2026

Turbulence to Design: Turning Disruption Into Discipline

Every generation of community college leaders faces disruption. The difference today is the speed, the simultaneity, and the stakes . . . the calls for change are unrelenting. Demographics, workforce churn, public confidence, technology, and policy volatility are arriving all at once, while our students’ lives remain as complex as ever—maybe even more so.

In moments like this, leadership can drift toward two unhelpful extremes:

1. Nostalgia and impulse, or hoping turbulence will pass and we can return to “normal”
2. Hyper acceleration without clarity, mistaking motion for progress

The work before us all is neither to rewind nor to react. The work is to lead.

That is why this critical issue of Innovatus from the League for Innovation in the Community College centers on leading through disruption, not as a slogan, but as a discipline, a way of doing the work. Disruption does not excuse us from our mission; it clarifies it. It does not give leaders permission to improvise personal or political agendas; it demands that we anchor decisions in institutional purpose, measurable outcomes, human relationships, and trust.

Several articles in this issue underscore this central truth: Culture is not a “soft” topic in hard times; it is our new operating system. When conditions are unsettled, people watch what we reward, how we treat one another, what we tolerate, what we repeat, and what we decide. Leaders at all levels in the community college who navigate disruption well tell the truth without drama, create alignment without coercion or fear, and build confidence by executing a few priorities exceptionally well.

This issue also challenges us to lead change rather than be led by it, and we must lean into this. For if we do not shape change, change will undoubtedly shape the institution. Taking change back means adopting a clear and deliberate method for innovation: Decide which problems matter most, which matter least; set standards for evidence; measure progress; scale what works and stop what does not. Innovation must be a system, not a collection of one-off projects to promote to our trustees, donors, or the media.

And while this issue looks at broad questions about the future of American higher education, it also stays grounded in practical examples, including a workforce micro-pathway that turns disruption into design: fast, skill-focused, and competency-based training aligned to current and emerging employer needs and built around students’ real constraints.

The League for Innovation exists to help colleges learn from one another, test ideas, share what works, and elevate practices that strengthen outcomes. Innovatus is just one way we make that commitment real. My hope is that you will read this issue not only for insight, but for decisive action. Consider one idea to apply, translate it into a concrete decision or practice, and then share what you learn.

We will not eliminate turbulence. But we can lead through it with steadiness, courage, and clarity. If we do, the disruption of today can become the design of tomorrow.

Here’s an exercise in memory: Do you remember the horror and angst you felt as hundreds of White nationalists marched on the University of Virginia academic quad, yelling up into the darkened night, “Jews will not replace us”? How about then-President Trump proclaiming, “There were good people on both sides,” when interviewed by national press about that same event?

How about an exercise in institutional risk? What if tomorrow, a slew of White supremacists jaunted onto your college campus? Would you be surprised? Would your campus struggle with how to respond? Would considerations of institutional neutrality and freedom of speech stand in the way of forceful condemnation and democratic and educational values being asserted? Would you have counter-programming poised to illustrate the power of education to stem the tide of hatred?

What if another government shutdown more deeply impacts hunger, health care, and basic needs of students? What if the threats to financial aid teased in the budget cycle of 2025 come to fruition in fall 2026? What sort of risk planning has your institution done for any of these phenomena?

Disruption is no longer momentary in higher education. Nor are the disruptions institutional only. They are threats to our students’ sense of safety, their ability to live, and their potential to attend college. Our students’ needs, lives, and identities are at risk at every turn through anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) law and rhetoric; funding cuts aimed at the same; and uncertainty about operational dollars as a result of state legislation.

At Delta College, we have weathered these disruptions not only through careful planning but clear communication of where our values and decision points are prior to these events happening. (Of course, it must be underscored that Delta College, located in Michigan, has not yet experienced state-level anti-DEI legislation that 23 other states in the country have).

We have used the Alliance for Higher Education’s planning tools, reading of legislation, and executive orders to perform risk assessments, consider communication models, and plan for future disruptions regarding students’ needs and attacks on DEI. These tools have helped us not only understand the current moment but plan financially from a value-based lens years out, given that the attacks on DEI—so central to community colleges—are most likely going to continue in policy and rhetoric for a long while.

