What’s New with the CEU? June 7, 2010 GAEA Conference 2010 Presented By Nelson Baker Vice Provost...

What’s New with the CEU?June 7, 2010

GAEA Conference 2010Presented ByNelson Baker

Vice Provost DLPEGeorgia Tech

Georgia Tech Distance Learning and Professional Education | 404-385-3500 | www.dlpe.gatech.edu

Outline

• CE Context• CE Policy• Challenges/Opportunities


Context Themes

• Desire for Flexible Education System (not lower quality, flexibility with interaction)

• Aging Workforce• US Lowering Educational Attainment• Economic / New Economy• Globalization


Learning Flexibility• 2009 Sloan consortium Survey of Online Learning

– Fall 2009 study– ~4.4M students enrolled in online courses during– 25% of all college and university students

• Our students want information in new ways and in new formats/frameworks

• Employers want education/training in flexible manner too

• Our faculty make learning happen


Business of Education

• Meeting student demands - flexibility• Non-credit students & their employers represent

potential for significant impact – they have buying power for economic growth in the state and tax revenue through their salary and company activity

• Number of Students impacted– Credit: 282,978 (2008; USG website)– Non-credit: 338,895 (USG CE website)– Point: CE impacts 1 in 2 individuals and represent Georgia

citizens and taxpayers


Labor Force Composition (percentage)Aging Workforce

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1986 1996 2006 2016

16-24

25-54

55-older

Source: Monthly Labor Review, November 2007

Median Age

1986 35.41996 38.32006 40.82016 42.1


Aging Workforce

• Improve talent utilization throughout every employee’s tenure with their companies, through a continuous improvement-style approach that involves periodic skill and career interest assessments, training, and alignment of the individual’s interest and attitudes

• Plan and forecast future retirement talent deficits and forecast talent needs for potential business changes

• During mid-career, rebalance knowledge/skills to match needs/interests of employer and employee – role for CE

The New Agenda for an Older Workforce, A Manpower White Paper, 2007


Educational Attainment by Age

Age HS Some BS Adv25 to 29 years . . . . . . 83.6% 58.3% 27.2% 5.9%30 to 34 years . . . . . . 84.2% 57.9% 27.9% 8.4%

35 to 39 years . . . . . . 84.7% 56.5% 25.9% 8.4%

40 to 44 years . . . . . . 85.4% 56.7% 25.9% 9.1%

45 to 49 years . . . . . . 86.4% 59.5% 28.5% 11.3%

50 to 54 years . . . . . . 85.4% 58.5% 29.1% 12.7%

55 to 59 years . . . . . . 81.1% 50.6% 24.6% 11.5%

60 to 64 years . . . . . . 76.1% 43.5% 20.3% 9.3%

65 to 69 years . . . . . . 72.1% 38.9% 18.3% 8.0%

70 to 74 years . . . . . . 67.3% 34.9% 16.2% 6.7%

75 years and over . . . 60.7% 29.6% 13.3% 5.4%

Source: US Census Bureau, Education Attainment, Issued 2003.


Population’s (age > 25) Education

• US Numbers (2000 census)– 182+M people– 80.4% high school education– 51.8% some college or more– 24.4% college education or more– 8.9% advanced degree

• Georgia Numbers– 5.2-M people– 78.6% high school education– 49.9% some college or more– 24.3% college education or more– 8.3% advanced degree

Source: US Census Bureau, Education Attainment, Issued 2003.


Differences in College Attainment (Associate and Higher) Between Young and Older Adults—U.S. and OECD Countries, 2004

Source: Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) -- NCHEMS

0

20

40

60

Canada Japan KoreaSweden FinlandNorwayBelgiumUnited States SpainFrance IrelandAustralia Denm

ark United KingdomNew Zealand Switzerland IcelandNetherlandsG

reeceG

ermany

PolandM

exicoLuxem

bourg Hungary Portugal AustriaSlovak RepublicItalyCzech Republic Turkey

Age 25-34Age 45-54


Source: Paul Lingenfelter, President, State Higher Education Executive Officers, 2008

Percent of the Adult Population Ages 25 to 64 with a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

GA

IL

IN

IA

KS

KY

LA

ME

MDMA

MS

NE

NV

NJ

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

ORPA

SC

SD

UT

VT

VA

WA

ID

MI

MN

MO

NH

NM

TN TX

WV

WI

WY

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Personal Income Per Capita, 2000

MT

HI RIFL US

Low Income, High Educational AttainmentLow Income, Low Educational Attainment

High Income, High Educational AttainmentHigh Income, Low Educational Attainment

State New Economy Index (2002)

