Tag: Small Colleges

Posted on

Rebuilding the Teacher Pipeline: Why Small Private Colleges Matter More Than Ever

Opinion Piece by Dean Hoke — Small College America and Senior Fellow, The Sagamore Institute

A Personal Concern About the Future of Public Education

It’s impossible to ignore the rising level of criticism directed at our nation’s public schools. On cable news, social media channels, political stages, and in school board meetings, teachers and administrators have become easy targets. Public schools are accused of being ineffective, mismanaged, outdated, or, in some corners, ideologically dangerous. Some commentators openly champion the idea of a fully privatized K–12 system, sidelining the public institutions that have educated the vast majority of Americans for generations.

For those of us who have spent our lives in and around education, this rhetoric feels deeply personal. Public schools aren’t an abstraction. They are the places where many of us began our education, where our children discovered their strengths, where immigrants found belonging, where students with disabilities received support, and where caring adults changed the trajectory of young lives.

Behind every one of those moments stood a teacher.

Amid this turbulence, there is one group of institutions still quietly doing the hard work of preparing teachers: small private nonprofit colleges.

Small Private Colleges: An Overlooked Cornerstone of Teacher Preparation

Despite the noise surrounding public education, small private colleges remain committed to the one resource every school depends on: well-prepared, community-rooted teachers.

They rarely make national headlines. They don’t enroll tens of thousands of students. But they are woven into the civic and human infrastructure of their regions—especially in the Midwest, South, and rural America.

This reality became even clearer during a recent episode of Small College America, in which I interviewed Dr. Michael Scarlett, Professor of Education at Augustana College. His insights provide an insider’s view into the challenges—and the opportunities—facing teacher preparation today. Note to hear the entire interview click here https://smallcollegeamerica.transistor.fm/28

I. The Teacher Shortage: A Structural Crisis

Much has been written about the teacher shortage, but too often the conversation focuses on symptoms rather than causes. Here are the forces shaping the crisis.

1. Young people are turning away from teaching

Data from the ACT show that only 4% of students express interest in becoming teachers—down from 11% in the late 1990s. Bachelor’s degrees in education have fallen nearly 50% since the 1970s. Surveys show that fewer than 1 in 5 adults would recommend teaching as a career.

The message is clear: Teaching is meaningful, but many no longer see it as sustainable.

As Dr. Scarlett told us: “The pipeline simply is not as wide as it needs to be.”

Recent data offers a glimmer of hope: teacher preparation enrollment grew 12% nationally between 2018 and 2022. However, this modest rebound is almost entirely driven by alternative certification programs, which increased enrollment by 20%, while traditional college-based programs grew by only 4%. This disparity underscores a critical concern: the very programs that provide comprehensive, relationship-based preparation—including those at small colleges—are not recovering at the same rate as faster, less intensive alternatives.

2. Burnout and attrition have overtaken new entrants

The pandemic accelerated an already-existing national trend: teachers are leaving faster than new ones are entering.

Reasons include:

  • Student behavior challenges
  • Standardized testing pressure
  • Emotional fatigue
  • Inequities across districts
  • Lack of respect
  • Political and social media hostility

As Scarlett notes, these realities weigh heavily on early-career teachers: “What new teachers face today goes far beyond content knowledge. They face inequities, discipline issues, emotional exhaustion… and they’re expected to do it all.”

3. Alternative certification can’t fill the gap

Alternative routes help—but they cannot replace the traditional college-based pipeline. Many alt-cert teachers receive less pedagogical training and leave sooner.

Scarlett captures the trend: “Teaching has always attracted people later in life… we’ve definitely seen an uptick.”

And while alternative routes have seen growth in recent years—increasing 20% between 2018 and 2021—this expansion has not translated into solving the shortage. As of 2025, approximately 1 in 8 teaching positions nationwide remains either unfilled or filled by teachers not fully certified for their assignments. The shortcut approach cannot substitute for comprehensive preparation.

“The national teacher shortage is real… and retention is just as big a challenge as recruitment.” — Dr. Michael Scarlett

II. The Quiet Backbone: How Small Private Colleges Sustain the Teacher Workforce

Small private colleges graduate fewer teachers than large public institutions, but their impact is disproportionately large—especially in rural and suburban America.

1. They prepare the teachers who stay

About 786 private nonprofit colleges offer undergraduate education degrees—representing roughly 20% of all teacher preparation institutions in the United States. Together, they produce approximately 25,119 graduates per year, an average of 32 per institution.

