EDUC - 6261 Managing Resources for Organizational Success: Finance

Global Higher Education

EDUC 6261 - Managing Resources for Organizational Success Finance

Develop a Financial Plan

Michael Daley

Student ID: A00275524

20/02/2021

Part 1 – Development of a Financial Plan

The priorities that the unit would need to follow in meeting the institution’s new strategic direction in some ways resemble that of a “start-up” institution, where concentrated oversight is required at each step of the process and where the timeframe and adherence to strict deadlines become a top departmental priority in successful implementation of the new objectives. As the unit executes the new instructional modality, (most likely at the start of a new academic year) training and follow-up for both teachers and students in using the new online teaching platform would also become a top priority. Ultimately, continuing professional development becomes a priority in efforts to influence both student engagement and outcomes and using KPIs would be important. Concurrently, the collection and use of data that would inform future strategies regarding student engagement would be important, so a key departmental priority would be, quality assurance. This need for information would manifest in the form of comparing time students spend online; conducting student satisfaction surveys and focus groups; performing impromptu and scheduled classroom observations and close analysis of assessment results; all of which would have to be communicated to the university’s central administration at regular intervals.

Several new initiatives in the department such as the use of a new teaching methodology and accompanying enhanced pedagogical activities are meant to result in highly successful student engagement and learning outcomes. Therefore, the overarching, guiding initiative could be a target that all students who enter the PYP with a Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) English competency rating of A2+ will be able to achieve a solid B1 rating after one year of study but should show incremental improvements in each semester. With a heightened focus on teacher training, it should be decided whether a continuing professional development (CPD) training program should be planned internally or outsourced and regularly scheduled. As a new instructional paradigm is being realized, it might be necessary to earmark part of the budget for a CPD initiative, although vendors and other providers such as book publishers often include teacher development in their contracts with institutions. In efforts to increase student engagement, other new initiatives might take the form of the promotion of teacher-led or student-led online and offline learning communities, student clubs, and other activities on and off campus. It may be a good idea to generate some form of competition between classes and so a new initiative might be to reward teachers that reach or surpass targets with time-off or subsidizing their professional development efforts, for example. This reward system would also be a way of retaining highly trained and qualified teachers that would benefit the institute in several other ways.

Proposal 1 Summary: The PYP unit will introduce a new blended-learning methodology that will integrate traditional, teacher-led classroom learning to classes capped at 15 students with online student self-guided study at the start of the next academic year in concert with a focus on teacher development.

Proposal 2 Summary: The PYP unit will introduce a significant ed-tech (Kahoot, Goanimate, Canva, Pechaflickr, Edmodo, YouTube, etc.) component into the traditional classroom setting, to classes capped at 15 students. Time and energy will be devoted to teacher development in this scenario as well.

Target Audience: The target audience would be ESL/EFL, freshman university students and other students interested in enrolling in the PYP.

Goal: The goal is to enhance student engagement and show improved, measurable learning outcomes through the use of cutting-edge technology and alternative approaches to traditional pedagogy.

Proposal 1 Initial Costs: Costs would be minimal, as the cost of the software would be borne by the student in the form of a one year subscription embedded in the price of traditional learning materials. Depending on the status and accessibility to computer labs, there may be a need to purchase additional PCs but the technology acquisition costs represent a one-time expense that will not be repeated for several years. The savings, after covering the technology costs, become permanent (Goldstein, 2019). Maintenance and updates to the online program would be provided by the vendor with day-to-day support provide inhouse.

Proposal 2 Initial Costs: Decisions on using open-source or not would influence costs related to the purchase or use of the technology. Additional costs would be attached to ed-tech training, which would need to be outsourced at the start of the initiative.

Ongoing Costs: Additional teacher training might be required that is beyond the purview of the vendor. Therefore, a small, per semester budget might be required to cover the cost of outsourcing training. Also, if a teacher reward system is approved there would be a cost in subsidizing CPD or a “theoretical deficit” in terms of time off.

