The Study Group has recognized the need for more information on Alaska Native and rural campus issues. David Rees coordinated the following subcommittee to gather information in these areas and report back to the overall Study Group. The following summarizes key discussion points. Although there was not unanimity of opinion on every point, in general Willy, Jean and Sarah shared common perceptions.

Present: Sarah Scanlan of First Alaskans Institute, Willy Templeton, UAA Director of Native Student Services, Dr. Jeane Breinig, UAA Professor of English, Steve Rieger, Jon Kumin, David Rees and Duane Heyman

1. In general, Alaska students are not prepared for college.
   1. The situation is worse for rural schools
   2. At UAA 75% of students at the College of Arts and Sciences cannot qualify for the basic freshman composition class English 111 and need to take remedial English classes. Many who fail to qualify for English 111 also do poorly in math.
   3. Until the Alaska K-12 system improves, there will be a need for bridging programs to prepare students for college
   4. Few non-university programs exist to bridge the gap
2. A role of the university should be to set expectations of the K-12 system and clearly and effectively express them.
   1. This is not currently being done.
   2. The university and the K-12 system need to connect and articulate ways to improve preparation for college
   3. Provide competency expectation to parties involved in designing the High School exit exam.
3. It may be useful to classify campuses in three ways:
   1. Urban -- UAF, UAA and UAS
   2. Suburban -- in areas with predominantly a cash economy
   3. Rural -- in areas with predominantly a subsistence economy
4. U of A has an obligation to balance efficiency, equity and access throughout Alaska
5. Suburban campuses are very productive, from a cost effectiveness standpoint.
   1. Credit hours vs. cost
   2. High use of adjunct faculty is cost effective. However, the overuse of adjuncts can have an adverse effect in terms of accreditation.
6. Rural U of A campuses:
   1. Do a higher percentage of developmental teaching
   2. Focus on years 1 and 2 with help of distance delivery
   3. A wishful “ideal” balance of rural teaching would be more like 0% remediation, 60% community college type courses and 40% liberal arts.
   4. Rural campuses currently cover all the major rural hub communities
7. UAF administers the College of Rural Alaska which creates the opportunity to earn 4 year degrees in rural areas
   1. Rural campuses and students feel Fairbanks is more sensitive to Native needs than is Anchorage
   2. UAA has a poor reputation for treatment of Natives and Native programs -- whether deserved or not.
   3. UAA enrollment and campus services are unnecessarily legalistic
   4. The remaining community college employees at UAA have a culture that is more customer friendly
8. Alaska Native students are a core constituency or “hub” group of students for U of A, but are not necessarily treated as such:
   1. A very high percentage of Native students who attend college go to a campus in the U of A system.
   2. A very high percentage of Native students stay in Alaska
   3. Virtually every village has someone who went to U of A
   4. The U of A system takes this for granted
   5. Only 2-4% of Native high school graduates go on to get degrees
   6. At UAA 5-6% of students are Native
9. Lack of Alaska Native faculty is notable. UAA has only two tenured Alaska Native faculty members. At this time, there is no formal effort by the university to develop “grow your own” Native faculty.
   1. Native teachers who have come and gone note the pressure of being obliged to represent all the Alaska Native regions and cultures when, in fact, they are knowledgeable primarily of their own.
   2. They also face extra pressure as unofficial mentors of Native students.
   3. There are many more Natives with M.A.s than Ph.D.s than in the past. However, educational and industrial institutions aggressively seek these degree holders and can offer higher compensation.
10. There is no statewide Alaska Native advisory group. A Vice President for Native Affairs with the ear of the President would be helpful.
11. “Seamless articulation” is needed.
    1. There is a lack of system-wide process to identify needs and make the most effective system-wide response in course offerings.
    2. Needs should be customer driven
    3. Courses are now primarily based on who is available to teach
    4. Rural campuses should focus on core needs -- health care, teachers, computer skills
12. Potential recommendation: a basic core liberal arts curriculum should be available via distance delivery if necessary
13. Major issues
    1. Funding control -- at the U of A system level or by MAU?
    2. Academic control -- at the U of A system level or by MAU?
    3. Accreditation -- separately as is now the case, or system-wide?
    4. Regionalism -- it continues as a barrier to credit transfers
    5. Potential role of distance delivery and its impact on the entire system -- need for centralized coordination and partnering with other online providers like the Western Governor’s University.
    6. Program articulation
       1. Identify needs
       2. Statewide plan for how campuses can work together
       3. Coordinated by the system
       4. Community and customer input part of the process
       5. Now the squeaky wheel gets resources
       6. Plan driven education vs. grant driven education
       7. Transferability of credits is still a major problem, and barrier
    7. How to more effectively serve and benefit from Alaska Native students
       1. Separate or integrate? Different approaches work in different settings and a one-size-fits-all approach may not work system-wide in all programs. UAF appears to be consolidating and centralizing programs while UAA is integrating programs into the majors.
       2. Successful examples of integrating into departments: engineering and nursing