Top Tier

Middle Tier

Low Tier

Georgia


Economic Context

• Global economy– Global companies using global resources & markets– City States in Middle east investing in world economies– World supply & demand along with their currencies drive product

trade– China investing $1B in adult training – realize must do more than

just incoming workforce– ASEAN community seeking mobility in their workforce; training

enables mobility if policies allow– Aalto University formed from 3 universities with industry and

government input/support• ‘Must Do’ to be globally competitive


New Economy

• 5 categories for measuring the new economy– Knowledge jobs– Globalization– Economic dynamism– Transformation to a digital economy– Technological innovation capacity

• Georgia is 18th in 2007(same as 2002, 25th in 1997)

Source: The 2007 State New Economy Index: Benchmarking Economic Transformation in the State, Robert Atkinson and Daniel Correa, published by the Kauffman Foundation and The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation


The New and Old EconomiesIssue Old New

Markets Stable Dynamic

Competition National Global

Organization Hierarchical Networked

Production Mass Flexible

Key factors Capital/labor Innovation/ideas

Key technology Mechanization Digitization

Competitive Adv Economy of scale Innovation/quality

Relations Go it alone Collaborative

Skills Job-specific Broad/Changing

Workforce Organization Man Intrapreneur

Employment Secure Risky


Rate of Change• Top 10 jobs in demand in 2010 did not exist in 2004

(Riley, Sec of Education)• Expected number of jobs an individual will have by

age 38 is between 10-14 (Dept of Labor)• People change jobs every 4-5 years (Paton, IEEE

Transactions on Education)• Half life of technology innovations• Employee interest in advancement vs business

desires for employees’ productivity


Talent Crunch

• Demographic shifts (aging, declining birthrates, economic migration), social evolution, globalization and entrepreneurial practices (outsourcing, cross-border recruiting, on-demand employment)

• New jobs require new skills and retraining• Must recognize that talent strategies cannot focus solely on

the top performers, that different things make people of different genders, ages, and nationalities want to work and that HR requires additional capabilities to develop effective solutions

• Need for public-private partnerships

Confronting the Talent Crunch: 2008, A Manpower White Paper


Contextual Impacts

• US reduction in educational attainment• Aging population• Fewer people entering workforce• Rapid rate of knowledge creation• Thus, current workforce must meet the needs

of a global economy• Therefore, education & training paramount

Define USG Roles


USG CE Policy Update

• Response to Context• Group working together• Redefined operating procedures in dramatic

ways• Focus on quality enhancement and ability to

meet needs


BoR Committee Members

• Nelson Baker, Georgia Tech (Chair)• Ruth Bettandorff, University of Georgia• Tony Bretti, Georgia Southern University• Barbara Calhoun, Kennesaw State University• Diane Kilgore, Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College• Gary Means, Georgia Southern University• Jane O’Gorman, North Georgia College & State University• Jan Smith, University of Georgia• Artis Williamson, Georgia College & State University

• Ex Officio:• Phil Allen, Georgia LEADS• Grover Andrews, Consultant• David Morgan, Consultant


Rationale for Updates• BoR changes

– Funding elimination– Strategic plan

• Absence of online course criteria• Movement towards outcomes based criteria; not

always 80% attendance• Desire to better report our efforts to our community

and BoR• Changes by SACS• 8 years since last reviewed


Non-Credit (Include continuing education. Do not include non-credit courses taken by for-credit students as part of a for-credit program such as labs, chapels, student success courses, remedial courses,etc. Count these under for-credit.)

6. a. For each non-credit course offered in the 2009 fall term, multiply the total number of contact hours for the course (as determined by your institution) by the total number of students enrolled in the course. Add resulting figures for all non-credit courses (See example below). ___________ b. Divide combined total in 6a by 168 if your institution is on a semester or trimester system (12 hours/week x 14 weeks), or by 120 if your institution is on a quarter system (12 hours/week x 10 weeks). Round to the nearest whole number ___________

SACS Institutional Profile


Areas of CEU Updates

• Online Course provisions• USG minimum number of contact hours for

program certificate• Common credentials for attendees• Add third category of CEU• Articulation agreements for courses• Credit offerings• Reporting of CEUs• Governance structure


Definitions

• Evaluation vs Assessment– Evaluation: methods for determining customer

satisfaction with instructor, content, facility, etc– Assessment: measure learning outcomes achieved

by student during class• CEU: Continuing Education Unit is defined as 1

CEU is equal to 10 contact hours of instruction


Online Courses

• Provision added, Section 3.3• Since no “seat time”, assess learning outcomes

for awarding CEU’s• Determine CEU’s by either:

– Benchmark course content against other providers– Comparison with face-to-face offering– Teach online pilot to determine


