TCAC Background Information--Appendix 4

University of Washington Report of the Three Campus Steering Committee

Background and Charge to the Committee:

A Three-Campus Steering Committee was appointed by President McCormick in November 1996 in response to discussions initiated by the deans of professional programs (Nursing, Business, Education, and Social Work) with the President and Provost regarding accreditation issues for their programs across the three campuses. The Three-Campus Steering Committee was to be time-limited and to frame issues, tasks and next steps, including faculty working groups, rather than attempt to resolve the issues.

An underlying assumption of the Steering Committee, consistent with the direction provided by the President and the Provost, was to create a model of "collaboration between and among the three campuses with local autonomy as appropriate". The governance structure for the three campuses has typically been defined as central coordination with local autonomy; therefore, a challenge facing the Steering Committee was to more clearly define the areas of coordination and autonomy. Although each campus maintains a distinct culture, the President set forth the concept of a structure wherein there is a shared overall and unitary mission; to provide the citizens of the State of Washington with accessible, high quality education.

The Steering Committee was composed of seven deans and eight academic program directors from Bothell and Tacoma. Bill Bradford, Dean, School of Business, Allen Glenn, Dean, College of Education, Sue Hegyvary, Dean of Nursing, Vicky Carwein, Dean and Vice Provost, UWT, Ron Butchart, Director, UWT Education Program, Patricia Faudt, Director, UWT Business Program, Sharon Fought, Director, UWT Nursing Program, Michael Kalton, Director, UWT Liberal Studies Program, Norm Rose, Dean and Vice Provost, UW Bothell, Jane VanGalen, UWB Education Program, Stanley Slater, UWB Business Program, Anne Loustau, UWB Nursing Program, Jane Decker, Director, UWB Liberal Studies Program, William Erdly, Computer Software Systems, and John Simpson, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences. The committee, chaired by Nancy Hooyman, Dean, School of Social Work, met three times.

This report Briefly summarizes the activities of the Steering Committee and its recommendations regarding next steps.

Steering Committee Activities:

Review of other multicampus models:

The Committee began by examining models of other multi-campus, or what is frequently referred to as regional or branch campus systems, in Ohio, Arizona, Michigan, Penn State, California and South Carolina. These models vary widely in terms of autonomy and governance, level of academic programs offered, college status, dependence on the main campus for service and curricular autonomy. Common themes that emerged from this brief national survey are:

Most regional campus executives believe that their campuses, including faculty, administration, students and programs, are not treated respectfully by "main campus" personnel. There seems to be a natural tendency for "main campus" faculty to "downrate" the smaller regional campuses. This tendency can be overcome to some degree through faculty interaction, institutional commitment to the "regional" campus mission, awareness building and providing adequate resources.
The greatest levels of satisfaction and productivity at regional or "branch" campuses were reported where their autonomy was greatest.
Strong levels of interaction between academic administrators and faculty at regional campuses and the "main campus" were seen as critical to mutual understanding, respect, quality assurance and transferability of credits between campuses, regardless of reporting relationships and governance structure.
Another factor related to the success of regional campuses was University and state government attitudes toward allowing regional campuses to grow and evolve in order to meet the access needs of their service areas. A multi-campus institutional culture, which develops from University-wide leadership and focuses on institutional commitment to the access mission of the "regional" campuses, is critical. It appears that faculty and staff satisfaction at the regional campuses results less from structural qualities and more from progressive institutional polices that make autonomy possible.
There may be no fully adequate solution to some of the problems inherent with regional or multi-campus systems.

Identification of issues to be resolved:

The Committee also attempted to identify issues that appear to be of current concern, especially to faculty and administrators on the Seattle campus. These included faculty salaries and workload, faculty governance and rights, process for program nd curricular development, admissions, and student access to courses across the three campuses. The outcome of this discussion was the recognition that many of these issues had been addressed in the Faculty Senate Legislation approved in June 1990 and were therefore "off the table". (SeeRole and Mission of the Branch Campuses of the University of Washington; Appointment and Promotion of Faculty Members; Tenure of Faculty; and Requirement for Bachelor's Degree, January 25, 1990.) Nevertheless, the fact that many faculty continue to raise these issues as ones that should be debated and resolved suggests the need for greater faculty awareness of the initial Faculty Senate legislation.

