Cost Benefits
In the area of cost analysis, a number of terms are used sometimes interchangeably and frequently incorrectly. The definitions and examples provided here should assist you in your analyses of approaches to distance education and their costs.
Cost Effective
A cost-effective process is one in which the same product or effect is produced at less cost than by any other current means, or a better product at the same cost.
Cost Beneficial
A cost-benefit analysis attempts to determine whether a process adds benefits to an existing process, or which of a set of competing processes produces the greatest or most valuable set of benefits. The two processes compared do not necessarily have to produce the same benefits.
Cost Worthy
In a cost-worthiness analysis, one attempts to say whether a product or process is worth whatever it costs. Comparison with another process might or might not be part of the analysis. It is possible for example that a process judged cost-beneficial, might not be cost-worthy if the benefit is small.
Cost Affordability
A product or process is affordable if there is enough money available to pay the cost. Comparing the affordability of two products or processes requires knowing the total cost of each.
For example, Course Delivery is a different process and has different benefits from the Instructional Enhancement model, yet both use the same type of technology. A cost effectiveness analysis could be applied to the course delivery model because it may involve staff different from the regular teacher. A cost benefit analysis is more likely applied to the Instructional Enhancement model, because that model provides an additional experience to the learning process not otherwise available. That is, you are enhancing instruction rather than replacing an existing process.
An important point is that the different modes of use of a two-way video system are not mutually exclusive because multiple uses are quite possible, and some applications may be justified on a cost effectiveness basis and others on a cost benefit basis.
Experienced people express their opinions about various aspects of these criteria in the following section. The comments are made in the context of one or more of the applications described in the Uses and Examples section of this Web site. Note that there are differing views on whether one can save money using two-way video, but note also that the differences are based on different modes of use and different staffing models.
back to top
Joe Kitchens Superintendent, Western Heights School District, Oklahoma Kent Keel Technology Director, Kent School District, WA and Marko Lucich Chief Juvenile Probation Officer, Butte, MT
Rick Feutz Technology Coordinator, Bainbridge, WA Diana Eggers Teacher, Kent, WA Detlef Johl Elementary Teacher, Helena, MT
Some Cost Benefit Perspectives
Cost Effectiveness
Superintendent Joe Kitchens describes the total district approach in the Western Heights District in cost-effectiveness terms, based on several applications of the system:
"In relation to cost effectiveness and what technologies can do for us in schools, I think one has to look at it from several different angles. If we are thinking of extending our ability to reach our parents, it makes little sense to me that we put a telephone in every classroom, at a time when the PC industry is merging with the telephone industry which is converging with the TV industry. We actually can pull all of these components that are very much important together under one format."
"When we decided that we wanted to put a VHS tape system in and distribute video across our seven school sites, we priced a video tape solution and it was $278,000 just to do the high school. Then we priced a PC based video streaming solution and it was $75,000, and it did the whole district. Well, there really wasn't any question about where the value was in that that relationship."
"When we look at our IP-based videoconferencing, we asked why would we not want an H.320 conferencing that is a proven standard versus H.323 that is an emerging standard for distance learning? Well, a 320 system costs you significant amounts in line charges to maintain, whereas for 323 systems, those same lines that have access to the internet are also capable of providing your distance learning situation. In our school we've been able to quantitatively say we're saving $30,000 a year by looking at an IP-based videoconferencing solution versus a 320-conferencing system. We have a 30% cost saving with a 323 system versus a 320 system and we also do not have any excess line charges, so there really isn't any reason that we shouldn't explore putting in the 323."
"At Western Heights High School we're able to offer high school credit to middle school students through the use of distance learning programs. That allows us to save approximately 50% of a teacher's salary on every distance learning program that we promote and utilize between our high school and our middle school. This is where we gain cost savings. We can't replace the total cost of a teacher through distance learning, but we certainly can recoup as much as 50% of the cost of a teacher. We elect to place an adult monitor in every distance learning classroom that we have so that we can maintain security and that sort of thing, but certainly we are saving a significant amount of money by offering distance learning classrooms every day. We're saving money over 320 systems because we are using 323 applications, we are saving line charges that you would normally see in a 320 situation, and we are saving personnel charges because we are offering distance learning programs. So it is a win-win from both the personnel saving issue and for the students. It is improving our flexibility allowing students to take instruction at the middle school level from high school teachers. And that will proceed well into higher ed, where we will see concurrent enrollment with high school students in college classes over the IP network."
