From enrollment declines to changes in culture, there is no shortage of pressure on theological schools. Schools have seen record turnover in executive leaders and stress on endowments. But there are also oases of creativity and success. Lilly Endowment Inc.’s “Pathways for Tomorrow Initiative” has produced more than 100 projects at schools across North America, and a new round of funding promises even more innovation and experimentation.

The Rev. Frank Yamada, Ph.D., executive director of the Association of Theological Schools, and Amy Kardash, president of the In Trust Center for Theological Schools, joined the In Trust Center’s Good Governance podcast to discuss trends in the field and to consider how current issues are shaping the future of theological education. In the conversation, Yamada reflected on his perspectives at ATS along with his previous work as president of McCormick Theological Seminary from 2008-17, and Kardash discussed some of the research the In Trust Center’s “Good Governance Initiative” is conducting and how that is helping leaders understand the work in the field. Both Kardash and Yamada bring years of experience to their roles and offer keen insights on a variety of key issues with which leaders in the field are currently grappling, including education models, student demographics, changes in the culture, boards and governance, and financial stability.

This is an edited transcript of the conversation. The full conversation in Episode 85 can be found at intrust.org/podcast.

 

Education Models and Student Demographics

Students are changing, and so are the ways schools are recruiting and training them. Schools also are considering the ways they’re preparing students for a changing world that is much different than the one they’ve faced in the past.

Yamada on education models: Schools are seeking to adapt their educational models in the online sphere. The massive move to remote learning after the pandemic has been sustained. There’s growth in areas of theological education such as competency-based theological education and a number of different modalities, particularly with the non-degree and certificate programs, as part of the adaptation of theological schools as they’re striving to be responsive to the environment.

Yamada on recruitment: Schools for many decades, maybe even centuries, have kind of taken a “Come unto us, all of you who want theological education” approach. I used to say at McCormick Theological Seminary that we often had an admissions department, not a recruitment department.

And schools are increasingly going to communities of faith, local adjudicators, and denominations asking, “How can theological education serve you and your leadership? What do your leaders need?”

There is just a different set of student populations that schools are seeking to serve. Those demographics have changed, and I think they’re reflective of the demographics of the Church and North America both.

Kardash on marketing: Some of what the first round of the “Pathways for Tomorrow” Initiative allowed schools to do was to be really intentional about listening to the market and connecting with new and more diverse communities that maybe didn’t find theological education accessible or affordable. And many schools responded.

 

The Culture

Schools face a complex reality that isn’t easy to navigate. Costs have increased, enrollments have shrunk, denominations have been in decline, and there’s an increased polarization in society. All are compelling leaders to think through the future.

Yamada on impacts: I don’t think we’re ever out of a time when both crisis and creativity happen. At the same time, I think that there are certain factors within our larger environment, in terms of the Church, the broader society, and higher education, where we’re seeing the impacts of the different kinds of crises that are confronting schools.

If you’re looking at it in terms of the Church, obviously we’ve known for decades now that there is a decreasing level of participation in regular worship and in membership in churches. And this goes across the board. It’s been more pointed in certain traditions than others, but it seems to be across the board, and not just in the U.S. but also increasingly so in Canada.

If we look at the broader environment, the increase of polarization – politically and socially – this is certainly having an effect on theological schools and on the recruitment and functioning of their governing boards.

And if we look at higher education, the cost and the value of higher education have come under increasing scrutiny from many sectors. On top of the fact that whenever you talk to those who are seeing the broader trends in higher education, particularly in undergraduate studies, there is consistent talk about the imminent enrollment cliff. Each of these broader factors are having an impact, because theological education sits at the crossroads of all three of these big spheres.

 

Turnover of Executive Leadership

The well-known churn of leadership at the top is raising questions about how schools move forward.

Yamada on change: We have a whole generation of new leaders, almost quite literally. In theological schools, I’ve stated some of these data before, but since 2017 we’ve seen about 600 transitions in the top two positions in ATS schools. That comprises the chief executive officers, the presidents, executive deans, and on the academic side the chief academic officers, academic deans or associate deans. That is a once-in-a-generation – in fact an unprecedented – shift in terms of the leadership. With that has come a renewed sense of hope, definitely some creativity coming from these leaders, but also some challenges because for a lot of these folks, this is their first time in these kinds of roles.

