|
 |
–
Do alumni read alumni magazines?
July 19, 2010
Does your institution publish a magazine for alumni?
The Council for Advancement and Support of Education has conducted its first national survey of alumni magazine readers. The good news: well over half of survey respondents say that the alumni magazine strengthens their connection to the school.
 The bad news? Young alumni find magazines less useful, since they are more likely to go online to get news about their classmates.
Does that mean that alumni magazines can be phased out over time? Perhaps not. The associate editor of the Johns Hopkins Magazine, Dale Keiger, suggests that magazines build loyalty over time. While it may take years, he says, those young alumni turn into older alumni, who have the resources to support the school.
In the last year or two, several schools have cut at least one print edition from their annual publication cycles, in favor of special digital editions. This may help square a few budgets, but it's short sighted. Our readers -- readers of all ages -- have expressed a strong desire to receive print magazines from us. The CASE survey shows that . . . when alumni begin to sneak up on that stage in life where they're more willing and able to contribute money to our schools, they will be among our most avid readers -- provided we produce the sort of engrossing, engaging reader experience that rewards their attention to our pages.
 We cannot ignore the Internet and the changes it has wrought, but chasing a younger audience by getting all digital will prove to be a pointless exercise, I believe. One thing my 35+ years in the business have taught me is that worthwhile magazines don't chase a readership. They build a readership.
That's food for thought when you're looking at the budget.
To read more about the CASE survey, read this article.
For more information about magazines, check out Dale Keiger's blog UMagazinology, which is devoted to news about alumni publications.
Posted By:
Jay Blossom
Topics: Marketing
Comments (0)
| Permalink
|
Share
–
Study abroad: Yet another distraction?
July 19, 2010
Here's a stereotype: Studying abroad is for French majors. Or artists. For other students, it's an expensive time-waster, distracting them from their real education.
But where's the data? Well, 10 years ago, officials at the University System of Georgia started a longitudinal study to determine the long-term effects on students of studying abroad. The results, which have recently been released, are remarkable.
Inside Higher Ed reports some of the study's findings:
Graduation rates. Students who had studied abroad graduated a higher rates than the control group (which was carefully selected to match the study-abroad group in several demographic categories and did not consist of merely all students who had not studied overseas). Especially notable: The four-year graduation rate for African American study-abroad students was 31 percent higher than the control group of African American students.
Grades. GPA after studying aboard rose slightly more than the control group's grades. But for study-abroad students with low SAT scores, the change was more notable: Final GPA for the low-SAT study-abroad group was 3.21, compared with 3.14 for the stay-at-home low-GPA group.
Cross-cultural learning. Not surprisingly, study-abroad students outshine their stay-at-home colleagues when tested for how well they understand cultural contexts, and how well they do with practical intercultural skills, like navigating transit in a foreign place. On the other hand, the "abroad" group does no better than the "stay home" group on geographic knowledge.
Knowledge of individual disciplines. The stay-at-home students learn more factual knowledge than their study-abroad counterparts who take the same class from the same instructor. On the other hand, the study-abroad students do better at grasping the relevance of the material -- for example, how past events continue to shape the present.
Many theological schools have been scrapping or at least reconsidering their programs that encourage seminarians to do missions, internships, or study overseas. But before decisions are made, it's best to know the facts. This new study from the University System of George may help contribute to the knowledge needed to make good decisions.
The long article in Inside Higher Ed is available here.
The full report is available here.
Image credit
Posted By:
Jay Blossom
Topics: International/Multicultural Ministry
Comments (0)
| Permalink
|
Share
+
Changing theological education in a changing world
July 19, 2010
Presidents, rectors, deans, and other leaders in North American theological education gathered in Montreal earlier this summer for the Biennial Meeting of the Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada. Daniel Aleshire, executive director of the association, gave the opening address that set the stage for the two days of conversation and decisions to follow.
His speech addressed the changing landscapes of North American religion, including shifting patterns of religious adherence and practice, increased religious diversityand pluralism, and the globalization of Christianity. It's fitting, he explained, that the meeting was being held in Montreal, which only 50 years ago was a firmly Catholic city. Today, rates of religious participation in the city are among the lowest on the continent, a fact which some interpret as the canary in the coal mine for American and Canadian churches.
The most complete scholarly account of secularism also has a connection to Montreal. Charles Taylor, a philosopher at McGill University, argued in A Secular Age that secularization is perhaps best understood as the dislocation of the dominant religious paradigm. Christianity then becomes one option among many.
This new cultural climate is already pushing theological schools to consider how and what they teach in a context where Christianity is no longer the assumed tradition or worldview. While affirming the "gold standard" of graduate theological education, as a tried-and-true method for ministerial training, Aleshire thinks that new developments may be on the horizon for theological education. These include:
- Baccalaureate-level theological education.
- Programs for the education of "alternatively credentialed clergy."
- Creative ways to provide on-the-job pastoral education.
- Programs that focus on lay education.
In the end, Aleshire struck a hopeful tone, explaining that the trials and tribulations of the last two years have also brought opportunity for revitalization of the Christian mission and message. "The future has arrived," Aleshire declared, "and it is full of promise."
Read all of Aleshire's speech here.
