University of Washington15 November 2007

Preliminary Academic Plan the UW North Sound Campusfor

Governor Christine Gregoire Washington State Legislature

a report to

andthe

Executive Summary

Washington State has an unusual higher education profile. By national standards, Washington has a high level of bachelors and advanced degrees among its citizens. At the same time, its institutions produce comparatively few bachelors and graduate degrees. Thus, Washington imports a larger fraction of its highly educated citizens and workers than most states. As Washington’s economy has shifted to become more technology and knowledge driven, employers have had increasing difficulty recruiting highly skilled workers. This mismatch between employer needs and locally educated workers is particularly acute in technology areas, especially computer science and several engineering fields.

There are four fundamental factors that account for this profile:

1. Washington’s enrollment capacity in four year and advanced degree programs is, on a per capita basis, quite low.

2. The enrollment capacity in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) fields is especially low compared to employer demand.

3. The fraction of graduates from Washington high schools who go on to any form of higher education (the participation rate) is below the national average and has been falling for the last 10 years.

4. The participation rate in four year degree programs is very low by national standards

These issues led to the decision in the 2007 legislative session to establish a new four-year institution, affiliated with the University of Washington (UW), to serve the needs of the Snohomish, Island, and Skagit (SIS) counties. The UW was asked to begin development of an academic vision for this new campus. The charge further specified that the academic plan have a particular focus on producing degrees in science, technology and engineering.

To estimate the number of students the new institution should aim to serve, a work group convened by the Office of Financial Management (OFM) evaluated all available data and projections. The group predicts student demand for just over 5,000 additional total enrollments in SIS by 2025. This projection assumes that establishing a UW campus will result in a 33% increase in the student participation rate in public four-year higher education for SIS on top of currently projected enrollment for the region. This is in line with what occurred after UW Tacoma and WSU Vancouver were established.

The UW’s preliminary academic plan for the new campus analyzes the higher education needs for the state and the SIS region, both for bachelor degrees in general and for STEM degrees in particular. It also presents an analysis of best practices in education that ensure that students are attracted to, and retained by, such programs.

The new UW North Sound institution, as proposed, would become a transformational comprehensive branch campus offering courses in engineering, health, education, and business in conjunction with a strong arts and sciences core. Emphasizing experiential learning and critical thinking skills, it would create a new higher education resource that fits well into the constellation of four year institutions in the state.

1

The vision for the campus has implications for both the way it should be funded and the speed with which it should be developed. A thriving STEM focused campus is expensive, due to the concentration of high cost degrees and added construction costs associated with science and engineering programs. Economies of scale become extremely important when building laboratories and programming the necessary curriculum to support the sciences and engineering. Degree programs in STEM are necessarily quite limited and expensive until a campus reaches a size of four to five thousand students. At this size, a broad array of academic programs that build on each other becomes feasible and the campus is more attractive to potential students. Operating costs in 2007 dollars are estimated to be $41 million annually at full enrollment of 5,059 students in 2025. Based on estimates from NBBJ, at full build out capital costs for such a campus range from $645 million to $803 million in 2007 dollars, excluding sales tax, construction contingencies and site costs.

Previous experience in launching branch campuses in this state suggests that an incremental model, starting with a small cohort of students and then increasing enrollment slowly, does not lend itself to the production of degrees in the STEM disciplines. The trajectories of the University of Washington Tacoma (UWT), University of Washington Bothell (UWB) and Washington State University, Vancouver (WSUV), indicate that a slow growth approach can provide degree offerings in business, education, nursing and liberal arts. But a major increment of size and scope is needed to be able to sustain quality offerings in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, computing and several types of engineering.

A second recommendation addresses the need to produce more high school students who are academically prepared to undertake higher education. It calls for a University of Washington led K-16 initiative for the SIS region to increase preparation for STEM courses, in particular, and participation in higher education, in general. This initiative could then be broadened to serve the entire state.

A third recommendation deals with both academic programming for the fall of 2008 to begin to address the current SIS demand and potential areas of further study. The ideas for 2008 are offered as possible areas where faculty might concentrate their initial efforts to offer degree programs in SIS and as a sample of what initial programs might be. The actual programming will be contingent on faculty approval and development, HECB approval, and sufficient legislative funding. For fall 2008, we suggest further analysis be conducted on two programs to meet high demand needs for the SIS region--nursing and education. The UW’s Nursing program might pursue an RN to BSN degree similar to the one launched in Mt. Vernon in fall 2007. Such a program could begin to establish the UW’s presence in the region and train higher demand future leaders in nursing. In fall 2008, it may also be possible to launch a Masters In Education in conjunction with the SIS school districts.

As the Governor and Legislature consider how best to launch UW North Sound, planning and analysis for the design and implementation of the new campus will continue. Potential academic program faculty will continue to work with the local community colleges and public and private employers to further define degree program demand and markets. The final report will be completed and presented to the governor and legislature on June 1, 2008. In the interim, the UW will also pursue the necessary approvals and funding to begin to offer programming in the fall of 2008 for the SIS region.

2

Acknowledgements

This report is the work of the UW SIS Academic Planning Task Force:

Ana Mari Cauce, co-chair, Executive Vice Provost, UW SeattleLee Huntsman, co-chair, President Emeritus, UW SeattleNorm Arkans, Executive Director, Media Relations and Communications, UW SeattleKenyon Chan, Chancellor, UW BothellDavid Collingwood, Professor, Department of Mathematics, UW SeattleBill Erdly, Assoc. Professor/Assoc. Director, Computing & Software Systems, UW BothellRandy Hodgins, Director, Office of State Relations, UW SeattlePhil Hoffman, Director, Office of Institutional Studies, UW SeattleBradley Holt, Associate Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering, UW SeattleJames Maraviglia, Assistant Vice President, Admissions, Recruitment and Financial Aid, California State University Polytechnic, San Luis ObispoGary Quarfoth, Interim Vice Provost, Planning and Budgeting, UW SeattleJohn Sahr, Associate Dean, Undergraduate Academic Affairs, UW SeattleMichael Stiber, Associate Professor, Computing & Software Systems, UW BothellDavid Szatmary, Vice Provost, UW Educational Outreach, UW SeattlePhyllis Wise, Provost and Executive Vice President, UW SeattleAlan Wood, Professor, Interdisciplinary Arts & Sciences, UW BothellKelli Trosvig, Project Analyst

Major contributions, for which we are enormously grateful, have been provided by:• NumerousstaffincludingMichaelannJundt,SusanTerry,JaniceDeCosmo,ToddMildon,Eric

Godfrey, Scott Winter, Nancy Anderson, Dawn Wiggin, Eileen Robison, Andrew Hummel-Schluger

• InstitutionalstudiesandfacilitiesexpertsacrossthethreeUWcampusesincluding:OliviaYang,Marilyn Cox, Jim Posey, Jim Rawlins, Dan Jacoby

The Student Demand workgroup was convened by OFM and included analysts from state legislative committees, the Higher Education Coordinating Board, the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, the UW and NBBJ.

We have benefited greatly from discussions throughout the SIS region with:• RegionalandCommunityCollegepresidents• Business,healthandcommunitygroups• HundredsofindividualswhoprovidedcommentatoursixtownhallmeetingsacrosstheSIS

region

3

Table of Contents

Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………… 1

Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………. 3

List of Tables and Figures…………………………………………………………………… 5

List of Appendices………………………………………………………………………….. 6

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………7

Part I. SIS Need Analysis…………………………………………………………………….8 Part II. Washington State Needs Analysis II.1. A Mismatch Between Workforce Needs and Degree Production……………….10 II.2. Need to Increase Bachelor Degree Production………………………………… 12 II.3. Need More Degrees in STEM…………………………………………………15

Part III. Best Practices in Addressing Higher Education Needs………………………………18 Part IV. Launching a New Campus: Serving the Needs of Our Students……………………. 21

Part V. Key Considerations…………………………………………………………………. 24

Part VI. Recommendations…………………………………………………………………. 25 Recommendation 1: UW – North Sound…………………………………………..26 Recommendation 2: K-16 Initiative for SIS…………………………………………27 Recommendation 3: Getting UW North Sound Started in 2008……………………27

References…………………………………………………………………………………...30

4

List of Tables

Table 1 Graduation Rates for CTC Transfer Students at the UW 11

Table 2 Engineering Disciplines Projected Employment Demand 2004-2014 15

Table 3 Computing and Information Systems Projected Employment Demand 2004-2014 16

Table4YearsofStudyinKeyCollegePreparednessSubjects for Seniors Taking SAT 16

Table 5 SAT Scores SIS, Washington State Compared to National Average 21

Figure 1 Washington State Degree Production Compared to Washington State Job Openings 10

Figure 2 Ninth Grade High School Graduation Rates and College Attendance 12

Figure 3 Diversity Projections of the HECB through 2030 12

Figure 4 Current Washington State Higher Education Enrollment 2005-2006 13

Figure 5 Distribution of Associate and Bachelors Degrees for the Global Challenge States 13

Figure 6 Participation in Washington’s Higher Education System Compared to the Nation 14

Figure 7 Projected Annual Growth Washington Employment Sectors 15

List of Figures

5

List of Appendices

Appendix A OFM Demand Analysis

Appendix B Innovative Education Sub-committee Report

Appendix C Lessons Learned Sub-committee Report

Appendix D Student Profiles Sub-committee Report

Appendix E K-16 SIS Initiative

Appendix F Budget Detail

6

Introduction

Committee Charge In the 2007-09 capital budget act, the State of Washington (ESHB 1092.Sec. 1048) charged the University of Washington (UW) to “govern and operate an additional branch campus to be located in the Snohomish, Island, Skagit county area. Top priorities for the campus include expansion of upper division capacity for transfer students and graduate students in High Demand Programs, with a particular focus on Science, Technology, and Engineering.” This campus would also be allowed to admit freshmen and sophomores in a deliberate fashion, not to overlap with specific majors already offered at local community colleges. In June 2007, UW President Mark Emmert convened a work group, drawing upon expertise from all three UW campuses, to best determine the characteristics needed in the new campus (hereafter called UW North Sound) to serve student needs.

The work group began with an analysis of the higher education needs in Snohomish, Island and Skagit (SIS) counties. Quickly it became apparent that the SIS situation had to be considered in the context of the overall higher education needs of Washington. Further, since there has been an evolution of thinking about approaches to higher education, it was necessary to consider how best to match educational models to the needs of those students most likely to attend a new campus in the SIS region. Finally, the task force examined lessons learned from previous launches of branch campuses in the state.

Another overarching concern has been the expensive and far-reaching nature of decisions that are made about higher education. Provision of college opportunities is one of the most important things we do together as a state, and the impact of our choices lasts for decades or more. In light of all these considerations, the task force has attempted to provide thoughtful analyses and carefully crafted recommendations that the Governor and the Legislature can use as they consider how to proceed. Detailed academic planning will continue as the strategic direction, priorities, and resource commitments are resolved.

7

Part I. SIS Need Analysis

Unmet Demand for Higher Education in SIS The need for higher education in the SIS region has been a long-standing topic of discussion, with considerable variation of opinion and analysis. The Washington State Legislature has funded at least three studies looking at this issue over the past 20 years. The issue of demand for the region is a complex one, with most observers concentrating on single issues. For example, some analyses have focused on place-bound students, others on community college transfer students, some on the 18-24 year old population, and some on adults returning to school. Each emphasis leads to different estimates and models.

The SIS region has historically had higher than average participation rates for community and technical colleges (CTC) with participation rates falling below state averages for four-year degree institutions. This is undoubtedly, in part, a result of the options available in this region. The heavily congested I-5 corridor to either UWB or UWS, or the long drive north to Western Washington University (WWU), makes it difficult for those unable to relocate to take advantage of the four year degree institutions available. This is especially the case for students who are working, whether full-time or part-time. The existing University Center in Everett provides one opportunity, but the degree options are very limited.

For this study, a team of analysts from OFM, state legislative committees, the Higher Education Coordinating Board, the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, the UW and NBBJ were assembled to prepare a comprehensive assessment of student demand in the region. The data analyzed included regional and state population forecasts, current and future projected higher education participation trends, and the observed impacts of branch campuses on local participation rates. As is appropriate for planning such a large capital investment, the group considered enrollment projections for a new campus in SIS for 2025, 2030 and 2040.

The target growth scenario from this team predicts student demand for the new UW North Sound campus of just over 5,000 students per year by 2025. This estimate assumes an aggressive and successful K-12 outreach and academic preparation effort. A full copy of the analysts’ report, including alternate growth scenarios, is included in Appendix A. Essential observations drawn from the report are: (1) the growth of the traditional age student demand, with the current participation rate, is likely to be approximately the same as the expected expansion of existing higher education institutional capacity, and (2) a new campus in the SIS region can be expected to raise participation in college by one third, as it has elsewhere, resulting in additional student demand.

8

Geographic Dispersion in SIS There is a higher population density located between Everett and south Snohomish County that makes up the bulk of the region’s population. However, the needs of the region are geographically dispersed. For many working students located in Skagit and Island counties, a campus located in Snohomish County may not meet their needs. Strategies employing distance learning and remote instruction will also need to be engaged by a variety of providers already established in the region, including the University Center, WWU, Central Washington University (CWU) and UW Educational Outreach (UWEO) to meet the educational needs of all potential students in the SIS region.

In summary, SIS, like the state as a whole, would benefit from a sustained effort to increase the participation rate in higher education (see the discussion of Washington State Higher Education Needs that follows). There is substantial evidence of employer demand (as presented from the Washington Interactive Labor Market Analysis WILMA) for the SIS region that mirrors the Washington State data presented in Tables 2 and 3. As expected, aerospace, mechanical and civil engineering along with computer science are all critical needs for the region. Highly skilled occupations such as nursing continue to present the region’s health care sector with recruiting challenges. Secondary math and science teachers also remain in chronically short supply according to SIS school district hiring officials, and as the biotechnology sector grows there will be more need for life scientists.

9

Washington has shifted from a manufacturing and natural resource based economy to a more balanced technology intensive economy. This shift has fueled the need for a more highly educated workforce. For example, in the aerospace industry, a majority of positions now require at least a bachelor’s degree.1 This trend in aerospace, led by Boeing and its suppliers, follows on the heels of a similar shift in the computer software and health care industries. It is a trend that is unlikely to change.

