BACKGROUND ON MUS DISTANCE LEARNING:

1

• BACKGROUND ON MUS DISTANCE LEARNING
• On-line education is predicted to grow 17 by
  2010.
• More than 3.2 million students enrolled in one or
  more on-line courses in the Fall of 2005, an
  increase of over 800,000 per year.
• MUS eLearning FTE is relatively small, and now is
  the time to adjust practices and policies to fit
  the current market.
• MUS campuses have built largely successful
  eLearning programs.
• There is little semblance of a System approach
  to eLearning in the MUS.
• For purposes of this discussion today, the
  proposed polices are directed to the purely
  on-line student, who is defined as one who is
  only registered for totally on-line academic
  instruction, without expectation of having to
  physically be present at the teach campus.

2
Distance Education Tuition Fee Background

• At the June 2006 BoR meeting, the Board requested
  that OCHE staff evaluate eLearning tuition fee
  assessment throughout the MUS.
• A series of findings was presented at the
  September meeting, including
• Tuition was being assessed at differing rates
  among the campuses (as a percentage of resident
  rates) for non-residents.
• Mandatory Fees were being assessed in ways that
  varied widely.
• Distance Delivery Fees varied widely, ranging
  from zero to 63/cr for state-supported on-line
  distance courses.
• There are numerous approaches to the credit load
  at which similar mandatory fee collections were
  initiated and concluded.
• The campuses maintain multiple series of tuition
  and fee tables.
• One campus had not secured review and approval of
  their on-line tuition and fee matrices by the BoR
  for FY07.
• The Board asked staff to develop formal proposals
  to address these issues using a system approach.

3

• Principles
• Proposals must be fiscally sustainable and
  defensible.
• Proposals should be applicable even after
  significant growth.
• Campuses should continue to learn from others as
  best practices are identified, but we must not
  blindly accept them without evaluation.
• Campuses must retain the flexibility to consider
  both student and campus needs in determining
  whether on-line eLearning should be
• State-supported (which brings the attendant FTE
  and State funding, flat spot access, fee waiver
  access, and possible financial aid), or
• Self-supported (which brings the attendant
  ability to price it as needed rather than via the
  Tuition Fee Schedule).
• The more consistent our approach and definitions
  used , the greater our collective ability to
  discuss, compare, communicate, and provide
  measurable and meaningful accountability to all
  constituencies.

4

• TUITION ISSUES (see attachment 1)
• There is no single BoR Policy that addresses
  tuition rates for eLearning resident or
  non-resident students.
• There are several BoR Authorizations for specific
  tuition variances for specific on-line offerings.
• BoR policies and variances are inconsistently
  interpreted among the campuses.
• Filling excess capacity is financially viable
  only in the short-term.
• In the long-term, all costs are variable.
• A sustainable long-term policy requires either
• Non-resident tuition and fees that at least cover
  costs, or
• A recognition that the cost of growing
  non-resident enrollment at subsidized rates is
  more than offset by the value to residents of
  expanded programs and courses.

5

• Recommendation 1 We recommend that the campuses
  utilize a base tuition rate of 200 of their
  posted Resident Tuition for Non-Resident
  eLearning students who are enrolling for only
  on-line courses as purely on-line students.
• Campuses may elect to assess a higher level of
  tuition it they desire, but may no longer assess
  a lower level of tuition for their
  State-supported, credit-bearing courses.
• Excess capacity no longer has a bearing in
  tuition level determination.
• Campuses identified that 65 - 80 of students
  taking on-line courses are also taking on-site
  courses. Of the remaining 20-35, only fully
  on-line non-resident students are affected.
• Several campuses are concerned that assessing
  200 of resident tuition will make them
  uncompetitive and deter significant numbers of
  students.

6

• FEE ISSUES (See Attachment 2)
• Campuses have widely varying initiation points,
  flat spots, and continuing incremental
  assessment.
• Understanding and managing complicated fee
  schedules is difficult for both students and
  campuses.
• There are two schools of thought on fees for
  strictly on-line students
• Mandatory Fees for services that cannot be
  consumed by a distance student should not be
  assessed because these students cannot reasonably
  access some services/facilities.
• All Mandatory Fees ought to be assessed to all
  on-site and on-line students simply because it
  spreads the cost across a broader spectrum of
  students and helps to contain the costs for
  everyone.
• The majority of campuses agree with the approach
  of not assessing a consistent set of Mandatory
  Fees to eLearning students.
• Most of the campuses presently DO waive varying
  select Mandatory Fees for their eLearning
  students.
• All campuses waive select Mandatory Fees under
  Policy 305.1 for students under Simultaneous
  Registration.

7
Continuing Policy Proposals

• Recommendation 2 That campuses assess the same
  tuition and fees per credit for their mixed
  delivery resident and non-resident students
  (those taking both on-site and on-line courses),
  as they do for resident and non-resident students
  who are taking only on-site courses.
• The campuses may add the collection of their
  respective eLearning Fee for the on-line
  course(s).
• One campus is concerned that a new eLearning Fee
  may limit them in market competition when added
  to the proposed tuition.
• One campus does not assess an on-line delivery
  fee for their eLearning students enrolled in
  State-supported courses.

8

• Recommendation 3 that the campuses waive the
  collection of select Mandatory Fees for purely
  on-line students, including the
• Student Activity Fee
• Student Athletic Fee
• Student Health Fee, and
• Student Re-cycling, paper, radio, and similar
  Mandatory Fees
• Recommendation 4 that campuses have the option
  to waive additional Mandatory Fees as they see
  fit for purely on-line students, both Resident
  and Non-Resident.
• Recommendation 5 that the campuses be allowed
  to offer fully on-line students the option of
  paying additional Student Activity Fees on a
  positive check-off basis if the student desires
  to pay the fees in order to utilize campus
  facilities or services beyond those provided as
  On-Line Student Support Services.

9
Attachment 1
10
Attachment 2
11
Attachment 3