Using an OPM reduces an institution’s ability to manage digital learning costs. In Phil Hill’s On EdTech+ newsletter from March 9, 2023 (sign up here—it’s fantastic), he says this near the end:
“A couple of speakers mentioned it briefly but it sort of got lost — the fee for service model would cause schools to prioritize or make choices about spending, and these schools would be more likely to cut costs on important but fuzzy line items like instructional design, faculty development, and student support.”
He is correct while also understating the problem with OPM.
With an OPM, schools pay a fixed percentage of tuition every year. OPMs incur course development costs during a contract’s first year. However, over time, the percentage stays the same while the tuition received by the school goes (hopefully) up.
The school ends up paying for course development many times at high multiples of what the costs incurred were.
This is in addition to the effect that Phil highlights that stems from at least two points:
- Bundled costs are easier to ignore or, at least, emotionally accept than listed line-item costs. (See your recent cable bill or most bills passed by a legislature with random amendments attached.)
- Schools judge OPM agreements successful if enrollment in the program achieves a certain level. Schools and OPMs do not consider instructional design, faculty development, and student support as enrollment drivers—though they could with a clear marketing plan!—and, thus, neither OPMs nor the institution gives them as much attention as they might otherwise.
The fee-for-service or the do-it-all-in-house approaches force academic leadership to prioritize efforts and manage digital learning costs. It also clarifies decision-making and accountability. All of these would be for the better in the long run when it comes to creating learning experiences that benefit the school, leadership, faculty, and—not least of all—students.
