Study Group process
The following document is a compendium derived from the discussions at regular study group meetings. The Study Group has been meeting weekly since April 2002. Upon completion of its deliberations, the Study Group will submit a draft report to the Commonwealth North Board of Directors. After acceptance or modification by the Board and possible further input from the Study Group, a final draft document will be circulated throughout Alaska and statewide commentary will be actively sought. The Study Group plans presentations in Fairbanks, Anchorage, Juneau and with key University constituencies. The CWN web site and other modern means of communication will be used to gather maximum thoughtful feedback from around the state and from different constituencies of the University, both internal and external. The Study Group will then review the draft in light of feedback and submit a final draft for Board approval or modification. At that point the final report will be distributed statewide and the implementation phase will begin.

This report is produced by an organization with a long-term track record of analysis of serious Alaska issues. It is an informed opinion report of dedicated volunteers who have spent many hours interviewing resource people, researching and deliberating. However, it is not, nor is intended to be, a detailed management review of the University of Alaska. It is not a McKinsey & Company management report. It attempts to identify, analyze and make recommendations on statewide policy level issues. Recommendations are intended to be in the form of general principles that will serve as a practical guide for the statewide university community -- not specific campus or departmental management directives.

Please note this is very much still a DRAFT. It will be used to focus discussions to meet our deadline of producing the report by the end of October. Please submit any specific suggestions to Duane at exec@commonwealthnorth.org

I.Front cover

1. Title
2. Date
3. Steven Rieger, Jonathan Kumin, co-chairs; Duane Heyman, editor
4. “Draft statement”
5. Underwriters: First National Bank Alaska, Alaska Humanities Forum

II. Why is Commonwealth North doing this report?

The Commonwealth North (CWN) Board of Directors evaluated key Alaska issues in February and March of 2002. The fiscal gap, leadership, subsistence, the rural-urban divide, a vision for the future, managing Alaska’s resources and the need for an economic plan in the face of a weakening economy were all identified as major public policy concerns. However, when reviewed in the light of what significant contribution CWN could make at this time, one additional issue offered the most promise for a Study Group -- the role of the University of Alaska (U of A) in higher education in Alaska. Over its twenty three-year history, CWN has produced studies covering all or major parts of the preceding issues. These studies are available for review at the CWN web site www.commonwealthnorth.org In contrast, CWN had studied the issue of Alaska higher education twice without reaching sufficient conclusion to issue a report. CWN is now studying U of A because:

• There is an increasing perception that U of A is central to the future and prosperity of Alaska.
• New leadership at U of A has made significant strides in redefining the University to meet the challenges of the future.
• While public and private support for the University has reversed a decade-long decline in funding, additional diversified sources of funding need to be developed in conjunction with ongoing legislative funding.
• The University is now at a crossroads of opportunity -- either progress will continue to be made or institutional inertia and public apathy will put a brake on its potential.
• CWN felt that educating its members and all Alaskans about U of A would contribute to public and legislative understanding of this vital state institution.

III. What does Commonwealth North hope to accomplish with this report?

The The Study Group is charged with answering three main questions:

• What are the appropriate roles and responsibilities of U of A?
• How can U of A best fulfill these obligations to Alaska?
• How do issues such as costs, resources, competing choices and constraints (both internal and external) affect the ability of U of A to fulfill its roles and responsibilities?

The scope of the study is to be statewide. In broad terms, it will identify Alaska’s higher education needs and analyze how well U of A is meeting those needs. It will analyze University operations as they relate to current economic activity and identify specific areas where higher education initiatives can support economic development. The report will review the U of A financial situation, both current and projected and explore successful financial, academic and economic models external to Alaska. The report will develop specific goals and make recommendations to achieve them. Finally, the report will analyze the issues, identify a process for addressing issues, and find guiding principles for the benefit of the State.

IV. Table of contents

V. Executive summary

The University of Alaska’s mission is crucial -- we all need to invest in our future

1. The underlying role of the U of A is to improve the quality of life of Alaskans by offering educational opportunities for self-improvement. These Alaskan recipients directly use their new and/or improved skills, knowledge and curiosity to improve the economics, culture and politics of Alaska. U of A also contributes to the quality of life through athletic, cultural and intellectual events.
2. The primary focus of the university must be student learning inspired by excellence in teaching.
3. While the legislature provides a financial foundation for the university, the time has come to develop more diversified long-term support, both financially and through greater community and personal involvement.

