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

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.

I. Table of contents

Executive Summary

Background Information

(Sidebar on the goals of higher education)

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

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

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

Action items for Commonwealth North

Success stories

Appendices

Who and what is Commonwealth North?
Map of U of A campuses
The Charge to the Study Group
University of Alaska Distance Education -- An Overview
Resource people interviewed by the Study Group
Additional sources of information
Members of the Study Group
Members of the Commonwealth North Board of Directors

II. 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 at all levels, from developmental to graduate, post-graduate and continuing education.
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 through distance delivery. 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 basic liberal arts curriculum statewide.
2. U of A is expected to provide community college programming in addition to typical university level programs and services. This duality of mission presents opportunities and challenges for students, the faculty and the public. Through its community college mission U of A provides vocational/technical training for both entry-level and incumbent workers in business and industry.
3. 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.
4. 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 the development of 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.
5. 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 research that capitalizes on unique talents and interests of existing professors. Maximizing opportunities for teaching and student involvement adds to the benefit of any type of research.
6. 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.

State general fund appropriations to the U of A are generally in line with peer institutions. U of A does need additional funding and must develop other sources for it

1. While the U of A could benefit from increased legislative appropriations, the existing level of State appropriations is consistent with similar institutions when compared on a per student basis. However, an analysis of the funding structure of U of A shows that other sources of funding are low.
2. Other sources include tuition, research grants and other external grants, industry support of particular programs, private and community contributions, land grant support and foundation support. Developing these sources is a responsibility of the community generally, not just the University.
3. The U of A should develop these other sources. We will know that the University has become successful in this effort when state appropriations have remained at least at today’s levels, adjusted for inflation in higher education (the Higher Education Price Index—which has recently been outpacing the Consumer Price Index), but other sources have been increased to where state support amounts to only ___% of total instructional funding rather than today’s ___% of total instructional funding.

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. The U of A programs in professional, vocational and technical areas need to develop and maintain close connections with employers to ensure that skills and curriculum are aligned with industry standards.
4. 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.
5. The University is viewed by Alaska Natives as “their University” because of the many rural campus and extension sites. But there is a perception that the University does not view the delivery of education and career development for Alaska Natives as a major mission.

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

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. A strategic plan will ensure the most appropriate and cost effective distribution of programs and funding between the system campuses. 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.

REMAINING QUESTIONS:
(So what? Is this report going far enough? Are there any “stretch” recommendations that should be considered?)

(Who is or can be responsible for identifying the needs of the state? If the University is to meet needs, they need to be defined.)

(Need key measures of success—how will the world be different because the University accomplishes its mission? E.g., graduation, retention, increased non-general fund support, economic activity, etc.)

(What are the consequences if U of A does not meet its mission and goes back to the “years in the desert?”)

III. 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 including vocational and technical courses and programs, and other certificates, programs and two year degrees that are focused primarily on employment. All of this is being done within the background of a near-monopoly on higher education in Alaska while 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 (although the total land grant given to the University has never been fulfilled by the federal government), 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. Established in the Alaska State Constitution
   2. Governed by a Board of Regents appointed by the governor for eight-year terms.
   3. Associated campuses and community colleges in all regions of Alaska
   4. Serves more than 100 communities in Alaska
   5. Employs 7,000 people and generates another 4,300 jobs in Alaska.
6. Brief history (from the 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. Alaska post-secondary student enrollment, Fall 2000, per the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
   
   

   Institution	Highest degree offered	Number of full-time students	Number of part-time students	Total students	Student FTE
   UAA	Master’s	5,868	8,926	14,794		8,843
   Prince William Sound CC	Associate’s	82	759	841		335
   UAF	Doctor’s	3,498	3,634	7,132		4,709
   UAS	Master’s	755	2,715	3,470		1,660
   	Total UA opening enrollment	10,203	16,034	26,237		15,548
   	UA closing enrollment	10,429	20,051	30,480		14,939
   Ak.Voc.Tech.Ctr.	1-Year cert.	129	81	210		156
   Ak. Pacific U.	Master’s	387	300	687		487
   Charter College	Bachelor’s	189	297	486		288
   Sheldon Jackson College	Bachelor’s	104	73	177		128
   Career Academy	<1-Yr.Cert.	429		429		429
   Ak. Bible College	Bachelor’s	31	13	44		35
   Ilisagvik College	2-Yr. Cert.	42	280	322		135
   	Private	1,311	1,044	2,355		1,659
   	Total Alaska	11,514	17,078	28,592		17,207
   	% UA enrollment	89%	94%	92%		90%