These numbers may seem modest, but these graduates disproportionately:

  • Student-teach locally
  • Earn licensure in their home state
  • Take jobs within 30 miles of campus
  • Stay in the profession longer

Public schools desperately need these ‘homegrown’ teachers who understand the communities they serve.

2. Small colleges excel at the one thing teaching requires most: mentoring

Teacher preparation is not transactional. It is relational. And this is where private colleges excel. Scarlett put it plainly: “Close relationships with our students, small classes, a lot of direct supervision… we nurture them throughout the program.” In a profession that relies heavily on modeling and mentorship, this matters enormously.

3. Faculty—not adjuncts—supervise student teachers

One of the most striking differences: “Full professors… working with the students in the classrooms and out in field experiences. Other institutions outsource that.”

This is not a trivial distinction. Faculty supervision affects:

  • Preparedness
  • Confidence
  • Classroom management
  • Retention

Where larger institutions rely on external supervisors, small colleges invest the time and human capital to do it right.

4. They serve the regions hit hardest by shortages

Rural districts have the highest percentage of unfilled teaching positions. Many rural counties rely almost exclusively on a nearby private college to produce elementary teachers, special education teachers, and early childhood educators.

When a small college stops offering education degrees, it often leaves entire counties without a sustainable teacher pipeline.

5. They diversify the educator workforce

Small colleges—especially faith-based, minority-serving, or mission-driven institutions—often enroll first-generation students, students of color, adult career-changers, and bilingual students. These educators disproportionately fill shortage fields.

“What we have here is special… students understand the value of a small college experience.” — Dr. Michael Scarlett

III. Should Small Colleges Keep Offering Education Degrees? The Economic Question

Let’s be direct: Teacher preparation is not a high-margin program.

Costs include:

  • Intensive field supervision
  • CAEP or state accreditation
  • High-touch advising
  • Small cohort sizes

Education majors also often have lower net tuition revenue compared to business or STEM.

So why should a small college continue offering a program that is expensive and not highly profitable?

Because the alternative is far worse—for the institution and for the region it serves.

1. Cutting teacher-prep weakens a college’s identity and mission

Many private colleges were founded to prepare teachers. Teacher education is often central to institutional mission, community trust, donor expectations, and alumni identity.

Removing education programs sends the message that the college is stepping away from public service.

2. Teacher-prep strengthens community partnerships

Education programs open doors to:

  • District partnerships
  • Dual-credit pipelines
  • Grow Your Own initiatives
  • Nonprofit and state grants
  • Alumni involvement

These relationships benefit the entire institution, not just the education department.

3. Education majors support other academic areas

Teacher-prep indirectly strengthens:

  • Psychology
  • English
  • Sciences
  • Social sciences
  • Music and arts

When teacher education disappears, these majors often shrink too.

4. The societal mission outweighs the limited revenue

There are moments when institutional decisions must be driven by mission, not margins. Producing teachers is one of them.

5. Addressing concerns about program quality and scale

Some critics question whether small programs can match the resources and diversity of perspectives available at large universities. This is a fair concern—and the answer is that small colleges offer something different, not lesser.

Graduation and licensure pass rates at small private colleges consistently match or exceed those of larger institutions. What smaller programs may lack in scale, they compensate for through personalized mentorship, faculty continuity, and deep community integration. These are not peripheral benefits—they are the very qualities that predict long-term teacher retention.

IV. Why Students Still Choose Teaching—and Why Small Colleges Are Ideal for Them

Despite all the challenges, students who pursue teaching are deeply motivated by purpose.

Scarlett described his own journey: “I wanted to do something important… something that gives back to society.”

Many education majors choose the field because:

  • A teacher changed their life
  • They want meaningful work
  • They value community and service
  • They thrive in supportive, intimate learning environments

This makes small colleges the natural home for future teachers.

V. What Small Colleges Can Do to Strengthen Their Programs

Below are the strategies that are working across the country.

1. Build Grow Your Own (GYO) teacher pipelines

Districts increasingly partner to:

  • Co-fund tuition
  • Support paraeducator-to-teacher pathways
  • Provide paid residencies
  • Guarantee interviews for graduates

2. Develop dual-credit and “teacher cadet” high school programs

Scarlett sees this as a major reason for hope: “We’re seeing renewed interest in teaching through high school programs… This gives me hope.”

3. Offer specialized certifications (ESL, special ed, early childhood, STEM)

These areas attract students and meet district needs.

4. Create 4+1 BA/M.Ed pathways

Parents and students love the value.