Image credit
Posted By:
Jon Hooten
Topics: News/Trends
Comments (0)
| Permalink
|
Share
+
Saving students money with technology
July 19, 2010
 In theological education, it seems that educational technology has reached a tipping point. Small seminaries that never thought they could offer online education or other web-based services now have access to relatively inexpensive, scalable, and road-tested technologies to help them reach modest goals. Going online -- with classes, student services, and even board committee meetings -- isn't as daunting as it used to be.
For many schools, however, the motivation to embrace certain educational technologies has been to decrease the institution's costs and increase billable tuition hours. But a recent blog post over at Inside Higher Ed offers a startling new perspective on the technology question. The author reminds us that the cost of higher education continues to outpace the cost of living, getting more and more expensive every year.
How can seminaries expect to thrive when both student costs and institutional costs continue to climb? And what role can technology play in making theological education more viable, both for institutions and students?
For boards, it's pretty easy to keep focused on the balance sheet. That's why they often have an inward rather than outward focus. Boards want to know how to reduce institutional costs and increase institutional revenue.
But what if the question were flipped? How can technology help reduce the students' costs and increase the students' potential for personal revenue?
In our new "plug and play" marketplace, where students can shop for the online courses they need from a long list of schools, seminaries must now ask how they can offer their classes and other services in ways that give students added value and advantages in the marketplace. Just as they ask how technology can benefit the institution, boards should ask how new technology might benefit churches and stakeholders. But especially they should take time to look at how technology affects students.
As seminaries compete in the new educational marketplace, they must be quick to determine what students need and what they want. Sometimes, adapting to student needs is a tough sell for faculty and others who may be required to do things differently. But in the end, a student-focused approach to decisions about technology will make theological schools more competitive in a new market that is driven by students' needs, desires, and expectations.
Read the blog post at Inside Higher Ed here.
Image credit
Posted By:
Jon Hooten
Topics: Technology
Comments (0)
| Permalink
|
Share
+
How do you measure credit hours for online classes?
June 21, 2010
The U.S. Congress is looking into the question of how credit hours are measured for online higher education. With more and more students funding their higher education through federal financial aid, members of Congress apparently suspect that standards may be slipping.
As with most topics in Washington, party politics has reared its head, with Democrats defending traditional notions of credit hours based on "seat time," while Republicans argue for increased flexibility, which might help the for-profit "proprietary" colleges like the University of Phoenix.
But over at Inside Higher Ed, my favorite blogger "Dean Dad" is balking. The crisis in higher education, he says, is not competition with for-profit schools. The crisis is that higher education, as it exists today, is not sustainable. And awarding credit hours for seat time, rather than for learning, is actually making higher education's future even less sustainable.
As we continue to discuss the future of theological education, this is an important consideration. What's most important -- learning or "doing time"? Because whatever we measure is surely an important indicator of what we consider important.
Read the entire blog post by "Dean Dad" here.
Image credit
Posted By:
Jay Blossom
Topics: News/Trends
Comments (0)
| Permalink
|
Share
+
Christians at the forefront of online learning
June 15, 2010
The New Year 2010 issue of In Trust included an article about the recent growth online theological education.
Now the wider world is also taking note of the impressive growth of religious schools that embrace online learning. Inside Higher Ed reports that more and more Christian colleges are taking advantage of the built-in loyalty that many Americans feel toward religious institutions.
Many of these schools are learning marketing and delivery tips from the most successful proprietary colleges like the University of Phoenix, which has 458,000 students. Among the schools profiled in the piece is Indiana Wesleyan University, which In Trust also described in the New Year 2010 issue.
Read the article in Inside Higher Ed, titled "Online, Christian Students," here.
If you're affiliated with an In Trust member school, you can read "Time for Reflection" (about online learning) and "Launching in Tough Times" (about Indiana Wesleyan University). Both appeared in the New Year 2010 issue of In Trust. Not sure whether your school is a member? Check here.
Image credit
Posted By:
Jay Blossom
Topics: News/Trends
Comments (0)
| Permalink
|
Share
+
Putting a value on the president's house
June 15, 2010
 Does your theological school's president live in housing provided by the school?
If so, the Internal Revenue Service wants to know.
Presidents of educational institutions must report as income the fair-market value of their housing when they fill out their tax forms, experts say.
But what's not clear is whether presidents should pay taxes on the full value of the houses they inhabit, or just the personal quarters. If someone rented the entire house that Boston University president Robert Brown's lives in (pictured here), the rent would likely be more than $21,000 per month. But Brown describes his residence as "an apartment over a restaurant," since it's used so often for official functions.
The Boston Globe recently looked up the fair-market value of Boston-area presidents' houses. Boston University's has the highest value, because the university decided to value the entire building. Meanwhile, the home of the president of Northeastern University, overlooking Boston Common, is valued at only $6,225 per month, because that school appraised only the private quarters. At the other end of the continuum is Boston College's president, a priest who lives in the Jesuit residence on campus (and receives no salary from the college).
Read the full article here.
Good questions for CFOs and boards: Has your president's house been appraised? Are you in compliance with all tax reporting requirements?
Photo credit: Jonathan Wiggs / Boston Globe staff
Posted By:
Jay Blossom
Topics: Administration
Comments (0)
| Permalink
|
Share
+
ATS Biennial theme: "The future has arrived"
June 10, 2010
 Will your school be represented at the ATS Biennial Meeting this month?