Learning is primary, supported by research and engaged service

1. The foundation for university curriculum must be a core of liberal arts at each campus and available statewide. In its broadest sense, liberal arts are a combination of courses that provide knowledge, capabilities and reasoning skills that enable a person to function and reason effectively in society with an awareness of historical and cultural context. Additional courses and programs offered by the university should not drain resources needed to maintain availability of a solid liberal arts curriculum statewide.
2. U of A has started a process to match and plan courses and programs to current and future needs of Alaska. These efforts must continue as there is a need for more formalized strategic planning to look farther in the future to anticipate needs.
3. Even though learning and teaching must be the primary orientation, basic and applied research and service to the community are essential to the vitality of a campus and to our state. Advancement of knowledge through research is inherent to higher education. It is difficult to establish and maintain an optimum balance between teaching and research because research is essential but should not subsume the focus on teaching and learning.
4. The best mix of research is a combination of: meeting Alaska’s needs, income producing research, research partnerships with industry, sustainable competitive research, research that takes advantage of our unique geographic location and serendipitous research that takes advantage of special ideas or professors. Maximizing opportunities for teaching and student involvement adds to the benefit of any type of research.
5. We see a risk that sole source government grants are vulnerable to cutbacks. U of A is aware of this problem and is striving to obtain more competitive research grants.

Sufficient long-term funding must involve all constituencies to build on a solid legislative fiscal base.

1. There is need for a diversified package of revenues developed with consideration of peer institution comparisons to meet the needs identified in the strategic planning process. These consist of tuition, research grants, legislative funding, private contributions and community contributions. The time has come for each constituency to invest in the university, each in its appropriate way. Examples of constituencies are students, industry, communities, alumni, cultural and sports aficionados, government agencies, non-profit organizations, Alaska Native corporations and organizations and schools.
2. The university should not be allowed to revert to the “years in the desert” when real funding cuts of 1/3 of legislative support exacerbated a situation where the university offers 1/3 fewer programs than its peers Outside.
3. Ongoing predictable legislative support that keeps pace with inflation in higher education is the fiscal foundation that will empower development of additional sources of revenue. Additional funding above and beyond inflation proofing could allow the university to respond to identified state needs to bridge the gap until lower priority programs can be cut back to free up resources or additional sources of revenue can be generated. University lead times are long and short-term changes difficult.

The Study Group was impressed by the range and quality of university programs and people. Efforts to inform and engage Alaskans in this vital institution must continue to be enhanced.

1. U of A is an under-recognized vital resource that is not understood nor appreciated by the vast majority of the population of Alaska.
2. There is an expectation and need for more engagement with communities and citizens in Alaska as part of the university’s public service commitment. This engagement is vital for maintaining and enhancing public and legislative support. An updated version of the old agricultural extension school model could extend the service mission of the university and demonstrate the value of U of A to the larger community.
3. Distance delivery and distributed education will be an increasingly important method to deliver the services listed above. U of A should continue its efforts to make distance delivery and distributed education more culturally relevant, effective and affordable statewide.

The Board of Regents must continue its efforts to establish objective financial and academic results-oriented planning

The issue of resource allocation between campuses has been contentious and needs to be addressed--“Federalism” vs. central control. The Board of Regents must be responsible for creating and monitoring a system of financial and academic control that coordinates and maximizes synergistic opportunities between campuses, yet does not stifle ability to meet regional needs. To the maximum extent possible, resource allocation should be based on clearly delineated needs of Alaska and students, not regional politics.

In conclusion, the University of Alaska has established a solid base that can and must be enhanced to lead Alaska into a future that will benefit all of its citizens for generations to come.