8. Alaska’s ratio of public to private post-secondary students is one of the highest in the country. Nevada, New Mexico, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming are in the 88-93% range, followed by Utah and Hawaii at 70%.
9. Information on U of A students (as of Fall 2000)
   1. Demographics
      1. 12.1% Alaska Native
      2. 4.2% Asian
      3. 3.1% Black
      4. 3.1% Hispanic
      5. 70.3% Caucasian
      6. 7.2% unknown
      7. 60% female
      8. 40% male
   2. 51% In a declared degree program; 49% community campus and non-declared.
   3. 1,200 Classic first-time freshmen, up 50% since 1997. This is largely the impact of the Alaska Scholars Program with 1,066 total participants from high school graduating classes of 1999-2002.
   4. 90% from Alaska; 2.7% foreign.
   5. 35% fulltime; 65% part time
   6. In any given year approximately 45,000 individuals pay for the educational services of the University of Alaska
   7. There has been a 6.4% increase in headcount as of fall 2002 from 2001
10. Degrees awarded: 2,591 (as of Fall 2000)
    1. 1,232 baccalaureate
    2. 346 master’s
    3. 27 doctorate
    4. 986 associate and certificates
    5. Most popular programs (not ranked): psychology, business & management, journalism, nursing, public communication, education, computer science
11. Faculty;
    1. Full-time: 1,060; 504 have tenure
       1. 307 professors
       2. 272 associate professors
       3. 438 assistant professor
       4. instructor/lecturers
    2. Part-time: 1,131
12. Basic financial information
    
    

    University Related Funding Issues	Alaska/UA	WICHE	National
    State Support of Higher Education
    1. State Appropriations To Higher Education	8.0%	12.3%	11.8%
    2. State Grant and Aid Per Student	0	$  257	$  354
    UA Funding and Operations
    3. Ratio of Tuition to Instruction Expenditures FY01	42%	63%	61%
    4. Ratio of Tuition to State Appropriations FY01	26%	36%	43%
    5. Instructional Expenditures Per FTE Student
    FY00	$ 6,989	$ 7,160	$ 7,126
    FY02	$ 7,684
    6. State Appropriations Per Student
    Public Two-year and Public Four-year	$ 11,275	$   8,410
    Public Four-year	$ 11,275	$ 14,188
    7. Staff Per 100 FTE students	13.4	13.8	(Peer Systems)
    8. Research Generated per FTE Faculty	88,970	45,050
    9. Instruction as a % of Total Expenditures
    Without Adjustment	30.5%	35.5%
    Adjusted for Research Success	36.5%	35.5%

    
    
    
    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 by adding staff at the system and campus level necessary to direct and coordinate fundraising efforts.
    5. In accordance with the Charter Agreement negotiated between the State and BP and Phillips for the development of North Slope Oil resources, the U of A Foundation receives between $3 and $4 million per year, or 30% of the oil company charitable donations mandated in the Charter Agreement.
    6. Other sources (to total 100%)
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. U of A received a Moody’s bond rating of A1 in July 2002.
       
       