The Association of Theological Schools is holding its 47th Biennial Meeting on June 23-25 in Montreal. The biennial meeting is the gathering of all ATS member institutions. In Trust will host a reception for its members and friends on Thursday, June 24, at 5 p.m. You are invited!
The Biennial Meeting is a true business meeting -- representatives from member schools vote to admit new members, discuss changing standards of accreditation, and hear financial reports.
It's also a place for continuing education. Numerous workshops cover material like distance learning, stabilizing a tuition-driven institution, and resource-sharing among schools. This year, two seminary leaders will join In Trust president Christa R. Klein in a session on "building boards for good governance in demanding times."
Finally, the Biennial Meeting is an opportunity for socializing and networking. It's the one chance for seminary deans and presidents to meet other leaders from across religious and geographical lines. It's always encouraging to see a Catholic priest and a Methodist academic nod their heads in agreement as a Southern Baptist president makes a keen observation. But it's also great to see the specialized gatherings for women leaders, evangelicals, and Canadians.
This year's theme is "The Future Has Arrived: Changing Theological Education in a Changed World." And the theme couldn't be more timely. Everywhere I go, leaders in theological education are eager to discuss the significant changes they are seeing in their students, their churches, and their funding models. More than one seminary leader has told me, "People have their heads in the sand. Things can't go on as they have been!"
 I disagree. I don't believe that people have their heads in the sand at all. I know that leaders in theological education are eager to discuss the changes all around us. The ATS Biennial Meeting is the place for that discussion to happen.
Want to check out the program? See the entire program on the ATS website, which you can find here (PDF). Be sure to read ATS executive director Daniel Aleshire's message on page 11.
Image credit
Posted By:
Jay Blossom
Topics: News/Trends
Comments (0)
| Permalink
|
Share
+
Getting at the board's DNA through bylaws
June 10, 2010
At a recent In Trust meeting, the retired president of a theological school confided that for the first decade of his tenure as head of his former school, his employment status was "less than lawful." The bylaws required that the president be rehired each year by the board, a small detail that had been overlooked for 10 years. Once discovered, it was brought to the board's attention.
They amended the bylaws.
Bylaws are probably not at the top of your bedtime reading list. But they are critical to a board's health -- for reasons both legal and organizational. Legally, of course, they spell out the nuts and bolts of how the board operates and perpetuates itself. The example of the "scofflaw president" is a good reminder of why the basics of the bylaws should be known to everyone on the board. In any institution, you want the board and the organization to be in compliance at all times.
The folks over at Blue Avocado recently posted a helpful "Bylaws Checklist." Designed just for nonprofit boards, it makes prudent suggestions for what to include and what not to include. The checklist suggests crafting bylaws that balance the board's legal responsibilities (on the one hand) with the flexibility an organization needs to change on the fly (on the other). It suggests revisiting the bylaws every three years to reaffirm compliance and make routine updates -- for example, how to make board decisions via e-mail).
While the three-year rule is a pragmatic way to keep bylaws up to date, we think there is an important governance lesson to be learned as well. The bylaws are a historical record -- passed down through the board's generations -- of the values and practices of an organization's leadership. Indeed, these actions and assumptions change over time, as new members come and go, but the bylaws provide a baseline -- a starting point for conversation about how things used to be done, how they are supposed to be done, and how they should change for the future.
Codifying a practice or policy in the bylaws is more than making a quick change in an operational handbook. Rather, reviewing and updating the bylaws gets to the level of a board's DNA that should be carefully considered through thoughtful conversation. It also provides the next base-line assumptions for the next review three or so years down the road.
Believe it or not, reviewing the bylaws doesn't have to be a bore or a chore. It can, and should, be a welcome opportunity for visioning, leadership, and good governance.
Posted By:
Jon Hooten
Comments (0)
| Permalink
|
Share
+
Dropping diversity's baggage
June 8, 2010
 The word "diversity" carries a lot of baggage these days. It is both cliche and code, sometimes bordering on meaningless, other times carrying deep emotional meaning for folks on all sides of an issue.
Scott Page, an economist at University of Michigan, tries to drop diversity's baggage at the curb with a more practical approach to the topic. Perhaps you already know about his book The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. In it, he uses mathematics to explain why diverse working groups produce better results than homogeneous groups. "[D]iverse groups of people bring to organizations more and different ways of seeing a problem and, thus, faster/better ways of solving it," he says. This not only refers to professional or academic training, but also that "people's identity groups -- ethnic, racial, sexual, age -- matter when it comes to diversity in thinking."
So what does this have to do with theological education?
In 2002, Auburn Seminary's Center for the Study of Theological Education published a report by Barbara Wheeler on seminary trustees, titled "In Whose Hands? A Study of Theological School Trustees" [.pdf]. The research shows that trustees at ATS schools are more than 70 percent male, nearly 90 percent white, and over half older than 50. In a recent meeting with In Trust's writers, Wheeler said while these numbers may have softened somewhat since 2002, she does not expect future research to show significant shifts in this demographic composite.
While strong and emotional arguments can made for and against diversifying seminary boards, Scott Page might suggest that theological schools would have better luck in solving their problems if they cast the leadership net a little wider. Page's point is more pragmatic than ideological: if you have more people thinking about problems from different perspectives, the organization will have better results.
