Partnering for Progress: Exploring the evolving role of OPMs in higher education

Despite the increasing popularity of online courses in higher education, many universities lack the expertise, time, and resources necessary to develop, market, and implement successful online programs [1]. As a result, online program managers (OPMs), which are companies that partner with colleges and universities to create, deliver, and manage online programs, have grown dramatically in the last 15 years [2], particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic. The goal of OPMs is to assist institutions in expanding and improving their online offerings without requiring a large up-front investment on the part of colleges or universities. However, many are unaware of OPMs, the services they provide, and the benefits and costs of such services.

OPMs often play an important role in the success of online programs; restricting their ability to work with universities could hinder the growth, innovation, and accessibility of online education.

Benefits of OPMs

OPMs provide various services, including instructional designers who can partner with faculty to create online courses, marketing professionals to recruit and enroll interested students, technology support, and student support services [2]. The framework in Figure 1 details the main functions of OPM partnerships with colleges and universities across the United States [3].

Figure 1. Framework for the function of online program managers.

As of 2021, 2,900 certificate and degree programs were supported by an OPM across at least 550 institutions [2]. A key feature of OPM partnerships is that cash-strapped universities can avoid upfront costs by sharing part of the tuition revenue (typically 40–60%) that the online program generates [4]. Writing for Inside Higher Ed, global knowledge market expert Trace Urdan explained that this “off-balance sheet financing and risk absorption by private partners” is “one of the great appeals of the OPM partnership model for colleges” [5].

This function is significant, as many smaller institutions may lack the necessary infrastructure, especially access to technology design expertise and tools. In a profile of Ronald Wagner, CEO of Relearnit, Ali Carr-Chellman wrote, “OPMs fill an important role in the current e-learning higher education industry landscape,” noting that they may help “small players” join the “online revolution” [6].

Concerns, Challenges, and Possible Pathways Forward

The services that OPMs provide are largely non-controversial. Instead, concerns center around how OPMs are paid, along with the way associated incentives are structured. Although tuition-sharing agreements have been critical in allowing colleges and universities to fast-track their online offerings, some governmental officials have been hesitant over fears that they may incentivize recruitment practices that could potentially be harmful to students.

Historically, Congress has been uneasy with tuition-sharing agreements. In fact, in 1992, the Department of Education established the “incentive compensation ban” that prevented institutions receiving federal student aid authorized by Title IV from establishing tuition-sharing agreements with outside individuals or institutions for their success in securing student enrollment [7]. However, a 2011 “bundled-services” exception allows for a third party (in this case, the OPM) to provide a set of services, including recruitment, to be exempt as long it does not make direct compensation payments to its employees, and the university does not pay separately for the recruitment of students [8].

It should be noted that problems can arise with these agreements, especially if there is a lack of transparency. Although there are some cases of OPMs helping to lower the cost of tuition [9], universities can also raise tuition for OPM-affiliated programs, passing costs on to unwitting students [10]. For example, the California State Auditor’s review of contracts with OPMs across five universities found that OPMs’ communication with students commonly lacked transparency and overstated the value of graduate programs [11]. In other cases, though, university contracts with OPMs provide oversight capabilities and allow them the ability to pre-approve all advertising and recruitment scripts to avoid aggressive and misleading tactics [12].

In February 2023, the Department of Education proposed new regulations to go into effect the following September that would have prevented colleges and universities from sharing tuition with OPMs [13]. However, this plan was abandoned following pushback from the field, “sharply divided” listening sessions, more than 1,000 written responses from stakeholders, and a lawsuit [14–16]. The pushback came because, when done well, OPM agreements have provided universities with much-needed resources to create and manage online programs while allowing programs to function independently and address the needs of online students [17]. 

Unfortunately, not all OPMs offer the same quality of services, provide enough transparency, or coordinate enough with their university partners, who can feel frustrated and stuck in long-term contracts when reality falls short of expectations [18]. For instance, Springer’s case study research of an online MBA program found that the OPM only met about 50% of their projections, leaving one administrator lamenting that the OPM “sold [them] a bill of goods” [19].

Universities can look to worst-case scenarios such as Concordia University that closed in part due to an OPM contract that fell short of projected student enrollment [12] or to best-case scenarios such as Georgia Tech where an OPM helped to lower tuition for students while markedly increasing enrollment of an online technical master’s program [9]. Ultimately, they need to do their due diligence to ensure they enter agreements with eyes wide open [12].

Additional transparency may be needed to allow institutions to better negotiate their contracts with OPMs. Outcomes for OPMs should also be agreed to, monitored, and compared to projected benchmarks. When there are shortfalls in enrollment or revenue projections, universities could be provided options for renegotiating their contracts. Also, improved disclosure and reporting oversight by government agencies could help identify and focus on addressing problematic OPM partnerships. At the same time, there must be a balance. Too much blanket regulation that requires regular reporting, reviews, and audits could become overly burdensome, especially when universities are already short-staffed.

In summary, OPMs can play an important role in the success and growth of many online programs offered by colleges and universities. Broadly limiting their role could disrupt the online education ecosystem, resulting in stifled innovation and limited accessibility for current and future programs [9]. From a policy standpoint, any changes should focus on specific issues, such as dealing with specific OPMs that over-promise and under-deliver, rather than implementing sweeping measures that may risk unintended harm to the online education landscape.

References

About the Authors

Leanna Archambault, Ph.D., is a Professor of Learning Design and Technology in the Mary Lou Fulton College for Teaching and Learning Innovation at Arizona State University (ASU). Her research addresses teacher preparation and professional learning for K-12 online and blended classrooms, online pedagogy, the nature and application of learning design frameworks, and the use of emerging technologies, such as social media, in educational settings.. Archambault is the Program Coordinator for the Learning Design and Technologies master’s program at ASU and serves as editor for one of the field’s leading journals, Computers & Education. Prior to entering the field of teacher education, Archambault taught middle school English/language arts.

Dr. Jered Borup is an associate professor in the Division of Advanced Professional Teacher Development and International Education at George Mason University. A third-generation educator, he has more than 20 years of teaching experience, including six years as a secondary social studies teacher and 15 years as an online and blended instructor in higher education. His teaching focuses on preparing educators to create supportive and engaging digital learning environments, and his research investigates how to design and implement the structures that help learners succeed in online and blended settings.