Proposal 1 Savings: If the proposal is accepted, there would be an eventual decrease in the need for in-class teachers and up to 30% of a student’s weekly contact hours could be eliminated, thus saving the institution money on staffing. Alternatively, the resulting teacher release time could be leveraged towards other meaningful work (testing, curriculum development, clubs).

Outcomes: After successful employment of the new system, either the b-learning or ed-tech initiative, the FLD should be able to show an improvement in achievement and proficiency test scores within one semester. Data related to student engagement such as satisfaction surveys should also trend positively. Furthermore, all teachers will have been trained to levels of excellence and with adequate promotional activity via social media and other activities, enrollment in the PYP is expected to grow by 3% to 5% in the second year but will depend on the university’s capacity growth model.

Potential Challenges: Interruptions in service or connectivity in the e-learning components could affect positive student experience. Teacher follow-up on student online progress needs to be constant as does willingness to adopt the model and student motivation. Also, there will be different e-learning curves for both student and teacher.

In addressing the university’s new objectives of increasing student engagement, integrating information technology into programs and services, and developing measurable learning outcomes, the FLD’s proposals integrates the three objectives under one strategic approach. In a recent study involving more than 5000 English language learners in China, “the results show that students engaged in b-learning had better academic achievements in their English as a Second Language courses compared to students participating in the face-to-face learning mode” (Zhang & Zhu, 2018). In Graham’s (2006) research the b-learning model is highly recommended for its pedagogical effectiveness, increased access and convenience, and cost effectiveness (Eryilmaz, 2015). Therefore, by offering an e-learning component that compliments classroom instruction, the unit looks to increase student engagement by tapping into digital natives’ expectations using technology to learn.

Part 2 – Resource Allocation

Ultimately, genuine needs and priorities should be determined in the service of the institutional character and in successfully fulfilling the mission and vision of the university. Furthermore, each “policy and procedure related to academic programming should be evaluated by the extent to which the quality of the program is being improved…” (Goldstein, 2019). The new b-learning modality and the initiatives that support its successful implementation would dictate unit priorities as previously mentioned: the use of e-learning software and need for additional computers, projecting enrollment and establishing teacher headcount, outsourcing training, setting a realistic and sustainable teacher-student ratio and defining the total student hours and teaching hours.

In the event that the department should receive a windfall, expenditures and resource allocation would be decided based on a theoretical mindset of “must have” or “would be nice to have.” In the “must have” column would be items that are necessary in ensuring programmatic success such as sufficient faculty to establish an ideal 15:1 student-teacher ratio; adequate work space and numbers of PCs where sharing is unnecessary; meal subsidies for teachers; a budget for monthly team-building activities. In the “nice to have” column, would be things that add value to the unit’s morale and stature like a budget allowance to send a contingent of teachers to conferences and seminars at home and abroad, gym membership subsidies and a FLD faculty lounge. Depending on the type of budget (centralized or decentralized), a portion of the windfall should go towards equitable annual raises for faculty and staff as well as comprehensive health insurance. Finally, it has been suggested “to build a contingency fund into the budget for each administrative or program unit” (Barr & McClellan, 2018, p.187), so money would be set aside for that as well.

If a major budget cut were to occur, it would be prudent to apply the least drastic approach first. Targeted reductions in non-essentials (i.e. software updates) along with reductions in “travel, honoraria, equipment replacement, or minor construction projects” (p.184), is said to provide a more fair and equitable approach. Outsourced professional development activities would need to be put on hold and handled internally instead. Importantly, there should be an approach to restructuring the program in a way that would avoid layoffs as “any effort to structure the curriculum to more efficiently lead students through the [program] will spare both faculty time and department resources” with the “added benefit of improving student scores on assessment measure outcomes as well as the department’s reputation” (Higgerson & McCauliff, 2009, p.2). In the worst case scenario where faculty layoffs seem likely or inevitable, the b-learning program’s self-guided, online component could see an increase in student hours and class sizes could be increased incrementally. However, before resorting to faculty layoffs, there could be a call for voluntary cuts as there may be employees that would willingly reduce their status from full‐time to part time (Barr & McClellan, 2018). Other actions might include “short‐term sabbaticals for faculty, leaves with partial pay, furloughs, early retirement packages and leaves without pay, reduction in the number of hours worked, tenure buyouts, and severance packages” (p.186).