Beginning in January 2025, when the first executive orders targeting higher education emanated from the White House, we began very clear and open communication regarding their meaning for our institution. After examining our relationship to risk with regards to federal funding, and also the mission-centric risks associated with decisions about, for instance, LGBTQIA+-friendly bathrooms, we made very clear to all faculty, staff, and students that Delta College would be making no changes in our direction, operations, or values unless and until our student federal financial aid would be impacted. That line regarding financial aid was arrived at through careful analysis of risk using the Alliance’s tools, and we learned quickly how valued our open communication about that line was for minimizing disruption.

As president, I held town halls and visited all academic divisions to deliver this message for one major reason: Our culture. In my four years at Delta, the college experienced radical, positive shifts in culture, not because of my work, but because of the clarity that all members of the campus community had regarding our commitment to a singular goal: increasing equitable completion rates and numbers in order to better serve our region and country. Executive orders, legal cases, and funding cuts that threatened our core work were not viewed as momentary issues to navigate, but rather as existential for the communities we served. When federal communication regarding DEI permeated news outlets, our cabinet, board, faculty, and staff leaders needed clarity about our stance. That clarity was necessary so that employees, whether in the classroom, on search committees, or serving students, would avoid unnecessary self-policing and censorship. As a result, we led through what has been a tumultuous time by staying the course, and by taking communication with our employees, students, and community very seriously.

We also have been able to anticipate decisions when unexpected events happen that would impact our students. For instance, as SNAP benefits were sapped during the last shutdown, there was no time wasted amongst cabinet members about whether we would make up for the shortfall. Rather, our team came together quickly, understanding that we would fill the gap and had ideas for how to do so immediately. What would have been disruptive was merely a moment to navigate. As a result, while we saw nearly 1,000 more students needing funds than expected, we were ready. These are students who would have dropped out of classes had we not acted quickly. Our clarity and purpose, in short, allowed us to act without having to discuss whether we would act.

We are far from perfect. And we are learning from our colleagues at colleges in other states that have passed anti-DEI legislation. This past legislative session, Michigan introduced, but did not pass, a provision in its budget that would (1) eliminate all DEI on college campuses, and (2) require 90 percent of general fund dollars to be spent on facilities and faculty.

While both provisions were extreme, they did signal where the focus for the next legislative sessions will be. As a result, Delta College will be lobbying to ensure that student service positions remain at the forefront of advocacy in the forthcoming legislative agenda, and explaining how Delta’s approach to DEI has elevated all students.

To be sure, disruption is coming. But Delta has thought through a variety of scenarios, recognizing that we cannot allow the general malaise about DEI to normalize, for our students’ and communities’ sake. And most importantly, our navigation through disruption has a foundation in understanding the long track of anti-DEI and anti-educational policy permeating the country and communicating clearly to a wide audience where the decision-making lines are to avoid confusion about direction.

Michael Gavin, Ph.D.

President and CEO, Alliance for Higher Education

Editor’s Note: Dr. Gavin was invited to contribute this article while he was President of Delta College. During the period between his submitting the article and publication of the magazine, he left Delta College to become the President of the new Alliance for Higher Education.

Have you ever been in a job interview where the committee prompts you to share your preferred leadership style? Some of you may consider yourselves transformative leaders; others may identify as inclusive leaders or as servant leaders. However, would you ever answer that question by expressing, with excitement, that you consider yourself to be a proud status quo leader? One who, without question, will always strive to do only what is necessary—nothing more and never less? A leader who, rather than guiding the institution to ensure its market relevance, responsiveness, and financial sustainability in arguably one of the most socially disruptive eras in modern history, promises to provide comfort and complacency, and depend staunchly on the dated practices of past eras to inform the institution’s future?