5. Provide flexible programs for career-changers

The rise of adult learners presents a major opportunity for private colleges. “We prepare our students for the world that exists.” — Dr. Michael Scarlett

VI. Why Small Colleges Must Stay in the Teacher-Prep Business

If small private colleges withdraw from teacher preparation, the consequences will be immediate and dramatic:

  • Rural and suburban schools will lose their primary source of new teachers.
  • Teacher diversity will shrink.
  • More underprepared teachers will enter classrooms.
  • Districts will become more dependent on high-turnover alternative routes.
  • Student learning will suffer.

And the profession will lose something even more important: the human-centered preparation that small colleges provide so well.

  • The teacher shortage will not be solved by legislation alone.
  • It will not be solved by fast-track certification mills.
  • It will not be solved by online mega-universities.
  • It will not be solved by market forces.
  • It will be solved in the classrooms, hallways, and mentoring relationships of the small colleges that still believe in the promise of teaching.

If we want public schools to remain strong, we must support the institutions that prepare the teachers who keep them alive. Small private colleges aren’t just participants in the teacher pipeline—they are its foundation.

When these colleges thrive, they produce educators who stay, who care, and who transform communities. That’s not just good for education—it’s essential for American democracy.

Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy firm. He formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). Dean has worked with higher education institutions worldwide. With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on colleges’ challenges and opportunities. Dean is the Executive Producer and co-host for the podcast series Small College America and a Senior Fellow at the Sagamore Institute based in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Posted on

Why Are So Many Smaller Independent Colleges and Universities So Similar and What Does This Mean for Their Futures?

September 8, 2025, by Dr. Chet Haskell: It is well known that many small American private non-profit academic institutions face serious financial pressures. Typically defined as having 3000 or fewer students, more than 170 of these have been forced to close in the past two decades. Numerous others have entered into various mergers or acquisitions, often with well-documented negative impacts on students, faculty, staff, alumni and local communities. Of the more than 1100 such institutions, at least 900 continue to be a risk.

The basic problems responsible for this trend are also well-known. Most institutions lack significant endowments and are thus almost totally dependent on tuition and fee revenues from enrolled students. Only 60 such small institutions have per student endowments in excess of $200,000. The remainder have far less.

The only additional potential source of revenue – gifts and donations –is generally neither large nor consistent enough to offset enrollment-related declines. While the occasional donation or bequest in the millions of dollars garners attention, most institutions raise much smaller amounts regularly.

Enrollment declines are the existential threat to many of these smaller colleges and universities. These declines are also well-documented. There simply will be fewer high school graduates in the US in the coming decade or more. This reality creates a highly competitive environment, especially in regions with many of these institutions.

Demographic worries are augmented by broad concerns about the cost of higher education and the imputed return on such an investment by students and families. Governmental policies such as limitations on international students or restrictions on immigration further add to the problem. Also, these institutions not only compete with each other for students, but they also compete with colleges and universities of the public sector and a growing number of for-profit entities.

Most of these 900 or so institutions have high quality programs, often described under the term “liberal arts”. Many are differentiated by a specialization or an emphasis. However, at their core they are very similar. The basic concept of a personal scale four-year undergraduate educational experience provided in a residential campus setting has a long history and is highly valued by many students and faculty alike. These institutions have lengthy, strong histories, loyal alumni and important roles in their local communities.

The fact is that it is difficult to differentiate among many of these institutions. Not only their scale or their general model of personalized undergraduate education are similar, but many of their basic messages sound the same. A review of the websites of these schools results in striking consistencies of stated “unique” missions, programs, facilities, faculty and even marketing materials.

Their approaches to financial challenges are also similar. There is considerable competition on price. Most of these institutions discount their formal tuition rates by 50% or more. Initiatives to grow enrollments support an industry of educational consultants whose recommended initiatives are themselves similar and, even if successful, are quickly copied, thus reducing advantages.

Some have tried to compete by raising money for new, attractive facilities through dipping into limited endowments, borrowing or securing external major gifts. These shiny new buildings – athletic facilities, science centers, student centers – are assumed to provide an edge in student recruitment. In some cases, this works. However, in many others the new facilities do not come with long term maintenance and eventually add to increased on-going institutional expense. The end result is often another demonstration of similarity.

Some institutions have tried to branch out into selected graduate programs, perhaps based on a strong group of undergraduate faculty. Success is often limited for multiple reasons. Graduate students in commonly introduced professional fields such as business or nursing do not naturally align with an undergraduate in-person academic calendar. Older students, especially those in careers, are reluctant to come to a campus for class twice a week. Even if there is sufficient interest in such a program, it is difficult to increase in scale because of the limits of distance and geography. And most of these institutions lack significant expertise and technology do conduct effective on-line operations.