VI. Background information

1. A university preserves, creates and transmits knowledge
2. Definition of “University” by Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (1998) “An institution of learning of the highest level, comprising a college of liberal arts, a program of graduate studies, and several professional schools, and authorized to confer both undergraduate and graduate degrees.”
3. To this mix, U of A adds a community college mission, vocational and technical missions and remedial education. All of this with a background of a near-monopoly on higher education serving the needs of six hundred thousand inhabitants spread over a vast area one-fifth the land mass of the “Lower 48.”
4. In many respects, U of A is a land grant university in a state that itself could be characterized as a “land grant state.” Just as U of A was given land initially to help pay expenses, the State of Alaska was given 100 million acres to help provide a resource base to pay for state expenses. Neither the University nor the state has sufficient land to pay for everything, but their land base is one of the ongoing sources of revenue for both.
5. Three main campuses separately accredited are coordinated by the University of Alaska System -- a single system for higher education in Alaska.
   1. Governed by a Board of Regents appointed by the governor for eight-year terms.
   2. Associated campuses and community colleges in all regions of Alaska
   3. Serves more than 100 communities in Alaska
   4. Employs 7,000 people and generates another 4,300 jobs in Alaska.
6. Brief history (from Office of Public Affairs)
   1. 1915 Created by Act of Congress and given a small land grant for a college
   2. 1917 Accepted by the Territorial Legislature and called the Alaska Agricultural College and School of Mines
   3. 1935 Re-named the University of Alaska
   4. 1998 32,000 students statewide; 50% over age 30, 383 buildings statewide with an adjusted value of $913 million.
7. Basic attendance statistics, including context of APU, Sheldon Jackson, Charter College and other post-secondary alternatives FILL IN
   1. UAA total FTE enrollment, 2001: 15,374
   2. Alaska Pacific University (Anchorage) total enrollment in 2000: 689 students
   3. Charter College (Anchorage) enrollment: 426 full and part time students
   4. Sheldon Jackson (Sitka) enrollment: 250 full and part time students
   5. Ilisagvik College (Barrow) enrollment: 531 students
8. Basic academic statistics FILL IN
9. Basic financial statistics FILL IN
   1. Share of operations funded by the State: 46%. The State contributes $12,800 per student for a total of $211 million in FY 2003.This contribution is made as a single line item administered by the University of Alaska System. In addition, the State has provided $157 million of capital funding during 1999-2000.
   2. Net tuition and fees of $2,900 per student provide 10% of operating revenue. After one year of residency, out-of-state students qualify as residents and receive in-state tuition.
   3. Research grants and contracts totaling $118 million are 17% of total operating revenue of $XXX million.
   4. U of A has recently focused efforts on building private philanthropic support. The U of A Foundation receives about $4 million, or 30% of state-mandated oil company charitable donations.
   5. Other sources (to total 100%)
   6. Total financial resources exceed $289 million including $102 million in the U of A Foundation. This equals $18,826 per FTE student. While this may seem high, to put this in perspective if $18,826 were an endowment for each student, at 5% per year it would only generate $941 per year -- certainly better than nothing, but not enough to pay a large portion of the cost of education.
   7. Total pro-forma debt: $119 million, with an additional $61 million earmarked from a $230 million statewide bond issue to be voted on November 2002.
   8. U of A received a Moody’s bond rating of A1 in July 2002.
      
      

How other American universities are changing direction to respond to current conditions (Clark Kerr)

1. More privatization: greater reliance on tuition (the Carnegie Commission suggested that students pay one-third of costs), service and patent income, alumni and industry funds.
2. More federalization
3. More cultivation of general public support
4. More attention to effective use of resources
5. More pluralistic leadership
6. More attention to longer-term directions of movement
7. Consideration of protection for “non-market functions” such as citizenship, culture and scholarship that has no early, if ever, monetary returns

The following section is a sidebar What are the goals of higher education. According to Investment in Learning by Howard R. Bowen, higher education in general seeks to accomplish the following goals:

1. For the individual
   1. Cognitive learning: verbal skills, quantitative skills, substantive knowledge, rationality, intellectual tolerance, a sound family life, consumer efficiency, fruitful leisure and health.
   2. These satisfactions and enjoyments accrue both during college years and in later life.
   3. Conversely, the skills listed above avoid negative outcomes for individual students
   4. (A college graduate has twice the lifetime earnings of a high school graduate
2. For society
   1. Advancement of knowledge: discovery and dissemination of new knowledge and advancement of philosophical and religious thought, literature, and the fine arts.
   2. Direct satisfactions and enjoyments received by the population from living in a world of advancing knowledge, technology, ideas, and arts.
   3. Discovery and encouragement of talent
   4. Advancement of social welfare: economic efficiency and growth, enhancement of national prestige and power, progress towards the identification and solution of social problems, “improvement” in the motives, values, aspirations, attitudes, and behavior of members of the general population and over long periods of time, exerting a significant and favorable influence on the course of history as reflected in the evolution of the basic culture and of the fundamental social institutions.
   5. Avoidance of negative outcomes for society.
3. The community college and technical education role of U of A touches various aspects of the above, depending on the particular program.