Program Certificate Level

• Section 4.0, item 3, page 9• Certificate of Program Completion• Minimum of 24 hours (2.4 CEU’s)• Demonstrates depth of knowledge/training in

a focused topic

• Approved: minimum 24 hours of Type I CEU for a non-credit certificate


Credentials for non-credit activities

• Section 4.0, item 6, page 9• Recognition of Course Completion

– Awarded to participant for completing a single course– Has name of course, institution, date and CEU value along

with participant’s name• Certificate of Program Completion in x ________

– Type I CEU courses only– Has name of program, institution, date with participant’s

name• Discussion: these are the two credentials

– Approved: greater recognition across State; measure of quality as compared to our peers operating in State


CEU OverviewType CEU Institution

knows contentCEU awarded Assessment of

learning objectives

Evaluation of program

Permanent record

maintained

1 Y Y Y Y Y

2 Y Y N Y Y

3 N N N N N

UCategory I Awarding institution knows the content; grants CEUs; assesses learning objectives; evaluates program; maintains permanent record.

UCategory IIAwarding institution knows the content, grants CEUs, learning objectives are not assessed, the program is evaluated and a permanent record is maintained

UCategory IIIInstitutional resources are used in substantial activities organized through agencies or organizations outside the institutional continuing education department.


Articulation Agreements

• Section 4.0• Provider determined• Allow for acceptance of courses towards taken

elsewhere for own certificates• Encourages partnering• Demonstrates quality programs


Credit Programs

• Section 7.0, page 12• Allowance to offer credit programs in

conjunction with academic faculty– Approved: move in a direction to offer programs

such as degree completion etc that other states are doing; must adhere to campus and USG processes


Reporting• Many USG institutions have not regularly

reported CEUs to System Office• Reporting collective efforts of CE programs

informs others about our impact to citizens of Georgia

• Mindful of time/resources needed to report

• Approved: Effort must be reported


CEU Governance Process• Section 8.0, page 12-13• Process:

– Group recommends and discusses– The institutional rep of RACPSCE votes– If favorable vote, information forwarded to the

Vice Chancellor for appropriate action• Approved by RACPSCE• Process used to approve/modify this Policy

Manual


Implementation of the Vision• USG dialog for input & alignment• Already underway, working on communicating

policy• Tie to metrics to show progress• Ties to employee jobs showing relevance• Ties to USG Strategic Plan, Goals 2, 3, and 6• Focus on services to customers (USG,

employers and students)


Challenges• Budgets• Faculty workloads• Responsiveness to market• Economy

– Strong organizations invest in downturns

• CE awareness and impact (internal and external)• Global business models• Generational aspects (awareness/learning)• Retirements• Closing of units


Opportunities

• Impact to Higher Education: opportunities to collaborate and shared visibility

• Abilities to – create revenue– be responsive to industry– take risk– fund new endeavors– ‘test waters’ for credit and research directions– promote university

• Educational career long paths• Partnerships


Growth

• Southern US advantages– Demographics – growing part of country– One of only 10 states with increasing populations– HOPE scholarships– Industry locating/relocating in south– Expansion leading to new jobs, new exciting

careers and business requirements to stay competitive


Success Factors

• Mission Extension/Alignment• Clear vision that all understand• Products align with university strength, market need and

faculty interest• Organizational design supports vision• Business model to incentivize right people• Faculty involved, rewarded & encouraged• Educational delivery models map learners’ needs and support

elements• Processes align for global support to all stakeholders• Choosing partners


CE Roles

PapersConferences

StudentsGraduates, Co-op,

Internships

Faculty/Instructors

Industry/Government

Universities

Employees

Consulting

Applied ResearchDissemination

Start-upsTechnologyLicensing

Partnerships

Incubators

Research Contracts

Knowledge SharingIndustry Instructors/Faculty Leaves

University “Products”

Industry/Government “Connections”

Tech

nolo

gy/K

now

led

ge T

ransf

er

Eco

nom

ic D

evelo

pm

en

t

Work

forc

e D

evelo

pm

ent

Multi-nationalCommon Language/Training

Philanthropy

Rela

tion

ship

s


Conclusion• Globalization, rate of knowledge creation,

innovation for competiveness mean lifelong learning

• Lifelong learning should be strategic for all stakeholders

• Thus, what should the role of universities be in this new era; more of the 18-25 year olds or life span of all learners?

• Become an advocate and be involved!


It is not the strongest of the species that survive,nor the most intelligent,but the ones most responsive to change.

— Charles Darwin

What’s New with the CEU? June 7, 2010 GAEA Conference 2010 Presented By Nelson Baker Vice Provost...

Documents

Transcript of What’s New with the CEU? June 7, 2010 GAEA Conference 2010 Presented By Nelson Baker Vice Provost...