What Have We Learned from Our Big Bet?
Through our journey with the Centers and other partners in the field, we’ve made adjustments and responded to early lessons. Here’s what we’ve learned so far.
Network health is more important than growth. Building capacity and expertise, as well as a culture of inclusiveness, are higher priority than adding new services or members. We learned that introducing too many services at one time was overwhelming to Centers. We also experienced our own capacity constraints. As a result, we slowed the addition of new states from more than one at a time to one per year so we could better respond to the needs of current network members.
Leading and learning are equally important. The role of network manager requires balancing leadership with a commitment to listening to the network. We learned that we needed more input on network decisions. We established a Network Leadership Team. We also created a learning feedback loop among network members and outside influencers to generate innovation and continuous improvement.
Network members make more progress by building on local work. Network engagement is stronger and faster when it’s built on existing local work. We learned that we would have more traction in states by meeting them where they are rather than expecting all members to be consistent in their approaches. We created a more flexible way to engage network states and colleges that started with familiar initiatives and local accomplishments, resulting in easier adoption and more progress.
Self-assessment and evaluation are critical in the beginning. States that use data to understand needs and prioritize supports for their colleges have shown more relevant and targeted interventions for change. We learned that requiring state data to understand colleges and inform participation in activities creates more rigor in reform efforts and aids the network’s commitment to learning.
Case-making is never done. Leadership turnover, policy conditions, and practitioner priorities are continuously evolving. We learned that all network members need support with case-making, whether at the beginning or years into student success reforms. We added extra communication services for Centers to help them regularly educate stakeholders and make the case for resources.
The Power of Networks
We’ve all experienced the power of networks. They drive social movements, create support systems, solve complex problems, spur innovation, and accelerate change. We can’t assume that the well-intentioned but scattered projects throughout the higher education landscape, and colleges reinventing solutions in isolated environments, will scale enough real change to reach the millions of students who are misguided and disregarded by our current systems.
Through the SSCN, JFF made a big bet that a “network of networks” would help students graduate and attain jobs faster than if colleges worked in isolation and competed for students and funding. We are gathering data to understand the return on this wager. The stakes are high, and we think a bet that will benefit millions of students is worth the risk.
We’re running out of time. Our world faces complex challenges that need complex solutions and new thinking. Higher education is no exception. Our leaders are now more than ever seeking ways to create change at a state and national scale. Higher education leaders and policymakers need to expand their focus beyond the college level and think bigger—think networks!