While your answer is likely to be “no,” do your day-to-day actions say otherwise? If not your actions, then what about your thoughts or conversations? And if not you, then what about your community college? If we were to observe and analyze the institution’s culture, infrastructure, policies, guidelines, mission, values, decision-making processes, systems of accountability (or the lack thereof), board meetings, executive sessions, cabinet meetings, departmental meetings, and, most importantly, classrooms, what would we find? It is one thing to declare that we are serving in disruptive times; it is another thing to transform our institutions to serve in these disruptive times. One of these is simply an acknowledgement of the obvious, while the other demands institutional transformation.

There are two key words I would like you to reflect on as you read this article: intentionality and integrity. By definition, intentionality refers to having an attitude of purposefulness, with a commitment to deliberate action. Integrity is defined as the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished. As institutional leaders, we have all been entrusted with a duty to facilitate institutional success. For some, that duty is explicitly outlined in the job description. For others, while the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the position are clearly stated, one critical element is missing—mission alignment. Without this fundamental criterion, it is possible to fulfill the duties associated with a role but fail to embody the institutional mission in action. The two critical factors of intentionality and integrity contribute to mission alignment and institutional success.

Leading With Intentionality

In crafting an institutional mission, best practices emphasize the inclusion of four essential elements: (1) who is serving (the institution), (2) who the institution is serving (learners), (3) how the institution serves (inputs), and (4) desired outcomes of service (results). If we were to assess the day-to-day actions that occur within an institution through the lens of intentionality, we would be able to discern two key distinctions: mission-aligned actions and non-mission-aligned actions. Through intentionality, we clearly understand that all actions, initiatives, and efforts led by the institution and throughout the institution should be mission-aligned. Any actions, initiatives, or efforts that fail to align with the mission are, in essence, wasteful. Although we don’t tend to use the term “waste” in higher education, now more than ever is the time we should begin doing so. Waste not only leads to the mismanagement of time and resources but also opens the door to personal agendas that are not aligned with the mission, vision, or institutional strategic plan.

Leading With Integrity

The interconnected force of intentionality and integrity is the synergy that transforms them into a superpower. Through the lens of integrity, we understand our obligation to the institution to maximize service through our respective roles, advancing the mission of the institution in accordance with the college’s declared strategic plan. Through intentionality and integrity, every action should be measured by predetermined key performance indicators that denote the success of goals and objectives. This philosophical approach to aligning action with mission—for example, ensuring that values are actualized in policy and practice—is how an institution achieves wholeness. It is also important to note that within mission-aligned institutions, the mindset is less about personal agendas and more about the unified mission. It’s not about what we prefer as individuals; it’s about what our roles in service to the college require. Ultimately, each institutional role and its associated duties should be appropriately calibrated to lead the college to the achievement of its strategic plan and the realization of its mission in action.

As you navigate higher education today and into the future, understand that disruption is a necessary part of the evolution to progress. The continuous recalibration of divisions, departments, strategies, and positions is essential and requires extensive environmental scanning to guide strategy and implementation. As these recalibrations occur, some stakeholders will lean into the evolution and seek to adapt their service to the mission as the institution evolves. In contrast, others will choose a different approach. While such friction is expected and can lead to productive dialogue, it can also develop into stalemates and stagnation that are not valuable to the institution. An institution’s failure to advance leads to mission failure, and mission failure can result in institutional failure. Ultimately, as society innovates, so must its systems of teaching and learning.

If higher education were a patient, it would be in the ER, facing policy shocks, Dear Colleague letters, a strained funding model, decades of technical debt, shrinking execution capacity, and an AI tsunami most campuses are not ready for. In existential moments of change like this, the president has two choices:

I’ve seen it done both ways. Across the hundreds of institutions I’ve studied, I have yet to find one thriving under option 1. When the stakes are this high, the best doctor to triage the patient’s recovery is the president.

Why HR-Led Change Fails in an Existential Moment

HR excels at policy, risk mitigation, and repeatable processes. But the job of architecting and selling a nonlinear future—setting a bold narrative, absorbing political risk, and reallocating capital across sacred cows—that’s presidential work, and global research confirms it.ⁱ A key predictor of successful change is an active, visible executive sponsor.ⁱⁱ Put plainly, when the chief executive leads from the front, change sticks; when they don’t, it stalls.

The Stakes Keep Going Up

It’s hard enough running an institution when things are going well, let alone when faced with mounting challenges.