Despite Washington’s emergence as a leader among technology-based economies, the rate at which high school graduates continue on to college (termed the participation rate) is significantly lower than the national average. Washington State ranks 34th in the nation for participation in higher education.2 This figure includes enrollment in any institution of higher education, including community and technical colleges, and private colleges or universities. Washington State ranks 48th in undergraduate enrollment in a four-year public institution.3 These rankings have been sliding for over a decade, and will continue to slide without decisive corrective action and new investment in higher education.

Simply put, there is a mismatch between the state’s need for a highly educated workforce and the educational credentials of our own students. While Washington State ranks 10th in the country in the percent of adults with a bachelor’s degree (30.9% compared to a national average of 27.7%),4 too few of Washington’s potential college students are participating in higher education, and far too few are graduating with a four year degree. A further indicator of this mismatch comes from the National Center for Education Statistics: Washington State imports approximately 3,500 bachelor degree holders per year.5 They come for jobs in our state for which our citizens cannot compete because they do not have the required educational training.

As illustrated in Figure 1, the mismatch between Washington’s current degree production and employer demand is especially acute when it comes to careers which require a STEM background.

Part II. Washington State Needs Analysis: II.1. A Mismatch Between Workforce Needs and Degree Production

Figure 1. Washington State Degree Production Compared to Washington State Job Openings – (Prosperity Partnership)

85.99%All Other

2.25%Computer Specialists3.8%Engineers

2.92%Nurses0.29%Medical Researchers

4.75%Life Science Researchers

52%All Other

16%Computer Specialists

6%Engineers

3%Secondary Teachers

7%Doctors, Nurses,Medical Researchers, Therapists

14%Health Technologists and Technicians

2%Life Science Researchers

Current Degree Production in Washington’s 4-year System

Washington Job Openings Requiring Bachelor’s Degrees, 2007-2012

10

Table 1. Graduation Rates for Community College Transfer Students at the UW

Graduation after: National Research U’s UWS UWT UWB National Universities

2 Years 22% 39% 67% 66% 22%

3 Years 48% 69% 81% 78% 49%

4 Years 60% 77% 87% 78% 60%

Students 20,685 1,242 208 120 74,772

Although this report focuses primarily of four year degrees, Washington State is also well below national averages (ranked 49th in the nation) in its production of graduate and professional degrees. As with four year degrees, the percent of adults with graduate and professional degrees in the state is somewhat above average (10.7% vs 10.4%), suggesting that this is another area where we import talent from out of state.

It is important to note that Washington’s underproduction of bachelor degrees is not due to difficulties students face while they are in our colleges or universities. To the contrary, Washington’s four-year institutions have an excellent graduation record. The six-year graduation rate (the only way national statistics are compared) for Washington’s four-year institutions, taken as a whole (66%), ranks in the top-tier in the country. At the University of Washington, which produces the largest number of these degrees, the six-year graduation rate is 74%. It should also be noted that all three University of Washington campuses have an excellent retention and graduation rate regarding their community college transfer students, exceeding both the national average for all institutions reporting, in general, and Doctoral/Research Intensive institutions, in particular. The most recent data from the Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange are presented in the table below:

11

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

3.9%

5.7%

1.9%

10.7%

4.4%

2000

3.9%

6.1%

1.8%

13.1%

5.0%

2005

3.7%

6.4%

1.7%

14.9%

5.8%

2010

3.5%

6.4%

1.6%

15.3%

6.3%

2015

3.3%

6.3%

1.6%

15.4%

6.8%

2020

3.1%

6.3%

1.7%

16.4%

7.6%

2025

3.0%

6.1%

1.7%

17.7%

8.2%

2030

HispanicMultiple

Native AmericanAsian Pacific IslandersAfrican American

Figure 2. (above) shows the comparison data for the eight Global Challenge States that are now the official benchmarking group for higher education in Washington. Washington lags behind not only in the percentage of 9th graders who go on to graduate from high school, but also in the percentage of 9th graders who eventually continue on into post-secondary institutions.7

II.2. Need to Increase Bachelor Degree Production

Building the Pipeline In order to increase four year degree production, Washington needs to increase participation in higher education. Participation rates in higher education have been in steady decline for the past 10 years. According to OFM, only 22% of 17-22 year olds in Washington are participating in higher education at either a two-year or a four-year institution.6

Figure 2. Ninth Grade to H.S. Graduation and Ninth Grade to College

Figure 3. Diversity Projections from HECB through 2030 In order to increase this low participation rate, Washington needs to mount a significant initiative throughout the K-12 system to better prepare our high school students for college. This is especially urgent now, as demographic trends (Figure 3, left) indicate a large increase in Hispanic students whose participation rate in higher education is currently only a little over half that of majority students.

California

Washington # Enter College# Graduate from High School

Colorado

Virginia

Maryland

Massachusetts

Connecticut

New Jersey

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

12

Increasing four-year educational opportunities

Higher education in Washington is structured differently than in most other states. As Figure 4 below shows, our overall higher education enrollment is highly concentrated in the community and technical colleges, with relatively fewer enrollments at four-year institutions. This is different than the enrollment profiles in the Global Challenge States, which generally produce a different balance of degrees as noted in Figure 5 (below). Figure 6 (next page) illustrates Washington’s relative strengths and weaknesses in participation in post-secondary education.

Figure 4. Current Washington State Higher Education Enrollment

Figure 5. Distribution of Associate and Bachelors Degrees fpr the Global Challenge States

Washington’s Research Universities20% of Undergraduate Enrollment

Branch Campuses and Comprehensives16% of Undergraduate Enrollment

Washington’s Community and Technical Colleges64% of Undergraduate Enrollment

California

Associate DegreesBachelor Degrees

Colorado

Virginia

Washington

Maryland

Massachusetts

Connecticut

New Jersey

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

13

Figure 6. Participation in Washington’s Higher Education System Compared to the Nation, Fall 2004 (OFM HE Trends 2007)

Fall 2004 Percentiles

Sources: NCES Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 197U.S. Census Bureau

2-Year PublicTotal: 92nd

State Total:34th

50th Percentile

100

Perc

entil

e

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

4-Year PublicTotal: 6th

Public Total(2+4-Year): 60th

4-Year PrivateTotal: 28th

4-Year PublicGrad & Prof: 4th

4-Year PublicUndergrad: 8th

14

A Shortage of STEM Degrees According to the Washington State Economic and Labor Market’s most recent report (2006), the annual growth rate in jobs is especially high in all areas of STEM, including computer science, mathematics, engineering, and life and physical sciences (Figure 7)

These growth rates have resulted in shortages that are especially evident in Washington’s engineering and computing sectors where employers are experiencing severe difficulties recruiting skilled workers locally. The magnitude of the problem is significant and far-reaching, affecting not only industry leaders like Boeing and Microsoft but hundreds of small and mid-size technology firms in the state. The table below describes the current vacancies, projected average annual openings, and total degrees produced for the different engineering professions. Shortages are especially acute in aeronautical, civil, and industrial engineering.

Aero Mechanical Electrical Civil Industrial Chemical Miscellaneous Total

Projected Annual

Openings

537 212 127 499 137 37 132 1681

Current Vacancies

82 275 183 687 215 19 110 1571

Current State Production

Public/ Private

55 212 264 220 32 36 88 1101

Figure 7. Projected Annual Growth Washington Employment Sectors

Table 2. Engineering Disciplines Projected Employment Demand 2004-2014

Computer and MathematicalArchitecture and Engineering

Life, Physical, and Social ScienceHealthcare Support

Construction and ExtractionHealthcare Practitioners and Technicians

Community and Social ServicesEducation, Training, and Library

Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and MediaProtective Services

Office and Administrative SupportBusiness and Financial Operations

Total, AllTransportation and Material Moving

Food Preparation and Serving RelatedManagement

Building and Grounds Cleaning and MaintenancePersonal Care and Service

LegalSales and Related

Installation, Maintenance, and RepairProduction

Farming, Fishing, Forestry

0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5%

II.3. Need for More Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)

15

The most severe shortages are in the areas of computing, with thousands of positions currently unfilled in the state. In these areas, our production of graduates is just one-fifth of the annual demand for these degrees.

Ensuring adequate preparation for students to successfully complete STEM degree programs requires that high school graduates take the necessary math courses to begin college calculus without remedial course work. For most students, this is four years of high school math, which is almost a half year more than the most well prepared Washington and SIS students are currently taking and two years more than what is currently required to graduate from high school.

Subject SIS Washington State National

English 3.79 3.79 3.9

Mathematics 3.57 3.54 3.8

Natural Sciences 2.90 2.92 3.5

Preparedness for STEM

Limited capacity within existing degree programs for high demand STEM has impacted the opportunities for students interested in pursuing STEM careers. There is also the situation where relatively few high school graduates have the necessary academic preparation to succeed in STEM programs. Though the inadequacy of student preparation is widely known and many current K-12 initiatives seek to redress it, it is important to recognize that there are also some systemic issues. Washington’s minimum graduation standards, which call for two years of high school math and two years of high school science, without specifying the level of these courses, are some of the lowest in the country. Most students take no more math and science courses than the minimum required for graduation. ACT Inc. (previously known as Academic College Testing program) recommends a high school curriculum that, at a minimum, includes four years of English, four years of mathematics, and three years of laboratory sciences to adequately prepare students for college.8 When students from SIS and Washington are compared with students from across the country, they are substantially below average in mathematics and the natural sciences. Moreover, these averages surely underestimate the problem since they represent only those Washington students who plan to go to college and have taken the SAT.

Computer Software Engineers

Computer Software

& Systems

Computer Programmers

Computer Systems Analysts

Computer & Info

Systems Mgmt.

Network & Systems

Adm

Total

Projected Annual

Openings

1102 612 782 457 214 564 3731

Current Vacancies

2183 435 1074 736 340 837 5605

Current State Production

Public/ Private

0 0 0 0 0 0 792

Table 3. Computing and Information Systems Projected Employment Demand 2004-2014

Table 4. Years of Study in Key College Preparatory Subject for Seniors taking SAT

16

Building the STEM Pipeline A number of universities around the country, especially those with a polytechnic focus, have implemented outreach programs to identify and encourage potential STEM students. Worcester Polytechnic Institute and California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo provide two examples. To produce more STEM graduates for the state, outreach efforts must begin in at least middle school, preferably in the primary grades. Studies show that students and their parents begin to make decisions about academic preparedness, such as math and science coursework, in middle school.

If we are to build the STEM pipeline, a K-16 program that includes teacher training, innovative lesson plans, speaker’s bureaus and other methods to bring a focus to STEM is needed. The program should also include informational counseling for middle and high school students and their parents about the necessary courses and preparation required to successfully study STEM in college.

At the college level, STEM cannot be addressed on a small scale. The resources required to mount a successful STEM program are significant. They include (a) laboratory teaching spaces to conduct course work, and (b) a critical mass of students to support a broad complement of courses and departments including mathematics, chemistry, physics, and biology. These courses, typically offered as part of a liberal arts curriculum, support not only the STEM disciplines of engineering, computing, and life sciences but also the technical fields of nursing and secondary math and science education.

Worcester Polytechnic Inst i tute supports a full-time Office of K-12 Outreach, which is engaged in numerous pro jects to improve teaching and learning in STEM, for both students and teachers including: TeachEngineering - A collection of standards based K-12 curriculum items that integrate engineering concepts into local school’s curriculum. The Massachusetts Academy of Mathematics and Science - A free high school on the WPI campus for advanced 11th and 12th grade study of math, science, and the humanities. This program provides numerous opportunities for undergraduate par t icipation with the focus on investigating methods to improve learning in K-12 math and science.

17

Equipping Students to Succeed In 2004, the Washington Technology Alliance commissioned a study looking at the future of Washington’s higher education system.9 To produce the report, 45 senior executives from high-tech companies around the state were interviewed. A consistent theme that emerged from these interviews was the need for “well-rounded” students with strong writing, communication and critical thinking skills. While these industry leaders voiced concern about the supply of skilled technology workers in the sciences, math, and engineering, they also highlighted the value of interdisciplinary education.

In their look at a much broader cross section of Washington’s employers, the UWEO identified the same themes.10 This study considered employment groups such as engineering and architecture; art, design, and media; community and social services; computation and mathematics; law; and the life, physical and social sciences. The report found skills such as critical thinking, reading comprehension, active listening, and speaking were highly valued across these diverse disciplines. Future employers also value students who have obtained real-world experience during their college years through problem-based learning, internships, and research programs. Based on these findings, the work group tasked a sub-committee to review innovative practices in higher education. A full copy of the sub-committee report is included in Appendix B and many of the recommendations in the report have been incorporated into the planning of the new campus.

Active and Problem-based Learning

Over the past 30 years, a transformation has begun in American higher education. Technologies such as the internet, computer simulation, and remote instruction have begun to break down walls of “when” and “where” higher education is delivered. Just as importantly, faculty have begun to look at the “how” of what works in higher education and found there are strategies for student success that involve “Active Learning.” Active learning engages teams of students and faculty in projects where they solve problems, interact with the local community and industry, and focus on critical thinking, communication skills and team work. It is an applied educational focus on the coursework with real world experiences drawn from faculty engaged in applied research with local businesses and non-profit communities.

For STEM majors in particular, there is a large body of evidence indicating that active learning, when added to approaches that are more traditional, works to attract and retain students in STEM majors.11, 12, 13 Some of the most compelling research on the effectiveness of active learning has been done at the UW by the Center for Engineering Learning and Teaching (CELT) and the Center for

Getting students engaged and guiding their thinking in the classroom is just the beginning of true learning. This classroom experience has to be followed up with extended “effortful study,” where the student spends considerably more t ime than is possible in the classroom developing expert-like thinking and skills.

Carl Wieman, Winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in PhysicsProfessor of PhysicsUniversity of British ColumbiaCarl Wieman Science Education Initiative

Part III. Best Practices for Addressing Higher Education Needs

18

the Advancement of Engineering Education (CAEE). They have found that active learning works best in students when it begins early in their academic careers and continues throughout their education.14 When students learn from their peers in small groups, not only do they retain material better but they also have greater persistence in their fields of study. Employers repeatedly point to these educational experiences as what they look for when they hire recent graduates. The applied educational focus and the coursework, with real world experiences drawn from faculty engaged in applied research with the local business and non-profit communities all work to create an engaging campus and educational experience for students.