But this is still a more difficult and emotional conversation than many are willing to have. The questions can be perplexing:
- How does a governing board go about diversifying itself?
- What new perspectives are needed, and where does one find them?
- How does the old guard allow new members to affect the decisions and direction of the board?
In Trust is working hard on these and other questions about board diversity. Keep an eye out for an depth article on this topic in the Autumn 2010 issue of In Trust.
Read the New York Times interview with Scott Page here.
Posted By:
Jon Hooten
Topics: News/Trends
Comments (1)
| Permalink
|
Share
+
Organizational change means personal change
June 2, 2010
"The Future Has Arrived: Changing Theological Education in a Changed World"
The theme of the 2010 Biennial Meeting of the ATS (which will be held later this month in Montreal) makes no bones about the need to firm up the foundations of theological education in the shifting socio-religious sands of our contemporary culture.
Leading up to the meeting, ATS Executive Director Daniel Aleshire called on seminary presidents to exert wise leadership in this uncertain climate. Turbulent times, he says, often call for deep, fundamental, "adaptive" change (to use Ronald Heiftz's term). To face this reality, theological schools must learn how to learn about the new normal of American and Canadian religiosity.
It's been 20 years now since Peter Senge's The Fifth Discipline popularized the notion of a "learning organization." Yet many theological schools that are rooted in decades -- even centuries -- of theological, ecclesiastical, and educational tradition and are still not focused on how they learn and advance as organizations. Gregory Jones at Duke Divinity School lamented recently that while many top for-profit corporations have internalized an organizational learning ethos with positions such as "chief learning officers," most Christian institutions -- seminaries included -- have yet to embrace or institutionalize this core value of organizational development.
Why?
In a little article titled "Teaching Smart People How to Learn," management researcher Chris Argyeris suggests that successful professionals -- such as professors, board members, and educational administrators -- have relied on their own wiles and abilities to get them to where they are. They have rarely faced embarrassment or defeat in their professional lives, and they organize their work to minimize the risk of such.
Organizational change, however, requires people to examine themselves and to consider how individual patterns and actions may be contributing to an institution's problems. To engage in organizational learning requires an individual act of humility and self-awareness, and a commitment to personal change and transformation. This can be embarrassing for some, and ego-threatening for others.
But if theological schools are to rise to Aleshire's challenge to engage in deep institutional change, they must begin with deep individual awareness on the part of their leaders. The Christian tradition is well equipped for this sort of self-reflection, and presidents must lead their faculties and staffs into a culture of self-awareness, reflection, and transformation. The future of theological education depends on it.
Image credit
Posted By:
Jon Hooten
Comments (0)
| Permalink
|
Share
+
The president's spouse
May 18, 2010
No figure in higher education is surrounded with more ambiguity than the president's spouse. This person is implicitly regarded as an important player for the school but is rarely on the school's payroll (in some states, like Idaho, it's actually illegal for public institutions to employ the president's spouse). Especially if the spouse is a woman, she often takes a role related to the development and stewardship -- as hostess and organizer of special events. In almost all cases, the role of the president's partner is undefined, unspoken, and all-too-often unappreciated.
I suspect that within the seminary community, many see the president's spouse as a "pastor's wife." In the cash-strapped world of theological education, development officers take all the help they can get, and most are grateful when the spouse is on hand to help with, preside over, or coordinate receptions or dinners. In academic institutions, the president's partner is almost always involved with development-related functions (as an ambassador for the school) or as an unofficial private counselor to students or faculty members or their families. Spouses rarely have a role in operations or academics unless they themselves are official members of the faculty.
A new doctoral dissertation (available here) takes a close look at the roles that presidents' wives play in higher education development operations. The author, a development officer himself, summarizes his findings in a recent blog entitled "Career Advice for the Presidential Spouse," which is as much for trustees and development officers as it is for the spouses themselves. Among his suggestions:
- Always ask, don't assume. Because the role of the spouse is ill-defined, development staff must not assume what the spouse will or won't do. The author suggests that the spouse be involved early on, even as part of the presidential selection process, to help clarify the roles this person will play in the administration.
- Assign a liaison. It may be helpful, the author says, to appoint one person (beyond the president's assistant) as an official liaison to the presidential spouse, so that the spouse's roles and responsibilities are managed carefully.
- Bring the outsider in. Living with the president makes the spouse the ultimate insider, but in terms of the life of the institution, the spouse is an outsider. Invite and involve the spouse in community events besides receptions and dinners, giving her (or him) a better feel for the institution's culture and expectations.
- Say "thank you." In many institutions, the presidential spouse works tirelessly but with precious little thanks. Trustees especially can remedy this. They have nothing to lose by heaping praise and adoration on the president's spouse.
The role of the presidential spouse can be tricky to finesse for staff and trustees alike, but the first step is simply paying attention to the relationships of this important figure in the life of your school.
Read the blog post called "Career Advice for the Presidential Spouse" here.
Image credit
Posted By:
Jon Hooten
Comments (0)
| Permalink
|
Share
+
Doubting Thomas, doubting Peter
April 22, 2010
The roots of doubt run deep in the Christian story. Thomas is the most renowned doubter in Christian history, touching the wounds of Christ to prove (to himself) the truth of the resurrection. But Peter nearly drowned from his own doubt when walking on water with Jesus.