It all comes back to a bold president charting a clear path—one the entire institution is bought into, even when it hurts.

What It Looks Like When the President Owns Change

Owning change is not micromanagement: It is message, mandate, and momentum.

In AI roadmapping sessions I have conducted with colleges, discovery and governance efforts seem to gain traction only when driven from the president’s office. Only when the president mandates it do departments stop buying point systems without the information technology (IT) department’s knowledge. Only when the president is the executive sponsor does a true enterprise-wide AI strategy emerge—one that breaks silos and delivers the student experience everyone says they want.

When people know the president owns it, engagement rises, shadow systems surface, and the organization gains political cover to move decisively. HR still plays a pivotal role—codifying policy, coordinating training, running pulse surveys, and guiding workforce transitions—but I have come to find that the mandate and narrative must sit with the president. The transformation that Miami Dade College President Madeline Pumariega continues to lead is evidence of this. As one of her advisors for the past three years, I have observed her delegating authority while still owning the narrative and mandate. In our ongoing work with the Higher Education Research and Development Institute, I have found that board member Jermaine Ford, President of Florence Darlington Technical College, is leading with a similar approach.

The President’s 90-Day Plan to Reclaim Change

If you have not yet taken over the reins of change, here’s a 90-day plan to consider and make your own.

Day 0-10: Set the Narrative and the Bar

1.   Issue a state of the institution memo and hold a town hall. Name the reality, the destination, and the nonnegotiables.
  Commit to being the visible sponsor of transformation.
2.  Create a Project Management Office (PMO) that reports to you. Keep it small and cross-functional—operations, finance, IT,
 academic affairs, student experience. HR is embedded, but not in command. Pro tip: Go two to three levels deep to find the
 innovators, not just the titleholders.

Day 11-30: See the Whole Board

3.   Run a rapid discovery and risk sprint. Use listening sessions and short surveys to surface bottlenecks.
4.   Map vendor and platform risk. Classify systems by financial and operational exposure. Anthology’s case is your board
  wake-up slide.
5.   Publish a north-star scorecard. Baseline six to eight metrics tied to mission and solvency now.

Day 31-60: Move Resources, Not Just Words

6.   Stand up a cross-functional governance council. Select for entrepreneurial DNA and frontline proximity.
  (See this AI Playbook for more insight.)
7.   Name three lighthouse projects. Choose high-signal initiatives that improve student experience and staff productivity within
  90 days.
8.   Kill, pause, or fix. With staff and faculty, create a stop-doing list and reallocate those dollars to the lighthouses.

Day 61-90: Lock in Momentum

9.   Reframe HR’s role. HR leads enablement—policy refresh, training pathways, job design, and change communications.
10. Institutionalize cadence and transparency. Biweekly PMO meetings with you; monthly campus updates with dashboards.

The Bottom Line

If your institution is coasting and focused only on keeping the lights on, by all means, let HR manage the incremental change. But if you’re navigating simultaneous people, process, and technology transformations, the only responsible move is presidential ownership of change. And not because HR isn’t capable, but because the job demands the risk appetite, resource control, and narrative authority that only a president holds.

The research says executive sponsorship is the lever. The market says the runway is shortening. Your own campus tells you where to start. Lead from the front. Then let HR help the whole institution keep pace.

ⁱ Potter, J.P. (1995, May-June). Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review.
ⁱⁱ Prosci. (2025, August 8).  Avoid These 5 Change Management Obstacles.
ⁱⁱⁱ Kelchin, R., Ritter, D., & Webber, D. (2025, November 25). Colleges Are Closing. Who Might Be Next? Education Next.
^iv U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2024). FAFSA: Education Needs to Improve Communications and Support Around the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. Highlights, para. 4.
^v Norris, S., & Dawson Ullrich, L. (2024). The FAFSA Crisis: Will Delayed Completions Result in Enrollment Declines? Community College Insights. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.
^vi McCormack, M. (2025, February 3). EDUCAUSE QuickPoll Results: The Varied and Compounding Effects of Institutional Debt. EDUCAUSE Review.