Other issues emerged that must be addressed, however. These include: miscommunication and misinformation across the three campuses, with a need to develop open communication structures among the Deans and Program Directors; defining the philosophy and framework of counselors/advisors regarding the three campuses; operationalizing the statement that we value the different contributions of each of the campuses; and effectively clarifying the advisory role of the UWS Faculty Senate in future collaboration with the appropriate faculty governance bodies at UWT and UWB.

Identification of issues related to development of an MSW Program in Tacoma:

A work group, composed of three directors from UWT and three faculty from the Social Work Program in Seattle, met twice to identify issues and to frame strategies for addressing them, if an MSW program at UWT were funded. This provided a "clean slate" for looking t different ways to collaborate around key decisions early in the planning process. The Steering Committee charged the work group with the following:

In developing an MSW program, who ha the final decision-making authority and responsibility?
How will decision about the curriculum, admissions and personnel (e.g., hiring promotion and tenure, merit) be made?
How do we ensure comparable educational experiences on both campuses that will meet accreditation standards?

The working group identified 12 areas for ongoing discussion and highlighted concerns and strategy/processes for addressing each of these concerns. The areas were as follows: accreditation; program faculty governance; market demand and viability; inter-program collaboration of faculty; curriculum; director and faculty search process; promotion and tenure; student issues: recruitment, selection, admission, and transfer ability; budget; faculty workload; faculty compensation; and potential for distance learning. The work group also identified individuals and groups to work on each of these issues. Although non of the issues was resolved, their effort suggests a useful model for future collaboration regarding program development. The two faculty groups approached the process with an openness and willingness to think creatively about programmatic developments. The Seattle faculty invested time in reviewing the Faculty Senate Legislation and other background materials regarding UWT and therefore were informed about which issues were negotiable and which had already been resolved. Seattle faculty also modeled a willingness to be flexible regarding meeting place, including the use of teleconferencing to reduce travel. If the MSW program in Tacoma is funded, this two campus faculty group has laid a solid framework for working collaboratively and productively to plan and implement the program, with the first task being the firing of a Program Director.

Their work is presented here as an effective preliminary model for collaboration. However, we wish to emphasize that future program development would not necessarily require"review" by a group similar to the Steering Committee or the Tri-Campus Advisory committee. Instead, such planning should occur at the appropriate unit level.

Accreditation:

Although there is a need for clarity across all units about how decisions get made and implemented, accreditation raises particularly complex issues. Each of the professional accrediting bodies appears to differ in degree of flexibility possible with regard to the distinctive missions of the Bothell and Tacoma campuses. The professional schools need to clarify what are the minimum standards that must be met in order to be accredited. The major issues appear to be related to the decision-making structure for curriculum, admission and personnel, and how to frame the relationships between the deans in Seattle and the program directors and deans and vice provosts at UWT and UWB. The deans from Seattle are clear that they are not seeking the additional responsibilities of r being involved in all decisions, but they do want clarity about the decision-making structures and whether these meet accreditation guidelines. At the same time, the deans/vice provosts and directors at UWT and UWB are concerned that processes or mechanisms n Seattle may slow down decision-making, since UWT and UWB often have to respond quickly to the needs for new offering and programs. The deans/vice provosts at UWT and UWB feel a particular urgency to act readily to develop programs which will increase enrollment, since their campuses are FTE driven.

The accreditation pressures facing the College of Education were of major concern to the Steering Committee. The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education A consultant was hired by the UWS College of Education to review the situation and provide background data and a set of recommendations. The following alternatives were considered: 1) pursue NCATE accreditation, 2) not seek NCATE accreditation, and 3) prepare a University-wide strategy for all accreditation efforts. Currently, the deans and vice provosts at UWT and UWB are attempting to influence NCATE to consider some alternatives for accreditation.

The review of issues related to NCATE accreditation for teacher certification programs has highlighted several important issues that may be common to other professional programs: definition of "branch campus" and of "unit", insurance of quality; common standards; and common programs. Although an immediate need is to resolve the current situation regarding accreditation of the teacher certification program at UWS, this case highlights the importance of the University creating policies that address issues raised by accreditation, while still allowing program flexibility across the three campuses. Accordingly, deans and directors must develop new models for consultation and decision-making regarding accreditation issues.