The two competing priorities that might exist in the scenario as described, are the goals of the new institutional objectives of increased productivity versus maintaining the status quo. The change in teaching methodology naturally implies more work, brings a pressure to meet new objectives and could be unsettling to others who may look at the reduction in student face time and increased use of technology as a sign of less need for teachers. In the end, priority will be given to fulfilling the new institutional objectives in the most efficient and successful way possible. However, equitability and fairness will continue to be promoted by making sure that faculty and staff needs are supported in terms of workload, access to technology, training, reasonable scheduling, a comfortable work space and open and fluid communication.

Regarding finding resources and funding, the department could leverage “existing activities” (Dickeson, 2010), as the new unit initiatives can be easily realized through program restructuring rather than through major financial expenditures. Nevertheless, the handful of new line items that would require funding (PCs, CPD) could be partially-financed through ongoing activities and practices that promote the FLD as a whole. As Southerland (2007) points out, department chairs who were successful at acquiring funding found that “promoting their departments was a useful strategy for creating a receptive environment for their proposals” (p.3). The department, for example, could engage in practices that incorporate elements of an auxiliary enterprise. “It is increasingly common for institutions to expect that academic institutes, centers, and similar enterprises be self‐sufficient with regard to budget” (Barr & McClellan, 2018, p.128). Therefore, the unit could organize extracurricular sociocultural language learning events: dinners, picnics, plays, karaoke, concerts, etc., where it would charge participants a nominal fee and would be led by volunteer, teacher ambassadors. Additional ideas to generate income for the department would need to be approved by the upper management and could take the form of continuing education or summer sessions similar to other institutions where some of these programs are operated as auxiliaries (Goldstein, 2019). The unit could also offer translation services and apply to become a testing center. Finally, the department could submit grant proposals related to the b-learning methodology however that might be problematic in terms of timeframe and faculty resources.

Perhaps one of the most persuasive ways to communicate the departmental budget needs to upper management would be to demonstrate that the FLD proposals are not only perfectly aligned with the new institutional objectives but also play to available revenues, institutional priorities, and departmental strengths (Southerland, 2007). Data and research will be presented that shows increased enrollment or high student satisfaction at other institutions that made the switch to a b-learning paradigm. Additionally, the purpose of the aforementioned guiding coalitions in “developing and sustaining connections and networks with key actors,” should bear fruit, as successful “chairs have access to senior campus leadership and they engage their faculty members regularly on budget matters and priorities in an attempt to obtain their support” (p.4). The research has shown that funding is unlikely to be given to a department that does not support the initiatives of its chair (ibid.).

To evaluate the effectiveness as a department given the new priorities, it would be wise to use project management software and KPIs to assess whether all deadlines and targets were met in terms of the gathering of resources, training, and implementation. One would look at whether issues and problems were troubleshot and dealt with in a timely and effective manner; instructors had been properly informed and adequately supported; student usage had been collected; curricula had been realigned; data analysis and information had been prepared in the form of reports from student and faculty satisfaction surveys and interviews. By collating all of these reports and data, management would have a succinct but thorough idea about the department’s effectiveness.

Ultimately, language proficiency test scores will determine how effective the department proposals have been. Still, other important means of assessment could be considered as well such as improved student engagement in the form of satisfaction surveys, positive social media postings, attendance, testimonials and increased retention. In the longer term, an increase in enrollment in the PYP might also be an indicator of the success of the proposals, although there would be an abundance of other factors that need to be considered beyond the control of the FLD and affecting the entire institution. “Outcomes measures should be agreed to as part of the development of the strategic plan and should be monitored at critical junctures to understand whether or not the plan is successful, both in totality and in individual components” (Salluzzo, 1999).