Coupled with exposure to professionals in the students’ fields of study, active learning with a problem-based focus can significantly decrease attrition in STEM majors.15 In engineering, the increase of student persistence can be even greater as prospective engineers begin to understand the scope of the practice of engineering and the diversity of projects and assignments that the engineering degree allows them to undertake. For students not in STEM majors, these problem based learning and small group experiences teach skills in critical thinking, communication, and working in groups that are essential to success in almost all fields.16

Service Learning

In service learning, classroom work is paired with structured volunteer opportunities in the community to provide the student with exposure to professional practice in their field, such as engineering, education, healthcare or business through work on a variety of projects. Service learning opportunities may revolve around real world projects, such as working on a stream restoration or designing and installing a ramp at a senior center. Teams may consist of students from arts and sciences, business, engineering, and education.

Internships and Co-op Programs

Internships, which can be paid part-time jobs in the student’s professional field, usually with close faculty and supervisor oversight, have proven to be very valuable learning tools. They allow students to build job skills by engaging in real work experiences. Multiple internships encourage students to try different organizations and industries to determine which fit best with their skills and interests. Many internship opportunities grow out of service learning experiences as students make a connection with a particular non-profit organization.

Co-op programs are similar but more intensive. They allow students to take a planned quarter off from academic studies to pursue a full-time employment experience with a potential employer. Students

UW’s Restoration Ecology Network is a three-campus program that began as a UWB wetland restoration project, with faculty, staff and students across academic disciplines devoted to ecology restoration efforts with local communities. The program has received awards and was recently highlighted in Science, in an article about science education fostering community and academic collaboration. The program has expanded now to include community partners in Woodinville, Redmond, Shoreline and Seattle. Seniors from the three campuses take the yearlong course with a project to community partners, to restore a wetlands area. In addition to the academic certification, students receive invaluable experience working in multidisciplinary teams with scientists, engineers, communications and business majors.

19

who participate in co-ops are typically in their late junior or senior year, and the experience is structured to have the student be a full-fledged member of a real work team.

As noted above, research demonstrates that there are tremendous benefits to be gained from fully immersing students in real world problem solving through engaged teaching and learning strategies and collaborations with the business, government and non-profit sectors. Involvement can take place at various levels ranging from single class exercises in problem-based learning (perhaps generated by faculty collaboration with a business or non-profit), to visiting lectures by industry leaders and public policy makers, to quarter-long service learning projects with a non-profit or a quarter long real work experience through an internship or co-op program. Each of these experiential learning opportunities requires a university-community collaboration that takes substantial resources and support to manage.

Northeastern UniversityOne of the most successful models of these active learning experiences can be found at Nor theastern University, a university where the entire curriculum is infused with these active learning models. Northeastern’s core curriculum requires all undergraduates to pursue at least one integrated experiential learning opportunity that includes formal reflection on how the experience expanded their knowledge and understanding. Students may pursue this through co-op, research, service learning, study abroad, clinical and professional practice, and internships.

20

Developing a new campus is a significant undertaking. The UW has done it twice--at Bothell and Tacoma. WSU has done it three times, and many other new campuses have been established across the country in recent decades. A sub-committee of the work group was asked to study as many of these examples as feasible and compile some lessons learned that could help guide the creation of UW North Sound. The sub-committee’s full report is included in Appendix C.

Consider Carefully Who The Students Will Be

Since their inception, the UW campuses at Bothell and Tacoma have served an ethnically and socio-economically diverse group of students. These students have also been diverse in terms of age, with a relatively large number of working adults. Over time, the age of branch campus students has come to include a larger number of more traditionally-aged students, with the majority of students now in the 18-25 age range. The addition of the recently admitted freshman classes has further shifted the demographics of the campuses towards a younger aged student. Nonetheless, while no longer a majority, working adults are still a significant segment of the population of students served, especially in graduate programs in business, education, and nursing.

Whether freshmen or transfer students, a consistent finding from surveys of students at UWB and UWT is that they work significantly more than UWS students. At UWT, 90% of entering freshman worked compared with less than 40% of entering freshman at UWS. A review of the first year retention data for UWT found a high correlation between working more than 15 hours per week and students not returning in the fall. The retention rate was 80% for students who worked less than 15 hours per week compared to 58% for students working more than 15 hours per week. Meeting the needs of this diverse student population, which varies greatly in age and work status, will require creative and extensive academic support.

Provide Academic Support The academic qualifications of potential students from the SIS region are comparable to students across the state and students at UWB (average SAT of 1035, GPA 3.3).

Thus, looking at the entering freshmen at UWB gives a picture of what a typical UW North Sound student might require in terms of academic support. The first UWB freshman class has just completed its first academic year. These students required support in the campus writing centers and many students needed one-on-one support in math in order to do well. For example, while UWB freshmen, comprised only 8% of enrollment, they accounted for almost 28% of the utilization of the math tutoring at UWB. Most of the students are taking calculus for the first time, and math support was provided for all skill levels along with allowing freshmen to take needed remedial courses at Cascadia Community College.

Part IV. Launching a New Campus: Serving the Needs of Our Students

SIS Washington State National

Critical Reasoning 528 527 503

Math 536 532 519

Total SAT 1064 1059 1022

Table 5. SAT Scores SIS, Washington State Compared to National Average

21

Currently, academic support programs at both UWB and UWT focus on math tutoring and writing centers. Accordingly, the UW North Sound campus proposal includes a significant line item in the budget for an academic support center. Modeled after the Instructional Center at the UWS, the academic support center will provide a broad range of tutoring in math, writing, economics, accounting, chemistry, physics, and biology. In reviewing the data from other new campuses around the country, it is clear that students entering a new institution need more academic support than students at established institutions. Therefore, it is imperative that the initial students entering the UW North Sound campus be given every opportunity to succeed and build the reputation of the institution as a place where students can prosper. This will be especially important for a STEM campus with heavy requirements in math and science.

Provide Financial Support

Students at UWT and UWB work long hours, and we should expect that UW North Sound students will as well. The financial needs of these students have implications for the experiential learning component of the campus. Both scholarships and paid externships and internships will need to be developed to encourage students to take advantage of such opportunities.

Arrange for Varied Schedules and Facilities

Students who work full time and attend school to advance their careers or transition to another field need flexible scheduling, so evening courses and alternative means of delivery, (such as distance learning and on-line courses,) will be valuable. Entering freshman and traditional aged transfer students (18-25 years old) want classes on a more conventional schedule. Surveys carried out at UWB and UWT found that these more traditional aged students place a greater value on factors such as campus life, residence halls, and after hours activities. (Appendix D Student Profiles Report)

Offer Desirable Courses and Majors

Transfer students and older adults re-entering higher education are attracted to majors such as business, education, and nursing. It is important, therefore, that any new campus offer degrees and programs that are highly sought out by transfer students. No longer are students just interested in obtaining a bachelors degree. In today’s competitive job market students are looking for a degree that employers will recognize and that is marketable. This explains the competitiveness of degree programs such as business, nursing, and computer science. It is also difficult to attract and retain freshmen students without a reasonably wide array of recognizable arts and sciences degrees, including popular majors such as psychology and biology, which serve as common gateways to the health professions.

Send a Clear Signal About the Campus

Prior experience indicates that it is not easy for students to evaluate a new campus and judge how it might serve their needs. Thus, it is vital to communicate a strong, clear identity for the campus. It is also highly desirable to establish a geographic focus by locating the interim site proximate to the permanent site.

22

Move Rapidly to Scale A campus size of several thousand students allows: a) a broad array of academic programs that build on each other and are attractive to potential students, b) the addition of more specialized disciplines that rely on the availability of strong offerings in the liberal arts and sciences, and c) economies of scale that allow the use of infrastructure and support services to serve more students.

EstablishaMulti-YearFundingPlan

A multi-year funding and growth plan that outlines how the campus and its program offerings will develop and grow will more easily allow faculty, staff and students to decide whether to become part of the new enterprise. It also allows the increased costs associated with being new, small and student-service intensive to be accommodated without making them permanent line item costs.

Leverage Existing Resources

The existing higher education institutions in Washington are busy and performing well. There are no underutilized resources that could be redeployed to serve SIS. Nevertheless, serving the SIS region and starting a new campus are enormous undertakings, and we should look at appropriate ways to take advantage of existing higher education strengths. One benefit of this approach will likely be a more rapid response to the needs of the region. Within the UW system, UWB is well positioned to help create and implement the SIS strategy. It has a solid base of students and programs to build upon, and it has a strategic vision that is well aligned with the needs in the SIS region. Once the Governor and the Legislature have chosen how to approach serving this region and the state, the UW will carefully examine how to best leverage UWB’s strength to assist with the development of UW North Sound.

23

Part V. Key Considerations

Significant academic and financial support is required to launch a new campus, both to assure the academic success of the initial classes entering the institution and to build a reputation as a place that serves students well. After reviewing the data for other new campuses around the country and looking at what we know about likely UW North Sound students, the following needs have emerged:

1. A new campus should be built with the most recently identified best practices in education at its core. This will require developing a curriculum that emphasizes active, problem-based, and service learning programs. University-community-business partnerships will also need to be developed to provide students with internships and co-op programs.

2. A new campus will require strong academic support services for students. Without that additional support, student retention and on-time graduation rates will likely be low, and it will be difficult to attract new students.

3. A new branch campus in the SIS region will be challenged to meet the needs of a varied group of students, including traditionally aged freshmen, transfer students of various ages, and adults returning for further education. This will require a broad range of academic offerings and flexibility in course scheduling. A range of outside-the-classroom activities for students, including dormitories and extramural activities, will be needed, especially for younger students who are most apt to undertake a STEM education.

4. Previous experience in launching branch campuses suggests that an incremental model, starting with a small cohort of students and then increasing student enrollment, does not lend itself to the production of degrees in the STEM disciplines. The costs of developing small degree programs in STEM, which includes building student laboratories, become exorbitant without proper economies of scale.

5. The choice of an interim site and a permanent site impacts student and faculty recruitment efforts and the growth of a new campus. It is important that the interim site provide a recognizable presence in the community and that the permanent site is identified before academic program planning is completed.

6. Stable funding allows a new campus to grow in a predictable way, offering new programs to attract students.

24

Insufficient STEM education and underproduction of baccalaureate degrees are significant concerns, reducing the competitiveness of the business environment of Washington. In both of these areas, Washington must raise the bar and make dramatic investments and improvements to remain competitive in the global economy. The choices the state makes today to deal with these issues will have a long-term effect on its economic competitiveness and the standard of living of its citizens. Increasing the number of STEM degrees awarded in the state is a priority for both business and government, specifically the rapidly expanding technology sectors of computing, aerospace and civil engineering, life sciences and health care. The magnitude of the problem and the complexity of the issues surrounding STEM education, including the student “pipeline” in our K-12 system, the constraints of capacity of four-year higher education institutions throughout the state, and student demand and persistence, will require multiple strategies in both the short and long term.

Baccalaureate degree production is a long term problem looming on the horizon for the state. Not only must participation rates be significantly raised, but the state must make strategic investments in capacity to prepare for the increased demand resulting from these efforts and from the growing student population.

Clearly there are several important issues facing Washington’s higher education system. First and foremost, Washington needs more of its citizens to attain bachelor- and master’s level degrees in specific areas such as computing and information systems, math and science education and some life science and engineering fields. This will require an increase in student preparation for, and aspiration to, these higher-level degrees. Washington’s current efforts to strengthen the K-12 system are aligned with this goal. There is also a requirement for expanded access to four-year degree programs for Washington’s students. Given the atypical balance of Washington’s higher education system compared to national norms, such an expansion would be best concentrated in the state’s comprehensive and branch campus institutions. This is a multi-year, perhaps multi-decade, undertaking to address the imbalance in higher education opportunities in the state.

Perhaps more acutely, the state’s technology economy requires a sharp increase in STEM graduates, especially in computing and information systems, as well as in the life sciences and some engineering fields. A new North Sound campus can eventually contribute to meeting this need, but the time required to ramp up will delay any significant contribution to the state’s immediate demands. The Governor and Legislature have recently taken steps to provide additional funding to increase enrollments in these critical areas. Additional consideration should be given to a statewide initiative to fund additional STEM enrollments at current institutions to continue addressing this serious issue. Such an effort would allow the state to target these enrollments to high demand field in a relatively short timeframe with flexibility and precision.

Part VI. Recommendations

25

Recommendation 1: A Plan for UW North Sound

The creation of UW North Sound would address both the state’s needs for more skilled technology workers through STEM and the need to provide more access to higher education four-year degrees in the SIS region. UW North Sound would be a large-scale comprehensive branch campus in the range of 5,000 students based on the OFM demand projected for 2025 (Appendix A). The educational signature of the institution would be an emphasis on experiential learning with real world student interactions with the business and non-profit sectors. Faculty research would revolve around common points of interest with industry, bringing more opportunities for students to intersect with the workplace and develop problem-solving and critical thinking skills. UW North Sound would employ a number of strategies to deliver this signature experiential learning program for the campus which might include a service learning requirement for all entering freshman through a required Freshman Interest Group experience modeled after the UWS’s nationally recognized program. A curriculum emphasizing critical thinking skills, cooperative learning, and team projects will prepare students for life after the university. The campus would offer a range of STEM disciplines including some engineering and computer science, with a strong arts and sciences core to support these programs. Other high demand fields offered would include business, education (with a special emphasis on secondary math and science education) and nursing.

The projections for demand for the new campus are largely based on the 18-24 year old population and participation rates for the region. A large SIS campus, emphasizing STEM courses needs to have dormitories to attract students. Even students who will not be staying in the dormitories are looking for the activities of campus life that residential students bring to the learning environment. Students between18-24 years old want evening programs, evening study sessions, and campus events to round out their campus experience. A STEM program would especially benefit from the residential component of the campus since it would allow the campus to attract 18-24 years olds from around the state. The residential aspect of the campus will be especially important to STEM students who may find the smaller campus and experiential learning focus of the UW North Sound to be compelling.

The ultimate costs for such a comprehensive academic program and campus are significant. It will be a minimum of six years, and more realistically up to 10 years or more, before such a large campus could be constructed. It is also possible that campus development could take longer, but the alternative would be an even greater delay in launching the more expensive programs in the STEM disciplines. In current dollars, operating costs for the state are estimated at $41 million annually at full enrollment in 2025. NBBJ estimates of the capital costs for such a campus range from $645 million to $803 million in 2007 dollars. These estimates are an order of magnitude costing for the building components of the project and do not include site development costs, sales tax or construction contingency funds. Estimates would need to be further refined once more specific programmatic profiles of the buildings are established.

26

Recommendation 2: K-16 Initiative for SIS

There is a recognized need for higher education to partner with K-12 schools, the agencies concerned with science and math education, and others to advance the interest and preparation of K-12 students in science, health, technology, and engineering. Though needed across the state, such a K-16 initiative could beneficially begin in the SIS region. The UW proposes such an effort in partnership with the SIS schools and community colleges. The initiative would focus on helping parents and students understand the preparation required to succeed in college and STEM majors. It would also involve presenting additional engaging opportunities for students to begin understanding STEM careers and the training necessary to succeed in them. Teacher training would focus on available enrichment resources in the STEM disciplines and help make these opportunities available for students throughout the SIS region. The cost estimate for the initial year of the program (2008-2009) is $308,249. A further description of the initiative and budget detail are included in Appendix E. These costs are also included in the budget summary in Appendix F.

Recommendation 3: Getting UW North Sound Started in 2008

Once the state has chosen its strategy for addressing the statewide and SIS regional needs, a great deal of academic planning will be required. Virtually every alternative will call for: a) broad cooperative efforts to increase participation rates and academic preparation, b) intensive partnerships with the community colleges in SIS to ramp up academic programs and prepare transfer students, c) early development of student support programs, and d) utilization of existing institutional strengths.

In the near term, any solutions to the regional demand and access issues for the SIS region will involve the existing programs and faculty at UW. The UW continues to be committed to meeting access issues for the SIS region. The following programs are proposed as the areas where the faculty will concentrate their initial efforts and a sample of what these programs might be. The actual programming will be contingent on HECB approval, legislative funding, and the ability to match enrollments with faculty resources. To meet current demand beginning fall 2008, we propose the following list of potential academic programs.

Possible Programming and Initiatives for 2008

RN to BSN and M.Ed. Programs

UWB has recently launched a BS in Nursing program in Mt. Vernon in partnership with Skagit Valley College. This program, geared toward working nurses, is offered in a one-day-a-week format, allowing working professionals to complete their BSN in 5 quarters. Given the strong demand for nursing education, it makes sense to replicate this program in Snohomish County as one of the first UW North Sound offerings. A Master’s in Education program is also being pursued for the 2008-2009 academic year in conjunction with school districts in the three-county region.

Funding is needed for 30 FTE’s for each program, along with the necessary staffing, to begin to establish UW student support services in the SIS region. Costs for the programs are estimated at $751,666 for the 2008-2009 fiscal year. A detailed budget for each program is included in Appendix F.

27

Community College Outreach

Any new branch campus must work in close partnership with the community colleges to facilitate students’ transition to the four-year university. In keeping with this mandate to serve transfer students, the proposed infrastructure will provide the student services required to begin on-site admissions as well as academic and financial aid counseling at the three primary community colleges in the SIS region (Edmonds Community College, Everett Community College, and Skagit Valley College). Therefore, funding for three positions to assist transfer students from the community colleges to the new interim campus is proposed. Statewide, too many students are lost in the transition from community colleges to four-year institutions. Our experience at the three UW campuses shows that with intensive counseling transfer students have been much more successful, and we are certain this will be a key to success for UW North Sound. Costs for the community college outreach program are $243,243 annually. These funds are requested for the 2008-2009 fiscal year.

Public Outreach and Marketing

Specifically, these estimates are a) $45,000 in fiscal year 2008-09 to conduct the necessary analysis to determine the potential degree programs that would be feasible at an interim campus site within SIS and b) $50,000 in marketing and public outreach each year to begin building the identity and recognition of the new campus. Detailed cost information is included in Appendix F.

2009 and Beyond

Further Needs Analysis: Launching of an Interim Campus Site and Outreach Programs

Depending on the results of the market analysis, we may introduce up to five full degree programs from UW campuses using remote real-time video instruction. This approach would involve a substantial capital investment to install ten digital video classrooms (five at existing UW campuses and five at the interim site). The technology would allow instructors at the UW campuses to lead courses simultaneously from multiple locations while a new campus was being built. Despite the high initial investment, the technology would allow for the greatest breadth of course offerings, degree options, and scheduling flexibility for students from SIS. These two-way classrooms could operate from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. to match the current UW course schedule. The staffing for this program would include not only the required technical help to manage the technology but also a full time instructional designer to work with the faculty teaching in these two-way classrooms to optimize their teaching methods and benefit the students in both locations. The cost estimates are $4 million in capital costs for the digital video classrooms and $1 million in projected annual operating costs for the technology and support to provide remote instruction if it is determined to be a viable program option.

In fall of 2009 the campus will begin to offer general student and academic support services that include a full time service learning and internship coordinator to establish the program for the region. These support services will also require a full time library resource coordinator, a half-time student affairs officer, a site administrator and administrative support, these costs are estimated to be $450,000 per year for student and administrative support for the interim site beginning in 2010. Detailed budget estimates are included in Appendix F.

28

Due to the uncertainty of the academic programs that will be offered, and associated faculty costs, a general model has been used to determine the cost of a typical academic program using average faculty and program costs. Two academic programs are proposed, one at the graduate and one at the undergraduate level for the 2011-2013 biennium, with the understanding that these costs would be refined once a determination is made about the specific programs to be offered. Depending on demand and the facilities available at the interim site, additional discrete cohort programs such as a Master’s in Business, Master’s in Computer Software and Systems or Nursing may be offered. At this time no additional FTE’s are requested for the students enrolled through remote instruction, since it is expected that these students would be accounted for under the UW’s current FTE funding.

Distributed Education within the SIS Region

Strategies for SIS must include distributed education within the SIS Region, including course offerings with UWEO, CWU, WWU, EWU and University Center. The geographically dispersed needs and the variety of the students to be served suggest that no single educational model can serve all these needs.

29

References

1Sommers, Paul. “Cluster Growth and Middle Wage Jobs” Presentation to the Higher Education Coordinating Board, July 2007

2National Center Higher Education Management Systems3National Center Higher Education Management Systems4National Center for Education Statistics IPEDS Database 5National Center for Education Statistics IPEDS Database6OFM 2007 Washington State Higher Education Trends and Highlights7National Center for Higher Educational Management Statistics8ACT Crisis at the Core Preparing All Students for College and Work9Technology Alliance Is Washington’s Higher Education Providing a Foundation for a Strong

Economic Future? Assessing Washington’s Performance. June 200410UW Educational Outreach “Washington State Higher Education Degree Programs Supply and

Demand Assessment Study” 200411Felder, Richard, Felder, Gary, Dietz, Jacquelin, “A Longitudinal Study of Engineering Student

Performance and Retention V. Comparisons with Traditionally-Taught Students Journal of Engineering Education 87(4), 469-480(1998)

12Crouch,Catherine,Mazur,Eric,“PeerInstruction:TenYearsofexperienceandresults”AmericanJournal of Physics, Vol 69, No. 9, September 2001

13Felder, Richard “Reaching the Second Tier Learning and Teaching Styles is College Science Education” Journal College Science Teaching 23(5) 286-290(1993)

14Eris, Ozgur, Debbie Chachra, Helen Chen, Camelia Rosca, Larry Ludlow Shen Sheppard, and Krista Donaldson. 2007. A Preliminary Analysis of Correlates of Engineering Persistnece: Results from a Longitudinal Study. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, June 24-27, 2007.

15Springer, Leonard, Stanne, Mary, Donovan, Samuel, “Measuring the Success of Small-Group Learning in College-Level SMET Teaching: A Meta-Analysis

16UWEO 2004

30

Appendix A Projected Enrollment for a University of Washington campus in the North Puget Sound (UW-North Sound) Purpose and Background

The purpose of this effort was to develop a range of enrollment estimates for a new public 4-year higher education campus (UW-North) located in the Snohomish-Island-Skagit county (SIS) area of Washington state. The campus will serve freshmen through master’s level graduate students and will have a polytechnic focus.

These projections were developed by a workgroup coordinated by the Forecasting Division of the Office of Financial Management. Workgroup members included staff from the Office of Financial Management, the Higher Education Coordinating Board, the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, the House Appropriations Committee, the House Capital Budget Committee, the Senate Ways & Means Committee, the University of Washington, and NBBJ.

Assumptions

The workgroup operated under the following assumptions:

� SIS (Snohomish-Island-Skagit counties) student participation in the community and technical college system will continue at the same level as it is today.

� 90 percent of the current-level SIS student public 4-year participation will be met by existing public 4-year institutions.

Projecting Enrollment Using Participation Rate Method

A participation rate method is used in these projections. Participation rates are calculated using enrollment and population data at the most detailed level available for age group, gender, and class standing. The participation rate is the number of persons of a particular age-gender-class standing enrolled in higher education as a percent of all persons of that age-gender.

Projections of SIS Undergraduate Enrollment to 2030

The first step in developing the enrollment projections for the new campus was to project undergraduate enrollment1 in Washington State public 4-year higher education institutions for residents of Snohomish, Island, and Skagit counties. Two scenarios were generated:

1. Current Participation Rate Projection: A baseline enrollment projection was developed using the current level (2006-07) of participation in public 4-year higher education by residents of the three counties. For Washington, enrollment data from the Public Centralized Higher Education Enrollment System (PCHEES) was used for annual average full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment. Population projections for Washington are available for 5-year age spans (age 0-4, age 5-9, etc.).

1 Annual average full-time enrollment

Participation rates were calculated for those same age groupings for each class standing category. Enrollment projections were developed for 2025 and 2030 by multiplying the projected population (age group and gender-specific) by the appropriate participation rate.

2. Projection Based on States With High Public 2-Year Higher Education Participation: It is reasonable to expect that public 4-year participation rates for Snohomish, Island, and Skagit counties will increase with the existence of a new campus in the area. Using a national public 4-year participation rate to calculate an upper limit for projected enrollment is often an attractive alternative. However, the national-level public 4-year participation rates are not representative of the situation in Washington, where the community and technical college system accounts for a high percentage of public lower division undergraduate enrollment. Therefore another approach to using participation rates from multiple states was taken: overall public 4-year participation rates were developed for the top states in public 2-yearparticipation.2 Collectively these states have a public 2-year participation rate very close to that of Washington.

The enrollment projections under these scenarios are shown in Table 1.3

Table 1: Projected Annual Average Undergraduate FTE Students: Snohomish, Island, and Skagit Counties (Public 4-Year Institutions)

Projected Enrollment

2025 2030

1 Using current Snohomish-Island-Skagit (SIS) undergraduate participation rates (2006-07) 9,199 9,783

2 Using public 4-year participation rate of states with high public 2-year participation rates (similar to Washington) 12,286 12,980

Difference between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 3,087 3,197

Percent difference between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 33.6% 32.7%

As shown in Table 1, the increase in projected undergraduate enrollment calculated using the participation rate for states similar to Washington in public 2-year higher education participation rates over that calculated using current participation rates is approximately 33 percent. This increase is in line with that experienced in Pierce and Clark counties in the years following the establishment of UW-Tacoma and WSU-Vancouver. Both counties experienced upper division participation rate

2 The 14 states with the highest participation rates in public 2-year education were (in order) California, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, Washington, Kansas, Iowa, Texas, North Carolina, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oregon, Maryland, and Michigan. Washington ranks near the bottom of this list in public 4-year higher education participation rate. This group of states was selected for this analysis solely on the basis of their similarity to Washington with regard to 2-year college participation rates. These states are not suited or intended for use as a comparison group for any other purposes. 3 Scenario 1, which uses Washington-specific data, uses a different enrollment base than scenario 2, which involves data collected at the national level. Scenario 1 uses state-funded enrollment for Washington and excludes enrollments classified as “self-sustaining.” Enrollment for Washington and all other states used in the development of Scenario 2 uses enrollment numbers that include both state-funded and self-sustaining enrollment for Washington.

increases of about 33% between 1990 and 2001; the branches seem to be a key factor in that increase.4

Projections of Snohomish, Island, and Skagit County Undergraduate Enrollment to 2040

The U.S. Census Bureau population projections were used as a basis for projecting enrollment out to 2040, since official Washington forecasts do not extend past 2030. For 2040 it was assumed that Washington’s population would remain at its 2030 share of the projected national population and that county populations would remain at their 2030 share of the state population. Age distributions for the county population were calculated using the national age distributions published by the Census Bureau for 2040. The current public 4-year participation rates and the participation rates for the top states in public 2-year college participation were applied to the 2040 population estimates. 5-year age groupings were used for the age and participation rate calculations and then summed to totals.

Note: The enrollment projections shown here and any projected population data upon which they are based are not official projections. They were developed for use in this exercise only and should not be used in any other application.

Table 2: Projected Annual Average Undergraduate FTE Students: Snohomish, Island, and Skagit Counties (Public 4-Year Institutions)

Projected Enrollment

2025 2030 2040

1 Using current Snohomish-Island-Skagit (SIS) undergraduate participation rates (2006-07) 9,199 9,783 11,580

2 Using public 4-year participation rate of states with community and technical college participation similar to Washington 12,286 12,980 15,485

Difference between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 3,087 3,197 3,905

Percent difference between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 33.6% 32.7% 33.7%

Projections of Undergraduate Enrollment at the Future Branch Campus

To estimate the undergraduate enrollment at the new institution, the workgroup first assumed that the difference in enrollment between the current participation rate level and the higher level associated with states with high public 2-year participation would be assigned to the new institution. Added to this the number is an enrollment figure equal to 10 percent of the participation at current student demand levels, representing the undergraduates attending the new campus who would otherwise attend a public 4-year institution outside the region. Some students will be attracted to the new campus from outside the SIS area. The work group assumed that 10% of the total undergraduate student body would fall into this category, based on in-state student migration

4 Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2002: Higher Education Branch Campuses in Washington State: Interim Report [http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/02-12-2302-A.pdf] It should be noted, however, that the 33% participation rate increase cited here is for all adults, and occurred during a period of very rapid growth in the prime college-going age groups.

patterns at universities in other states with programmatic mixes similar to that anticipated at a new UW campus. For 2025, this number was 445 annual average FTE.5

5 This calculation requires that the additional enrollment from outside the region be calculated at the same time the total enrollment is calculated, i.e., 3087 + 920 + 10%X = X, where X is the total enrollment.