Doubt is rooted in reason, emotion, and our deepest spiritual yearnings. It can cause confusion, embarrassment, shame, pride, and resistance. Doubt emerges across all aspects of our lives, whether we admit it or not.
In our theological schools, we experience doubt on many levels. We question the strategic directions of our organizations; our interpretations of the marketplaces in which our schools operate; and the abilities of our staff, faculty, administration, and board. And when we second-guess certain aspects of our corporate life, we often act like either Thomas or Peter.
- Doubting like Thomas. In many cases, we try to alleviate our doubt by seeking more evidence about a situation or a pending decision. While usually well intentioned, an excess of evidence can hinder timely decision-making, resulting in "paralysis by analysis." And evidence isn't what it used to be: we know today that "proof" is always open to interpretation. That means we make decisions based on incomplete evidence -- decisions that account for but do not eradicate our doubts.
- Doubting like Peter. Like Peter, we sometimes lose faith in our institutions and begin to sink into the darkness of our emotional and spiritual waters. In these cases, it is natural to reach out to those in authority -- presidents, rectors, deans or board chairs -- for stability and reassurance. Ronald Heifetz calls this the "flight to authority," which usually prevents progress toward organizational learning and adaptive change. The wisdom in leadership is knowing when to offer a helping hand and when to let others work through their own doubt.
The theologian Paul Tillich famously wrote, "Doubt is not the opposite of faith; it is one element of faith." With Tillich, we must recognize that doubt is part of our organizational lives. We must learn to recognize it -- at times, to embrace it -- and deal with it appropriately.
Image credit
Posted By:
Jon Hooten
Topics: Spiritual/Inspirational
Comments (0)
| Permalink
|
Share
+
In Trust Board Builders: A study guide for "Maximizing the power of board policies"
April 16, 2010
Download and print this study guide as a PDF document here.
Read and print the original article in In Trust here.
Overview
Long before organizational theorist John Carver trademarked the words "Policy Governance," trustees depended upon informal or formal policies to guide their own work, the work of the chief executive, and the institution as a whole. But "policies" and "governance" are not synonymous, and a too rigid commitment to governing by policy can actually get in the way of a board's best performance. The following maxims point the way to making the most of your board's policies.
- Policies are a means, not the end, of board governance. Well-crafted policies should open the door to new vistas of board work. They should be the means by which trustees achieve their full leadership potential. Most importantly, the board's policies are the avenue by which its members become full participants in fulfilling the institution's mission fulfillment with economic vitality.
- Policies should illuminate, not obscure, the institutional situation. Causal connections between board policies, day-to-day operations, and institutional outcomes are not easily seen, at least in the immediate sense. Well-constructed policies make clear what data the board needs, when the board needs that data, and in what form it should be presented.
- Policies should empower, not control, the board's actions. Clinging to outmoded policies as the path of least resistance doesn't serve the board or the school well. Today's boards must be nimble and adaptable to a fast-changing institutional landscape.
Discussion questions
1. "Maximizing the Power of Board Policies" refers to three types of policy decisions:
- Those that describe how processes are carried out within the institution.
- Those that address standards of conduct.
- Those that clarify delegations of authority.
To which of these three policy categories does your board give its greatest attention? Talk about a recent decision by your board that was shaped by its attention to this particular policy category.
2. The article states that well-crafted policies should open the door to new vistas of board work. Has this been your experience on this board? If yes, give an example of a policy as a "door opener." If no, how are policies getting in the board's way? What should be done to correct the problem?
3. John Carver assures us that "when a board lives from its policies, the policies will either work or be changed." What steps does or should your board take to insure that its policies are working for it and for the institution?
4. The book Governance as Leadership warns that "without policies, organizations would be in constant chaos, disputing, negotiating, and reinventing every day the basic rules and procedures by which the staff and board operate" (p.42). Think about a time when having easy access to an existing policy helped the board deal quickly and efficiently with a difficult institutional issue. Share your remembrance with another member of the board.
Practical help
Articles of interest
"Where Policy Is Good Governance: Benefits of (and Cautions About) the Carver Model" by Rebekah Burch Basinger (In Trust, Summer 2008, Vol. 19, No. 4). www.intrust.org/magazine/pdf/20083-focus.pdf.
"Developing Rules of Engagement for Boards" by Thomas C. Meredith (Trusteeship, July/August 2009, Vol. 17, No. 4).
"The Board's Role in Institutional Conflict of Interest Policies" by Pamela J. Bernard (Trusteeship, January/February 2010, Vol. 18, No. 1).
"Defining the Board's Role in Crisis Communications" by Patricia Hayes and Teresa Parrot (Trusteeship, September/October 2009, Vol. 17, No. 5).
Sample policies
Board attendance
Document retention and destruction
Gift acceptance policies
Suspected misconduct and dishonesty
Whistleblower
These policies are offered as examples only. Your own policy should be written with your own legal and fundraising counsel.
