
UNIVERSITY LEADERSHIP COUNCIL Encouraging Collaboration and Preventing Course Duplication in an RCM Budget Model Custom Research Brief Research Associate Melinda Salaman Research Manager Ehui Osei-Mensah May 2012 Education Advisory Board 2445 M Street NW ● Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: 202-266-6400 ● Facsimile: 202-266-5700 ● www.educationadvisoryboard.com 2 of 11 Education Advisory Board 2445 M Street NW ● Washington, DC 20037 © 2012 The Advisory Board Company Telephone: 202-266-6400 ● Facsimile: 202-266-5700 ● www.educationadvisoryboard.com 3 of 11 Table of Contents I. Research Methodology ...................................................................................................... 4 II. Executive Overview .......................................................................................................... 5 III. Preventing Course Duplication across Colleges ....................................................... 6 IV. Encouraging Academic Collaboration ......................................................................... 9 V. Establishing Memorandums of Understanding........................................................ 11 Education Advisory Board 2445 M Street NW ● Washington, DC 20037 © 2012 The Advisory Board Company Telephone: 202-266-6400 ● Facsimile: 202-266-5700 ● www.educationadvisoryboard.com 4 of 11 I. Research Methodology Project Challenge Leadership at a member institution approached the Council with the following questions: What are the reasons that administrators at other institutions encourage colleges to collaborate in the development and delivery of academic courses or programs? Since an RCM budget model traditionally encourages independence and competition between colleges, how do administrators incentivize colleges to either exclusively specialize or collaborate on academic endeavors? Have administrators observed a decline in the number of duplicate academic courses and programs at the institution since the inception of these policies or incentives? How do faculty members from different colleges agree to develop the content of a joint course or academic program? Specifically, how is course content developed to be relevant to students enrolled in different colleges across the institution? How are institutional funds allocated across colleges that collaborate to develop and deliver an academic course or program? Project Sources Education Advisory Board’s internal and online (www.educationadvisoryboard.com) research libraries National Center for Education Statistics [NCES] (http://nces.ed.gov/) Research The council interviewed business administrators at mid-size public and private institutions of Parameters higher education. A Guide to the Institutions Profiled in this Brief Approximate Enrollment Institution Location Classification (Total/Undergraduate) North: Research Universities (high University A 20,500 / 14,000 Midsize City research activity) South: Research Universities (very University B 15,000 / 6,500 Midsize City high research activity) West: Research Universities (very University C 23,000 / 20,000 Midsize City high research activity) North: Research Universities (high University D 15,000 / 12,500 Small Suburb research activity) Midwest: Research Universities (very University E 27,000 / 21,000 Large Suburb high research activity) Education Advisory Board 2445 M Street NW ● Washington, DC 20037 © 2012 The Advisory Board Company Telephone: 202-266-6400 ● Facsimile: 202-266-5700 ● www.educationadvisoryboard.com 5 of 11 II. Executive Overview Key Observations To discourage academic units from creating duplicate courses, administrators should ensure that the Responsibility Center Management (RCM) budget model discourages unnecessary course expansion and establish a rigorous course review process to identify any duplicate courses. Duplicate courses are not a significant problem at the majority of contact institutions; contacts surmise that this is a result of policies in place that discourage colleges from developing courses in areas outside of their expertise. At institutions that divide tuition revenue from a course between the college of instruction, the college of enrollment, and even the college which grants the degree, contacts note that this split-revenue model provides an incentive for administrators to send their students to another college for instruction in a course that is not offered, since revenue will still be collected for the student’s enrollment. In the event that college develops a course that duplicates the content of another course on campus, contacts suggest establishing a rigorous course review system to prevent these courses from being offered. There are several reasons that a college may opt to participate in the development, but not the delivery, of an academic course or program. If college administrators identify an interest and need among students for coursework that is outside of the college’s area of expertise (i.e. there are no faculty in the college equipped to teach the course), contacts suggest sending students to another college at the institution that offers the appropriate instruction. As a result, students will be well-prepared for the remainder of coursework in their discipline, administrators may act as consultants to influence the content of the courses instructed to their students, and—in a split-revenue budget model—the college continues to collect a percentage of tuition revenue of enrolled students taking courses at other colleges. Senior administrators should participate in meetings between college deans regarding joint academic course or program offerings. Across contact institutions, contacts recommend that senior administrators join deans’ meetings to provide an explanation of the RCM budget model, assure deans that the central administration values interdisciplinary work, and provide central funding to support interdisciplinary projects that promote institutional strategic goals. Since successful interdisciplinary programs generally begin with faculty interest in the disciplines, contacts strongly advise that senior administrators refrain from actively leading deans’ meetings about academic collaboration. There is no standard memorandum of agreement to guide the logistic, academic, and financial components of collaborative academic offerings. Across contact institutions, administrators allow college deans to discuss the course content, delivery method, and relative contributions that each unit will make to an academic offering and decide appropriate revenue allocation agreement based on these contributions. Many contacts indicate that revenue allocation should be the first point decided between the involved deans, though one contact stresses that the intended learning outcomes and measurement of academic quality should be decided first. Education Advisory Board 2445 M Street NW ● Washington, DC 20037 © 2012 The Advisory Board Company Telephone: 202-266-6400 ● Facsimile: 202-266-5700 ● www.educationadvisoryboard.com 6 of 11 III. Preventing Course Duplication across Colleges Identify Establishing a Rigorous Course Review Process to Limit Duplication Unnecessary According to contacts at University D, when an RCM budget model was first introduced at Course the institution, there was widespread fear on campus that academic units would create duplicate courses in order to increase college revenue. Contacts report that this unnecessary Duplicates duplication has not yet occurred, and suggest that a rigorous course review system limits duplication in course content, and even in course title. Course Review Process New course Review by Review by Review by Review by developed by department college provost's university faculty committee committee office senate At University D, all new courses must be reviewed according to a standard university review process, which includes review at the department-, college-, and university-level. After a new course is reviewed and approved by the appropriate committees within the relevant academic department and college, the course must also be approved by the Provost’s office, and finally a curriculum committee within the university senate. Inter-Departmental Review and Approval At University E, a newly-developed course with content that may duplicate another course must receive written approval from the relevant college administrators. For example, administrators from the business college creating a “Business Statistics” course that may overlap with the content of an “Introduction to Statistics” course in the college of arts and sciences must receive a letter or email of approval from administrators in the college of arts and sciences. Final Stage of Review and Approval University Senate In the final stage of approval for a newly-developed Curriculum Committee at course, the curriculum committee within the university University E senate reviews copies of the proposed syllabus and Meets every month course materials, and considers whether the course is a Includes representatives duplicate of any course on campus. If a newly-developed from across campus course at University E fails to receive written approval Separates into two groups from the appropriate units on campus, this matter will be to arbitrate graduate and arbitrated by the institutional curriculum committee. A undergraduate courses duplicate is not offered on campus. separately Major-specific Courses Offered Across Colleges Contacts at University D assert that major-specific courses with similar content (i.e. an introductory statistics course
Details
-
File Typepdf
-
Upload Time-
-
Content LanguagesEnglish
-
Upload UserAnonymous/Not logged-in
-
File Pages11 Page
-
File Size-