Table 3 summarizes these calculations:

Table 3: Projected Annual Average Undergraduate FTE Students UW-North Projected Enrollment

2025 2030 2040

1 All undergraduate enrollment for SIS (using current Snohomish-Island-Skagit undergraduate participation rates (2006-07)) 9,199 9,783 11,580

2 All undergraduate enrollment for SIS (using public 4-year participation rate of states with community and technical college participation similar to Washington)

12,286 12,980 15,485

UW-North Undergraduate Enrollment Projection

Difference between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 (assumed due to increased participation by SIS residents) 3,087 3,197 3,905

Additional 10 percent of current enrollment projection based on current participation rates (10% of line 1) 920 978 1,158

Additional enrollment coming from outside the region (a number equal to 10 percent of the total undergraduate enrollment) 445 464 563

Total Undergraduate Enrollment 4,452 4,639 5,626

Graduate Enrollment

The new UW-North campus will offer graduate education at the master’s level. To project the graduate level enrollment, enrollment patterns at the other public 4-year institutions in the state were examined. Over the last five years, the four regional institutions (Central Washington University, Eastern Washington University, The Evergreen State College, and Western Washington University) show graduate enrollments accounting for approximately 6.6 percent of total enrollment. The University of Washington – Tacoma, situated in a major metropolitan area as the new campus will be, has been mentioned as a possible model for the sort of enrollment ratios that might be expected at UW-North. Since UW-Tacoma has not had lower division enrollment for most of its history, graduate enrollment as a share of total enrollment (15 to 18 percent) would likely overstate the graduate share at a campus enrolling lower division students. The workgroup concluded that an appropriate figure to use for graduate enrollment would be 12 percent of total enrollment (i.e., undergraduate enrollment would account for 88 percent of total enrollment).

Table 4 summarizes these calculations:

Table 4: Projected Annual Average FTE Students UW-North (Undergraduate and Graduate) Projected Enrollment

2025 2030 2040

UW-North Undergraduate Enrollment Projection (see Table 3) 4,452 4,639 5,626

UW-North Graduate Enrollment Projection 607 633 767

Total Enrollment 5,059 5,272 6,393

Final Estimates

Based on methodological assumptions outlined above, and the latest data available, reasonable but ambitious estimates of student demand for a new University of Washington campus in the North Puget Sound are 5,059 FTE in 2025, 5,272 FTE in 2030, and 6,393 FTE in 2040.

The workgroup members emphasize that an aggressive and successful K-12 outreach and preparation effort will be required to realize the roughly 33% growth in undergraduate participation rates anticipated above. For context, we also offer the following summary estimates of student demand at lower participation growth rates. Scenarios below substitute growth rate factors of three-quarters and one-half of the 32.7% to 33.7% used above. All other variables remain the same.

Table 5: Projected Annual Average FTE Students UW-North – Alternatives Projected Enrollment

2025 2030 2040

Final Average Annual FTE Enrollment Estimate 5,059 5,272 6,393 Moderate Growth Estimate (Growth in participation to 75% of growth shown in Table 2) 4,085 4,263 5,160

Low Growth Estimate (Growth in participation to 50% of growth shown in Table 2) 3,110 3,254 3,927

Data Sources Enrollment The Public Centralized Higher Education Enrollment System (PCHEES) database was the source of Fall 2006 state-funded headcount enrollment and 2006-07 state-funded average annual FTE enrollment for Washington and Washington counties. The U.S. Department of Education Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) fall headcount enrollment by age group and by class standing were used for calculating the national participation rates by age and class standing. Current Population For calculations limited to Washington state and counties, OFM population estimates by age and gender were used to calculate the 2006-07 participation rates. U.S. Census Bureau July 1, 2005 population estimates were used for all calculations involving other states.

Office of Financial Management. 2006. Population Estimates by Age, Gender, Race and Hispanic Origin – County-level population estimates by age group and gender as of April 1, 2006. [www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/race/2006estimates.asp] U.S. Census Bureau, 2006. Estimates of the Population by Selected Age Groups for the United States and States and for Puerto Rico: July 1, 2005 – State-level population estimates by age group and gender as of April 1, 2006. [www.census.gov/popest/states/asrh/SC-EST2005-01.html]

Projected Population Projected enrollment is calculated by applying participation rates to projected population estimates.

Office of Financial Management. 2007. Growth Management Act (GMA) Population Projections – county-level population projections to 2030 by age group and gender. [www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/gma/] Office of Financial Management. 2006. Forecast of the State Population – Forecast of the state population by gender, single year of age and by single year out to 2030. [www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/stfc/ U.S. Census Bureau. 2004. U.S. Interim Projections by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin – U.S. and state population projections to 2030 and U.S. population projections for 2040 and 2050. [www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/]

Public 2-Year Institution Participation Rates The states with highest participation rates in public 2-year participation rates were determined using IPEDS-based enrollment data published as Table 202 in the 2006 Digest of Education Statistics (as the numerator) along with the July 1, 2005, state population age 18 and over from the U.S. Census Bureau (as the denominator).

U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. Annual Estimates of the Population for the United States and States, and for Puerto Rico: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005 – Annual state-level population estimates. [www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est2005.html] Snyder, T.D.,Dillow, S.A., and Hoffman, C.M. 2007. Digest of Education Statistics 2006 (NCES 2007-017). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. [nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007017]

Snohomish-Island-Skagit (SIS) average annual undergraduate FTE enrollment, 2006-07

2025 2030 2040Projected undergraduate enrollment using current participation rates (2006-07)

9,199 9,783 11,580

Undergraduate growth from 2006-07 1,175 9,783 11,580Increase from 2006-07 undergraduate SIS Part Rate 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Projected Enrollment Using Public 4-Year Participation Rate of 14 States with CTC Participation Similar to Washington

12,286 12,980 15,485

Undergraduate growth from 2006-07 4,262 12,980 15,485Increase from 2006-07 undergraduate SIS Part Rate 33.6% 32.7% 33.7%

1. Undergraduate projection starts with difference between current part rate projection and that using part rate of states with CTC participation similar to Washington 3,087 3,197 3,905

2. In addition to all those associated with the increase in participation, assume that 10 percent of undergraduates who would otherwise go out-of-region at current participation rate attend UW-North. 920 978 1,1583. Assume that 10 percent of undergraduate total will be coming from outside the region 445 464 5634. Assume that 12 percent of total enrollment is graduate enrollment 607 633 767

TOTAL 5,059 5,272 6,393

UW North Sizing Scenarios

Scenario 1Undergraduate participation rate increases to a rate equal to that of states with CTC participation similar to

Washington

8,024

Snohomish-Island-Skagit (SIS) average annual undergraduate FTE enrollment, 2006-07

UW North Sizing Scenarios

Scenario 1Undergraduate participation rate increases to a rate equal to that of states with CTC participation similar to

Washington

8,024

2025 2030 2040Projected undergraduate enrollment using current participation rates (2006-07)

9,199 9,783 11,580

Undergraduate growth from 2006-07 1,175 9,783 11,580Increase from 2006-07 undergraduate SIS Part Rate 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Projected Enrollment Using Public 4-Year Rate Increase over Current Level 75% that of Scenario 1

11,514 12,180 14,509

Undergraduate growth from 2006-07 3,490 12,180 14,509Increase from 2006-07 undergraduate SIS Part Rate 25.2% 24.5% 25.3%

1. Undergraduate projection starts with difference between current part rate projection and that using 75% of the part rate increase used in Scenario 1 2,315 2,398 2,929

2. In addition to all those associated with the increase in participation, assume that 10 percent of undergraduates who would otherwise go out-of-region at current participation rate attend UW-North. 920 978 1,1583. Assume that 10 percent of undergraduate total will be coming from outside the region 359 375 4544. Assume that 12 percent of total enrollment is graduate enrollment 490 512 619

TOTAL 4,085 4,263 5,160

Scenario 2Undergraduate participation rate increase is 75% that of Scenario 1

Snohomish-Island-Skagit (SIS) average annual undergraduate FTE enrollment, 2006-07

UW North Sizing Scenarios

Scenario 1Undergraduate participation rate increases to a rate equal to that of states with CTC participation similar to

Washington

8,024

2025 2030 2040Projected undergraduate enrollment using current participation rates (2006-07)

9,199 9,783 11,580

Undergraduate growth from 2006-07 1,175 9,783 11,580Increase from 2006-07 undergraduate SIS Part Rate 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Projected Enrollment Using Public 4-Year Rate Increase over Current Level 50% that of Scenario 1

10,742 11,381 13,533

Undergraduate growth from 2006-07 2,718 11,381 13,533Increase from 2006-07 undergraduate SIS Part Rate 16.8% 16.3% 16.9%

1. Undergraduate projection starts with difference between current part rate projection and that using 50% of the part rate increase used in Scenario 1 1,543 1,599 1,953

2. In addition to all those associated with the increase in participation, assume that 10 percent of undergraduates who would otherwise go out-of-region at current participation rate attend UW-North. 920 978 1,1583. Assume that 10 percent of undergraduate total will be coming from outside the region 274 286 3464. Assume that 12 percent of total enrollment is graduate enrollment 373 390 471

TOTAL 3,110 3,254 3,927

Scenario 3Undergraduate participation rate increase is 50% that of Scenario 1

1

Appendix B

The Innovative Education Sub-Committee of the UW North Sound Introduction The group consists of Dave Szatmary (chair), Bill Erdly, Alan Wood, Susan Terry and Michaelann Jundt. We had been given the charge to develop a series of recommendations around innovative education, which could be delivered at the new campus. Before we started the immediate task, we articulated a series of assumptions and a core value, which the larger committee seemed to endorse. Assumptions

1. UW North Sound will have a limited local market of students with many of the students being first-generation college students. Based upon the results of previous surveys and the reports of the demand subcommittee, it became clear that a limited unmet demand existed within the SIS region. Those that seemed to be interested in the new campus appeared to be first-generation college students who needed extra prodding to enroll and succeed within the four-year university context.

2. UW North Sound must expand its market base to meet legislative growth

expectations. Because of the limited local demand and the need to attract a critical mass of students to the new North campus, the committee crafted a set of innovative learning models, which will expand the market of the new campus into the entire State and the region.

3. UW North Sound needs some unique elements to distinguish it from UW Seattle

and UW Bothell and create its own brand. Everyone seemed to agree that the new campus should exhibit a unique character, which differentiates it from UW-Seattle and UW-Bothell.

4. The new campus, though different from the other UW campuses, should

leverage the resources of the other three campuses, especially UW-Seattle and UW-Bothell. This resource leveraging will allow for a quick start-up and will entail a low risk plan, which will be especially important considering the indeterminate student market.

5. As well as market expansion of potential students, UW North Sound must focus

on retention to maintain target student FTEs. We tried to create innovative educational models, which will help students succeed in their education and graduate in a timely manner. We hope to achieve a graduation rate on the new campus that rivals the rate of its Seattle counterpart.

2

6. The UW North Sound programs should be practical and as much as possible

lead to defined careers. Given the first-generation status of many prospective students and their preoccupation with jobs, we want to develop educational models, which stress practical, pragmatic goals.

Core Value The committee felt strongly and unanimously that the UW North Sound plan should be student-centric in its design and implementation. The educational programs should not emanate from the needs of the faculty but rather from the requirements of the students. In planning an innovative curriculum, we placed ourselves in the position of the students. Recommendations Considering the assumptions and the core value for the new campus, the subcommittee developed a set of recommendations for an innovative educational experience, which would broaden the market beyond the SIS region, encourage graduation and distinguish it somewhat from the other UW campuses.

1. A required and compensated internship program will be essential for the new campus. We envision an internship program, which will be required of all students and funded at a reasonable level by the employers. We also suggest that the program should be progressive and tiered, allowing a student to have multiple internships at different levels of expertise. In this way, a student can move through their education with a planned series of internships of progressive difficulty that will likely lead to a job upon graduation.

2. A job placement program will be the logical result of the internships.

Somewhat unique among undergraduate programs, this job and career placement service would encourage admissions to the new campus, aid in retention and foster graduation. This recommendation will be a key element of the campus educational matrix.

Career planning and placement services should help students to:

� Engage in self-assessment; � Obtain occupational information; � Explore the full range of employment opportunities and/or graduate study; � Present themselves effectively as candidates; and � Obtain optimal placement in employment or further professional

preparation.

3

3. Distance learning will provide flexibility for students who have time-consuming

internships and will significantly broaden the potential student market. Distance learning also will allow UW-Seattle and UW-Bothell to leverage existing faculty, curricula and UWEO infrastructure resources. We hope that the two closest UW campuses will use their rich resources to create online curricula, which can be used either onsite or online at UW North Sound, and to send real-time video-conferenced classes to the new campus in order to build capacity quickly. Finally, distance learning will enable partnerships with other institutions in the United States to expand the curricular offerings more quickly, effectively and efficiently. Overall, distance learning technologies offer a low-risk and efficient mechanism to start and sustain a high-quality and relatively broad curriculum at the new campus

The distance learning classes can be delivered in a variety of formats, including online delivery, simulation learning or a videoconferencing format facilitated onsite. We also feel that a hybrid model, which offers an intensive onsite introduction to a topic followed by online learning, should be tested.

4. Service-and project-based learning will be an important component of a

career-based curriculum, creating important ties to industry and the professional communities. Companies such as Boeing and Microsoft as well as groups such as the Tulalip Tribe will be essential in the growth of this campus. They need to play an important role in the critical internship and job placement programs, if the campus will succeed.