Help in creating a policy manual
Typical contents of nonprofit board member's manual
Sample contents of board member's manual
Denver Seminary policy manual
The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod board of directors policy manual
Other resources
- Guide to Developing Your Board Handbook by Tracy Schier (In Trust). Written just for In Trust's member schools, this guide describes the nine sections essential to your own custom board handbook. www.intrust.org/insiders/board_handbook.pdf
- Policy Making and Administrative Oversight by Terrence J. MacTaggart (Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges). This booklet clarifies the often-vague separation between policy-setting and administration by taking into account an institution's culture and mission. It addresses active versus "activist" trustees, policy-making in a fishbowl, matching policy to institution, and monitoring the policy process. It offers guidance for trustees of independent and public institutions, including systems.
- The Nonprofit Policy Sampler (2nd edition) by Barbara Lawrence and Outi Flynn (BoardSource). This tool is designed to help board and staff leaders advance their organizations, make better collective decisions, and guide individual actions and behaviors. The resource provides key elements and practical tips for 48 topic areas, along with more than 240 sample policies, job descriptions, committee charters, codes of ethics, board member agreements, mission and vision statements, and more. Each topic includes 2 to 10 sample documents, all of which are professionally and legally reviewed. Samples are included on a CD-ROM.
Posted By:
Rebekah Burch Basinger
Topics: Governance Best Practices
Comments (0)
| Permalink
|
Share
+
New guidelines for governing boards (part 2)
April 14, 2010
The new Statement on Board Responsibility for Institutional Governance begins with the obvious: that higher education is a broad, diverse social sector with multiple forms of organization and governance structures. (See Part 1 of this post for an initial overview of this document.) Theological schools are included under this big educational tent, but at first glance there's a lot in the statement that does not seem to directly apply to our unique institutions.
Unfortunately, theological schools often isolate themselves from the rest of higher education with claims of uniqueness. Yes, theological schools offer distinct forms of education and training, but they often are often inhibited by what is sometimes called the "uniqueness paradox." This refers to a commonly held belief that one institution is so different, so unique, that it cannot be compared to peers, and that common wisdom cannot apply to it. The paradox is that such claims need only be made when the institutions are so similar that most people recognize them as peers. For a president or board member to suggest, therefore, that their school has little in common with the rest of higher education ignores that we may be comparing green apples with red apples, but they are still apples.
So what is the value of this document for the governing boards of theological schools? As with any good sermon, there are three lessons:
- Theological education's environment is undergoing tremendous change, just like the environment of colleges and universities. Recent decreases in students, donors, and financial support for our theological schools are only symptoms to larger issues that are beginning to shake the foundations of theological education. How is your board, president, and/or faculty interpreting and responding to these realities?
- Boards should understand how they relate to other ecclesial agencies. The report makes suggestions for public community college and university systems, with multiple layers of authority and governance, to have a firm grasp on the details of these affiliations and systems. The same is true of theological schools which are connected -- either firmly or loosely -- with religious bodies or denominations that can exert pressure on an institution -- legal, financial, or theological. As competition for church funding escalates, schools should know just where they stand with their church body, religious order, or supporting congregations.
- Make connections between your school and the communities it serves. For colleges and universities, this often takes the form of town-and-gown relations. But for theological schools, this can mean taking extra steps in making relational connections with new religious communities, parachurch organizations, academic institutions, and social service agencies that hire the school's graduates. Close connections with related organizations cannot be taken for granted.
While theological schools are certainly unique in their purpose, they are not so different from the rest of higher education that they do not have something to learn from it. The recent report from AGB reminds us to nurture our relationships.
Posted By:
Jon Hooten
Topics: Governance Best Practices
Comments (0)
| Permalink
|
Share
+
New guidelines for governing boards (part 1)
April 13, 2010
Last month the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) published a revised Statement on Board Responsibility for Institutional Governance. First produced in 1998, the statement was updated in 2007 following an intensive investigation of the role of the president in higher education. As a major voice in the often-turbulent and highly political matrix of faculty, administrators, and accrediting bodies, AGB does not publish such statements without careful deliberation.
A quick overview of this announcement reveals that much of the report represents mainstream, contemporary perspectives on educational governance. A closer -- and highly recommended -- reading confirms that it intermingles critical perspectives on contemporary colleges and universities with what is today accepted as organizational common-sense that both governing boards and executive administration will find useful.
Among the more important recommendations:
- Maintain a vigilant awareness of changing conditions and perspectives. Higher education has changed dramatically in the last decade. The most effective governing boards are adept at recognizing and researching the changing tides of their organizational ecologies, and responding strategically to keep their institution ahead of the curve.
- Be aware, and respect, academic decision-making processes in your institution. Educational institutions are not like businesses (or individual congregations) - the organizations with which many trustees have experience. Governing boards of academic institutions should understand the expectations of shared governance. But presidents must be willing to set deadlines for deliberations so that important decisions are not derailed unnecessarily by one faction, or even one person, on the faculty.
- Solicit input and perspectives from across the institution. Tenured faculty usually have a representative on the governing board, and student reps are also common. But boards should be even more proactive in gathering perspectives and input from other constituencies in the institution -- adjunct faculty, nonexecutive staff, different sectors of the student body -- to have a more complete understanding of the larger institutional picture and to comprehend the implications of their decisions.
These are just a few highlights from the statement, which should be "required reading" for your board and senior staff. As you will see, the guidelines are intended broadly for all of higher education -- public and private, 2-year and 4-year schools, graduate and undergraduate institutions alike.