   VII. What are the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the University of Alaska?

   1. Finding: The underlying role of the U of A is to improve the quality of life of Alaskans by offering opportunities for self improvement. U of A also contributes to the quality of life through athletic, cultural and intellectual events
   2. Finding: Society needs people who have the ability to think, reason and adapt to a rapidly changing environment. A solid liberal arts education provides the intellectual foundation for these skills.
   3. Finding: The University serves a wide range of constituents:
      1. “Traditional” students
      2. Part-time students seeking degree completion
      3. The general public that enjoys sports, cultural and intellectual programs
      4. Workers seeking to improve their skills or learn news skills
      5. Individuals wanting to take classes that interest them
      6. All of the above throughout the state; urban, suburban and rural
   4. Finding: Alaska Native students are a core constituency or “hub” group of students of U of A, but are not necessarily treated as such. A very high percentage of Alaska Native students who attend college do so at a campus in the U of A system and a very high percentage stay in Alaska. Virtually every village has someone who went to U of A.
   5. Recommendation: enhance efforts to make campuses and programs more Alaska Native friendly and relevant, including development of additional Alaska Native faculty.
   6. Finding: U of A incorporates nearly all facets of post-secondary education in Alaska, including university and community college functions.
   7. Finding: There is a need for thoughtful analysis of public policy issues such as intellectual leadership of U of A in understanding and enhancing a “land grant state.”
   8. Recommendation: “land grant state” issues should be woven into all applicable programs, especially in public policy
   9. Finding: U of A is a major contributor to workforce development
      1. Adult education
      2. Certificate programs
      3. Examples: nursing, logistics, teaching
      4. Need to create an “Alaskanized” workforce with useful training and a realistic understanding of the Alaska operating environment.
   10. Finding: U of A is a major employer and a major economic engine in Alaska
       1. Difference between circulator of money and economic engine
       2. Economic engine implies activities, programs and ideas that propel economy forward, not just simply public sector spending of dollars.

   VIII. How can the University of Alaska best fulfill its obligations to Alaska?

   1. Finding: As with any enterprise, and, indeed the State, U of A needs strong leadership. U of A currently enjoys more effective leadership
      1. Well positioned to move forward
      2. The Board of Regents and the U of A System have begun a strategic planning process
   2. Recommendation: Continue and improve the strategic planning process to look far into the future. The Board of Regents must be responsible for creating and monitoring a system of financial and academic control that coordinates and maximizes synergistic opportunities between campuses, yet does not stifle ability to meet regional needs. To the maximum extent possible, resource allocation should be based on clearly delineated needs of Alaska and students, not regional politics. The regents have recently started a formal strategic planning process. The regents should continue to be responsible for establishing an ongoing strategic planning process that incorporates input from all affected constituents including, but not limited to, students, faculty, business and the public.
   3. Finding: The mission of U of A is fulfilled in three ways
      1. Teaching
      2. Research
      3. Service
   4. Recommendation: Of these, teaching must be the most important
   5. Recommendation: The primary university-level orientation must include a quality core liberal arts curriculum at each major campus and via distance delivery to prepare people to think, reason and understand their role in the larger world.
   6. Finding: The three major academic units are quite different from each other and have individual missions
   7. Finding: Given a generalized model of what a campus should have:
      1. UAF is disproportionately strong in research
      2. UAA and UAS devote most of their resources to teaching, and need more research
   8. Recommendation: This does not mean that each campus should be a cookie-cutter copy of the others, but more balanced towards the norm. By this, we mean intra campus balance, not inter campus balance.
   9. Recommendation: Within each campus, the culture cannot be teaching-oriented unless promotion and pay are based strongly on how well a faculty member teaches.
   10. Finding: Even though teaching must be the primary orientation, basic and applied research are essential for the vitality of a campus. Research provides:
       1. Economic contribution to overhead
       2. Flywheel effect
       3. U of A is uniquely positioned to do northern latitudes research
       4. Existing areas of expertise
       5. Opportunities for service and teaching in conjunction with research
       6. Economic contribution to overhead
       7. Potential to derive income from patents
       8. Potential to export expertise
       9. industrial/corporate partnership based research
   11. Finding: What types of research will be emphasized? Finding: It is inescapable that activities that bring in money are going to be a driver of the orientation of any campus
       1. Availability of research grants can cause a research orientation
       2. Availability of grants for vocational offerings can cause a vocational orientation
   12. Recommendation: To bring a teaching/liberal arts orientation:
       1. Legislature must emphasize quality of teaching and offering of liberal arts in its funding criteria
       2. Tuition
   13. Finding: To the extent research is additive and sustainable, it is a plus and can be considered over and above core University functions -- as long as the core teaching functions are not shortchanged.
   14. Finding: The combined community college/traditional college experiment ongoing at UAA is still unproven as to its success
   15. Finding: There is a need for “centers of excellence” at each major campus.
   16. Finding: As in the rest of the country, U of A has increasingly diverted resources to complete inadequate K-12 education of incoming students
       1. 40% of incoming freshmen need remedial programs
       2. 15% of credit hours overall
       3. This mirrors national trends
   17. Recommendation: U of A sets the standard of preparation by the K-12 systems for higher education in Alaska
       1. The standard is not high enough
       2. In the long term it will be cost effective for U of A to work closely and communicate with the K-12 system
       3. Provide competency expectation to parties involved in designing the high school exit exam.
       4. Until the K-12 system improves, there will be need for bridging programs to prepare students for college, as few non-university programs exist.
   18. Finding: the “Brain drain” exists
       1. 50% of post-secondary students obtain higher education Outside
       2. After five years, only 20% of students who study Outside return to Alaska
       3. How much of the Brain Drain is caused by deficiencies in U of A vs. a combination of natural curiosity to try a different experience and economic opportunities Outside?
   19. Possible range of recommendations:
       1. The student loan program should not be tied to in-state attendance, because of the importance of maximizing opportunities to Alaska residents.
       2. No recommendation as to whether the student loan program should be tied to in-state attendance.
       3. Student loans could be forgiven based on returning to Alaska and doing service in the state.
       4. Financial incentives to lure graduate students to Alaska.
   20. Finding: The Alaska Scholars Program has resulted in:
       1. Higher retention rate
       2. An increasing percentage of students coming from Alaska
       3. Incentive effect in small schools
       4. However, University natural resource income is being consumed to support this program
   21. Findings: U of A offers 2/3rd the course offerings of its peers
       1. Tuition levels are low compared to peer institutions and to national norms
       2. Adequacy of resources, including total state funding FILL IN
          1. Basic facts
          2. Tuition levels
          3. Adjusted peer comparisons
   22. Finding: Given the geographic dispersion of its citizens, Alaska should be a leader in distance delivery and distributed education. While progress is being made, distance delivery and distributed education have not yet reached its potential at U of A. The university has recognized this need. The three major campus academic officers (the Systemwide Academic Council) have accepted responsibility for distance education.
   23. Recommendation: Continue efforts to “more effectively evaluate, develop, coordinate, and facilitate distance education throughout all UA campuses.” (See Appendix 4) Basic research may need to be done to adapt distance delivery systems to the needs of rural and Alaska Native students.
   24. Finding: To be effective and efficient in the long-run, University analysis, internal, programmatic and external plans need to be forward thinking and consider such issues as: (is this list sufficient?)
       1. International, national and Alaska demographic trends
       2. Direction and rate of technological change
       3. Nationwide development of educational distance delivery options and how they impact and create opportunities in Alaska
       4. The genetic revolution in biological sciences
       5. The impact on university governance of increased public, legislative and student involvement with the university
       6. The Alaska state fiscal situation
       7. Globalization and long-term global economic trends
   25. Finding: Efficiency and accountability: The University does a substantial amount of self-analysis and comparison to peers. It has the tools to understand itself well.
   26. Findings: Improved coordination and cooperation
       1. With encouragement of the System administration, the different campuses have recently done a better job of cooperating and coordinating
       2. There is still a perception that transferability among campuses is lacking -- not able to determine the extent to which there is a real transferability problem
   27. Findings: Public understanding and support
       1. The Study Group and probably most of the general Alaska population was unaware of the many excellent programs U of A offers.
       2. Different campuses have different levels of connection to their communities
       3. Effective communication, outreach and accountability are keys to success in generating public support for the University.
   28. Recommendation: Since understanding of the public is essential to maintaining public and political support, a comprehensive effort needs to be made to earn that support. This includes:
       1. Student, academic and administrative participation in appropriate community, business and civic activities
       2. Classes and programs designed to interact with and benefit from community participation
       3. Adequate funding for communications programs to reach all Alaska citizens about the activities and benefits of U of A