Part 3 – Collaboration and Implementation

A good place to start in terms of collaborating and consulting with colleagues within and across departments might be to hold, what is referred to as a “vision conference.” This version entails organizing a structured and interactive one-day meeting involving up to 50 stakeholders from the university that includes the planning task force, faculty, students, and administrators. “The combination helps provide the perspectives people need as they think together about the future of the institution” (Sanaghan, 2009). After, the proposals have been greenlit by top management (board, president, chancellor, rector) the FLD would need to collaborate and interact with several key players. It would be a good idea to consult the deans and key faculty in Arts and Sciences, for example, looking at their curriculum and key lexis or other language components essential for non-native students to have and then establishing how these needs can be met by the PYP proposals. There will also have to be serious collaboration and consultation with the IT department as well as with the Physical Plant management regarding technical support and space. It will also be crucial to continue existing relationships with Enrollment and Human Resources in order to project student numbers and prepare everything from teacher headcounts and classroom requirements to purchase orders and figures to give to the vendors/publishers. As the project progresses, collaboration and consultation will be the thrust of all meetings, planning sessions, and training workshops and feedback sessions.

In order to ensure a more competitive and financially sound department, the FLD will try to leverage existing internal resources as much as possible to avoid additional costs associated with outsourcing. Therefore, a partnership with the Graphic Design department could help with the design of promotional ideas such as brochures, web site, or flyers for the new b-learning initiative. Additionally, there would have to be a close strategic partnership with the university’s Marketing people as promotion will be important in generating excitement and interest. Lastly, it is always a good idea to establish partnerships with the other academic departments for several reasons such as the sharing of best practices, human resources, and additional resources. Naturally, establishing and maintaining a good relationship with the senior management, whether it is the president, rector or chancellor is important in the procurement of financial resources.

The first anticipated strategy for implementing the department’s proposals regarding the budget cycle would be to determine if the department “closed the last fiscal year without problems” and “if there were problems, what were they and how can they be avoided in the future” (Barr & McClellan, 2018, p.126). By undertaking this type of analysis the unit can proceed knowing that the avenue towards budget approval will be potentially easier. A subsequent step would be to find out who all the “participants are in the process, and the amount of time available to seek input on budgetary matters” (p.96). Communication is key to the planning process as is making sure that the six pitfalls to avoid described by Barr & McLellan are adhered to (p.116) as they are major factors affecting the budget process. Although all six are important, of particular significance would be, “a failure to check computations” and “a failure to account for ancillary costs” (ibid.). In terms of the structure of the financial management, ultimately it would be centrally controlled; therefore, the unit would be at the behest of the institution’s top management and institutional budget office.

Were an unanticipated and unbudgeted major expense to occur, it might be a good idea to determine if an institutional contingency fund can be used in the FLD. However, it would be preferable to also explore options within the department before approaching top management. Although not ideal, the program could be reconfigured to offset the unexpected expenses. This might take the form of reducing teaching hours with a corresponding reduction in salary, delaying payment of salary for one month, increasing class sizes, reducing class sections, postponing all purchases, and looking for additional cost-savings measures within the department not related to releasing personnel. Another idea would be to seek sponsorship or support from a computer provider or publisher that could help deal with the unplanned situation.

In terms of the potential impact of the FLD’s proposals on other programs, departments, faculty, and staff, there is the obvious competitiveness for allocation of institutional resources and financing. Given the new institutional objectives, every department will be thinking of meaningful and effective ways of integrating technology into their existing operation in order to improve student engagement. But the breadth of the FLD’s proposal may disadvantage some departments who might be unable to implement as thorough a proposal, thus creating animosity between departments. Another situation, although unlikely given the nature of PYP, might be that students are drawn away from other courses to take the EFL course. Conversely, the impact could be viewed as positive, if as has been suggested previously, communication and idea-sharing has been expansive and collaborative throughout the entire process. When the new b-learning modality is proven to be successful it not only enhances the reputation of the entire institution, increasing enrollment and retention and but also might influence positive attitudes towards the adoption of e-learning formats in other academic departments. Also, improved student language abilities will benefit all of the other departments where the language of instruction is English. So, rather than viewing the impact as negative it is preferable to view it as a proposal where everybody wins.

References

Barr, M. J., & McClellan, G. S. (2018). Budgets and financial management in higher education (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dickeson, R. C. (2010). Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services: Reallocating Resources to Achieve Strategic Balance (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass.