This document summarizes a workshop at the 2014 Open Education Leadership Summit on economic models for open educational resources (OER) initiatives. It discusses considering institutional characteristics before exploring models. Models presented include an OER fee, tuition recovery (used by Tidewater Community College), external funding, and new entities. The group discussed developing an OER economic model toolkit with examples and collaboration opportunities to augment and expand it.

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. #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. #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. #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. #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. #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. #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. #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. #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. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
What is your current institutional funding
model?
● FTE census?
● FTE completing?
● Performance funding?
● Something else?
7

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. #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. #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. #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. #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. #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. #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. #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. #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. #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. #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. #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. #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. #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. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
Model: Tuition Recovery Model at Tidewater
● Barriers/Objections
○ None?
6

26. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
Additional Economic Models
● External Funding
● New Entity (eg, College for America)
● Others?
3

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. #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. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014

30. #openls | Portland OR 4-6 Jun 2014
OPEN EDUCATION
leadership summit
2014