File Buz

Online Instruction Budget Transparency and the Cost of Education

For the last ten years, UC-AFT has been fighting a battle with the University of California over budget transparency. One of our main concerns has been how much it actually costs to educate each individual undergraduate student and how much funding does each student generate in state and tuition dollars. So far the Office of the President has refused to make these calculations because they do not think you can or should separate teaching from research and administration, and even though the new rebenching funding model does try to account for the different costs structures related to undergraduate vs, graduate vs. professional education, the university still insists that it would be too costly and time-consuming to really determine the cost of educating different types of students. However, the push for online education should motivate UCOP to change its strategy because the Regents and the state are under the false impression that distance education can solve the university’s fiscal problems.

The main reason why the Regents and the governor are misguided is because they do not know that the highly-impacted, lower-division courses that UC wants to move online may be the only thing that really generates a profit for the university. For example, in looking at my first- and second-year students’ transcripts at UCLA, I calculated the average, yearly direct instructional cost for a typical lower-division undergraduate student. I found that since students in their first two years at UCLA tend to take 8 large courses (averaging 200 students) and 2 small classes (averaging 25 students) each year, and half of these courses are taught by lecturers, the total direct instructional cost per year is $1,950 (an if we add 20% for benefits, it costs $2,340). (UC brings in $16,000 per undergrad student in combined tuition and state funds).

Here is how I made this calculation: since the average full-time lecturer salary is currently $60,000 and the full load is 8 courses, each of the courses cost $7,500. If a lower-division student takes four large lecture classes (averaging 200 students) with a lecturer, the cost per student for each course is $37.50. In the case of senate faculty teaching lower-division lecture classes making $100,000 for four courses a year, the cost for the four large lecture classes is $500 per student. If we then do the same calculation for small classes of 25 students, the cost for a course taught by a lecturer is $300 and the course taught by a senate faculty member is $1,000.

One can argue with this methodology, but what should be absolutely clear is that it is virtually impossible for the online program to deliver education for less money. Although the Regents and the Governor bemoan the fact that universities have failed to follow other “industries” by reducing costs through technology, what they do not see is that costs have been reduced by the use of large classes and non-tenured faculty. However, UCOP does not want to make this argument because its entire budgetary structure is based on half-truths and abstract calculations.

Making matters worse is the fact that the UC has already spent a lot of money on the online pilot program, and studies have shown that universities constantly under-estimate the real costs of distance education. For example, in his article “The Costs and Costing of Online Learning,”, Greville Rumble looks at the actual costs of using online courses at research universities. His main finding is that previous research on this topic failed to take into account all of the related expenses: “One of the problems with many of the studies now available is that they report the broad results, not the detail. It is therefore difficult to know what has been included and what excluded, and so whether the costings undertaken are comprehensive. Experience suggests, however, that all figures need to be treated with care. What does seem clear is that the costs of developing a course are being pushed up—and significantly so whenever media are used in a sophisticated way. If so, and if cost efficiency is an important consideration, then savings may need to be looked for in delivery.” Rumble here argues that one of the main cost drivers in online courses is the development of the class material.

In fact, his research shows that if universities want to produce a high-quality educational experience, they have to spend a great deal of money: “The high costs of developing internet courses are confirmed by Saba, who suggests that commercial software companies developing courses for online instruction or publishers are spending at least $500,000 to fully develop a multimedia course.” It is important to note that when universities present the cost of new online programs, they usually do not account for the initial costs of course development.

Rumble also believes that although these new programs are often used to save labor costs and faculty time, the opposite often happens: “A high proportion of the costs of developing materials is labor costs. All the research shows that it takes more academic time to develop media that will occupy a student for one hour, than it takes to develop a one-hour lecture—although how much more time is difficult to quantify. Sparkes reckoned that it took from 2 to 10 hours to prepare a lecture, from 1 to 10 hours to prepare a small group session, and from 3 to 10 hours to prepare a video-tape lecture; however, it took at least 50 to 100 academic hours to prepare a teaching text, 100 hours to prepare a television broadcast, 200 hours to develop computer-aided learning, and 300 hours to develop interactive materials—to which in all cases one needed to add the time of technical support staff.” There are thus a lot of hidden costs involved in developing online courses, and these expenses rarely show up in presentations on the cost-effectiveness of computer-mediated education.

Universities also sometimes underestimate the expenses related to delivering online courses: “In general none of the studies undertaken to date adequately factor in the costs of overheads. Although, the costs of putting in equipment directly associated with the projects (e.g., servers) are usually taken into account, as are the costs of software licenses, college operating budgets do not usually reflect the full costs of maintaining networked services.” It turns out that it is very hard to calculate the total cost of software licenses, network maintenance, and equipment for online programs, so universities simply make a guess and present it as a fact.

Furthermore, universities have a hard time predicting the number of staff and administrators they will need for a new online program: “Much depends on the context—the time spent agreeing that a group of enthusiasts can develop a project will be very different to that required to change an institution’s direction. Indeed, developing an IT [information technology] strategy is likely to be expensive.” One thing that we can be sure of is that the use of online courses drives up the cost of administration and staff while further squeezing instructional budgets. I hope to make this argument to the Regents and Governor Brown to show them the folly of the online fiscal panacea.

Available link for download

Occupy California Refund Higher Education and the Question of Violence Plus Schedule of Events

On November 15th, faculty and students at UC Berkeley will hold a one-day strike and will attempt to re-establish an Occupy Cal encampment. This action is supported by thousands of students and faculty members throughout the UC system and around the world. One of the reasons for this demonstration is to protest the excessive use of police force that has been used against students and faculty members. People will also be protesting the last-minute cancellation of the UC Regents meeting.