   IX. How do issues such as costs, resources, competing choices and constraints affect the ability of U of A to fulfill its roles and responsibilities?

   1. Finding: Academic control and governance -- how the University decides what it does and does not do -- “he who has the gold rules”
      1. The balance between teaching, research and service
      2. What types of research are emphasized
      3. How to determine which campuses get which programs
      4. Maintaining “centers of excellence”
      5. Program development policy and articulation
      6. Specific Alaska Native needs and means to satisfy those needs
      7. Rural needs and means to satisfy those needs
      8. University relationship with the K-12 system
   2. Recommendation: Financial control and governance
      1. U of A should be a leader in identifying and explaining its dollar cost needs based on meeting the needs of the State
      2. How to determine adequacy of university funding and possible and appropriate sources of funding
      3. Comparison with external university models and benchmarks
   3. Recommendation: The roles of the Regents
      1. Require the U of A to match current and future needs of the State
      2. Identify resources needed and to be clear in what it does and why
      3. Control of the process of allocating resources
      4. Control of the process of allocating programs between campuses
      5. Control of the process of developing new programs and their location
   4. Finding: Benefits of developing and maintaining a comprehensive strategic planning process (Currently focusing on 2009 -- the 50th anniversary of statehood)
      1. Distills a coordinated vision for the overall university and its component units
      2. Allocates resources in a planned vs. political fashion
      3. Provides year-to-year continuity
      4. Provides an understandable direction that helps students, teachers, legislators and citizens relate to the university.
   5. Recommendation: Create an ongoing dialogue between the Regents and the State Board of Education.
   6. Finding: Administrative costs seem in line or favorable compared to peer institutions
   7. Finding: Suburban campuses are very productive, from a cost effectiveness standpoint. They produce credit hours at a reasonable cost because of high use of adjunct faculty. However, overuse of adjuncts can have an adverse effect in terms of accreditation.
   8. Finding: U of A has low tuition for its university level courses compared to its peers.However, the tuition for community college-type courses may be higher than many community colleges Outside because community colleges are frequently subsidized to keep their tuition low.
   9. Recommendation: U of A tuition should be raised to be more in line with its peers.
   10. Finding: Because of its youth and small alumni base, U of A derives an unusually large proportion of its income from legislative grants compared to its peers.
   11. Recommendation: Each major campus should diversify its financial support base. While the university works to develop a more diversified base of income sources, the legislature should maintain the purchasing power of current funding levels adjusted by the Higher Education Price Index. Amounts over and above inflation adjustment could allow for the transition into programs that are more closely aligned to the strategic plan.
   12. Finding: U of A has no needs-based scholarship program.
   13. Recommendation: Establish a needs-based scholarship program.
       

   X. Action items for Commonwealth North

   Part A – report completion

   1. CWN Board approves a DRAFT for circulation around the state
   2. Circulate draft for feedback and commentary
      1. Web site
      2. Printed version
      3. Public presentations
         1. Juneau
         2. Fairbanks
         3. Anchorage
         4. Key University constituencies
   3. Study group assimilates feedback and modifies report as necessary
   4. Modified report submitted to CWN Board
   5. Distribution of final report and follow-up on action items

   Part B – Follow-up actions

   1. Identify one or more recommendations for CWN to pursue after report completion that are achievable within 12 months.
   2. Form a follow-up group to pursue these items.