IV. 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: U of A contributes to the economic development of Alaska through research necessary for the development of natural resources, through the transfer of knowledge and technology developed at the University, and through the education and training of the local workforce.
4. 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
5. 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.
6. Finding: Despite the importance of the University to Alaska Natives, there is a wide range of concerns about the respect the University accords its Alaska Native population, the adequacy of academic and social programs for Alaska Natives, insufficient Native faculty, and lack of focus on Alaska Native issues.
7. Recommendation: Enhance efforts to make campuses and programs more Alaska Native friendly and relevant, including development of additional Alaska Native faculty. Include Alaska Native issues as a permanent part of the U of A strategic plan. Alaska Native participation and needs within the University should be viewed as a major opportunity to bring the whole state forward, not as a problem to be solved.
8. Finding: U of A incorporates nearly all facets of post-secondary education in Alaska, including University and community college functions.
9. 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.”
10. Recommendation: “land grant state” issues should be woven into all applicable programs, especially in public policy. Alaska has an unusually high concentration of wealth in the public sector. The University needs to be at the intellectual forefront of public wealth and resource management issues.
11. Finding: U of A is a major contributor to workforce development
    1. Adult education
    2. Certificate and degree programs that are work related
    3. Examples: nursing, logistics, teaching, process industry and information technology
    4. Need to create an “Alaskanized” workforce with useful training and a realistic understanding of the Alaska operating environment.
12. Finding: U of A is a major employer and a major economic engine in Alaska
    1. There is a difference between circulator of money and an economic engine
    2. Economic engine implies activities, programs and ideas that propel economy forward, not just simply public sector spending of dollars.
    3. Research is a significant industry in Alaska, albeit an industry that would not exist in Alaska without the University. Alaska research would still be done, but it would be done by Outside universities. Non-state revenues in research generate ___ jobs, and have resulted in the establishment of independent companies throughout Alaska that support the research enterprise, or utilize results from the research enterprise to generate new businesses.

V. 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 is central; but research and service are inseparable from teaching by ensuring faculty stay current in their disciplines and stay connected with the publics they serve.
5. Recommendation: The primary university-level orientation must include a quality core liberal arts curriculum at each major campus and via distance delivery or distributed education to prepare people to think, reason and understand their role in the larger world.
6. Finding: The three major academic units (UAF, UAA and UAS) 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 especially strong in research. This research strength is a major asset to the University and to Alaska.
   2. UAA and UAS devote most of their resources to teaching, and need more research in appropriate areas that can develop into “centers of excellence.”
8. Recommendation: Each campus should build on its “centers of excellence” in research to maximize student, community and business involvement, while maintaining a quality basic liberal arts curriculum.
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. Potential to derive income from patents
    7. Potential to export expertise
    8. Industrial/corporate partnership based research
    9. Enhance the knowledge and effectiveness of faculty teaching
    10. Provide opportunities for students to apply and evaluate their knowledge
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 missions and measures 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 and requires ongoing review and willingness to adopt changes necessary to ensure 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. 39% of incoming freshmen need remedial programs
    2. 15% of credit hours overall
    3. This mirrors national trends
       
       

       Percent who enrolled in remedial courses		UA	National
       Public Two Year			39%
       Public Four Year		39%	34%
       Public Doctoral Granting		22%	23%
       		UA	Peer
       First-year Student Retention		65.9%	68.7%
       Baccalaureate Degree Graduation Rate		23.9%	33.4%

       
       
17. Recommendations: U of A should set 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: We need to turn the “Brain drain” into the “Brain trust.”
    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. Greater promotion of the Student Exchange Program that allows U of A students an opportunity to sample other universities Outside for the same tuition as U of A.
    2. The student loan program should not be tied to in-state attendance, because of the importance of maximizing opportunities to Alaska residents.
    3. No recommendation as to whether the student loan program should be tied to in-state attendance.
    4. Student loans could be forgiven based on returning to Alaska and doing service in the state.
    5. 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 academic programs and majors of its peers. Faculty depth necessary for program diversity is hard to justify with lower student enrollments than peer institutions. It is a classic “chicken/egg” dilemma. Tuition levels are low compared to peer institutions and to national norms.
22. Finding: While U of A does not have a law or medical school, it has or is looking into programs that allow U of A students to participate in a course of study leading to degrees in these areas. The WAAMI program allows for U of A pre-medical preparation followed by degree completion with cooperating universities Outside. University officials are looking into a similar program for law.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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:
    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
26. Finding: Efficiency and accountability: The University does a substantial amount of self-analysis and comparison to peers. The quality of analytical staff is excellent, with ready access to vast amounts of information on all aspects of the University.
27. 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
28. 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.
29. 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. Establish partnerships with local schools, businesses and industry.
    4. Adequate funding for communications programs to reach all Alaska citizens about the activities and benefits of U of A
30. Recommendation: An updated version of the “land grant mission” would be an appropriate model for the U of A to develop. This model would take the work of the University to the people in whatever form it is needed, i.e., applied research to assist business and industry; instructional programs offered at times and in places that are convenient to students; and providing continuing education to people in the workplace.

VI. 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 clear 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. Furthermore, University spending seems reasonable compared to other types of services provided by the state.
   