While students, employees, and faculty members have asked educational leaders to sign a pledge to join us in our call to re-fund higher education in California by making the banks and wealthiest 1% pay, the regents have responded by hiding from the public. So the new plan is to track down the higher ed leaders on November 16th when Southern California protesters will converge at the CSU trustees meeting in Long Beach, and Northern California protesters will rally and march in the San Francisco financial district, starting at noon at Justin Herman Plaza. We will once again demand that the UC Regents and CSU trustees sign our pledge, and we will invite them to then join us as we continue the march to the state building in San Francisco. Once there, we will demand that government officials also support our pledge, and we will have a people’s regents meeting.

Setting the Stage
When the UC announced that it had canceled the Regents meeting, it stated that, “they had received information indicating that rogue elements intent on violence and confrontation with UC public safety officers were planning to attach themselves to peaceful demonstrations expected to occur at the meeting.” While the UC did not reveal the sources for these threats, it is important to ask, how does the university define violence?

According to a UC police officer, the university is using the following definition of violence, “"the individuals who linked arms and actively resisted, that in itself is an act of violence...I understand that many students may not think that, but linking arms in a human chain when ordered to step aside is not a nonviolent protest." Someone needs to call Gandhi and Martin Luther King to tell them that the whole history of non-violent resistance has been rewritten.

It is of course outrageous for any public university to declare that students and workers can be beaten with batons if they engage in the dangerous act of linking arms, and it is especially absurd for this claim to be made at UC Berkeley, which stands for the birth of the Free Speech movement. If people are no longer able to protest nonviolently, then they may be forced to use other means. (I am not endorsing here the use of violence; rather, I am arguing that the police have to allow for nonviolent resistance)

By shutting down the Regents meeting, the university has also sent the message that the university is not only being privatized on a financial basis, but it is also being privatized on a bureaucratic basis. The regents are now telling the people of California that public matters have to be discussed in private, and the public is no longer invited to witness the dismantling of the “world’s greatest public university.”

Following the day of activities on the 16th, attention will turn to the one-day strikes at CSU East Bay and CSU Dominguez Hills. Ultimately, what is at stake is the future of public higher education in California and around the world. As the refund higher education movement couples with the Occupy Wall Street movement, a new level of organization and energy will emerge.


SCHEDULE FOR NOV 16 STATE-WIDE DAY OF ACTION TO REFUND PUBLIC EDUCTION

10 – 10:30am: free busses leave from Telegraph and Bancroft on Berkeley
11:30am – Noon: gather for a free lunch.
Noon rally at Justin Herman Plaza in collaboration with Occupy SF, 3
blocks from the Embarcadero BART station
1:00pm: March through the Financial District to make the banks pay for
the financial crisis they created
4:00pm: Peoples Assembly for Public Education at the State Building
to call on Gov Brown to make the banks pay public education, 455
Golden Gate Ave San Fransisco
3:00pm early bus returns to UC Berkeley
6:00pm remaining buses return to UC Berkeley

SCHEDULE FOR NOV15 OPEN UNIVERSITY & STRIKE AT UC BERKELEY
8am-5pm: All day Open University activities (teach-outs, workshops,
public readings, installations, etc.) at Sproul Plaza and surrounding
areas.
Noon: Mass convergence at Sproul Hall and formal inauguration of
day-long Open University.
Noon – 2pm: Teach-outs in Sproul Plaza.
2pm: Rally against police violence and other, related forms of
violence, including dispossession, privatization, and debt.
2:30pm: March to Berkeley High and Berkeley City College.
5pm: General Assembly at Sproul Plaza.

Available link for download

On the Props Education Instead of Incarceration

This November 6th, California voters will have the opportunity to make some important choices. One vital decision regards the future of education in the Golden State and another related issue concerns the high cost of the prison-industrial complex. According to the recent report “Winners and Losers: Corrections and Higher Education in California” by California Common Cause: “After adjusting for inflation, higher education in 2011 received 13% less State funding than it did in 1980. Corrections, on the other hand, expanded its share of the State’s General Fund by 436%.” These statistics mean that not only are we spending more money incarcerating our citizens than educating them in public higher education, but the general defunding of all levels of education has pushed more people into the criminal justice system.

This movement of state funds from schools to prisons is the direct result of two previous decisions by Californian voters; the first concerns Prop 13 and the loss of needed tax revenue for schools, and the other is the Three Strikes law that has rapidly increased the number of prisoners in this state. Luckily, there are three important ballot propositions that can start to reverse both of these trends.
Prop 30 will help to close the state budget deficit as it sends up to $9 billion a year to K-12 and higher education. Meanwhile, Prop 36 revises the Three Strike law and Prop 34 repeals the death penalty. In the case of Prop 36, the new law would stop the costly and odious practice of counting minor offenses as the third strike against offending individuals and thus would reduce the number of people receiving life sentences in California. Since it now costs more money to imprison people than to send them to college, by reducing the number of life sentences, we can free up money for higher education. Likewise, through the repeal of the death penalty, California can reduce the high cost of maintaining prisoners on death row.

It is important to stress that as our prisons have become full of people of color arrested for minor offenses and drug charges, the schools and colleges serving brown and black students have been underfunded and understaffed. These trends can only be turned around if Californian voters reverse their previous bad decisions.

Available link for download