So what does it mean for theological schools in particular?
Continue to Part 2 of this blog post for an initial analysis.
Posted By:
Jon Hooten
Topics: Governance Best Practices
Comments (0)
| Permalink
|
Share
+
Ideas vs. visions
March 31, 2010
 A recent piece on the Harvard Business Review blog suggests that the previous 10 years was a decade of ideas.
The author reminds us of 2002's The Rise of the Creative Class by Richard Florida, which was embraced by leaders in business and local government as a new model for community development and economic growth, based on attracting creative people with new ideas.
And of course the rise of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other social networking media has been happening all around us -- they too grew out of great ideas.
But are great ideas enough?
"What is in short supply," the blog post asserts, "are visionary thinkers who will be capable of making sense of this abundance of stimuli -- visionaries who will build the arenas to unleash the power of ideas and transform them into actions." He goes on to predict that the next 10 years will be a decade of visionary thinking.
Theological eduction has likewise experienced a decade of ideas -- dozens of theological schools have been finding new ways to survive and capitalize on innovative technologies, modes of ministries, and types of teaching. But you can probably count on two hands the number of schools that have put forth dynamic new visions that challenge and then transform the deepest assumptions that theological education is built on.
As theological schools face declining enrollments, sagging endowments, globalization, and a more diverse pool of students, good ideas will allow many schools to survive to see another entering class in the fall. But new visions of what theological education can be will be required for such schools to thrive for decades to come.
We'd love to hear your suggestions of schools that are truly reshaping themselves for the 21st century. Your comments are welcome. Meanwhile, you can read the Harvard Business Review blog post here.
Image credit
Posted By:
Jon Hooten
Topics: News/Trends
Comments (1)
| Permalink
|
Share
+
Organizational ecology
March 30, 2010
Close your eyes for a moment and visualize the organizational structure of your theological school. Faculty ... staff ... executive team ... governing board. How are they connected to one another? Who reports to whom?
Now, open your eyes (and keep reading).
More than likely, you envisioned a traditional organizational chart, with the various constituencies cascading upward, one over the other, probably ending with the board or a church official on top. Of course, North American theological schools have a remarkable array of organizational structures that spring from unique histories, affiliations, and religious traditions. But in most of theological schools, the governing board is the last stop, the final authority.
At least, that's the conventional wisdom. But does this perception match our realities?
Some new understandings of organizations focus less on traditional avenues of authority (i.e., who reports to whom on the organizational chart) and more on our interconnected ecologies of effectiveness. For example, a recent blog post from Blue Avocado asks, "Who is responsible for the board doing a good job?" This seems like an obvious question -- the board, of course (and that's usually In Trust's answer, too).
But the blogger suggests that this obvious answer is wrong. A strong chief executive -- as the person responsible for the institution's well-being -- usually takes on the added responsibility for the governing body -- and sometimes even rehabilitating a sick board.
Thinking of governing boards in less mechanistic and more organic metaphors can be freeing, but it presents a challenging paradigm shift. Regardless of our place vis-a-vis the organization, we must now accept a certain amount of responsibility not only for ourselves but for the well-being of the institution and those around us. The presidents takes responsibility for the board, while the board simultaneously oversees the work of the president. Staff and faculty, too, have legitimate areas of authority, and they can't justifiably deflect as "someone else's problem" the overall health of the institution.
We also begin to see that overarching modifiers like "strong," "weak," "ineffective," and "engaged" are temporary and necessarily incomplete. Every board -- every dean and rector, every board chair and committee chair -- has times of strength and ineffectiveness, weakness and engagement, to various degrees and at different times.
The organizational chart is undoubtedly useful, but it's not enough. The shared responsibility for the institution rests not only on the board, but also on the president, the other administrators, the faculty, and church officials.
That makes a much more complex picture, but a truer representation of reality.
The article in Blue Avocado is titled "Who Is Responsible for the Board Doing a Good Job?" Read it here.
Posted By:
Jon Hooten
Comments (0)
| Permalink
|
Share
+
Downsides of diversity
March 30, 2010
Wise and aware governing boards -- from the corporate suite to the fellowship hall -- are always looking to diversify their membership. However, an insightful piece in the Wall Street Journal titled "Why Diversity Can Backfire on Company Boards" shows that diversifying the board in ways that benefit the institution is not always easy.
The authors explain:
Blame it on human nature: As much as diversity is something we prize, the truth is that people often feel baffled, threatened, or even annoyed by persons with views and backgrounds very different from their own. The result is that when [board members] are appointed because their views or backgrounds are different, they often are isolated and ignored.
When inviting those of different racial, ethnic, national, religious, and professional backgrounds to a board, it's possible for the majority to sabotage the effectiveness of the newcomers without even meaning to. Board leadership can unwittingly set them up as outliers, tokens, and marginal or "special-interest" contributors. The majority perspective within a board -- rooted in the similar backgrounds and experiences of most members -- is a strong cultural force that one or two new members cannot, on their own, affect without the conscious effort of the majority. If not prepared for the real cultural implications of difference on the board, efforts to diversity can be more detrimental than beneficial.
