“It’s a very clear indication of an industry that is maturing and evolving rapidly.” — Ben Kennedy, founder and CEO of Kennedy & Co.
Summary
The article outlines the dramatic decline of online program managers (OPMs) in the educational sector, as evidenced by a significant number of expired or terminated contracts and a sharp drop in new partnerships. In 2023 alone, 147 OPM contracts ended, with a notable 53 percent decrease in new partnerships established from 2023 to 2024. Investor interest has also waned, with total funding plummeting by 97 percent since 2021. Industry experts convey mixed reactions: Brady Colby from Validated Insights describes the sector’s downturn as a “death spiral,” while Ben Kennedy from Kennedy & Co. sees it as an evolution towards different business models. Regulatory scrutiny, primarily concerning OPMs’ aggressive recruitment and revenue-sharing models, has contributed to this decline. Notable examples include Pearson shedding its OPM division and ongoing lawsuits against companies like 2U and Coursera. Despite these challenges, larger institutions have started developing their own online program infrastructures, reducing dependence on OPMs. Future pathways for OPMs might involve adopting fixed-fee models or offering bundled services. The OPM market may still find some viability among smaller institutions lacking resources to independently expand their online presence.
Analysis
The article effectively highlights the decline of OPMs by presenting clear data on contract terminations and decreased partnerships. This aligns with my perspective that technology sectors must continuously innovate to stay relevant. However, while the article presents the plummeting investor interest and regulatory scrutiny as key factors, it does not sufficiently explore the potential for OPMs to pivot towards models that align with emerging educational needs, such as modular learning or AI-driven personalization. The discussion around evolving business models lacks depth, as the article could provide more insight into how OPMs might integrate advanced technologies to survive.
Furthermore, the article’s assertion that OPMs have not benefited from the regulatory environment may overlook nuanced factors such as potential supply chain efficiencies or innovations in educational content delivery. The claim that institutions have gained an upper hand in negotiations is an important point but requires more empirical support, especially in detailing how these changes impact educational outcomes. Lastly, while the article touches upon issues of aggressive recruitment, it stops short of exploring systemic ethical implications or long-term impacts on the educational landscape. Overall, the article provides a strong overview but could benefit from exploring future-oriented strategies and innovative approaches within the OPM industry.