5. The degree programs on campus should be modularized into certificates to

encourage retention and provide students with tangible credentials of their performance. It will also allow nonmatriculated students who already have degrees to easily enroll in defined areas of content. This modularization strategy has been pioneered by the University of Washington in such programs as the Master in Medical Engineering and the Master in Technical Communication. Bottom line, it allows a broader definition of the student market and serves more people with the same curriculum.

6. Accelerated degrees (e.g. a three-year A.A. to M.S. degree; a three-year A.D.N.

to M.N., etc.) will provide students with clear academic goals and career ladders. Though the campus probably will begin with an undergraduate curriculum, an academic progression of two years at a community college and three years at the new campus for a master degree will meet employer needs in the SIS region and offer students a fast-track to success.

7. An accelerated transfer program will allow students to enter a major at the new

campus after one year of community college work or College in the High School to encourage them to complete a baccalaureate degree. Based upon the discussions of the larger committee, it seems clear that a generous admission

4

policy to enable students to start a four-year degree earlier will foster retention and graduation.

8. Student retention, a prime goal of this campus, will be greatly enhanced by a

robust peer-to-peer student mentorship program. With freshman admission, we may want to learn from the Freshmen Interest Group (FIG) program at UW-Seattle. Even with a transfer population, we want to provide students who might be working and/or be first-generation college students a welcoming community at UW North Sound and the best chance to succeed in their studies.

9. To overcome the reluctance of first-generation college students to enter a

baccalaureate institution, we recommend creating a provisional admission program with the requirement for some remedial education, which directly tracks to the curricular needs of the UW degrees. This direct entry into a four-year institution will enhance retention and graduation and avoid discouragement to students who much need a little extra help to complete a four-year college degree.

10. Scheduling and additional locations should be flexible and meet the needs

of the students, allowing faculty to create innovative options such as 5-week intensives patterned after the Discovery Seminars at UW-Seattle and interesting experiences such as the international Exploration Seminars. The scheduling of the courses should accommodate student needs rather than a preconceived calendar. In addition, we can deliver programs off site to a variety of audiences, depending upon the number of students at a specific site and the type of delivery (e.g. onsite, videoconferencing, etc.).

11. To accommodate the needs of some partners, the UW may need to promote a

flexible transfer credit policy, especially if it hopes to work closely with the military bases in the area.

Needed Infrastructure The committee wants to emphasize the need for an adequate infrastructure to implement the innovative curricular and format plans. The UW North Sound campus will require additional funding if it seriously hopes to deliver a unique and identifiable educational model. Supplemental to the base funding for instruction, academic advising, student services, general infrastructure and capital projects, the new campus would need money for such services as: 1. Recruitment counselors, including student recruiters, to maximize the

participation of students in the SIS area and the State. 2. Financial aid advising to provide students with the widest range of their fiscal

options and to show them that a four-year degree can be affordable and an economically sound investment.

5

3. Career and job placement offices to ensure that students attain their career

goals. Given the aggressive job placement program, we need to hire several job placement professionals who would interface with local industry to schedule job placement for recent graduates.

4. Internship coordination, which will be very intense given the model mentioned

above. A team of internship coordinators should work with the job placement advisors to create awareness and opportunities for students at the campus.

5. A regional advisory board that can help with the educational goals mentioned

above. Faculty Composition The committee wants to ensure that faculty at UW North Sound have an accurate perception of the learning environment of UW North Sound and meet the quality standards of the other three UW campuses. Though they will likely pattern their teaching load after UW Bothell, the UW North Sound faculty will be engaged in significantly more distance learning and intensive internships. To be effective, they must be trained in several modalities of instruction and actively participate in industry/academic relationships. 1. The faculty qualifications should coincide with the campus goals. In addition to

the traditional requirements for a faculty member at the UW, the successful faculty at UW North Sound should have some background in industry/community relations.

2. They must have a clear understanding of faculty responsibilities and the faculty reward structure, including an interface with industry for internships, job placements, etc. as important to the position.

3. Faculty must have the opportunities to be trained in such nontraditional delivery systems as online learning and videoconferencing as well as the effective use of internships in an academic curriculum.

1

Appendix C

“Lessons Learned” and Guidelines for Creating New Baccalaureate Institutions in the State of Washington

Prepared by the SIS Working Group -- Lessons Learned Subcommittee1

Final Report – November 10, 2007

Executive Summary

Building a new four-year campus is both exciting and challenging – and a rare opportunity for citizens of the State of Washington, legislators, industry and community partners – and most important, future graduates. Many different approaches have been used to start new campuses – ranging from the student-centered, team-taught liberal studies approach at Evergreen State College, including the WSU branch campus model of distributed programs/degrees, to the UWB/UWT model of interdisciplinary curricula created by local faculty. While these models all continue to evolve and change as each campus continues to define and refine its approach to providing higher education, there are many lessons learned that are useful for creating additional campuses to serve our state. The Snohomish-Island-Skagit Counties (SIS) initiative is to provide access to a new University of Washington (UW) campus in that region. When starting any new campus there are unique challenges in terms of its specific geographic location, funding model, economic/political environment, student demand, academic planning/implementation and community support – to name a few. Despite these unique situation-specific challenges, there are core principles and approaches that may help ensure a more streamlined, cost-effective delivery of high quality, academic programs and a new campus. Below are twelve guiding principles to be considered. These principles were derived via interviews with campus founders, reviews of meeting minutes/notes archived during the formation of the UW Bothell and Tacoma campuses, discussions with community members and the experiences of the SIS Lessons Learned Subcommttee.1 (Note: Specific themes and lessons learned from the research are included in the attached technical report.) Guiding Principles for Starting a New Campus

Principle 1: Understand the unique, site-specific issues (e.g., student access/degree demand, community/political support, campus location/permitting issues) and adequately fund the required campus classrooms, laboratories, integrated library services, student work areas, faculty offices/research space, and other support systems necessary to provide a robust academic environment. Establishing temporary campus locations and providing minimal start-up funds does not work well. Principle 2: Create a clear statement of the short- and long-term relationship between the parent campus and the new campus (and other regional higher education providers when applicable).

2

Principle 3: Develop clear “pipelines and pathways” between K -12, community colleges and four-year institutions with involvement by all constituencies. Principle 4: Baccalaureate (and above) institutions must be able to teach core pre-requisite courses for majors from “day one” of opening. Principle 5: Provide a meaningful range (and number) of complementary program offerings that link to core strengths of the parent campus. Principle 6: Seek early independent accreditation for programs – leveraging parent program accreditation only during start-up. Principle 7: Identify initial programs that are easily recognized by students and parents – and still ensure that they are innovative and “worth the risk” to attend. This implies quality, innovation and the security of knowing that the state and the university are committed to the new venture for the long-run. Principle 8: Ensure planning for a student-oriented community from the start – including residence halls, other student housing, cultural, social, health, etc. The availability of a vibrant student experience is essential. Principle 9: Establish a strong freshmen/sophomore curriculum that provides core STEM-related coursework integrated with a strong, interdisciplinary curriculum. Principle 10: Involve government and industry partners to provide internships, “real life” projects, advisory board functions, financial commitments, scholarships, internal/external marketing and community relations opportunities. Principle 11: New campus performance should be measured at the institutional level – not at the program/degree level – particularly during the first ten years of a new campus. Principle 12: Ensure that the founders (faculty, staff, administrators, parents, students, community/industry partners) are recognized and rewarded for their participation in starting a new campus.

3

“Lessons Learned” and Guidelines for Creating New Baccalaureate Institutions in the State of Washington

Prepared by the SIS Lessons Learned Subcommttee1

Technical Report

Introduction: The Snohomish-Island-Skagit Counties (SIS) Lessons Learned subcommittee was charged with the task of summarizing issues and practices – and their outcomes – related to the formation of new “branch campuses” since 1990. Several core questions formed the basis of our research. These included:

1) What are the current best practices for new campus start-ups? 2) What approaches/methods were not very effective? 3) What issues and/or approaches were not addressed (or not heavily considered)

during the campus start-up? 4) How do we set goals and best assess the success of our new campuses? How is

success defined? 5) How do we establish a long-term, vibrant learning environment for our students,

faculty and community/industry partners? 6) How do we best prepare students for success? 7) How do we engage the community? 8) How do we best finance and support new programs and initiatives? 9) How do we recruit and retain faculty, staff, and administrators? 10) What is the relationship – short- and long-term – between new and existing

campuses – including governance, funding resources, curricula, technology, mission/goals, support infrastructure, etc.?

These questions are just a sample of those we face as we move forward to start the fourth campus of the University of Washington. Naturally, each of these questions has many sub-questions and issues to consider; however, they served as good starting points for research and discussion. Report Methodology: The following steps were used to identify lessons learned from UWB/UWT/WSU branch campus creation and address the questions identified above: Step 1) The study team compiled and reviewed existing documents & literature (e.g., UWB history document, UWB faculty documentary project, websites, legislative updates, HB 2707 report, web sites, meeting minutes and other available documents). Step 2) Several key people involved with UWT, UWB and WSU branch campus-creation were interviewed to obtain various perspectives about past campus development and expansion efforts. They included representatives from the following groups:

- Campus administrators - UWT/UWB founding faculty and staff - Advisory boards members - Students/graduates - Industry advisory partners

4

- City/government officials Each representative was asked to identify specific issues related to what worked best, what didn't work so well and "what else/other suggestions/words of wisdom" they have for new campus planning and implementation. Interviews were then summarized in the basic format of:

- Specific issues identified/missed - Best practices - Practices to be improved - Specific recommendations/summary for future new campus development

Step 3) Data were then reviewed and grouped into several major themes – along with representative stories, issues, best practices, and lessons learned. Qualitative reviews and consolidation of findings were completed by the SIS Lessons Learned study group. The document reviews and interviews were completed between August and November of 2007. A summary of findings, best practices, concerns, recommended approaches, and guiding principles for new campus development is provided below. Findings: Many lessons learned were identified related to the start-up and development of a new campus. There were many positive outcomes and approaches – as well as issues that should be addressed differently (or were missed) – during the early years of the UWB, UWT and WSU branch campus development. It is important to keep in mind that the current branch campuses are still in their early years of development – with many more years of hard work to meet the ever-changing educational landscape in the State of Washington. As a means to organize the experiences and lessons from previous new campus development experiences, we have organized these into eight different themes. These themes – and corresponding examples of lessons learned – are provided below: Theme 1: Establishing Campus Mission & Identity Critical to the development of a new campus is the process of establishing goal clarity and the “campus branding” within the community it is designed to serve. This is challenging as it is highly dependent on the founding faculty, initial budget, the academic curriculum, community needs/demand and relationship with other campuses within the region. One example of this challenge relates to the dev elopement of the UWB campus. Lack of clarity on the issue of mission in 1990, for example, led to the hiring of faculty with widely divergent views on what the campus should eventually look like, making it very difficult to achieve consensus and unity of purpose. Should the campus focus on the same kind of research that is done in Seattle? Should it focus on teaching? How much demand should be placed on “first generation” faculty and administrators to build the institution – and then provide potentially inconsistent reward systems based on those that are pervasive in an established “Research I” university? It would help if the mission and faculty expectations are as explicit as possible about what are the goals, the reward structures and commitment of the University of Washington to faculty growth and development.

5

1) Ensure consistent support and knowledge by UWS leadership – faculty & administrative – that new campus exists and plays critical role in strategic plan. Issue of equal quality, central/local departmental oversight of curricula, “complementarity” of programs… 2) Determine the final location of campus site in a timely manner

- Campus design (types/sizes of classrooms, public spaces, student housing, neighborhood planning, etc.)

- Provide a specific mission, implementation plan and direction/goals for the campus

- Transition between short-term implementation and new campus 3) Create a sense of campus community & culture – local, national, international - Diversity planning - Developing community support from day one Campus should be located within a community that demonstrates a strong identity with, and enthusiasm for, the university. A model is the University of Washington Tacoma, whose support in terms of financial and political contributions has been crucial in its success. 4) Promote recreational, cultural and community learning opportunities – help ensure awareness of, and flow of people to the campus 5) Build community/industry support for service learning/internships Theme 2: Choosing appropriate methods for curriculum design and implementation 1) Determine the appropriate degree program offerings – short-term & long-term plan

- Offering degree programs that meet needs of potential students - Master’s-level degree offerings

2) Build relationships with high schools and community colleges – articulation agreements, student preparation for STEM-related programs … 3) Select the best curricular design approach – create brand-new versus transplanting existing degree programs to a new campus. Theme 3: Recruiting and retaining founding faculty, staff, and administration 1) Challenges in attracting and rewarding founding faculty – start-up & long-term There should be a very conscious effort to align the incentive structure of the campus with the mission of the campus. For example, a situation in which faculty are hired primarily to teach but evaluated on their research productivity is not desirable, especially when the institution-building demands on the founding faculty are so all-consuming. There might be creative ways of dealing with dual and conflicting missions, such as fostering the principle of unit responsibility wherein some faculty are able to concentrate more on research and

6

others more on teaching, rather than expecting everyone to do everything at all times. But this has to be developed at the beginning, in a clear statement. The big question looming over everything we do is whether a world-class research university, based on a fundamental model of competition and analysis (that is, that the only valid means to knowledge is through highly specialized research) can tolerate another model of cooperation and synthesis (that is, that there exists a realm of knowledge apprehensible only by looking at the whole). There is also the “early onset “of problems related to salary compression and inversion for faculty and staff. Founding faculty were generally hired at junior ranks, created and supported new program development and growth at the expense of their research, and then hired faculty with higher ranks/salaries. Founders generally experienced much difficultly reestablishing their research programs/tracks – as well as identifying research collaborations within and between campuses. 2) Create a research environment for faculty & students Identifying research identity, niche, and funding for research centers is challenging at any time. However, by having an initial research focus that is visible – and understood – by the community is extremely helpful. It takes many years for a young – and usually much stretched – faculty to establish the research/academic identity of the campus. Funding support, leveraging established research programs (at the parent campus), working with external funding/grants agencies early on, creating/leveraging sponsored research programs are all ways to help jump start the campus research agenda. Of course, flexibility and opportunity for growth and change in the research agenda is critical. 3) Identify the best model for faculty governance and administrative practices Faculty shared governance brings many challenges as well as opportunities. By leveraging established faculty code, guidelines and structures – with modifications (“localization”) pertinent to the current stage of development of the new campus – effective and efficient management of the curriculum, faculty promotion/tenure processes and other key processes can be attained. As the new campus matures, self-governance should be encouraged and supported. Over-reliance on centralized faculty governance from another campus may have the effect of stifling and/or reducing the efficiencies and goals for the new campus.