Kent Keel and Marko Lucich clarify the cost effectiveness approach by equating staff time and money:
Keel, Technology Director: "The short answer is I think we can save money using this. The longer answer, though, is how traditionally schools count money. You know, time is money, and I think a lot of times schools, at least that's been my experience, don't always equate time and money. It's usually the dollar that goes out the door. I think that the time we save using videoconferencing will be with the student. What we've learned working with Green River [Community College] is that the students now don't have to leave the high school to take the 30 or 40 minutes to drive to the community college, drive, park and all of that stuff, take the class, and then drive back. They now can save time, i.e. money, and stay in the building and take that class through videoconferencing."
"I think that saving money with staffing is viable in Kent as well. The example we use with that is, we teach Japanese 6. Well, there are only 2 or 3 students at most at any one of the high schools, and it doesn't make sense to hold a full section of school or class for 3 students. The numbers just don't work. So we use videoconferencing to have all of the students taking that across the district and we are able to hire one teacher."
Lucich, Probation Officer: "The very important part here is that right now we are spending two days on one youth just for transportation purposes. For probable cause [hearings], even if it's here in Butte, where the detention facility is only approximately 8 miles from the courthouse, it still ties up the probation officer or the transporter 2 to 3 hours. [This includes] the time they go down to get the youth, bring the youth to the hearing, wait for the time of the hearing, take the youth back to the facility, and come back to the court house. With this type of technology, we could do that probable cause hearing in 5 to 7 minutes, versus 2 to 3 hours."
Cost Benefit
Rick Feutz and Diana Eggers describe their view of their involvement in Where in Washington in cost-benefit terms:
Feutz, Technology Coordinator: "I actually think that in the long run, the costs are something we're going to have to take a good look at. The reason is this stuff isn't cheap. However, what it allows us to do is geometrically advance what were trying to accomplish by collaboration. If somebody is looking at this as a way of saving hiring a teacher or those kind of costs, they are being very near-sighted. If they are looking at providing something that they've never been able to provide for financially, and then be able to expand the resources of small communities, I think that that's the vision I would like to see. If you go into it thinking you're going to save money I think you're in for an unpleasant surprise."
Eggers, Teacher: "I think if you have a good project, it is worth it. The Where in Washington project was definitely worth it for all of the classes that have participated. If you design your project so that its part of your curriculum and can improve student learning, then it will be worth it. If it is just to get together to share pizza and to say, 'Ok, there's the kids we've been e-mailing for the past month,' then it's probably not worth it. I think it's most beneficial for the kids in that they get to see other kids across the state of Washington but they also get to hear from a student's perspective what a student their same age feels about a similar topic. I think one of the biggest benefits for the kids in having the videoconferencing available is that as we proceed into the future, it will become more and more a part of the workplace. Students will experience videoconferencing in school and not be intimidated by videoconferencing when they go out into the workplace and get jobs."
Detlef Johl applies a cost-benefit analysis to his use of a single phone line and a desktop video system:
"The cost benefits for bringing a phone line into the building are numerous. The benefits of having a phone line, either into a classroom or into a building, outweigh the cost of bringing it in. The effects of having this in the building provide a lot of opportunities for students that they wouldn't ordinarily have. When they do share information, their audience is limited to their classroom. Now their audience is no longer limited. They can share what they're doing, what their environment is like, with students all over the world. They're bringing things into the classroom that they normally would not be able to see. Students today watch television, they see a lot of different things, but it's not real. But having an actual student on the other end showing them pictures of what they have and what they experience, makes a world of difference. It will bring those students closer together, and it will bring those teachers closer together."