Their institutional similarities extend to their governance. Typically, there is a Board of Trustees, all of whom are volunteers, often with heavy alumni representation. These boards generally lack expertise or perspective on the challenges of higher education and thus are dependent on the appointed executive leadership. They often take a short-term perspective and lack strategic foresight that may be most valuable in times of uncertainty and external changes.

Even when trustees have financial experience from other fields, their common approach to small institutions is to bemoan any lack of enrollments. Most do not make significant personal financial contributions, particularly if they think the institution is struggling to survive. The assumed budget goal is basically a balanced budget and when one does not control revenues, one focuses on the more controllable expense side, trying to balance budgets solely on cuts.  Board members serve because they want to support the institution, but many are risk adverse. For example, a fear of being associated with an institution that might generate possible legal liability for the board member means a first concern usually involves whether there is sufficient insurance.

While every institution is indeed different in its own way, they also are very similar. What explains this?

One possible way of explanation is provided by the organizational theorists Walter Powell and Paul DiMaggio who in 1983 (updated in 1991) published a seminal piece on what they called ”institutional isomorphism and collective rationality.” [1]They argued that ”institutions in the same field become more homogenous over time without become more efficient or more successful” and identified three basic reasons for such a tendency.

Coercive isomorphism – similarities imposed externally on the institutions. In higher education, good examples would be Federal government policies around student financial aid or the requirements of both regional and specialized accreditors. Every institution operates within a web of regulation and financial incentives that impose requirements on all and work to limit innovation.

Mimetic processes – similarities that arise because of standard responses to uncertainty. Prime examples in higher education are the increasingly common responses to the quest for enrollment growth. As noted, numerous consultants purport to improve enrollments, but the gains typically are limited, as other institutions mimic the same approach. In another example, recent surveys show that almost all institutions expect to be users of artificial intelligence models to promote marketing in the service of admissions, as if this is a “magic wand”. If one institution makes strides in this area, others will follow. The result will be more similarity, not less. It is a bit like the Ukrainian-Russian war, where Ukraine originally had clear advantages using drone technology until that technology was matched by the Russians, leading to a form of stalemate. As DiMaggio and Powell note, ”organizations tend to model themselves after similar organizations in their field that they perceive as more legitimate or successful.”[2]

Normative pressures – similarities that arise from common “professional” expectations. The authors identify two important aspects of professionalization: the common basis of higher education credentials and the legitimation produced by these credentials and “the growth and elaboration of professional networks.” Examples include common faculty and senior administrator qualification requirements. Another would be so-called “best practices” in support areas like student affairs. “Such mechanisms create a pool of almost interchangeable individuals who occupy similar positions.”[3] Recently, Hollis Robbins pointed out the commonalities in paths to academic leadership positions, likening these to the Soviet nomenklatura process through which a leader progresses in one’s career.[4] Evidence of this is obvious through a cursory review of the qualifications and desired qualities posted in searches for college and university presidents or other senior administrators. Most searches end up looking for and hiring individuals with very similar qualifications and experience.

The implications of such pressures and processes are several. With common values and similar personnel, “best practices” do not lead to essential changes. Innovation is quickly copied. Indeed, it becomes increasing difficult to differentiate an institution from competitors. Common regulatory structures, declining student pools, increased competition and a lack of resources for investment all combine to enhance similarity over difference. In some sense, it is almost a form of commodification where price does in fact matter, but the “product” basically the same, especially in the minds of the larger population of potential students and families.

What is to be done?

Leadership Must Confront Their Institution’s Reality

Confronting reality has many aspects, but the leaders of every institution must be clear-eyed and unsentimental about where it stands and where it is headed. This is an essential role for boards and executive leadership.

First and foremost, the mission of the institution must be understood in realistic and practical ways. What is the institution’s purpose and what is required to fulfill that purpose? Institutional mission is central as it should drive an appreciation for the current situation of the institution, provide clarity regarding longer term goals and bringing into focus the necessary means to move forward.

With clarity of mission must come a full understanding the of institution’s financial situation, its opportunities and the longer term needs required to achieve mission goals.  Building multi-year mission-oriented budgets based on surpluses (positive margins) is key. Sometimes restructuring and cuts are necessary and thus leadership must make sure all faculty and staff have a clear understanding of reality and the strategy for addressing it.

