We recognize that, while this report is lengthy, no report is ever sufficiently detailed so as to resolve all the questions of all the readers. However, we are happy to try to do so.

If you will send mail to heterick@vt.edu indicating your name, organization and position, we will attempt to answer your question, posting both the question and our response on this page. The question will not appear with the asker's name, but we would like to have that information to help understand if there is a part of the audience for this report to which we have not spoken sufficiently clearly.

Would Virginia's private institutions of higher education be eligible for seed money?

Yes.

Would the community colleges be eligible for seed money?

Yes.

If the authority is successful, how might it work/look in three years?

The authority would contract with or employ outside evaluators for RFPs. There would be no need for a permanent bureaucracy and the size of the permanent staff would be about the same for the life of the authority.

Why create an authority rather than have SCHEV (or some other existing entity) do this ?

SCHEV lacks the purchasing flexibility necessary to make the RFP process work—primarily the need to have "favored" respondents to RFPs. Other quasi-governmental entities with the requisite purchasing flexibility are either not in the education "business" or have other foci which would require adding the same staff as envisioned for the authority.

The proposal envisions state funds for seed money. Would they be available to institutions from outside Virginia like the University of Phoenix?

No. Virginia's institutions of higher education would in all likelihood oppose any strategy that appears to diminish their already beleaguered funding. In addition the legislature would have no incentive or interest in funding for-profit or out-of-state entities. If Virginia's institutions do not respond to any RFP, out-of-state institutions would be invited to respond but without the provision of seed money. Such institutions would likely be well-established online providers who would not require such seed money but would welcome the opportunity to serve additional students in Virginia.

If the Authority studied demand, would it be only for Virginia?

The source of seed money is from Virginia legislative appropriations. As such, we would expect that demand studies would be focused on addressing Virginia educational deficiencies. However, the authority should have the capability to enter into contractual arrangements that go beyond the Virginia institutions and state boundaries, if and where appropriate.

Are you just talking about seed money?

Yes. The production of good online learning products has significant up-front costs that colleges and universities are generally unprepared to fund. The delivery costs of educational products are recovered through tuition and state subsidies. Once developed, online learning experiences should easily recoup their delivery costs. In some cases, delivery costs may actually be less than prices in which cases some of the excess income could be plowed back into the development of other programs. The demand studies should identify those programs that have the capability to support their delivery costs.

How much money would be needed to take this concept to the actual fruition?

The Authority would need something on the order of $500,000 annually for operating expenses and would need another $1,000,000, at minimum, for seed money. The more seed money available, the greater the number of projects that could be launched.

Why does the report leave academic and student support services as the responsibility of the institutions?

Uniform academic and student support services are a problem only if students are taking courses from multiple institutions—the "swirling student." If the demand studies show a very large number of such students, addressing this problem might become important. We doubt that it is. Attempting to find a common set of solutions to these issues among existing institutions is a daunting problem. The idea underlying the authority is not to create a homogeneous solution from the multiplicity of strategies currently in effect, but rather to build on institutional processes already extant. The cost savings in relying on existing offices and processes is substantial.

What is the authority's interest and role after the program is running?

Other than evaluating the level of success achieved by the program to serve as input to later RFPs, the authority would have no ongoing responsibility after the program is launched. Operational review of programs is currently the shared domain of the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia and the offerring institution.

Who monitors state policy interests?

The Board of the proposed Authority would have similar responsibilities to the boards of state supported institutions of higher education. The Board is the body that authorizes funds for projects. Consultation with SCHEV should be an ongoing activity and a role for SCHEV on the board of the authority should help facilitate that dialog. It is proposed that Board members be appointed both by the Governor and the legislature to represent their policy interests.

What role do you see for ECVA?

The ECVA has been a useful and successful source for institutional collaboration, problem identification and sharing of ideas. It is clear that there is much work yet to be done to address the issues of transfer and articulation.

Would demand studies be the major first effort?

Initially the authority would contract with institutions to do programmatic demand studies. The result of these initial demand studies might well produce enough target areas to identify RFP subjects for some time. There may also be existing demand studies (either from institutions or SCHEV) that would help identify immediate target programs.

The report seems to gloss over the issues of transfer, articulation and financial aid.

The issues of inter-institutional transfer, articulation and financial aid are, indeed, thorny. They existed long before any interest in online learning and have gone basically unsolved for many decades. The consultants believe that it is in Virginia's best interest to resolve these issues on a statewide basis and that those entities charged with statewide coordination should continue to work on them. It is not the responsibility of a new online learning initiative to resolve these policy matters; it is the responsibility of existing policy organizations to do so.

Furthermore, making a solution to these issues a prerequisite for addressing the Commonwealth's educational needs that can be met by online learning would seem to condemn new initiatives to a hiatus of many more decades. The report should not be read as an explication of a comprehensive framework for the solution of many long standing problems of higher education in Virginia. Rather, it is an attempt to devise a short term, jump-start to Virginia institutions to enter the world of online learning and to do so at minimal cost and in a way that does not further erode the budgetary situation of those institutions.

The RFP process would appear to give unfair advantage to institutions that already have well-established distance learning infrastructures.

Those institutions that are "ready" to develop and deliver online learning will, in general, have an advantage in responding to the RFPs. The report does not propose to develop a capacity to deliver online learning for all institutions in Virginia. Rather, it is intended to capitalize on the capacities that already exist. On the other hand, some institutions with less developed online learning capabilities may have the requisite programmatic (academic or professional offering) capacity and would have an advantage over others in responding to an RFP.

Why does the report recommend supporting programs rather than individual courses?

Individual courses that serve the needs of institutional degree programs are being developed at many institutions. A focus on individual courses raises the issues of transfer, articulation, common registration, uniform tuition, etc. which have long gone "unsolved" in Virginia. To make progress in online learning dependant upon their solution raises issues much more difficult than those represented by the development and delivery of full online learning programs by individual institutions. Furthermore, experience elsewhere suggests that under-served populations generally require programs to meet their needs; individual courses are not sufficient.