Yamada on roles: The human element is a real one. I’ve heard from a lot of executive leaders that during the pandemic the amount of management leaders were called on to do grew, and that usually is not the primary call for an executive. Usually the primary call for the executive is to be more about vision-casting, about raising resources and funds for the school. They were doing so much more management of people. And that seems to have continued post-pandemic.

 

Governing Boards

There are changing considerations and demands for boards, particularly with executive leaders spending less time in their roles. That calls for different work for the board, both in caring for executives and planning for succession.

Kardash on challenges: We know that executive leaders are encountering challenges, challenges that leaders in the past haven’t encountered, whether that’s related to technology and AI, whether that’s related to shifts in student demographics and communities being served, or financial pressures and sustainability. And so all of these demands are pressed upon a person who is likely in the role for a shorter term than their predecessor – those are all things I think that boards particularly need to be aware of.

There’s plenty to talk about as it relates to calling a new leader, as well, and thinking about a healthy transition and healthy leadership development.

I think that increasingly, in a climate of change and shifts in demands, the stress and the work of an executive leader has intensified in ways that are leading to all of these transitions. And what that translates into, I think, is a growing need for boards to be attentive to what care and support of the executive leader looks like and how that might be shifting.

Kardash on board care: At least for freestanding schools that have governing boards, the executive leader is the sole employee of the board. It’s critically important that boards tend to that relationship in times of shifts or institutional crisis. We know that there’s plenty of that around. Boards need to remember that and look to the institutional leader for answers to questions they might have, but also to come alongside the leader in those times of crisis – not reacting as individuals, but responding collectively as board members and really being attentive to that.

Kardash on research: The In Trust Center’s Governance Initiative is doing a qualitative research study this year, looking for markers of boards that are taking ownership of their own space and markers of boards that are allocating the majority of their time to strategic issues.

If a school’s data suggests that enrollment continues to decline and the financial model is working and it’s using that data, what is it telling the board that it needs to do? What are the changes the school might need to imagine, or what are the possible futures leaders can imagine together?

We’re hoping to press boards to be more thoughtful about that, while recognizing that boards themselves are constantly responding to change and institutional crisis. When we’re talking about a body of individuals that comes together on average three times a year, how are they allocating time between the meetings to tend to the things that are the regular board work, so that the majority of the time can be allocated to these bigger issues?

The Governance Initiative’s quantitative study has shown that boards are meeting less frequently, and the duration of board meetings continues to be reduced. Maybe boards are using all of their meeting time for just the right things, but we really need to probe that and help boards think about allocating time for the most important conversations.

 

 

Financial Stability

Schools are looking at different ways to find stability, including increased partnerships and other ways forward. The school’s mission remains at the heart of the work.

Yamada on mission: It’s not just solving for sustainability, but the bigger picture of that is mission vitality. Mission vitality has a lot to do with not just how financially sustainable is it – that’s part of it – but it’s also the school doing the right things in terms of its mission. Is that mission vital enough? You may have a very sustainable model, say you’re serving two or three students and you are able to sustain a very good model. You might ask the question, “sIf it’s a tradition, do they need those three or is three enough? Is that mission vital enough?” So there’s that combination of it. But I think in terms of the sustainability, what’s pretty clear is that from the broader perspective of higher education, something’s broken about the financial model of theological schools, but also of higher education and schools in general.

Kardash on Pathways: I think what this new round of “Pathways” is doing in the large-scale collaborative grants is actually pushing into some areas that maybe weren’t as clearly articulated in the first round. We’re seeing words like merger and shared endowment, and leaders are being really intentional about these kind of larger-scale collaborations toward a new future. I think that all offers a lot of opportunities for schools to be intently listening to what’s needed, what are potential students seeking from our institutions, and how can we be most responsive to meet the aims of the initiative?

I think there’s another thing that’s a little bit of a difference between round one and round two of Pathways, and that is the explicit request to think about stakeholder engagement.