#Openls 2014 Workshop Economic Models

533 views

Published on

Open Leadership Summit 2014 Workshop Economic Models

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
533
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
51
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

#Openls 2014 Workshop Economic Models

  1. 1. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014 OPEN EDUCATION leadership summit 2014 Economic Models Workshop Presentation Group Leaders: Jason Pickavance (@jpickava) and Linda Williams Group Facilitator: Nate Angell (@xolotl)
  2. 2. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014 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
  3. 3. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014 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
  4. 4. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014 Resource: An OER Economic Model Toolkit ● Preliminary Institutional Characteristics Considerations ● Models ○ Course Fee ○ Tuition Recovery ○ External Funding ○ New Entity (eg, College for America) 3
  5. 5. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014 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
  6. 6. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014 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
  7. 7. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014 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
  8. 8. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014 What are the political realities of the structure of your institution? ● Top down? ● Bottom up? ● Unionization? ● System or independent? 7
  9. 9. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014 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
  10. 10. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014 What is your current institutional funding model? ● FTE census? ● FTE completing? ● Performance funding? ● Something else? 7
  11. 11. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014 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
  12. 12. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014 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
  13. 13. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014 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
  14. 14. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014 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
  15. 15. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014 Model: OER Fee at SLCC ● 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
  16. 16. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014 Model: OER Fee at SLCC ● Supporting Data/Evaluation ○ Kaleidoscope learning data & student survey ● Advantages ○ Consider established fees as models ■ Tech fees ■ Online learning fees 6
  17. 17. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014 Model: OER Fee at SLCC ● 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
  18. 18. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014 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
  19. 19. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014 Model: Tuition Recovery Model at Tidewater ● 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
  20. 20. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014 Model: Tuition Recovery Model at Tidewater ● 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
  21. 21. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014 Model: Tuition Recovery Model at Tidewater ● 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
  22. 22. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014 Model: Tuition Recovery Model at Tidewater ● Funding Flows & Processes ○ Redirected existing PD $ to incent faculty. ○ Incented librarians to become OER experts; new position descriptions. 6
  23. 23. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014 Model: Tuition Recovery Model at Tidewater ● 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
  24. 24. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014 Model: Tuition Recovery Model at Tidewater ● 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
  25. 25. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014 Model: Tuition Recovery Model at Tidewater ● Barriers/Objections ○ None? 6
  26. 26. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014 Additional Economic Models ● External Funding ● New Entity (eg, College for America) ● Others? 3
  27. 27. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014 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
  28. 28. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014 Discussion + Q&A ● Comments? ● Questions? ● What did we miss? ● What would you add? ● Directions for further exploration? 8
  29. 29. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
  30. 30. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014 OPEN EDUCATION leadership summit 2014

×