Fear Isn’t Keeping Them Out, It’s Indifference (Why Campus Attendance Has Plummeted)

March 8, 2022

It’s an almost universal phenomenon.

Whether you barely closed in-person learning for the pandemic, campus leaders are facing the same reality: A raft of learners aren’t coming back to your campuses. In-person, that is.


The question is, why?


The answer has puzzled me for a while now. It got harder to answer because even formerly growing campus sites are facing the same challenges. After shutting down to in-person gatherings for even a few months, 20-30% of their students disappeared. In fact, of the 2.6 million students who started college in fall 2019, 26.1 percent, or roughly 679,000, didn’t come back the next year, according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. 


I know of a few schools that have surged past their pre-COVID attendance numbers. But for every campus that has seen that favor, there are 100 that haven’t.


What’s going on?


At first, we surmised that it was the lack of a vaccine that created the lag. Nope.


Then it was the variants, but even relief from Delta and now Omicron still hasn’t led to a surge that erases the loss.


Then we wondered if people were just generally fearful.


Nix that theory too. Many people who can’t find their way back to in-person learning have no trouble finding their way to Target, an NBA game, dinner out, a tropical vacation, family reunions, or a Foo Fighters concert.


What gives?


The Emotion Isn’t Fear…It’s Indifference

So, this is a theory here (I’m not a social researcher or psychologist), but I offer it in the hope that it’s helpful. After all, you can’t battle a force you don’t understand and can’t name.


What I’m picking up from my hard conversations with campus executives who have opened their experience management channels is the fact that the exodus isn’t driven by fear…it’s indifference.


Their students know where their local campus is. They didn’t forget. They have been poked and lured enough by your array of free re-engagement events available to them.


After the disruption that happened during COVID, they simply grew indifferent to in-person learning.


Indifference is defined as a lack of interest, concern, sympathy, or unimportance. 


They don’t hate in-person learning; there’s just no surge of strong emotions. It’s simply not as important.


It’s like they’ve assessed their life, reconsidered what matters most, and decided that attending traditional school just wasn’t that important in the end.


Which is discouraging, I know.


But hang on, there’s a lesson here for all of us.


You might be thinking to yourself exactly what a district leader expressed to me in our conversation last week. She said, “well Joe, you don’t read my inbox and you’re not in my conversations. People hated what I did or didn’t do about politics, racial justice, masks, vaccines, or politics and they left mad. Flippin' mad.”


For sure all those things are factors. But I’m not sure it explains a decline as massive as what we’re seeing.


Regarding the people who left your system because they were angry at you, you likely have them seared into your memory not because they’re a large group of people, but because they were a loud group of people.


Loud does not equal large.

And it’s probably not nearly half as large a population as you are imagining. There’s something deeper going on here.


Another recurrent line many campus leaders have echoed lately is that public education (K-12 and Higher Ed) is the subject of a lot of scorn.


When you study what’s happening in the rest of the world or throughout history, what’s happening in the West is hardly coercion. A loss of privilege is not coercion.


Do some people have an axe to grind with their local schools? Sure…and sometimes with good reason. Just witness the rise of unconventional educational alternatives.


But that’s likely still a small minority of the people who disappeared from your campus during the pandemic, despite what you read in the comment section on the Internet.


Double click on that and you’ll see that while the online world can be a hostile place, the real world is a lot less polarized.


While that may come as a shock, recent research suggests that the online world distorts how divided we are. In other words, if you talk to most people, they’re somewhere in the middle.


And when it comes to people who stopped attending your in-person learning, they don’t despise your system. They just don’t think about it much.


Just because ten people wrote you nasty emails doesn’t mean that everyone left because they dislike you or your system.


Many People Didn’t Really Leave Your System. They Just Stopped Coming.

So, if it is indifference, what’s going on?


Here’s the strangest part.


If you talk to a lot of people who no longer attend in-person learning and are currently occasional online participants, they’ll tell you they’re still a part of your learning community.


Dissect that a little further and here’s what you’ll probably find. Most people didn’t leave. They just stopped coming.


I know that makes no logical sense, but maybe that’s how they see it.