A clear understanding by all of the marginal results (positive and negative) of major components is also critical. Some elements or units return significant positive margins. Others less so. And some return negative margins, often year after year. Yet, some of these less financially productive elements may be essential to mission and must be balanced or subsidized by other elements. At the end of the day, it is the margin of the entire institution that matters. And, as the saying goes, “no margin, no mission.” However, the opposite is also true. Institutions that are unclear about their mission will be challenged to attract and motivate students, faculty, staff or major donations.

Every institution must worry about enrollments as the largest source of revenue. Declining enrollments force expense restraints. Every institution must also be concerned about growing enrollments as a key prerequisite of financial stability. Institutions operating on thin or negative margins cannot hope to achieve their mission goals without some form of growth, including having the resources to invest in growth. Without some forms of growth, an institution will either be at risk or will have to make sometimes radical changes in order to continue to pursue mission goals. The only real alternative is to amend the mission and the definition of its success.

The other important point is that all institutions are subject to unexpected external pressures that they cannot control. Examples would be 9/11, the 2008-09 Great Recession, the COVID pandemic or the advent new government policies, such as those confronting all institutions today. Coping with such events requires having some financial resiliency, strong leadership and creativity.

Yet, the combination of external pressures and the realities of small-scale institutions operating on thin margins in the face of extensive competition may mean that even the best managed and led organizations will confront existential risk.

For many institutions, merging or partnering with another institution may be the only realistic path. While there often is reluctance to cede independence to another institution, mergers are hardly new, as consolidation in US higher education is hardly a new phenomenon. There are several hundred examples of mergers, many going back a century or more. Washington and Jefferson College in Pennsylvania in 1865 is the result of such an arrangement, as is Case Western Reserve University in Ohio a century later. In addition to these mergers, hundreds of other institutions have simply closed, including at least 170 in the past twenty years.

Additionally, may institutions may be placed to take advantage of consortium relationships with other institutions. Again, there are numerous examples of institutions seeking to improve their situations through this form of collaboration. Participating institutions collaborate on such things as sharing costs or providing a wider range of student options, while remaining independent. However, this model, while valuable in many ways, rarely provides major financial advantages except at the margins. And successful consortia require a certain degree of independent sustainability for each member.

Still others may be able find opportunity in growth through symbiosis. The recent Coalition for the Common Good begun by Antioch and Otterbein universities is an example. Other variants are possible. However, again such middle ground models also assume a basic stability of the members. As stated by Coalition president, John Comerford, “we are looking for a sweet spot of resources. This is not a way to save a school on death’s door. It’s also probably not useful to a school with billions in their endowment. Institutions in the big middle ground both need to look at new business models and likely have some flexibility to invest in them.” This type of model will not work in many cases.

The point is that many of these small college will continue to be at risk as long as they are tuition dependent within a shrinking pool of potential students and insufficient external support. Fewer and fewer small institutions will be able to survive independently simply because of the financial challenges inherent in their small-scale model.

Small undergraduate institutions represent the highest ideals of higher education. They are a key source for graduate students and future professors. They are central to their communities. Their strengthening and preservation as a class is an essential element of the American higher education ecosystem with its wide range of institutional models and opportunities. But this does not mean all can survive.

The leaders of every institution need to have a clear and practical plan for the maintenance of their independence, while also being open to careful consideration of alternatives, exploring potential alternatives well before they face a crisis.

Notes:

  1. DiMaggio, Paul and Powell, Walter, The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields in DiMaggio and Powell, The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press, 1991. (pp.63-82)
  2. Ibid. p. 70
  3. Ibid. p. 71
  4. Hollis Robbins, The Higher Ed Nomenklatura? Inside Higher Education, May 12, 2025

The next essay in this series will examine in some detail the steps in a process that begins with acknowledging the possible need for a partner and hopefully results in an agreement that is implemented.

 Dr. Chet Haskell is Senior Consultant and Higher Education Strategist at Edu Alliance Group. He brings over four decades of leadership and consulting experience in higher education, with a career spanning the U.S., Europe, Latin America, and Asia. He has held senior roles, including President of the Monterey Institute of International Studies and Cogswell Polytechnical College, Dean and de facto Provost at Simmons College, and 13 years of leadership positions at Harvard University and five years in senior administrative roles at the University of Southern California.

As Provost and Chief Academic Officer of Antioch University, he helped lead the creation of the Coalition for the Common Good, a groundbreaking alliance with Otterbein University. Internationally, Dr. Haskell has advised universities in Mexico, Spain, Holland, and Brazil and served as a consultant to the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) and the Council on International Quality Group.
‍
A respected accreditation expert, he has served as a WSCUC peer reviewer and as an international advisor to ANECA (Spain) and ACAP (Madrid). He is a frequent speaker at global conferences and meetings.