A Plan for the Future of Higher Education in Arizona

Submitted by Northern ArizonaTask Force on Higher Education

Executive Summary

This proposal takes inspiration from the Herstam initiative and it further seeks to account for and overcome the constraints that will be placed on Arizona’s higher education system in the future. This proposal maintains and supports the three universities currently in the system: ASU (doctoral extensive in the Carnegie system), U of A (doctoral extensive), NAU (doctoral intensive), and acknowledges the likelihood that ASU-West (currently Masters I) might attain independence soon. Additional planned capacity will be provided incrementally through university partnerships with community colleges until such time that certain community colleges attain independent four-year baccalaureate university status (as and when they meet standard benchmarks). As demographic pressures increase on the university system, select community collegesmay become baccalaureate colleges within an appropriately complex and responsive university system. Each university and college would be led by a president who would report independently to ABOR, and each institution will serve the higher education system in unique ways.

NAU’s role will focus on the delivery of quality degree programs from baccalaureate to doctoral degrees in multiple modes, including the use of branch campuses, such as NAU-Yuma. NAU provides an integrated learning environment that combines quality undergraduate and graduate instruction with strong research programs. NAU’s partnerships with community colleges statewide represent one cost-effective model to address the state’s immediate need for four-year degree programs in various locations. These types of branch campuses might attain independent institution status in direct response to specific incremental demographic and economic changes in their communities. In summary, this plan provides for a flexible university system with the ability to serve the increasing demand for higher education among growing populations of both traditional and nontraditional students throughout all Arizona’s regions.

A Plan for the Future of Higher Education in Arizona

Northern ArizonaTask Force on Higher Education

President Herstam, the Arizona Board of Regents, and the Council of Presidents have taken an important first step to providing for the long-term future of higher education in Arizona. Clearly the population of 18- to 21-year-old students will grow, and, just as importantly, students from 25-55 years of age will return to the university for advanced degrees at the baccalaureate, master’s and doctoral levels, for professional development, and for workforce growth. The proposal submitted by President Herstam and the Council of Presidents is sound in its rationale and in its key assumptions. Arizona’s population is likely to experience tremendous growth, and the demand for quality higher education is likely to increase accordingly. Access is a critical component for both the present and future Arizona university system. The system of the future must respond to these needs while recognizing the real financial constraints on state resources for higher education.

Rationale

The proposal we offer here takes its inspiration from the Herstam proposal. This proposalprojects a future for Arizona’s higher education system that builds on the current strengths of the system:

  1. The ability to addressArizona’s growing needs in focused, strategic ways that are timely and responsive
  2. The guarantee of access for all qualified potential students
  3. The guarantee of a quality education for all students at all levels in the higher education system
  4. The ability to meet the growing complexities of student needs and desires with an appropriately flexible system
  5. Established partnerships with communities and community colleges across Arizona for economic advantage
  6. Fiscally responsible practices in planning and delivering higher education

Benefits

This proposalpositions the state to respond effectively and strategically to needs as demographics change. It avoids the negative implications of creating a multi-tier university system and avoids the significant fiscal and bureaucratic costs of such a system. Itcements the principle of partnershipbetween the university and community college systems, and it accounts for the rapid deployment of technology in the delivery of educational programs. It highlights the principle of adding institutions when (but not before) they can be viable independent entities. In short, it holds the promise of being a winning situation for all.

Diversity in the System

The key to this plan is recognizing the strengths and contributions of each university currently in the system, including ASU-West. An important assumption in our proposal is that any higher education systemmust provide a range of options and offerings to student populations. This assumption also underpins the national Carnegie classification system for U.S. universities. In order to respond effectively to the diverse needs of a growing university-bound population, a mature, responsive university system of the future must offer the range of options embodied in the Carnegie classification system, each option serving a unique purpose. This arrangement of institution types responds to the increasingly complex mix of student populations seeking the appropriate education for their needs as well as for the needs of the state. The system must have the capacity for institutions to change their Carnegie classification as their missions expand and change in response to future student populations seeking higher education in Arizona. Thus, under this proposal, an institution would be able to change from a Master’s I institution to a metropolitan research institution (doctoral intensive), depending on such factors as demand (both economic and educational) and student demographics.

The Proposal

This proposal maintains and supports thethree universities currently in the system: ASU, U of A, NAU, and acknowledges the possibility that ASU-West might attain independence soon. Each university will beled by a president, and each president will report independently to ABOR. Each institution would serve the higher education system in unique ways. Figure 1 represents the immediate situation under this proposal. Figure 2envisions one possible scenario twenty-five years into the future assuming significant growth in university enrollment demands. This second figurereflects the fact that the three current state universities occupy particular, well-defined roles in the current system, and it projects the development of different types of institutions in the system depending upon demographic changes. Figure 2 suggests that growth could lead to three new universities, perhaps via different paths. The Figure is also intended to show that a number of the universities may (or may not) continue to be involved in 2+2 partnerships with community colleges. NAU is likely to be one of the universities involvedin 2+2 arrangements.