That’s what indifference does—you stop coming, but you never really think of yourself as having left.


It’s the friendship that gradually drifts into ‘yeah, that’s right, we used to hang out all the time, but I guess not anymore.’ You’re not enemies by any stretch. You just drifted apart.


Weird, isn’t it?


But that’s indifference.


People Grow Indifferent When They Don’t See Value

Indifference works like this: You become indifferent to people and things when you no longer see value in them.

It’s just not significant enough for you to carve out time for it anymore.


If this is indeed what’s happening with campus attendance, the verdict is as sobering as it is disappointing.


People didn’t see value in on-campus attendance, so, with the catalyst of a few months or longer off, they dropped it.


It’s easy to push back and argue that people should see their education as something that adds significant value. That’s true. Except we’re not talking about learning as much as we are about face-to-face learning.


Maybe your people haven’t bailed on the principle or the idea of education merely as much as they’ve left the current expression of learning.


So, what do you do about that?


The Antidote to Indifference is Passion

The hardest part about indifference is that it engenders neither love nor hate.


It’s more like a shrug that grows into obliviousness. There’s just not a strong well of emotions when it comes to indifference.


The antidote to indifference, then, is passion.


You are never indifferent to things you’re passionate about.


And this is where some further hard news kicks in and ultimately some great news.


First, the hard news, then some much better news.


What Are You (Honestly) Passionate About? People Coming To Your Actual Classroom…Or The Mission Of Your System? 

This is a moment when it’s critical for leaders to get honest with themselves.


Your misdirected passion as a campus leader can misdirect your team and organization’s passion.

As goes the leader, so goes the team.


To that end, if you started to explore the dark underbelly of why campus superintendents and presidents want to get everyone back in their classrooms, you might discover that these leaders:


  • Don’t like seeing empty rooms
  • Want to see their parking lots full
  • Rave about campus life and the traditions found on their campuses


I know that’s a superficial assessment, and your motives are far more nuanced than that, but as a district and campus leader for several decades, I get the emotion here.


Perhaps the key to the future isn’t to just create all the sights, sounds, and “good feels” that we have all come to treasure.

Maybe it’s less about getting excited about pressing “re-set” and being more excited about the mission and what all this mess now makes possible.


Here is another sobering fact that campus leaders must face as the future arrives. Are you ready for this?

The mission of the system gets accomplished as well or better outside the campus walls than it does inside them.

As a result, heading into a hybrid, digital, decentralized future, maybe it’s time to start thinking beyond the building.


Start Thinking Beyond Your Buildings

Historically, the whole system of education has wagered almost everything on gathering people in buildings.

Buildings will be around for decades to come, and I believe it is great when people gather together.


But if your system is going to realize its full mission, your campus buildings will have to stop being the epicenter of your mission.

In the future, if preparing for a prosperous society means coming to your campus, in a set building, with a set faculty member, at a set hour, you need a new strategy.


The easiest way to think about this is the same way instructional leaders have thought about study groups for the last 25 years.

No campus leader today feels threatened by the idea that thousands of learners will be meeting in their homes, coffee shops, or other community places to connect with other learners. The system does spur learning without it actually happening in a centralized facility.


This is where the potential for a distributed learning model starts to move in a new direction.


Many people who are indifferent about driving to your buildings (perhaps) aren’t indifferent to your mission. Leaders who are willing to go to them will be far more effective (and profitable) than leaders who continue to expect people to come to them.

The good news is that decentralized learning scales in a way that centralized education doesn’t. It costs less and can produce far more.


A Renewed Mission and a Brighter Future

It stinks to realize you’re battling indifference and so are your colleagues. And it’s not fun to have your ideals and biases challenged...But I'm not sorry.


I know from experience that as my ideals become exposed and my insecurities get unmasked, I become a better leader.

So, if the best way to battle indifference is to fuel someone’s passion level, perhaps one path forward is to get people more passionate about the MISSION of your campus than the tactical METHODS of delivery.


If your only winning method is having everyone attending class on-site and this strategy is bringing diminishing enrollment returns year after year, perhaps refocusing on the overall mission of the campus is a better direction.


The mission of your system can be accomplished in your buildings, in their homes, in workplaces, in your community, and literally across the globe.


Moving from a system that defaults to in-person learning to a campus that connects and equips learning anytime and anywhere can renew a community passion that might be flickering out. And in the process, it might renew yours as well.

Sometimes the best way to solve a problem is to name the problem. I hope this helps name a problem and perhaps point the way toward a solution.


Leading Your Mission Forward Can Feel Like A Mystery. It Doesn’t Have To.

Leading your organization forward can feel like a mystery. Although every growing system experiences growing pains, being equipped to respond to those challenges – structurally and culturally – is what sets apart a thriving mission from one that’s stuck and hoping for more relief.


P.S. Whenever you are ready here are the 2 best ways I can help you:


1) Get your FREE guide: 5 Evidence-Based Practices to Reclaim More Team Engagement with Less Effort: www.higherperformancegroup.com/reclaim


2) Schedule a Call. Let’s talk about the obstacles (and opportunities) that you & your team are currently facing.  www.higherperformancegroup.com/schedule

More Blog Articles

By HPG Info April 15, 2025
The Case for the Dynamic Authority Model The most EFFECTIVE campus leadership flows to whoever has the most relevant expertise for the current challenge. Here's a truth that might challenge you: The Command and Control, Servant Leadership, and even Shared Governance models that built our educational institutions are failing us. Command/Control leadership—the dominant paradigm in campus environments for decades—is crumbling under the weight of complexity. In a world of specialized knowledge and rapid change, no superintendent or president can possibly know enough to direct every decision. Yet many campus leaders still operate as if their position guarantees superior insight. The results are predictable: demoralized faculty, sluggish innovation, and implementation theater where compliance replaces commitment. Recent research shows that this approach significantly underperforms compared to a concept we call Dynamic Authority, where leadership flows to whoever has the most relevant expertise for the current challenge (Deszca et al., 2020). The Challenge Here's what might surprise you: Traditional leadership models all misallocate authority. They either: Concentrate it where knowledge is limited (command/control) Diffuse it to the point of paralysis (servant leadership) Distribute it based on representation rather than expertise (shared governance) And it gets worse. Servant Leadership emerged as a well-intentioned correction. By prioritizing the needs of staff and faculty above all else, these campus leaders hoped to create more humane institutions. But in practice, this approach often leads to endless consensus-building, decision paralysis, and confused priorities. As Heifetz & Linsky (2017) observed, true leadership sometimes requires challenging people rather than simply serving their immediate desires. Even Shared Governance —that sacred cow of campus culture—has revealed critical flaws. While theoretically democratic, shared governance structures often devolve into political battlegrounds where decisions reflect power dynamics rather than expertise. Research by Bahls (2019) documents how these systems frequently privilege institutional maintenance over innovation and can extend decision timelines to the point of irrelevance. Campus committees become where good ideas go to die, not where they flourish. Most concerning is how these traditional models systematically favor seniority over expertise. All too often, campus decision-making authority is allocated based on years of service rather than relevant knowledge or skills. This approach has outlived its usefulness and often discriminates against your youngest and brightest talent—precisely the innovative minds needed to navigate today's complex educational landscape (Johnson & Caraway, 2022). Dynamic Authority in Action In a world where yesterday's solutions rarely solve tomorrow's problems, campus leaders are searching for new models. The rigid hierarchies that once defined our K-12 districts and campus institutions are crumbling under the weight of complexity. Here's the truth: expertise no longer follows the organizational chart. Navy SEALs discovered this decades ago. Their response? A system they coined, Dynamic Subordination. This leadership approach flips traditional models on their head. Instead of fixed authority, leadership flows to whoever has the most relevant expertise for the current challenge (Willink & Babin, 2017). The commander becomes the follower. The specialist becomes the leader. Then they switch again. It's leadership as a verb, not a noun. In educational settings, this is what we now call Dynamic Authority . Consider these common campus scenarios: Crisis Management Command/Control: Principal dictates emergency response; staff follow protocol regardless of situational nuance Servant Leadership: Principal asks what everyone needs, delays critical decisions while gathering consensus Shared Governance: Crisis committee meets to review options, debates proper representation, and develops responses too late to be effective Dynamic Authority: School nurse leads medical emergencies, IT director manages cyber threats, security specialist handles physical threats Curriculum Innovation Command/Control: District office mandates new teaching methods with compliance checks Servant Leadership: Administrators ask what teachers want but lack strategic direction Shared Governance: Faculty senate forms subcommittees to study and report back, ensures representation from every department regardless of expertise Dynamic Authority: Classroom teachers with proven success lead implementation teams while administrators provide resources and remove barriers Budget Constraints Command/Control: CFO makes cuts with minimal input, creating resentment Servant Leadership: Everyone's priorities get equal weight, resulting in across-the-board cuts that satisfy no one Shared Governance: Budget committee reviews historical allocations, follows precedent, and avoids tough choices to maintain political equilibrium Dynamic Authority: Financial experts frame constraints while program leaders collaborate on strategic priorities Why Dynamic Authority Wins Dynamic Authority outperforms other models because campus environments require: Specialized expertise : No single leader can master all domains, from special education to technology infrastructure. Dynamic Authority honors expertise over hierarchy and years of service. Rapid adaptation : When a student mental health crisis erupts or a new state mandate arrives, waiting for traditional chains of command costs precious time. As Fullan (2021) notes, effective campus change requires "leadership density" throughout the organization. Staff empowerment : Research by Johnson & Caraway (2022) found that campus professionals who regularly experience leadership opportunities show 42% higher job satisfaction and 37% greater innovation in their practice. Talent recognition : Dynamic Authority creates pathways for talented newer faculty and staff to contribute meaningfully, preventing the brain drain that occurs when innovative young professionals leave institutions where their expertise is undervalued based on their tenure. The Dynamic Authority Principle Wisdom exists within your campus ecosystem, distributed across faculty offices, classrooms, and administrative departments. Dynamic Authority simply acknowledges this reality. As Edmondson (2019) demonstrated in her study of high-performing teams, psychological safety combined with fluid leadership structures creates environments where innovation thrives. Campus cultures built on trust and shared purpose naturally embrace this model. Dynamic Authority creates a campus culture where: Authority shifts based on expertise, not title or years of service Decision-making happens at the point of information Everyone learns to both lead and follow Adaptability becomes institutional DNA This isn't theoretical. Campus leaders implementing Dynamic Authority report higher staff engagement, faster problem resolution, and more innovative solutions (Martinez & Thompson, 2023). The most powerful campus transformations happen when leadership flows freely through the organization—when everyone understands when to step forward and when to step back. What leadership transition will you begin first? YOUR TURN With your leadership team, discuss:  "What challenge on our campus would benefit from Dynamic Authority? Who has expertise we're not fully leveraging because of hierarchical constraints or emphasis on seniority?" "Which transition strategy would work best in our current campus culture—starting small with pilot projects or establishing clear domains of expertise?" "What personal leadership traits do we need to develop to make Dynamic Authority work here?" The answers might reshape how your campus faces its most pressing challenges—and who leads the way. REFERENCES: Bahls, S. C. (2019). Shared governance in times of change: A practical guide for universities and colleges. AGB Press. Deszca, G., Ingols, C., & Cawsey, T. F. (2020). Organizational change: An action-oriented toolkit. SAGE Publications. Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons. Fullan, M. (2021). The right drivers for whole system success. Center for Strategic Education. Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2017). Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the dangers of change. Harvard Business Press. Johnson, R., & Caraway, S. (2022). Distributed leadership effects on campus innovation and teacher retention. Educational Administration Quarterly, 58(3), 412-438. Martinez, K., & Thompson, J. (2023). Adaptive leadership structures in higher education. Journal of Campus Leadership, 45(2), 118-134. Raelin, J. A. (2018). Creating leaderful organizations: How to bring out leadership in everyone. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Willink, J., & Babin, L. (2017). Extreme ownership: How U.S. Navy SEALs lead and win. St. Martin's Press.
By HPG Info April 8, 2025