As a community college scholar, consultant, and advocate, I—like many others—have watched in distress as higher education has come under attack from forces both within and without the academy. It is tempting to believe that these attacks began in January 2025, but in reality, many of them have been on a slow burn for decades, setting the stage for unprecedented levels of disruption on our campuses over the last several months and years. And sadly, although not surprisingly, this disruption has had the greatest effects on our most vulnerable populations and the institutions that serve them.

The Foundational Ideas Behind American Higher Education

For several years now I have been speaking and writing about the need to protect and preserve what I see as the five foundational pillars undergirding all of American higher education, each of which has come under attack, or is, in some cases, being allowed to erode from within:

1. Institutional Autonomy – In essence, a protection against autocracy; in practice, a right to self-governance through peer review
2. Academic Freedom – Directly responsible for America’s dominance in the research enterprise and necessary for both free inquiry and the promotion of critical thought
3. Free Expression – Not just allowing the free expression of ideas, but actively creating the conditions in which an exchange of opposing ideas can result in learning, self-discovery, and/or connection and common ground
4. Access and Equitable Support – Programs and policies that enable student success in and mobility among institutions
5. Commitment to the Public Good – Enacted through community service and partnerships, workforce engagement, and efforts to develop students as citizens and productive members of society

Anyone paying even the remotest attention to higher education these days could list a dozen or more ways in which these five pillars are being threatened by federal and state policies, executive orders, legislative mandates, and a general environment in which fear of reprisal has created a chilling effect that extends from classrooms to faculty offices to administrative C-suites.

Even in the court of public opinion, where community colleges were once seen as higher ed’s best kept secret,¹ a generalized distrust of all institutions and a hyper-focus on the private labor-market returns associated with various college degrees, which precludes consideration of higher education’s public purposes and benefits, have led to a resurgent belief among many that college is no longer “the best way to get ahead in the US.”²

It is clear that nothing less than the future of American higher education is at stake, and yet the path forward for those who believe in our institutions, and in the students who overcome tremendous odds to attend classes every day, can feel opaque.

Three Paths Forward

I offer three categories of action to protect and preserve our system of higher education, to fight for the community college mission, and to continue providing equitable support for all students. These approaches are not mutually exclusive, and all three can be accomplished by faculty, administrators, trustees, students, and others.

The Path of Connection. When your institutions are under attack, silence both looks and feels like submission. But standing alone against ideas that would harm the students and communities you serve can be dangerous. Thus, community colleges need to double down on the formation of connections and alliances across campuses, across institutions, and across sectors. Indeed, forming coalitions may be the best defense against intrusions into institutional autonomy, the most productive way of protecting students, and the most fruitful way to illustrate the transformative power of a community college education.

The Path of Resistance. We tend to think of resistance as a defensive play, a reaction to a new idea or attack. However, in our current climate, a proactive form of resistance may be the best, and safest, way to counter ideas that are detrimental to the community college mission. Indeed, every single one of us can go on offense by telling the community college story and by amplifying the voices and experiences of students whose lives have been transformed and whose communities have been uplifted. Making the case for the community college and the work it does to enable social mobility and economic prosperity adds a layer of protective padding to the system, making it less likely that each attack will result in the toppling of a foundational pillar.

The Path of Innovation. When we are under attack, our instinct is to circle the wagons and protect whatever currently exists. But intellectually, we also know that some of the most innovative changes are born of crisis. So, if we can train ourselves to appreciate the opportunities afforded by disruption—to protect the fundamental values we hold dear yet at the same time innovate how we enact those values—we can neutralize external attempts to dictate what needs to change and how, and instead become innovators who constantly seek new ways of equitably serving students and enacting the community college mission.

These three paths forward are not easy, nor are they free of pitfalls or hidden twists and turns. Yet, it is essential that we walk them together, as colleagues and as educators who believe in the principles on which our system rests and the life-changing impact of our institutions.

ⁱ Humphreys, D. (2023, March 15). Advancing Civic Learning in a Fraught Political Environment [Conference presentation]. Civic Learning and Democracy Engagement Leadership Forum, Baltimore, Maryland, United States.
ⁱⁱ Jaschik, S. (2022, Oct. 25). Democrats, Republicans and Higher Education. Inside Higher Ed.