   Success stories:

   • Partnering with industry -- hospitals
   1. o Finding: there has been progress
      o Recommendation: need to do more
      o Industry has pushed the University
   • (Need UAF success story)
   • (Need UAS success story)
   • UAA Debate Team
   • Process technology program industry support
   • First Alaskans Institute funding for rural programs
   • Individual professors such as James Muller
   • The collaborative Earthquake Engineering Project
     

   Appendices:

   1. Who and what is Commonwealth North?

   2. Map of U of A campuses

   3. The Charge to the Study Group

   ---

   University of Alaska: Its roles and responsibilities
   Charge approved by the Board March 19, 2002

   Questions to be addressed:

   • What are the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the University of Alaska?
   • How can U of A best fulfill these obligations to Alaska?
   • How do issues such as costs, resources, competing choices and constraints (both internal and external) affect the ability of U of A to fulfill its roles and responsibilities?

   Scope of study:

   • The scope of the study is statewide.
   • Identify Alaska’s higher education needs.
   • Analyze how well the U of A is meeting those needs.
   • Analyze University operations as they relate to current Alaska economic activity.
   • Identify specific areas where higher education initiatives can support economic development..
   • Review the U of A financial situation, both current and projected.
   • Explore successful financial, academic and economic models external to Alaska.
   • Develop specific goals and make recommendations to achieve them.

   Nature of report to be issued (Technical, Analytical, or Opinion):

   This report will analyze the issues, identify a process for addressing issues, and find guiding principles for the benefit of the State. While the report will largely express an opinion, it will address technical and analytical issues that may be necessary aspects of the larger picture.

   Conflict of interest standards:

   The intent of the study is to represent a balance between the geographic, demographic, ethnic and economic interests in Alaska.

   It is expected that persons with interests in the outcome of the study will be members of the study group and will participate in its deliberations. Study group leaders should request that study group members identify their interests relative to specific points they advocate.

   Measure of success:

   This study group can be successful in two ways:

   1. Recommendations are made, approved and implemented that achieve all or part of the goals that the study develops.
      
      
   2. CWN study group participants generate understanding of and insight into the potential for higher education in Alaska, and generate media coverage appropriate to share this understanding and insight with a much wider audience of Alaskans.

      ---

   4. University of Alaska Distance Education -- An Overview

   For over forty years, the University of Alaska system has delivered instruction throughout the state via innovative distance delivery models. Over this time period, several administrative structures and academic processes were developed. These structures have existed in both urban and rural campus settings. In order to more efficiently administer distance education, the University of Alaska system recently conducted internal reviews of its distance education capacity, structure(s), and administration. As a result, the university system has set in place processes to more effectively evaluate, develop, coordinate, and facilitate distance education throughout all UA campuses.

   Academic Offerings

   • The University of Alaska offers more than six-hundred distance education course sections each semester (over 700 course sections were offered in the spring of 2002).
     • Fall 2002 number of courses by MAU
       • UAA 109
       • UAS 136
       • UAF 378
   • All UA distance delivered courses can be viewed at the UA Distance Education Gateway: UAonline.Alaska.edu.
   • The type and number of course offerings are based on community demand and degree/certificate program requirements.
   • The University remains committed to a variety of delivery modes:
     • Audio conferencing
     • Alaska 3 broadcast
     • WWW
     • Traditional correspondence
     • Video conferencing (limited)
     • Tape broadcasts

   Current and Future Academic Direction

   Academic leadership for distance education is the responsibility of the Systemwide Academic Council or SAC; composed of the three Chief Academic Officers (UAF Provost Reichardt, UAS Provost Stell, and UAA Provost Chapman).

   • There is a transition underway from offering independent courses - to the creation of full certificate and degree programs (a list of programs currently available via distance delivery can be found at UAonline.Alaska.edu).
   • This transition is evidenced by the emphasis now placed on developing programs in several critical areas: nursing, allied health, education, computer information systems, and microcomputer support/technology (COIS and MSSP).
   • The decision to develop future academic programs will be guided by identified state needs through the University of Alaska’s initiative process.
   • Rather than create additional administrative units to facilitate distance education within the university system, the Systemwide Academic Council developed a Virtual University Model. This model, employed nationally, takes advantage of the existing academic (as well as administrative and IT infrastructure) capacities, and more efficiently coordinates and articulates these capacities throughout the system.
   • The UA Distance Education Curriculum Planning Team, composed of faculty members from throughout the university system, assist in the development and articulation of distance delivered courses and programs.