   

   The University in Perspective of other Alaska State Funded Services

   K-12 Education                      1.9 -Times State Per Capita Spending Nationally

   Health and Welfare                   1.7 -Times State Per Capita Spending Nationally

   Government Administration            4.3 -Times State Per Capita Spending Nationally

   Police and Corrections                2.4 -Times State Per Capita Spending Nationally

   Total Direct Expenditures              3.5 -Times State Per Capita Spending Nationally

   Higher Education                     1.5 -Times State Per Capita Spending Nationally

7. Finding: In order to achieve its learning and teaching mission, U of A must maintain quality teachers. Because the higher education labor market is very efficient and market driven, U of A needs to offer competitive wages to retain quality teachers or lose them to other institutions. This is challenging not only because of rising competitive salaries, but also because of discrepancies in pay levels between academic disciplines. For example, in most liberal arts disciplines the supply and demand factors create lower wage scales than in science and business disciplines. It is difficult to balance paying competitive wages, raising funds to pay those wages, and maintaining faculty morale given significant interdepartmental variability in prevailing pay levels.
8. Recommendation: Since the core mission of the University is to focus on learning and maintain core liberal arts available statewide, an opportunity may exist to take advantage of the relatively less expensive liberal arts wage structure to augment both the quality and quantity of liberal arts instructors, within the framework of the overall strategic plan.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Recommendation: U of A tuition should be raised to be more in line with its peers.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Finding: U of A has no needs-based scholarship program.
15. Recommendation: Establish a needs-based scholarship program.
    

VII. Action items for Commonwealth North

Part A – report completion

1. CWN Board approved a DRAFT IN PROGRESS 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. Suggest one or more benchmarks and targets for the “Alaska 20/20” process to monitor.
3. Form a follow-up group to pursue these items.

Success stories:

• Partnering with industry -- hospitals

• Finding: there has been progress
• Recommendation: need to do more
• Industry has pushed the University

• Prince William Sound Community College Theater Conference
• Development of statewide AA degree programs in response to federal mandates in Early Childhood Education and Teacher Aides
• Partnership with union apprenticeship training programs to award credit, share instruction and facilities
• (Need UAF success story)
• (Need UAS success story)
• UAA Debate Team
• UAA’s Community Education program for encouraging students to work with local non-profits
• Transportation/logistics
• Engineering Department efforts to accommodate the needs of Alaska Natives
• Process technology program industry support
  • Partnerships with industry (Alaska Process Industry Careers Consortium) for both curriculum design and program implementation
  • Nearly $2 million direct or in-kind start-up contributions with ongoing scholarships and internships
  • Leveraged State funding through legislative lobbying
• First Alaskans Institute funding for rural programs
  • FAI grants developed with Business/Industry partners (APICC/Health) have lead to distance delivery of both college-level and career pathway training
  • Scholarships provided by FAI have moved students into all of the above
• Individual professors such as James Muller
• Award winning academic programs and students throughout the system
• Campus involvements in community economic recovery
• Partnerships with local schools, businesses and industry
• The collaborative Earthquake Engineering Project

Appendices:

1. Who and what is Commonwealth North?

The purpose of Commonwealth North is to educate its members and others on significant public policy issues affecting Alaska and its future, and to assist in their resolution. Commonwealth North’s vision is to lead Alaskans to adopt enlightened policies that enhance Alaskan’s quality of life and that improve the State’s ability to effectively manage its resources.

The core values of Commonwealth North are: recognize the State’s unique obligation to manage the common wealth of Alaska; commit to the future of Alaska; put Alaska’s interests before special interests; exercise intellectual integrity and rigor; and, respect for all peoples and cultures.

Commonwealth North was co-founded in 1979 by former Alaska Governors Walter J. Hickel and the late William A. Egan. It is a non-profit 501 (c) 3 private membership-based organization that provides an educational forum where opinion leaders and activists in Alaska can gather to review public policy issues and topics affecting the state. Commonwealth North is a non-partisan organization where cultural and professional diversity is welcomed. Monthly Forums are held to hear from renowned speakers on a wide variety of stimulating and controversial subjects. Working committees, called Study Groups, are formed by its membership to research critical issues and to produce reports or publications, such as this one. Commonwealth North is funded by individual memberships and private sector funds.

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.