From the pandemic into a shifting economic landscape,ⁱ faced with declining public faith in the value of a college degreeⁱⁱ and an aging population,ⁱⁱⁱ higher education has been challenged to innovate, adapt, and evolve like no other time in its recent history. The changing regulatory and legal landscape is also creating confusion. Institutions must navigate through proposals, conflicting information, and uncertainty as federal directives; changes in higher education funding; and even local politics affect operations, strategies, and programming at community colleges across the U.S.

On March 28, 2025, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed the Advance Ohio Higher Education Act (SB 1) into law, with an effective date of June 27, 2025. Described as controversial, SB 1 “prohibits diversity and equity programming, bans faculty strikes and regulates classroom discussion at Ohio’s public universities and community colleges.”^iv This new legislation compounded the anxiety and uncertainty already existing at Cuyahoga Community College (Tri-C). Importantly, faculty at Tri-C and throughout Ohio interpreted its requirements as interfering with academic freedom and intruding on faculty teaching and learning expertise.

To help our institution through this turbulent and uncertain time, Tri-C President, Dr. Michael Baston, convened an Institutional Clarity Initiative. Rooted in Tri-C’s commitment to shared governance, the group was composed of faculty, administrators, and legal experts, and led the college’s response to SB 1 and federal changes.

The initiative had two work groups: academic/workforce and governance/institutional compliance. Each group took a three-part approach to addressing the changes in SB 1. After researching and interpreting the legislation, the team would assess if the interpretation matched existing policies or if it needed to be integrated into existing procedures. Finally, each group would begin implementation with a project plan and a timeline.

A great deal of this work took place out of the spotlight, in conjunction with internal and external legal resources and colleague community colleges, and with guidance from the Ohio Association of Community Colleges, as legislative updates were released. To keep the college community informed of this progress while maintaining focus on Tri-C’s mission and students, the executive team committed to as much transparency and communication around the work as was possible.

For example, Tri-C’s entire college community was kept up to date through a series of virtual town halls, which were recorded for later review. Staff and faculty submitted questions for Baston and the executive team, all of which were answered. Additionally, the academic leadership team consistently met with the leadership of Tri-C’s American Association of University Professors as well as the Joint Faculty Senate Committee to provide updates, listen to questions and concerns, and share available information.

Importantly, Tri-C’s president continually set the tone for the institutional position on these ongoing federal and state legislative changes. For example, in a collegewide email in response to the U.S. DOE Dear Colleague letter targeting DEI programs, Baston reiterated our focus on students:

Please know that we remain committed to providing access to education for all in our region who seek it, regardless of their race, culture, background, or any other defining trait or characteristic. Our belief as an institution is that all of society benefits when everyone has a path to gain knowledge and pursue their life’s goals. We will continue to operate with that foundational belief as our guiding star while aligning with all legal requirements at the federal, state, and local levels. (M. Baston, personal communication, February 19, 2025)

On the effective date of SB 1, Baston issued an additional communication, noting:

The guiding principle of this process is to ensure our practices continue to align with the college’s mission and core values while also complying with changing legal and regulatory expectations. What remains unchanged is our steadfast commitment to serving our students, providing clarity in our mission, and enhancing the quality of life for the communities we serve. (M. Baston, personal communication, June 27, 2025)

Most importantly, all college executives worked with their departments and divisions as empathetic leaders through these large institutional changes. With numerous opportunities for faculty and staff to provide feedback, this active listening helped leadership to understand multiple perspectives and priorities, which is essential to leading staff, faculty, and students through institutional change.^v Empathetic leadership, especially during this time of crisis, provided both administrators and employees with the opportunity to be more engaged and offered a sense of inclusivity, even as many initially felt excluded from the implementation process.^vi

Nearly nine months after SB 1 became law, Tri-C is still feeling its effects and challenges.^vii However, our commitment to shared governance, open communication, and transparency, as well as a deeply held commitment to our students and the community we serve, provides the college with the ability to evolve, adapt, and grow while focusing on teaching, learning, completion, and success.