7

Theme 4: Branding for a new campus -- program marketing and student recruitment 1) Develop an effective and funded marketing and advertising strategy There must be an extremely close connection between the curriculum offered and the actual demand of students in the campus’s catchment basin, and/or with the demand across the state in online coursework sponsored by the campus. Marketing campaigns between related campuses should be well-coordinated. For instance, one campus may state that admissions are very competitive and limited – thus affecting student inquiries/applications at all campuses. Selecting a campaign strategy for one campus may adversely affect another campus. 2) Establish community/industry advisory boards & private financial support mechanisms early on. “Adopt a campus.” 3) Prepare and assess students for UW quality education - Two-year transfer students - High school/1st year students Theme 5: Strategies for facilities design and infrastructure support 1) Plan for access to technology, science labs, classrooms, distance learning, library, advising, course/room scheduling, administrative systems/data etc. must be available – particularly prior to new campus build-out. 2) Develop a comprehensive parking/transportation plan that addresses the following issues – travel between UW campuses, parking availability/impact on the community, appropriate fee structures, and off-ramps/freeway access.

3) Ensure access to computing resources (distributed systems, databases, networks, etc) – and proper deployment & maintenance of these systems (e.g., relationship between branch campuses and central computing & communications organization) 4) Provide access to integrated library resources – including information systems, the physical collection, media services, digital access to all resources, classroom technologies, remote classroom support/conference technologies, writing center, quantitative skills center and other advanced information/data technologies/resources. These integrated library resources are at the core of a vibrant teaching and research environment. 5) Work with architect to design campus that meets educational mission and enrollment objectives. 6) Be involved in a comprehensive community/land use planning efforts. UWT was very successful in this approach; UWB has had limited involvement. Theme 6: Legislative & Government Support Requirements

8

1) Obtain meaningful funding/financing/support from legislature. This is essential to successfully launch a program and a campus. If the community, potential students, faculty and administration of the parent campus do not make a full commitment to the new campus, it will amplify concerns and reduce the likelihood of acceptance – and success – of the new campus. 2) Streamline HECB approval of new degree programs/options. New program review and approval processes need to be streamlined and receive staff support from the HECB. The proposed degree offerings of the new campus must be included in the state-wide, comprehensive higher education plan at the earliest. Theme 7: Working with the parent campus – short- and long-term approaches 1) Determine the relationships between campuses There should be developed at the beginning a clear statement of the principles governing and relationship of the campus to the other campuses, a statement that would embody the need for a simultaneous and dynamic balance of autonomy and integration. In the dozens of ways in which the campuses interact, there will be dozens of different degrees of autonomy and integration. In addition, those degrees will constantly change as the campus grows. For example, at the beginning, there might be a greater need for integration with systems currently in place on the other campuses in order to benefit from their economies of scale and expertise. But as the campus grows, more and more functions can be picked up by the new campus, which will therefore require, and deserve, more autonomy. Without autonomy, there can be no acknowledgement of ownership and no fostering of initiative and identity. Without integration, there can be no benefit to the students of the vast human and capital resources of a major research university. It is not a question of one or the other, but of how to have both simultaneously. This requires leadership and wisdom and strategic planning on the part of both the faculty and the administration from the very beginning. 2) Evaluate how to best make offerings between UW campuses, UWEO, community colleges, other public higher education institutions and private colleges/on-line offerings more complementary. 3) Establish a partnership (MOU) with UWEO to assist with distance learning, certificates, summer courses, etc. 4) Identify accreditation strategies and issues – campus, program, certifications, etc. Theme 8: Determining effective monitoring and performance metrics Sufficient time and resources must be given to planning and to institutional research. The operant metaphor for the way in which the new campuses were designed and built is white-water rafting while simultaneously building and designing the raft, mapping the river, and hiring new and inexperienced rafters. Some examples: 1) Early reliance on using FTE (Full-time equivalent) metrics for individual programs creates unnecessary tension and competition for scarce resources. Campus metrics

9

should be managed – not individual programs. To start a new campus requires a synergy between disparate programs, disciplines, research agenda and founders (faculty, staff & administrators). Oftentimes, new (and “expensive”) programs in STEM-related areas are not funded nor given priority in favor of more cost-effective and short-term FTE producing degree programs. This approach stifles the long-term growth and development of core STEM-related programs – as well as discourages synergies between programs if they are competing for funds allocated through formulaic FTE budget allocation processes. Instead, campus goals should be based on (and reported) as excesses (or shortfalls) based on overall campus performance. 2) Performance metrics should be identified and defined early – and with the involvement of all. Annual reviews of the metrics and recommendations for changes/enhancements and actions should be completed and disseminated to all faculty, staff, and community leaders so they may refine strategic planning, identify new initiatives and improve overall operations. Ensuring effective communication with – and buy-in from – core constituencies is essential. 3) Reward and recognition criteria are often different when starting a new campus; be careful not to use/or later invoke traditional promotion and tenure standards without recognizing the unique contributions and agreements made with founding faculty. There are many non-research activities associated with campus start-up that are not understood and/or recognized by faculty from long-existing programs. Also, second-generation senior faculty (recruited from traditional institutions) may not be fully aware of the efforts and “institution building” demands of founders – potentially minimizing service contributions during promotion and tenure reviews. Guiding Principles for Starting a New Campus To summarize our findings – and to provide useful guidance for future leaders and founders of new campuses – we provide twelve guiding principles. While it is not essential that each principle be met, it is recommended that each principle be carefully reviewed and considered while moving forward to develop a new campus. These principles include:

Principle 1: Understand the unique, site-specific issues (e.g., student access/degree demand, community/political support, campus location/permitting issues) and adequately fund the required campus classrooms, laboratories, integrated library services, student work areas, faculty offices/research space, and other support systems necessary to provide a robust academic environment. Establishing temporary campus locations and providing minimal start-up funds is not always optimal. Principle 2: Create a clear statement of the short- and long-term relationship between the parent campus and the new campus (and other regional higher education providers when applicable). Principle 3: Develop clear “pipelines and pathways” between K -12, community colleges and four-year institutions with involvement by all constituencies. Principle 4: Baccalaureate (and above) institutions must be able to teach core pre-requisite courses for majors from “day one” of opening.

10

Principle 5: Provide a meaningful range (and number) of complementary program offerings that link to core strengths of the parent campus. Principle 6: Seek early independent accreditation for programs – leveraging parent program accreditation only during start-up. Principle 7: Identify initial programs that are easily recognized by students and parents – and still ensure that they are innovative and “worth the risk” to attend. This implies quality, innovation and the security of knowing that the state and the university are committed to the new venture for the long-run. Principle 8: Ensure that a student-oriented community is created from the start – including residence halls, other student housing, cultural, social, health, etc. The availability of a vibrant student experience is essential. Principle 9: Establish a strong freshmen/sophomore curriculum that provides core STEM-related coursework integrated with a strong, interdisciplinary curriculum. Principle 10: Involve government and industry partners to provide internships, “real life” projects, advisory board functions, financial commitments, scholarships, internal/external marketing and community relations opportunities. Principle 11: New campus performance should be measured at the institutional level – not at the program/degree level – particularly during the first ten years of a new campus. Principle 12: Ensure that the founders (faculty, staff, administrators, parents, students, community/industry partners) are recognized and rewarded for their participation in starting a new campus.

1 Lessons Learned Subcommittee of the SIS Study Group – Brief Biographies William Erdly, Ph. D. – Subcommittee Chair William Erdly is a graduate of the University of Washington where he earned a M.S. and Ph.D. in social and organizational psychology. He is the founder of the Computing and Software Systems program at the University of Washington, Bothell where he continues his work as an Associate Director and Associate Professor. He has also taught within the Interdisciplinary Arts & Sciences, Business and joint courses in the Nursing programs at UW Bothell. He has significant teaching and research experience in areas ranging from software risk management, quality assurance, human-computer interaction, software engineering, knowledge management systems, social computing, computer networking, and organizational analysis techniques. He received the first Worthington Distinguished Professor Award for excellence in teaching in 1998. He has extensive work experience within the aerospace, health care and software development/networking industries – and is the founding director for the Tulalip Data Services project (a technology development partnership between the University of

11

Washington Bothell and the Tulalip Tribes). Service includes collaborations with several technology and community-based committees including the National Workforce Center for Emerging Technologies (National Science Foundation advisory board vice-chair); RATEC – a regional technology consortium of business, government and education; several non-profit boards, and is an active member of the Faculty Senate at the University of Washington. Brad Holt, Ph. D. Bradley Holt is an Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering at the University of Washington. Besides the usually activities of faculty Professor Holt has been extensively involved in Governance at the University serving and having served on: Senate Committee on Planning and Budgeting, Faculty Affairs, the Senate Executive Committee, Faculty Committee on Academic Standards, the Provost Advisor Committee on Tri-Campus issues, and as Chair of the University Faculty Senate from 2001 - 2002. Alan Wood, Ph. D Alan Wood is Professor of History at the University of Washington Bothell. He was a founding faculty member at the Bothell campus, which opened in 1990, and was Associate Dean for Academic Affairs there from 1995-1999. From 2006-2007 he served as Interim Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs at the University of Washington Tacoma. Although his academic specialty is Chinese history, for the last ten years he has published in the area of world history. He is presently working on a global history that employs the attributes of systems and complexity theory to understand the rise and fall of civilizations, tentatively entitled One World: A Biography of Humankind. His other books include Limits to Autocracy (University of Hawaii, 1995), World Civilizations (W.W. Norton, 1997), What Does It Mean to be Human?: A New Interpretation of Freedom in World History (Peter Lang, 2001), and Asian Democracy in World History (Routledge, 2004).

Appendix D

SIS STUDY GROUP – STUDENT PROFILE

Our vision for students at the UW North Sound campus is two-pronged. We are expecting SIS to serve the needs of place-bound students in the North Puget Sound, and to attract students from around the state into its polytechnic and professional programs. The student profile for place bound students at the SIS campus can best be predicted by an examination of the data that has been collected from students at University of Washington Bothell and University of Washington Tacoma. The students attracted statewide are more apt to approximate the profile of University of Washington-Seattle students. Thus, the committee has examined information available from all three campus, with a special eye towards the experiences of UWT and UWB’s entering freshmen class. (Copies of survey research done at UWT and UWB follow). Both institutions have recruited strong freshmen classes that are as academically strong as that of other four year comprehensive universities in the state. Between 25 (UWB) and 40% (UWT) of students indicated that this was their first choice, which is quite good for a first freshmen class. Reasons for not making these campuses a first choice offer some clues as to what will be needed in order to build a strong UW North Sound campus. More specifically, absence of a residential “traditional” campus life was cited by many students at both campuses as a reason for not choosing to attend. Moreover, this appears to be a reason why up to 40% of students at UWT indicate that they will transfer out in the next few years. Not surprisingly, most freshmen state that they are attending college to attain an education, with a fair number citing that they were interested in doing so locally, often because of work or family obligations. Between 70% (UWB) and 90% (UWT) of freshmen students hold paid jobs, with over 30% of UWB students working more than 20 hours a week, and more than half of UWT students working more than 15 hours a week.

Despite the high number of freshmen working, almost half of students in each campus apply for financial aid, and while most say that finances were not a major factor in their choice to attend UWT/B, the low number of applications from private schools would suggest that, for freshmen these are not universities of first choice for affluent families. This information suggests that as we look to build a UW North Sound campus, it will be especially important to offer a curriculum of course offerings that are apt to appeal to working and middle class youth and their families. The entering class for UWB had an average GPA of 3.3 with SAT’s of 1035 and UWT average GPA was also 3.3 with SAT’s of 977.

Of course, a strong UW-North campus will also consist of transfer students from local community colleges. In contrast to freshmen, the majority of transfer students attending UWT (85%) and UWB attended as their first choice. It is not clear whether this is because the transfers were a different type of student or because each campus was more established in offering courses at this level. It is worth noting, that for a very large proportion of those students (92% at the UWT campus) stated that the “overall reputation of the University of Washington” was an important reason for attending. Location of the campus (89% at UWT) was also very important. It is also worth noting that almost a third (31% at UWT) reported that getting a good job was an important reason for attending college, and almost a quarter (23%) were attending college in order to “make more money.” This suggests that it is important to offer coursework that is apt to translate fairly directly into employment. It is also worth noting that, in contrast to freshmen, transfer students at UWB noted that access to evening classes was important for their success. All in all, this data suggests that transfer students may have somewhat different aspirations than freshmen, placing more emphasis on job related goals and flexible hours. In developing their curriculum, it will be important for University of Washington-North Sound to keep both of these populations in mind. Although we have focused less on this group in our discussions, masters level graduate students will also be served at UW-North Sound. A survey of these students at UWT suggested that for 99% of them were attending as a first choice, with overall reputation of the University of Washington as an important reason for their choice (91%). Location was likewise an important factor (85%). As with transfer students, these students were attending UWT largely for career development (35%) or to make more money (21%), although personal development was also a factor (20%). It is also worth noting that most graduate students are paying for their education themselves (77%) although about 40% are also relying on some form of financial aid, either loans, grants, or scholarships. Some (20%) are also having their education paid by their employers.