The Journal's article offers some concrete suggestions for managing the diversification of board membership:
- Choose new members carefully. Personality, experience, and social skills are important.
- Assist newcomers. Pay attention to new members and help them acclimate to the board's unspoken habits.
- Encourage initial dissenters. Invite newcomers, who may sit silently, to contribute to the discussion, even if it means the a divergent view comes to light.
- Don't give in to get along. Board members can develop a fear of conflict as the board becomes more diverse. Be mindful of how underlying tensions can discourage a forthright exchange of ideas. Neither new nor old answers are always right.
Read the full article here.
Image credit: Paul Wearing / Wall Street Journal
Posted By:
Jon Hooten
Topics: Board Orientation | Governance Best Practices
Comments (0)
| Permalink
|
Share
+
Seminary will cease traditional face-to-face teaching
February 10, 2010
Early in 2009, Lexington Theological Seminary declared financial exigency, terminated tenure, and announced plans for a new model of theological education. In May 2009, the board approved plans for a new educational model.
The Disciples of Christ institution in Kentucky plans to continue offering the M.A., M.Div., and D.Min. degrees. But after the current academic year, courses will be offered only through intensives, distance learning, and online.
In the transition, the board instructed the seminary's administration to seek court approval to use donor-restricted endowment funds. They also asked the administration to develop an operational budget of $2 million (down from $4.1 million) and to begin necessary reductions to balance this budget. During 2009, staff was reduced from 31 full-time employees (21 staff and 10 faculty) to 17 employees (12 staff and 5 faculty).
A report on the transition, written by president James P. Johnson, appeared in the seminary's Winter 2009 Bulletin, which was posted online just last week. It's reprinted here:
This academic year was a time of major transition for Lexington Theological Seminary. It began with a global economic meltdown requiring immediate action, and ended with an exciting vision for the future of LTS with the pending launch of a new curriculum that represents a new model of theological education.
THE CRISIS AND RESPONSE
At the start of academic year, the Board of Trustees recognized that substantial changes were needed to address current and future needs for the church and the Seminary. These issues included personnel, recruitment, development, relationships, diversity, scholarships and the long-term financial sustainability of LTS.
When the trustees met in October 2008 they approved a decision-making process that involved five steps: 1) complete an assessment of the church's needs and the strengths and weaknesses of LTS, 2) define the vision and mission of LTS, 3) identify alternatives and evaluate each of them, 4) prepare a new, comprehensive strategic plan, and 5) implement. The plan was to complete gathering information by February 2009, which would provide LTS the information needed to make decisions about the future of the Seminary. Unfortunately a worldwide economy recession altered those plans.
The Executive Committee met twice in special sesson in December, and the board met in early January to address the future of LTS. The trustees approved more than 20 resolutions including the following actions:
- Declared their commitment to reinvent LTS as a servant of the church preparing men and women for congregational ministry
- Asked the faculty to produce a new curriculum and model for education
- Reaffirmed their commitment to the Association of Theological Schools and the desire to remain accredited through the transition process
- Declared their commitment to restore the restricted endowment to its corpus value by 2015
- Declared LTS to be in financial exigency
- Terminated tenure and the tenure process effective February 1, 2009
- Instructed the staff to seek court permission to utilize restricted funds
- Instructed the president and staff to develop an operational budget of $2 million (from the current $4.1 million) as soon as possible and to begin the necessary reductions immediately.
At the start of 2009, LTS had a total of 31 full-time employees - 21 staff and 10 faculty. The year ended with 17 employees - five faculty and twelve staff - a reduction of 45 percent. The operational budget was reduced from $4.1 million to $2.6 million, a 37 percent reduction.
THE FUTURE
In May, the board, based on recommendations by the Transition Team, approved a new model for theological education at LTS. The new model forms students into the pastoral life in the context of congregations through a curriculum based on variable length modules and shorter electives instead of semesterlong courses and is competency-based.
It will require every student to have an accountable congregational ministry, a pastoral mentor, to be in a covenant group, and to conclude the program with a capstone project that focuses on an issue of pastoral ministry in a congregation.
The curriculum will use intensive residency courses, online classes, and other distance learning that will allow students to earn degrees and take continuing education without having to move to the Lexington area.
The new model maintains the historic focus of Lexington Theological Seminary to prepare men and women for pastoral ministry. It is based on an apprenticeship model and is focused on vocational formation into the pastoral life - spiritually, intellectually and practically.
This model will use active and retired pastors, regional and general ministers, laypersons, and seminary faculty in vocational formation of students. Implementation will begin in fall 2010 with the 2010-11 academic year being a "blended year" with current students completing their work under the old system, and new students beginning in the new model. For details and regular updates please see the LTS web site: www.lextheo.edu.
Through this transition, the Seminary will continue its current degree programs - Master of Arts, Master of Arts in Pastoral Studies, Master of Divinity, and Doctor of Ministry. It is very likely that certificate programs will also be developed. Other degree programs will be explored. The modules in the new curriculum will be utilized in all of the degree and certificate programs and available for continuing education.
See the Winter 2009 issue of the Bulletin of Lexington Theological Seminary here (PDF).
Read more about Lexington Theological Seminary's new programs here.
Posted By:
Jay Blossom
Topics: News/Trends
Comments (0)
| Permalink
|
Share
|
 |
|
|