In the short term, additional enrollment demand can be handled through 2+2 partnerships. Each of the universities may decide to play a role in such partnerships with community colleges. As student enrollment pressure requires additional university capacity, select community colleges should undergo a review and development process. This process may eventually lead to two or four new baccalaureate colleges that can address new student demand with a cost-effective administrative and instructional infrastructure.

Figure 1: Proposed Plan: Initial Configuration[1]

One Administrative Layer

This plan does not envision two different levels (or tiers) of administration for the state’s public universities. Indeed it assumes that additional bureaucracy is made redundant by the already robust infrastructure of the current system−a system that has the flexible capacity for incremental growth to match the growth of communities statewide. Each existing university has an important role to play in Arizona’s educational future by blending different combinations of undergraduate and graduate education, and by developing research profiles that enhance university resources and that become engines of greater economic development in urban and rural communities. As the Governor herself recently noted, “I am working hard to ensure that our public universities have the resources they need, not only to expand on the excellence of the education they offer, but to remove the barriers their scientists encounter when they try to convert research innovations into successful high-tech business ventures” (AzMetro, Summer 04: 30). The strengths of the current system must be developed appropriately to respond to the Governor’s vision for higher education in Arizona.

The Carnegie Classification

Our proposal assumes that each institution must be able to cement and develop its mission in a strategic manner, responding effectively to the nature and needs of the communities that it serves. The four universities named in Figure 1 currently represent three of the classification levels within the Carnegie system (see Figure 3). The plan allows forfurtheroptions that reflect other classification levels in the Carnegie framework. It is possible to envision a system twenty-five years from now that includes three or four doctoral universities, oneor twomaster’s universities, and two to three baccalaureate universities (Figure 2).

Figure 3: Carnegie Classification

Type / Example / # of Institutions / Doctorates / Master’s / Bachelor’s
Associate and other / Arizona Community Colleges / 1,697
Specialized / ASU East / 766
Baccalaureate / To be determined / 606 / Min. 50% all degrees
Master’s II / To be determined / 115 / Min. 20
Master’s I / ASU West / 496 / Min. 40
Doctoral Research Intensive / NAU / 110 / Min.10 in 3 disciplines
or min. 20
Doctoral Research Extensive / UA,
ASU Main / 151 / Min. 50
in 15 disciplines

First-Generation Students, Rural Students, and Ethnic Minority Students

Planning for the future of higher education requires more than a general consideration of population growth; it requires a better understanding of which groups of future students will grow most rapidly and what their specific needs will be as they seek the advantages of higher degrees. Given current demographic patterns and predictions, it is likely that Hispanic students will be a major part of enrollment pressures.[2] Other groups of future students will also contribute to enrollment pressures. These groups of students will need much greater educational support than the student who typically enrolls in highly selective, doctoral extensive universities.

These students, unlike already skilled and well educated students, will incur greater costs if they are to be successful in earning a university degree. There is no “education on the cheap” that will serve their needs. However, an educationalsystem that is flexibly designed and appropriately fundedwill meet students’ needs. In Arizona, the best option for meeting these needs rests with some combination of community college/university partnerships until such time as new baccalaureate universities emerge.

Non-Traditional Students

Arizona’s leaders should also realize that many of the “new” students who might return for baccalaureate, master’s, and doctoral degrees will not be traditional students. These students will not necessarily need the physical structure of a campus in order to be served. Many will gain access to higher education through web-based delivery of programs or on-site programs delivered at local community colleges, high schools, and commercial business centers. The numbers of these students will increase significantly as workforce needs expand throughout the state. The use of off-campus programs—when supported by a mature university institution—provides a cost effective means for addressing expanding needs strategically.

Community Colleges

It is clear that a great deal of study and deliberation must inform the ways in which each institution identified in this proposal will be responsible for serving the higher education needs of Arizona. In general, this plan presupposes that institutions with established 2+2 partnerships with Arizona’s community colleges will continue, and possibly expand, such programs depending upon the economic and workforce development needs of each community and constituency.

The 2+2 model allows the state to provide new baccalaureate degree programs in a manner that is responsive to community needs. And since these programs are offered in existing facilities, minimal initial investment in new infrastructure is required. Moreover, population growth and student enrollment pressures in Arizona may not follow uniform growth patterns across all sectors or all geographic regions. Arizona should not abandon its historically deliberate approach to college/university expansion; it should closely monitor demographic change and economic demand and be ready to respond flexibly, yet in a thoughtful, fiscally responsible, and planned manner.

As communities outgrow the currently successful model, they may apply to transform their community college into a fully functioning independent baccalaureate institution. This process can be implemented gradually as specific triggering criteria are met (see North Central Accreditation Criteria—Appendix A). For example, a community college might be considered for independent four-year status when a critical enrollment and resource mass are reached for upper-division course delivery, when adequate library resources are in place, when a funding base demonstrates self-sustaining resources beyond state appropriations, and when accreditation criteria are achievable. One plan for such growth, established in Texas, provides a good example of policies for transition from community college to four-year college (Appendix B).