ⁱ Selingo, J. J. (2025, January 6). Higher Ed’s Grim New Normal: Overcoming Demographic Headwinds Will Require More Than Austerity. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
ⁱⁱ Merisotis, J. (2025, April 1). Higher Education’s Big Test: Proving the Value of College Degrees. Lumina Foundation.
ⁱⁱⁱ Marcus, J. (2025, January 8). A Looming ‘Demographic Cliff’: Fewer College Students and Ultimately Fewer Graduates. National Public Radio.
^iv Crawford, K. (2025, July 2). SB1 took effect last week. Here’s how Ohio universities have responded. The Ohio Newsroom, para 1.
^v Powell, J. (2023, November 14). Rethinking authentic leadership: The essential need for empathy in higher education leadership. Higher Education Digest.
^vi Brower, T. (2021). Empathy is the most important leadership skill according to research. Forbes.
^vii Morris, C. (2025, September 29). Dozens of Programs to End at Kent State, Tri-C, Other Northeast Ohio Colleges Under Senate Bill 1. Ideastream Public Media.

America’s shortage of skilled workers is no longer an abstract forecast—it is here, immediate, and growing. The U.S. construction and roofing industries are experiencing some of the steepest workforce shortages in the country, with demand accelerating far faster than traditional training pipelines can supply talent.ⁱ Simultaneously, students and job seekers are navigating a career landscape that is increasingly complex, confusing, and disconnected from real employer needs. This is not a shortage of talent; it is a shortage of connection.

Owens Corning Roofing (OCR) and the League for Innovation in the Community College’s (League) Center for Workforce Solutions (CWS) are working to help change that. Together, they are pioneering a new model of fast-track, industry-validated micro-pathways that prepare students for high-demand jobs in weeks, not years—beginning with one of the most essential and often overlooked trades in America: residential roofing. What makes this effort transformative is the creation of a new workforce ecosystem built around industry-defined skills, employer demand, and community colleges as the engine for scale.

Changing the Rules of Workforce Alignment

Historically, industries like roofing struggled to attract talent despite offering low barriers to entry, strong wages, upward mobility, and entrepreneurial opportunities. Students rarely saw roofing as a viable pathway because training was inconsistent, awareness was low, and career guidance systems were not aligned with real-world employer demand.

The traditional four-year-degree-or-bust mindset was never built for today’s labor market. Only about 18 percent of U.S. jobs require a bachelor’s degree, yet for decades, career advising, public messaging, and institutional investment have reinforced that singular route.ⁱⁱ Meanwhile, essential industries like roofing have had to compete for visibility without the tools, structure, or national training models needed to reach students at scale.

Owens Corning Roofing, one of America’s most trusted and recognized roofing brands,ⁱⁱⁱ saw both the urgency and the opportunity to define a better system. Through a landmark partnership with the League, OCR helped develop the nation’s first five-day Residential Roofing 1 micro-pathway, giving community colleges a turnkey training model backed by employers providing validated knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) and immediate job opportunities. The Residential Roofing Installer micro-pathway is intentionally fast, highly applied, and built to meet students where they are, while giving employers exactly the talent pipeline they’ve been asking for.

Early Pilots Show What’s Possible

Early pilots at Dallas College and Pima Community College demonstrated the power of this approach: strong student engagement, excellent performance, and employer interest so significant that many participants received interviews on the final day of the program. This rapid, integrated training-to-employment connection is exactly the kind of transformation the workforce system has been waiting for. (See Dallas College’s pilot video here.) 

Program Results

The program met its goal to reach individuals who had no previous connection to community colleges and/or had little to no awareness of roofing as a career possibility through a fast-track program with the potential for immediate employment upon completion. The overall results underscore a critical point: Micro-pathways attract students that colleges rarely reach, shift career perception, and ignite interest in further education. They also reinforce the viability of a fast-track model, one that is hands-on, employer-designed, and tied directly to jobs. Figure 1 summarizes results from OCR’s post-training student surveys completed by 34 participants in the five-day Residential Roofing 1 micro-pathway at Dallas College and Johnson County Community College in fall 2025.

Participant Voices

Behind the numbers are stories of students and families whose lives were genuinely shifted by the program. Their voices reflect the heart of the program’s impact: increased confidence, expanded opportunity, and the spark of real hope. Instructors observed that hands-on activities, group practice, and real-world simulation kept students engaged at levels rarely seen in traditional classrooms. Employer presentations were particularly influential, helping students visualize a future in roofing. (See Figure 2.) For community colleges, the program translates directly to enrollment, workforce relevance, and stronger employer partnerships.

Together, these early outcomes demonstrated that the roofing micro-pathway was not only effective but scalable. That realization sparked the next phase: building the national infrastructure required to support community colleges everywhere.

Taming the Complexity and Building a Scalable Solution

Creating a national roofing pathway required more than curriculum. It required building the connective infrastructure that higher education has historically lacked. OCR and the League jointly designed a model that includes:

• Industry-endorsed curriculum aligned to employer expectations
• Nationally recognized portable, stackable credentials
• Open-source student content and teaching resources for community colleges
• A technology platform providing end-to-end support and matching graduates to regional employers
• A direct pipeline to more than 25,000 OCR-affiliated contractors nationwide

With about 98 percent of the U.S. adult population living within 50 miles of at least one two-year public institution,ⁱⁱⁱ the League’s member colleges form the backbone of America’s workforce engine—and this roofing program places them at the center of a scalable national solution. This structure also ensures that colleges can implement quickly with minimal lift—a major advantage for institutions facing staffing constraints or capacity limits.

The next phase is even more ambitious: a national roofing program with modular stackable credentials for every major pathway in the U.S. roofing industry, supported by a national open-source hub containing all curriculum, videos, content, and employer tools. The entire model is designed so that education can move at the speed of industry—accessible, equitable, and aligned to real jobs.

Calling on the Superpowers of Collaboration

What makes this model disruptive is not just the speed of training. It is the creation of an end-to-end, industry-aligned ecosystem built on nationally recognized micro-pathways and portable credentials. These pathways transform workforce development by giving colleges:

• Clear entry-level KSAs
• Standardized training aligned with employer demand
• Immediate job connections
• Credentials portable across states
• A replicable framework for other high-demand trades

The model is further strengthened by national Industry Leadership Groups and Education Leadership Groups, ensuring employer validation, quality control, and shared standards across states. This is how community colleges reclaim their role at the heart of America’s workforce ecosystem: by partnering with national industry leaders to define fast, high-quality, affordable routes into rewarding careers.

OCR’s commitment to develop, pilot, and scale roofing pathways, combined with the League’s national workforce model and academic leadership, represents a blueprint for every industry facing shortages.

A Call to Action: Join the Movement

America is not facing a talent crisis. It is facing an opportunity crisis.

Students want options. Employers need skilled workers. Community colleges are uniquely positioned to bridge the gap, but only if they are connected to national, industry-driven solutions.

OCR is leading the way for the U.S. roofing industry. OCR’s roofing micro-pathway is more than a program. It is a prototype for how industries, education systems, and national partners can build a new workforce ecosystem: one that is fast, flexible, affordable, and deeply aligned with economic opportunity.

We invite community college leaders to join the League’s CWS in shaping the next generation of micro-pathways, not only for roofing, but for every high-demand craft in America. Community colleges interested in launching their first or next micro-pathway cohort can connect with the League to access training materials, employer partnerships, and implementation support. Your participation will help ensure that every student has a path to a good job, every employer has access to job-ready talent, and every community has the skilled workforce it needs to grow.

The future of workforce innovation is here—and it starts with all of us.

ⁱ Kern, T. (2025, October 21). Roofing’s Future Depends on Winning Over Gen Z. Roofing Contractor.
ⁱⁱ Stahle, C. (2024, February 27). Education Requirements Are Gradually Disappearing From Job Postings. Hiring Lab.
ⁱⁱⁱ Blagg, K., & Rosenboom, V. (2018, April 5). Exploring the geography of college opportunity. Urban Institute.