Open Leadership Summit 2014 Workshop Economic Models

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