The online program management (OPM) sector is facing significant upheaval, with recent events at major players like Pearson Online Learning Services, now rebranded as Boundless Learning, highlighting the industry’s precarious state. Boundless Learning made headlines following its acquisition from Pearson, announcing substantial layoffs affecting approximately 30% of its workforce across all departments, according to CEO Kees Bol. These “Boundless Learning Layoffs” have sent ripples through the higher education landscape, prompting questions about the stability and future direction of the OPM industry itself.
The Evolving OPM Landscape and Market Pressures
OPMs initially rose to prominence by offering universities a bundled solution for launching online programs. This revenue-sharing model allowed institutions to venture into online education with minimal upfront investment, sharing the financial risk with the OPM. However, this traditional model is now undergoing a significant transformation.
Consultants like Ben Kennedy of Kennedy and Company observe a clear shift away from purely bundled services. OPMs are increasingly offering à la carte options, providing universities with flexible, modular services ranging from course development to student recruitment and support. This adaptation reflects a changing demand from universities, many of whom are seeking greater control and flexibility over their online programs and are wary of long-term revenue-sharing agreements.
Boundless Learning is not alone in navigating these turbulent waters. Other prominent OPMs are also adapting. 2U’s integration of edX and Noodle’s repositioning as an “education platform” signal a broader industry move away from the traditional OPM label and model. Even Wiley, another major player, is currently undergoing restructuring. Market analyst Phil Hill suggests that these shifts raise fundamental questions about the long-term viability of the revenue-sharing OPM model, asking, “Is this the end of the OPM?”
Regulatory Scrutiny and Intensified Competition in Online Education
Adding to the market pressures, regulatory concerns are casting a shadow over the OPM industry. The U.S. Department of Education is currently reviewing its 2011 guidance on bundled services agreements, which provided OPMs an exception to the ban on third-party recruiting. Any alteration to this guidance could significantly impact the operational and financial models of OPMs. This regulatory uncertainty has led many universities to include contingency clauses in their OPM contracts, preparing for potential shifts in the legal framework.
Simultaneously, the competitive landscape is becoming more intense. While universities once readily embraced revenue-share agreements to enter the online market without upfront costs, OPMs are now more selective. Kennedy notes that OPMs are increasingly less interested in institutions primarily seeking revenue-sharing due to financial constraints. This creates a challenging situation for universities that may still find the revenue-share model appealing but are now less attractive partners for OPMs.
Experts like James Sparkman from Alpha Education outline three main paths forward for institutions: building online programs in-house, utilizing fee-for-service à la carte options, or continuing with revenue-sharing models where feasible. While the DIY approach offers maximum control, it requires significant investment and expertise, which many institutions lack. Sparkman cautions against underestimating the resources needed to replicate the scale of online programs seen at institutions like Arizona State or Southern New Hampshire University. For universities considering independent online ventures, Kennedy emphasizes the importance of focusing on niche programs to stand out in a crowded market and avoid substantial financial losses.
Boundless Learning’s Strategy and the Industry’s Uncertain Horizon
In response to these industry shifts, Boundless Learning is looking beyond traditional higher education partnerships. CEO Kees Bol has announced plans to expand into other sectors, leveraging their technology platform to create “branded marketplaces” for organizations with substantial content or educational components. While the specifics of these new target industries remain undisclosed, this strategic pivot suggests a recognition of the challenges and limitations within the current higher education OPM market.
However, industry observers like Phil Hill express skepticism about the long-term success of this diversification strategy. He raises questions about Boundless Learning’s consistency and whether this new direction is a genuine strategic shift or simply a reactive measure. The “boundless learning layoffs” and subsequent expansion plans could be interpreted as either a proactive adaptation to a changing market or a sign of deeper instability.
Ultimately, the developments at Boundless Learning, including the layoffs and strategic reorientation, serve as a critical case study for the OPM industry. As Kennedy points out, the changes at major players like Pearson (Boundless Learning) and 2U provide valuable lessons for smaller OPMs to adapt and refine their strategies. Despite the current turbulence, experts agree that the demand for online education remains strong. Sparkman emphasizes the continued need for universities to expand their online offerings to serve adult learners. The critical question moving forward is not whether universities will continue to pursue online education, but rather how they will navigate this evolving landscape and partner effectively – or independently – to meet the growing demand. The “boundless learning layoffs” may be a bellwether of a significant restructuring in how online education is delivered and managed in the years to come.
