “product line” requires structure, policies and practices that enable success within its own market.  Each requires leadership that understands the specific mission, the competitive environment, and the elements of a successful strategy.

That’s not to say that leaders shouldn’t insist on appropriate internal partnerships or that some activities and services shouldn’t be centralized, but the effort should emphasize the word “partnership,” and should serve the legitimate interests of each partner.  (With respect to academic programs, I’m suggesting that faculty still should lead and oversee program development and quality, but decisions about offering programs at branch campuses or online should be market driven, and processes for program development and approval should be streamlined.)

Give branch campus leaders an opportunity, and many will understand how to engage with their audiences in a high quality, high touch way that can succeed.  Keep them under the control of mid-level main campus administrators, and they will not be able to compete effectively with newer options.  Force innovative initiatives to fit within your academic, financial, human resource, and political traditions, and you will be on a very dark road.