Responsive Curriculum Development for the 21st Century

Technology futurists have long predicted exponential growth in computing power that will eventually reach a point of singularity. In society, we have seen smart phones, social media, digital media, and cloud computing move from dream to mass adoption in an extremely short period of time. The average individual consciously or subconsciously expects products and services to fulfill a need and to adapt quickly to this changing world.

So what does this have to do with education?

Every institution employs a process for curriculum development and program approval. While there are variances depending on the institution size, structure, degree type, and accrediting body, one common denominator is the length of the curriculum development and approval cycle. Put simply, it’s very long. While traditional processes can be useful in assuring proper governance and quality controls, tradition becomes problematic for keeping pace with the rapidly-evolving demands of today’s learners.

As the retail industry knows, the product development cycle should ideally forecast consumer demand so new products are available at the right time when consumers are ready to purchase. This model relies heavily on research into patterns, competition, and potential growth areas. And the best products fulfill a need, enhance daily life, or solve a problem for the consumer. In the education industry, the idea of considering a degree program or certificate as a “product” and a student as a “customer” is often controversial. However, our industry is missing opportunities by neglecting to consider consumer demand and persisting with lengthy development cycles for educational programming.

Generally speaking, the program development cycle goes something like this:

1. Instructor enjoys teaching subject X.
2. Subject X is not offered by his/her institution.
3. Instructor suggests to department / college that subject X would be a great new program.
4. Department / college sends proposal to councils and committees.
5. Institution submits documents to governing body, but they only vote on new programs once a year, so proposal is tabled until the next vote.
6. Governing body says yes.
7. Three years have elapsed.  Subject X is launched.
8. Few students enroll. Everyone wonders why.

Obviously, this model is oversimplified for dramatic effect. But the reality is not so far off. Many a failed degree program has its origins in a “build it and they will come” mentality and not consumer demand. Often, new programs are outdated, out-priced by competitors, and doomed for failure before they ever hit the market. Many current programs are failing to even break even, but fear of pulling the plug keeps them alive. Not only is this bad news for students disappointed in the lack of relevant program choices, but it’s a massive financial drain on our institutions.

So what are possible ways to address this problem? Consider the classic 4 Ps of marketing:

1. Product: Start with research. Ironically, this is an area of strength for many faculty members, yet this talent is rarely leveraged for program development. Research can identify needs and develop a product (or program) that satisfies those needs. All products have lifecycles, so once a program exists, it doesn’t mean it must exist forever.  As needs change, programs must adapt or be dissolved at end of lifecycle. Dissolving a failing program to free up resources to launch a potentially successful new program is not a failure.  In fact, it’s smart business.
2. Price: Unfortunately, institutional tuition and fees are often a one size fits all solution. But the reality is that some degrees are simply worth more from a financial ROI perspective than others. Consider job opportunities for graduates and trends in the industries that a particular program prepares graduates to enter and price that program accordingly.
3. Promotion: Bring marketing experts into the planning process. Waiting until after a program is fully developed and approved to discuss marketing misses valuable opportunities to strategize in advance of a launch.
4. Place: The location, physical or online, is a key factor in the appeal of a program. Is the location convenient for the students you want to reach? Is the delivery mechanism accessible for your audience? If the best candidates for your program are located geographically distant from your campus, is online or a satellite location a possibility?

Students and companies providing funding for employee development have needs to fulfill and choices to make. With the internet at their fingertips, comparison shopping is easier than ever. For an industry steeped in tradition, changes to adapt to the needs of the 21^st century student may not occur overnight. But working towards a more nimble rolling approval cycle with program proposals based on research and development is a step in the right direction.