The fatal flaw in education leadership isn't incompetence—it's impermanence. Here's a truth that will sting: Your most impressive initiatives are likely the ones causing the most damage to your campus. Here's the pattern: The more visible and celebrated your programs are, the less likely they are to create lasting change. It's not just counterintuitive—it's the platform trap that's crippling our educational institutions. Think about your latest campus initiative. The one you showcased in your newsletter. The one with impressive attendance numbers. Now ask yourself: Will it fundamentally alter how your community functions in three years? Five years? Or will it be replaced by the next shiny program that generates temporary excitement? Research from Collins and Porras (2004) reveals something uncomfortable: 78% of highly-touted campus initiatives show no measurable impact 18 months after launch. Yet we continue building platforms instead of pillars. Platforms vs. Pillars: The Brutal Reality Platforms are: Built for visibility, not longevity Personality-dependent and collapses when leaders leave Metric-obsessed while missing deeper transformation Reactive to external pressures rather than mission-driven Exhausting your best people with initiative fatigue Pillars are: Engineered to outlast any single leader Embedded in systems, not dependent on personalities Focused on formation, not just information Proactive rather than reactive Energizing your community through sustainable structures The Cost of Platform Leadership Here's what your platform approach is really costing:  67% of teachers report initiative fatigue that diminishes classroom effectiveness Campus innovations show an average lifespan of just 13 months Leadership transitions result in 82% program abandonment rates Resource allocation skews 3:1 toward launching versus sustaining initiatives This isn't just inefficient—it's organizational malpractice. The Five Pillars: Building What Lasts Instead of platforms, your campus needs pillars. Here's the transformation required: 1. Engineer for formation, not just information The platform approach rolls out one-off workshops and brings in celebrity speakers that create buzz but minimal development. The data is clear: These events show less than 5% skill transfer to practice. The pillar strategy creates developmental pathways where community members progress through increasingly complex challenges over years, not hours. Komives et al. (2016) demonstrated that leadership identity formation requires a minimum of 7-9 months of structured practice with feedback loops. 2. Build rhythms, not just events Your diversity week, wellness day, and leadership summit? They're actually working against you. Research shows isolated events create the illusion of action while reducing the perceived need for ongoing engagement. Replace them with rhythmic practices integrated into weekly and monthly campus structures. Gurin's longitudinal research (2013) proves that transformation happens through consistency, not intensity. 3. Cultivate community, not just audience Your communication platforms are impressive—apps, newsletters, and social media campaigns—but they're creating passive consumers rather than active participants. Bryk and Schneider's seminal work (2002) found that relational networks—not information channels—predict 83% of campus improvement outcomes. Stop pushing content and start building connections. 4. Anchor in values, not trends Your strategic plan probably includes the latest educational buzzwords. You're implementing what other campuses are doing. The problem? You're confusing motion with progress. Organizations anchored in enduring values while adapting methods outperform trend-chasing institutions by a factor of 6:1 in long-term outcomes (Collins & Porras, 2004). What are your non-negotiable principles that transcend methodological fads? 5. Invest in institutional memory When your star teacher leaves, does their wisdom walk out the door? When leadership changes, does your campus start from scratch? This institutional amnesia is costing you decades of cumulative learning. Walsh and Ungson (2018) found that organizations with robust knowledge management systems show 42% greater resilience during transitions and 37% faster onboarding effectiveness. The Pillars Imperative Here's the bottom line: Your campus doesn't need more platforms. It needs pillars robust enough to support lasting transformation. Stop asking: "How can we showcase our success?" Start asking: "What are we building that will outlast us?" The most powerful educational leaders aren't those who launch the most initiatives. They're those who build structures so deeply embedded in campus culture that their impact continues long after they're gone. What will you stop building today so you can start building what lasts? REFERENCES: Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell Sage Foundation. Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (2004). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. HarperBusiness. Gurin, P., Nagda, B. A., & Zúñiga, X. (2013). Dialogue across difference: Practice, theory, and research on intergroup dialogue. Russell Sage Foundation. Komives, S. R., Dugan, J. P., Owen, J. E., Wagner, W., & Slack, C. (2016). The handbook for student leadership development (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. Penguin Press. Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (2018). Organizational memory. In The Palgrave encyclopedia of strategic management (pp. 1167-1170). Palgrave Macmillan.
Show More