   A Commitment to Students and Access: Some Examples

   • Campus-based distance education administrators coordinate courses, programs, and student services throughout the University of Alaska.
   • In order to more effectively support students, campus-based student services professionals reengineered many business processes to realize administrative efficiencies and increase access to distance education information, courses, and programs.
   • The UA Distance Education Gateway (Uaonline.Alaska.edu) provides students with 24-hour access to information on all university distance education course offerings.
   • The Gateway is linked to the university’s suite of online student services (including registration, financial aid, and fee payment). These online services can also be accessed at UAonline.Alaska.edu.
   • Students who enroll in courses delivered at a distance require unique support services (academic advising, books, registration, etc.). University staff responsible for the facilitation of distance education will continue to work closely with student services professionals from throughout the system to address these unique needs.

   Dr. Michael Sfraga
   Associate Vice President
   Student Services and Enrollment Management
   University of Alaska System Office
   

   5. Resource people interviewed by the Study Group

   University President Mark Hamilton, University of Alaska Fairbanks Chancellor Marshall Lind, University of Alaska Southeast Chancellor John Pugh, University of Alaska Anchorage Chancellor Lee Gorsuch, U of A Regents Chancy Croft and Michael Burns, U of A System Chief of Staff James Johnsen, Director UAF Budget & Institutional Research Pat Pitney, Vice President of Finance Joseph Beedle, U of A Vice President University Relations Wendy Redman, UAA Director of Native Student Services Willy Templeton, UAA Professor of English Dr. Jeane Breinig, First Alaskans Institute Sarah Scanlon.

   6. Additional sources of information

   The Uses of the University, Fifth Edition, Clark Kerr, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2001; Investment In Learning, Howard R. Bowen, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick and London, 1996; “Reengaging the University: A Case Study of the University of Alaska, 1998-2002,” James R. Johnsen, Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California Berkeley, 2002; "The Economic Impact of Higher Education," Dr. Russell O’Hare, Statewide Office Budget & Institutional Research, Fairbanks, 2002.

   7. Members of the Study Group

   Steven Rieger and Jonathan Kumin, co-chairs; Duane Heyman, editor; Richard Barnes, Sarah Barton, Joseph Beedle, Steven Boyd, Patrick Burden, Michael Burns, Milton Byrd, Thomas Case, James Chapman, Bill Dann, Brian Davies, Betty Emerick, Charles Fahl, Mark Foster, Cheryl Frasca, Jan Fredericks, Alice Galvin, Jan Gehler, Edward Lee Gorsuch, Joe Griffith, H.R.”Ky” Holland, Grant Hunter, Pamela Keeler, David Kester, Nancy King, Jim Knapp, Grace Long, Cynthia Matson, Ronald Miller, Rachel Morse, Arden Page, Ira Perman, Joanne Phelan, Pat Pitney, David Rees, Wendy Redman, Susan Ruddy, Jeff Staser, Niel Thomas, Tim Wiepking

   8. Members of the Commonwealth North Board of Directors

   Joe Griffith, president; Jonathan Kumin, Janie Leask, James Yarmon, vice presidents; Morton Plumb, Jr., secretary; Jan Fredericks, treasurer; Nancy Bear Usera, past president; Richard F. Barnes, Douglas Bruce, William H. Colbert, III, Mano Frey, Edward Lee Gorsuch, Walter J. Hickel, Max Hodel, Karen L. Hunt, Jewel Jones, Marc Langland, Betsy Lawer, James Linxwiler, Loren H. Lounsbury, Jeff B. Lowenfels, Kevin Meyers, Rick Mystrom, Matthew Nicolai, Mike Sexton, William Sheffield, Jeff Staser, William J. Tobin, David Wight; Duane Heyman, executive director

   9. Back cover

   1. Title
   2. CWN contact information
   3. Underwriters: First National Bank Alaska, Alaska Humanities Forum