#openls 2014 workshop economic models

#openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014

OPEN EDUCATIONleadership summit

2014

Economic Models

Workshop PresentationGroup Leaders: Jason Pickavance (@jpickava) and Linda Williams Group Facilitator: Nate Angell (@xolotl)

http://twitter.com/jpickava

http://twitter.com/xolotl


Workshop Participants (in seated order)

● Jason Pickavance (co-leader), Salt Lake Community College, Director of Educational Initiatives

● Clea Andreadis, Middlesex Community College, Associate Provost, Instruction and Assessment

● Ryan Hobbs, Salt Lake Community College, Director of eLearning● Linda Williams (co-leader), Tidewater Community College, Professor of Business

Administration● Kara Monroe, Associate Vice President, Academic Online Programs, Ivy Tech

Community College of Indiana● Peter Quigley, University of Hawaii, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs

for Community Colleges● Karen Vignare, University of Maryland University College, Associate Provost,

Center for Innovation in Learning● Nate Angell (facilitator), Lumen Learning, Doorman● Randy Morales, Cerritos College, TAACCCT Grant Program Manager● David Wiley, Lumen Learning, CAO

2


Overview of Issues

● Institutions need help understanding what models have worked to initiate and/or sustain OER initiatives at other institutions.

● Institutions come to the table at varying degrees of OER engagement. Models need to fit an institution’s current stage.

● Institutions have very different governance, finance, faculty, union, political, etc environments and histories. OER funding models need to fit local institutional particularities.

2


Resource: An OER Economic Model Toolkit

● Preliminary Institutional Characteristics Considerations

● Models○ Course Fee○ Tuition Recovery○ External Funding○ New Entity (eg, College for America)

3


Institutional Characteristics Considerations

Before exploring economic models for OER, institutions should consider local specifics that will help shape what economic models might fit best.

7


How does OER align with other institutional priorities? For example: OER and...

● Closing achievement gaps● Completion agenda● Lowering student costs● Saving/raising institutional revenue● Student success/At-risk students● What areas are you looking to enable with OER?

Specific disciplines? Entire programs? Coalition of interested faculty?

● What metrics/data will be able to help justify ongoing investment/success?

7


What is your phase of OER implementation?

● Seed● Grow/Scale● Sustain

● What is the right funding model for your current phase?

● What is the right funding model to support your next phase or ongoing sustenance?

7


What are the political realities of the structure of your institution?

● Top down?● Bottom up?● Unionization?● System or independent?

7


How standardized/centralized is your institution?

● At the institutional governance level?● At the discipline level?● At the course level?● At the section level?● At the instructor level?● At the pedagogical level?● At the outcomes level?● At the LMS/delivery level?

7


What is your current institutional funding model?

● FTE census?● FTE completing?● Performance funding?● Something else?

7


How does the money flow in you current environment?

Can you align/augment current flows to support OER? Will you have to establish a new flow?

● Tuition?● Financial aid?● Bookstore?● Fees?

7


What kind of funding do you know you can harness at your institution?

● Can you establish a fee?● Can you reallocate existing resources?● Can you access external funding?

○ Grants○ Government funding○ Foundation sources○ Bequests/contributions

7


OER Funding Model: Toolkit Structure

● Description● Example Institution & Contacts (Case Study)

○ Justification■ ROI to students/faculty/institution

○ Proposal & Approval○ Implementation○ Funding Flows & Processes○ Supporting Data/Evaluation○ Advantages○ Barriers/Objections

6


Model: OER Fee at SLCC

● Description: $5 section-level fee attached to each open section.

● Example Institution: Salt Lake Community College● Justification: Lowering educational costs via

textbook affordability.● Proposal & Approval:

○ Department chair and participating faculty○ Scheduling (SLCC academic support under Provost)○ Budget Office (AVP Budget)○ Provost & Cabinet○ Board of Trustees

6



● Implementation○ Depts forward open sections to central coordinator.

○ Coordinator judges each section to determine “openness” (not fauxpen).

■ Meets 5R to completely replace proprietary required materials with openly licensed (CC).

■ Departments/faculty judge curriculum quality.

○ College has to incur costs/show benefits to charge fee: spreadsheet to demonstrate future budget for fee use

6



● Supporting Data/Evaluation○ Kaleidoscope learning data & student survey

● Advantages○ Consider established fees as models

■ Tech fees■ Online learning fees

6



● Barriers/Objections○ Issue of fees in larger systems, loss of control, ensure fee

comes back to institution, ensure fee is unrestricted/purposed appropriately.

○ Ensure only benefiting students pay fee.

○ Course-level implementation would be easier to implement than section-level.

○ Lost bookstore revenue.

○ Is $5/enrollment enough? Formula to establish ceiling for fee.

6


Model: Tuition Recovery Model at Tidewater

● Description: Reallocating resources to support using OER so that in time institution sees more tuition revenue than it would without using OER.

● Example Institution: Tidewater CC Z Degree

6



● Justification○ Original justification: reduce student textbook costs.○ Additional justifications:

■ Higher retention at initial drop/tuition refund date.■ Higher retention at withdrawal date.■ Higher completion of courses.

● Tidewater drop rate: overall 8.2%; Z courses: 2.3%.

■ Higher persistence.■ Higher institutional performance?

■ Stretching institutional PD $ further (for faculty/staff taking OER courses rather than traditional).

6



● Proposal & Approval○ Daniel had idea for no cost degree.

○ Danel sold to Tidewater President. The higher up you get

support, the quicker you can move. Start as close to the

top as possible to reallocate existing resources (eg, $ for PD).

6



● Implementation○ “0 to Z in 12 months.”

○ Evaluated data to identify highest-enrollment program:

business (19K students), both required and elective courses.

○ Approached individual faculty members to lead each course.

○ Hired Lumen to identify content and manage licensing.

○ Empty placeholder in section number used to mark Tidewater Z courses in course schedule.

6



● Funding Flows & Processes○ Redirected existing PD $ to incent faculty.

○ Incented librarians to become OER experts; new position descriptions.

6



● Supporting Data/Evaluation○ Tidewater data shows that increased tuition revenue

higher than costs of delivering OER Z degree.○ All Z degree students surveyed via IRB.

○ Are there multiple factors in play at Tidewater that might affect outcomes?■ No other interventions, selections, etc.

■ Tidewater students: traditional did worse on OER

assessments, but OER students did just as well on proprietary assessments.

■ Which sections/courses/faculty have the highest enrollments and best retention?

6



● Advantages○ Student retention/success.○ Increase of instructor effectiveness.

○ Increase in instructor efficiency (doing the right things well).

○ Competitive advantage○ Bonus funding in formula funding states○ Improve quality: Related to performance funding models○ Support moves to lower-cost adjunct faculty

■ Anticipate & have a response to this “advantage”■ Already present in use of proprietary texts

6



● Barriers/Objections○ None?

6


Additional Economic Models

● External Funding● New Entity (eg, College for America)● Others?

3


Collaboration Opportunities & Next Steps

● Establish & publicize toolkit○ Possibility of online “wizards” to help users explore

tailored models.

● Augment toolkit structure● Augment existing model examples● Add more funding model examples

7


Discussion + Q&A

● Comments?● Questions?● What did we miss?● What would you add?● Directions for further exploration?

8


OPEN EDUCATIONleadership summit

2014