Steering Committee recommendations:
Tri-Campus Advisory Council:

the need to clarify decision-making processes and the recognition that the Provost has ultimate decision-making authority on issues affecting the three campuses underlie the recommendation to form a Tri-Campus Advisory Committee. This committee is to provide advice to the Provost on program development and accreditation issues that have implications across the three campuses. It assumes that efforts will be made to address strategic planning an curriculum development, particularly those related to accreditation issues at the program level. Only issues that cannot be settled at that level will come to the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee model acknowledges the distinctive missions of UW, UWB and UWS and assumes the continuation of promotion and tenure, curricular and course development, faculty governance and maintenance of unique identity and culture.

Th Council shall be composed of nine members, with equal representation from each campus. Six of the members will be appointed by the Provost for terms of two years, renewable for up to two additional years, in order to ensure continuity and depth of knowledge about the three campuses. The Provost shall appoint the three other members on an ad hoc basis as deemed appropriate to the programmatic or campus issues to be addressed. The Provost will chair the committee. A document outlining the purpose, assumptions and composition of the proposed committee is attached.

Faculty Work Group on Student Access:

It is recommended that the Provost, in consultation with the UWS Faculty Senate, UWT Faculty Assembly and UWB General Faculty Organization, appoint a work group to investigate opportunities that are currently available or could be developed for students to take courses on any of the three campuses to meet the goal of increased access. This committee should address, but not be limited to, recommendations regarding:

Current enrollment patterns of students across the three campuses.
The effectiveness of the current cross-campus enrollment policies for graduate students and the possibilities of extending these policies for undergraduate students.
The advisability (if any) of implementing minors or concentrations at all three campuses that would be open to students from any of the campuses.
The advisability of restrictions (if any) on number of hours, types of courses (distribution, electives, courses in majors or minors).
Issues of admission to one or more campuses/programs.
Registration procedures (including issues of space availability, priority registration for "home campus" students, sign-off by advisors on cross-campus enrollments, "rights of refusal" for the receiving department, or other related registration issues).

This provides only the initial basis for a committee charge, since the Provost has indicated that he wishes to extend this charge.

The Importance of the President's and Provost's Leadership:

Steering Committee discussion highlighted the wide degree of misunderstanding about the mission and activities of UWT and UWB. Many faculty are unaware of the positive development occurring at UWT and UWB, and retain an expectation that they are totally separate campuses. Faculty are not often aware of, nor do they understand the President's concept of a three-campus university. The President and Provost must provide visible leadership to increase understanding of the dynamic and positive changes occurring at UWT and UWB. It is essential that all faculty and staff understand the larger vision of how UWT and UWB will be growing and developing to meet the access challenges facing the University of Washington campuses as a whole.

Ways to increase the visibility of the Bothell and Tacoma campuses on the Seattle campus include: 1) Frequent updates to the Board of Deans and the President's Council about new developments at the UWT and UWB campuses, including the projected number of faculty and student FTEs and the challenges this poses for UWT and UWB faculty and administrators; 2) Keep at the forefront of Cabinet discussions and planning and growing need to consider all three campuses, for example in developing a UW communication strategy; 3) Focus on Academic Administrators Retreat on the developments and challenges facing UWT and UWB; 4) Develop a regular column in University Week that highlights the positive changes occurring at UWT and UWB, models of collaboration and new programmatic developments; 5) Identify more opportunities for the President, Provost and faculty to visit UWT and UWB and for the deans and vice provosts of UWT and UWB to address the UW faculty, and 6) Continue to identify ways to involve the faculty organizations at all three campuses in working groups, such as the one on access.

In summary, given the expectation that UWT and UWB will absorb at least two-thirds of the projected enrollment growth for the University of Washington and therefore must increase dramatically by the year 2010, their is a pressing need to articulate new models for collaboration and communication across the three-campuses. It is imperative that groups of faculty and academic administrators be convened on an as-needed basis to deal with specific issues and to improve understanding and communication about each campus' distinctive mission. Identifying ways to respect the difference among the campuses, rather than viewing these differences among the campuses as either inferior or superior, is a critical task facing the University of Washington. The President's and Provost's visible leadership regarding the positive developments across all three campuses will be central to the achievement of a model of central coordination with local autonomy.

TCAC List of Appendices