Northern ArizonaUniversity as Contributor

Our plan assumes a specific set of roles for each university. As Northern Arizona’s Task Force on Higher Education, we focus here on the roles that NAU will play. NAU, as a doctoral intensive university, is already well positioned to fill the need for access to higher education in Flagstaff and in communities around the state (see AppendicesC-H). In Flagstaff, NAU has been, and will continue to be, committed to providing quality education opportunities to a diverse population including Hispanic and Native American groups. NAU provides an integrated learning environment that combines quality undergraduate and graduate instruction with strong research programs. At the same time, students are served by tenured and tenure-track faculty teaching undergraduate courses, undergraduate student research opportunities, and close student-faculty contact. These latter characteristics are typical of many doctoral intensive universities.

NAU’s current operations for statewide and Distance Learning should be recognized and endorsed for theirwell-established and highly effective delivery of programs from baccalaureate to doctoral degrees in multiple modes, including the use of branch campuses, such as NAU-Yuma (see Appendix H). The plan proposes that the need for four-year degree programs in various locations be addressed initially through NAU partnerships and branch campuses. Each of the major higher education centers within the NAU umbrella—hereafter branch campuses—will have a campus leader reporting either to the President of NAU or to the Vice President for ExtendedPrograms—depending on the size and maturation point of the center. Each center should build uponstrong relationships with the community colleges in the region. Additional centers can be established depending on demand from currently enrolled students at community colleges seeking advanced degrees.

Key Advantages

This proposalresolves a number of outstanding questions raised in many public forums in the past month. It also incorporates a number of good ideas proposed in several other communications. Moreover, it addresses the concerns of a range of constituencies throughout the state, provides a fiscally responsible design for higher education in the state, provides an incremental yet flexible response to student demand, plans for student access to quality instruction, and providesnumerous diverse pathways into higher education for minority, place-bound,and non-traditional student populations in the state. The key advantages that this proposal offers include the following:

  1. The plan answers the concerns raised by the Governor and others that institutions should be assessed and valued based on their mission and how well they deliver on that mission. It also addresses the widespread concern that quality of instruction not be jeopardized or that the value of any university degree from the system not be weakened in any way. This plan preserves academic integrity in addition to adopting modern naming conventions that align with the Carnegie classification used throughout the country.
  1. The plan recognizes that educational institutions and the communities that surround them are closely connected. Accordingly, the scope of the ABOR feasibility study must include an analysis of the relationships that link each university with local governments, K-12 systems, community colleges, and employers. The study should also address quality of life issues, educational choices, and social responsiveness in order to develop well-informed and appropriate plans for growth in the higher education system.
  1. The plan avoids the necessity for investing in additional bureaucratic layers, which can be costly and unwieldy to operate. University systems typically add layers of bureaucracy, and thereby lessen, not increase, responsiveness to change and to students and other stakeholders. The construction of additional administrative systems to manage the delivery of higher education in the state should be avoided in order to allow state funds to be appropriated more directly for instructional support.
  1. The plan’s assumption of capacity for incremental growthrecognizes that the costs of delivering quality education to Arizona’s citizens are considerable. There will be many additional costs in the future to meet the needs of the new populations of students—many of them first-generation with substantial financial need and with differing cultural and lifestyle expectations. These needs should not be placed in direct competition with costs driven by a new and unnecessary administrative level in the university governance system.
  1. The plan recognizes that the type of employers (and their employees) Arizona wishes to attract in the future will require a wider range of educational options. Accordingly, a university system for the future must be responsive to the educational needs of professionals. At the same time, mature doctoral and master’s universities themselves will draw professional employers and high-skilled jobs into local economies and build positive synergies for regions and local urban centers across the state. Arizona wants to attract educated in-migrants as well as industries of the future, and to achieve this end, it must consider the array of educational programs that will attract such populations. Our plan recognizes future demographic complexities and proposes educational options that provide multiple points of entry into higher education.
  1. The plan acknowledgesthe critical role of the community college in local communities and seeks to establish four-year degree programs in partnership with the community college system. This 2+2 model not only facilitates strategic growth but it does so in a timely response to community needs, with minimal new infrastructure costs, and it provides for the eventual transition of certain community colleges in 2+2 partnerships to independent four-year colleges.
  1. The plan for the redesign of Arizona’s higher education system recognizes that it is important to identify effectiveness and efficiency criteria for the development and maturation of learning centers in various locations across the state. Currently NAU offers a wide range of educational courses and programs for place-bound students, including master’s and doctoral degrees in specific fields. The system of the future needs to maintain system flexibility and allowprospective students to earn the master’s and doctoral degrees they need, regardless of location.

NAU’s Strengths