Draft Report—Comments welcome 1 7/26/07

Assessing UWB’s Frosh Initiative 2006-07

Prepared by Dan Jacoby Acting Assistant to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

During Spring 2006 the UW Bothell Academic Council approved an Assessment Plan of its Entering Frosh class. That plan outlined six purposes, and defined a series of specific questions to be addressed through institutional research. These purposes are reproduced below (see Appendix for questions):

• Improve Recruitment and Admission • Improve Program Planning • Improve Student Retention and Advising • Assess and Improve the Quality of the Student Experience at UWB • Assess and Improve Student Learning • Assess and Outcomes and Impacts of UWB Attendance

With one year’s experience under our belt, UWB institutional research has created a surprisingly large number of sources of information to assess its first year of experience with a frosh class. The following report distills relevant information to create to address questions asked within the assessment plan and to create a picture who our students are, how they made their decisions to come to UW Seattle [UWS], what their hopes and expectations for the future are, first year experiences and behaviors, and their summative evaluations. Where possible, information derived from student survey data is buttressed using other sources. The sources consulted for this report include:

• Survey of entering frosh (n=105, 77% of entering class, August 2006) • Survey of entering frosh families (n=103, August 2006) • Survey of admitted students declining to join the frosh class ((n=44, 22% of declining students Aug 2006) • Survey of UWB lower and upper division students (n=98 or 72% of frosh class, Winter 2007) • Survey of UWS 2005 entering class (n=445 or 15% of the 2905 entering frosh residing in 6 catchment counties, Fall 2005) • UWB Application and Student Data 2006-07 • Cooperative Institutional Research Program’s Frosh Survey (UCLA-2006)

This report begins with a brief composite of findings and then bullets key findings from these multiple sources. The report concludes with a fuller narrative.

Draft Report—Comments welcome 2 7/26/07

Overview The picture that emerges from our institutional research program into UWB’s 2006-07 frosh initiative is that of a young institution which has succeeded in recruiting a strong frosh class, but which has not yet become a school of first choice for majority of its students. Absence of a residential campus life and a dearth of academic programs are key factors. UWB appeals best to frosh who seek local educational opportunities in order to pursue work or otherwise finance their schooling. UWB succeeds in attracting applicants who place value upon quality teaching and college reputation. The relative absence of applications to community colleges, and almost non-existent rejection of UWB admissions offers in favor of those institutions indicate that UWB has succeeded in distinguishing itself. Like non-residential students elsewhere, UWB frosh prioritize campus and social experiences over practical concerns in terms of admissions. UWB frosh are younger than current students and, once here, indicate greater concern for social opportunities than do upper division students. UWB frosh are concerned over potential degree choices. This is consistent with the disproportionate number of students who intend to pursue Business or CSS degrees, as least, as compared with those applicants who decline to come to UWB or students who attend UWS. Frosh express satisfaction regarding the learning climate at UWB. Still, dissatisfaction over the limited program and course offerings (and to a lesser degree with campus life) leads many to consider changing schools next year. As many as 60% entertain the possibility of transfer to another institution to finish their degree.

Draft Report—Comments welcome 3 7/26/07

1. Demographics on the 136 entering frosh in Autumn 2006: • Gender: Male 51% Female 49% • Race: Caucasian 45% Asian 34% Hispanic 6% African American 5% Haw/Pac 1% Not Indicated 9% • Age 18-25 100% • Work Not working 28% (est) 1 to 10 hrs per week 14% 11 to 20 hrs per week 27% 21 to 30 hrs per week 25% 31 to 40 hrs per week 5% More than 40 hrs 1% • Sole Supporter of Household 11% (est) * Students with Dependent Children 3% (est) • Residence King County 63% Snohomish 34% Island County 2% • Enrollment Full Time 100%

• Academics: Average SAT 1024 Average HS GPA 3.28 • Frosh comprised 8% of student headcount and 9.6% of FTE

• The frosh class alters UWB’s demographic profile, adding more young and male students.

Draft Report—Comments welcome 4 7/26/07

2. ADMISSION DECISIONS

• 25% of applicants name UWB as their first choice school

• Applicants who come to UWB prioritize quality teaching, location, and availability of specific programs • Applicants who choose other schools give higher priority opportunity to live on campus, availability of specific program, and social climate • In rank order, UWB competes for enrollments first with UWS (69% UWB

applicants also applied here), the WWU (35%), WSU (19%), and local community colleges (11%). Fewer than 10% of students apply to private colleges.

• Among students who decline UWB admission, UWS is top choice school for nearly 70% and among top 3 for nearly 91.5% • Top 3 factors among frosh in their decision to attend UWB ° advice of parent, relative, or friend (76%) ° visit to UWB campus (47%) ° advice of counselors (40%) ° contact with UWB Students (27%) • Families of UWB students (upon whose advice students say they rely) give greater weight than students to school counselor advice, faculty or student contact, and campus visits.

• Cost appears to be a secondary factor in acceptance decision, though dearth of private school applications indicates financial concerns

• Students who decline UWB express greater concern over reputation in school choice. Campus visits also more important to decision. • UWS frosh survey responses among off-campus residents more closely

match UWB frosh profile. Compared to residential students, off-campus UWS frosh are more sensitive to financial concerns and appear more dependent upon parents. On-campus students appear to have greater resources and give greater priority to social concerns.

Draft Report—Comments welcome 5 7/26/07

3. HOPES AND ASPIRATIONS Motivations •Incoming students do not significantly differentiate between career,

advanced schooling and personal motives for learning. • 52% of UWB frosh name a Master’s degree as their goal. 25% envision another post-baccalaureate experience Ph.D--14% MD--6% JD--5%

• 38% of incoming students prioritized learning related to their major

as compared with learning for life preparation, successful living, or social interactions.

Programs of Study • There is an evident self-selection process among students who

come to UWB in terms of identified interest in particular majors. • Relative to declining frosh and those who attend UWS,

UWB frosh are far more likely to express an interest in a Business Degree.

UWB enrollees 50.0% UWB decliners 38.7% UWS frosh (’05) 16.2% • The situation is similar for the next most frequently selected

major, Computing & Software Systems UWB enrollees 18.4% CSS UWB decliners 11.4% Computer Science UWS frosh (’05) 2.3% Computing • 21.4% of students identify an interest in IAS options,

whereas UWS arts and science students account for close to 40% of incoming students interest.

• No students indicated interest in Nursing, although health sciences at UWS accounts for 13.9% of the intended majors among UWS frosh. The current UWB Nursing program is designed for students who have completed a Nursing AA.

Success •Before beginning their course work students identified the following items as particularly important to their success (in order of priority given): 1. Advising; 2. Parking; 3. Class schedule; 4. Faculty Interactions; 5. Access to computers; 6. Social life. •Compared to upper-division UWB students, frosh regard social concerns (places and times to meet friends, events, clubs etc) as important to their success.

Draft Report—Comments welcome 6 7/26/07

4. FIRST YEAR EXPERIENCE BEHAVIORS AND ATTITUDES Attitudinal Change: Changes in what students say about what they need to succeed may are

suggestive of how students beliefs are altered by their experiences.

• Students increased their estimates of the importance of academic items in relationship to their success. Notably, these include tutoring on writing, math & science; academic advising and opportunities to interact significantly (their priorities more closely match those expressed by their families before classes began).

•Pragmatic concerns also received higher scores. These included

the importance of evening and day classes. Notably students also expressed higher concern over the availability of health care, health insurance and psychological counseling.

Work and Study Behavior •Incoming frosh anticipate working for pay considerably more than

they later report their actual hours (17.9 before classes begin compared to 14.8 hours per week afterwards). These numbers are higher than those reported by incoming UWS students (5.41 hours for on-campus frosh and 8.24 for those off-campus). In a separate contrast, UWB’s upper-division students report working nearly 24 hours per week, more hours than UWB frosh.

•Actual hours of study were also lower than originally estimated

(17.29 hours per week anticipated compared to 14.14 actual) • Students define time management and self-discipline among their

greatest challenges. UWB faculty express similar observations. • Students report frequent use of skills center. Skills centers

provide independent confirmation of usage.

Draft Report—Comments welcome 7 7/26/07

5. EVALUATING THEIR EXPERIENCES Satisfactions and dissatisfactions

• Incoming UWB frosh express greatest excitement about expected social interactions (26.7%), being part of UW (22.8%);

intimate campus (15.8%); small class sizes (15.8%) and location (12.9%). After two quarters they define their greatest satisfactions in terms of the learning environment, small classes, intimate campus and individual attention.

•Dissatisfactions tend to focus on work load, class schedules,

course availability and/or social concerns. •Compared to upper classman, frosh gave lower evaluations to

their academic development in writing, speaking, critical thinking, speaking, critically analyzing information, and problem solving. Appreciation of the arts, however, was scored notably higher. These ratings generally rise with each undergraduate level from frosh through senior year.

•UWB frosh are less likely than upperclassmen to say that were

they given opportunity to do it again, they would choose UWB.

•Likewise they rate their overall experience at UWB significantly lower than their upper-division peers.

Attrition • 63% of responding frosh indicate they either will or are likely to return next year. 32%, however, indicate they may (21.4%), likely won’t (4.1%) or definitely will not return (6.1%). • 40% of reporting frosh indicate they will definitely or probably graduate from UWB. However, 60.2% say they are uncertain (30.6%), unlikely (20.4%) or definitely will not (9.2) expecting to graduate from UWB. • As of June program attrition amounted to 13.2% of the 136 students starting enrollment. •Relative to UWS, this attrition rate is high. Their frosh attrition rates have trended downward in recent years and are now the 7% range. •The Center for Undergraduate Studies and Program Annual Report indicate a number of students who would have transferred are now unlikely to do so.

Draft Report—Comments welcome 8 7/26/07

Conclusion UWB’s first year of experience with lower-division students marks a definite shift in our mission, organization and students. Institutional research into our current and potential students suggests there are important differences between our frosh and upper-division students. These differences are likely to prove instrumental in more precisely establishing the possibilities before us. Data available for this report are most informative when viewed in comparison with different target groups or the same group at different moments in time. For example, we learn more about entering students by comparing their characteristics to those of applicants who declined our admission in order to attend other schools. Even this provides an incomplete picture, especially for recruiting purposes, because it does not tell us about the characteristics of students who chose not to apply to UW. Fortunately, we can further compare our applicants and incoming students to residential and non-residential students at UWS. Demographics. The first section of the report keynoted demographics of the frosh class. Frosh, like our upper division students, are recruited locally, primarily from among largely place-bound individuals. Two things distinguish the class. First, the proportion of men (51%) is significantly higher than that for the rest of UWB’s student body, and indeed is higher than those among frosh across higher education generally. Second, the ages of our entering students are those of traditional college frosh who have just completed high school. As such, this class adds to UWB’s already well-defined trend toward younger students. It breaks with the past by creating a cohort that encounters virtually no age diversity. Admissions. It is apparent that UWB is still a new institution and is not yet school of choice in the traditional sense. Only 25% of our frosh class named UWB as their first choice college. UWB frosh are constrained to choose a school by its location so that they can either live at home or continue working. Judging by the other schools to which students apply, our UWB frosh typically lack the resources to attend private institutions. Our major competitors are first, the Seattle campus of the UW, followed distantly by WWU, WSU and then local community colleges. Applicants who prioritize extra-curricular experiences generally accept offers from residential schools when available. Our applicants’ decisions where to apply or attend are more greatly influenced by parents, friends and relatives than are those of students who apply to UWS, especially those who plan to reside on campus. While our frosh are influenced by the quality of our teaching and small campus, students who decline UWB’s acceptance offer appear more often to be impressed by the reputation of the institution they accept or by the campus visits elsewhere. Students who accept UWB admission offers indicate that the programs offered are important to them. Hopes and Aspirations. An important component of student hopes and aspirations involves their formal study opportunities. UWB currently offers only 4

Draft Report—Comments welcome 9 7/26/07

undergraduate degrees programs, and though there are additional options within programs that appear on students’ transcript, this is perhaps the best explanation why nearly 50% of our students indicate they seek a business degree, whereas Seattle’s frosh constitute only 16.2% of students surveyed in 2005. Nearly 40% of UWS frosh say they want a degree major in a college of arts and science related area, whereas UWB frosh identify themselves as potential IAS only 20% of the time. Students who were accepted to UWB, but who chose to go elsewhere, are more likely to prefer a major not offered at UWB. Families and students alike consistently indicate that the availability of desired degree programs is important to the college acceptance decision. Despite this concern about degrees, our students do not articulate a strong career motive for continuing education as opposed to other purposes such as graduate school, lifelong learning, or social success. However, given that our students are relatively more likely to be first generation college students relative to frosh at UWS, it is worth noting that nearly three quarters expect to seek advanced degrees sometime after earning their baccalaureate. First year behaviors and attitudes. Frosh responses suggest these students undertake several significant adjustments during their first year at UWB. After two quarters frosh survey responses show increased emphasis upon academic tutoring and advising as essential components of their success. Students also raised priority they placed on pragmatic concerns related to their success such parking, access to computers, and also to health and psychological services. Such reprioritization likely reflects the realities entering students confront as they reorient themselves to the responsibilities and challenges they encounter in college. These challenges seem likely to be related to the high expectations students had with regard to amount of time they expected to spend studying and work while on campus. Before starting college UWB frosh expected to work nearly 18 hours per week and study just over 17. After two quarters they report significantly fewer hours at both tasks, and also decreased (though only marginally, the total number of credit hours they took from their first quarter to their second quarter). Contrasting this with upper classman at UWB we see that the latter report higher averages for both work and study. Asked to identify the challenges of their first year, overwhelmingly responses focused on workload, time management, or self-discipline. Faculty independently agreed, finding our frosh less prepared for college than they had expected. Evaluation. Student evaluations of their first-year experiences were mixed. Overall the sentiment was positive. However, student concerns appear to have affected satisfaction levels. One indicator of these concerns is that roughly 25% of frosh said they did not think they would re-enter UWB if they were able to remake their decision. By comparison the corresponding figure among UWB’s upper-division students is closer to 8%. Likewise, nearly 60% of frosh indicate a relatively high degree of uncertainty whether they anticipate graduating from UWB, and a significant number do not expect to return next year. Student explanations for this uncertainty point first towards a belief that there are an insufficient number of courses and programs of study offered at UWB, and second, towards their desire for a richer campus or social life. On the other

Draft Report—Comments welcome 10 7/26/07

hand, students generally expressed high regard for the learning environment, small classes and intimate environment. Evaluations by frosh regarding their progress in specific domains, such as critical thinking or problem solving, are positive, though lower than those of upper-division UWB students. However, data by student class year, suggests that students typically increase their rating of these areas higher as they progress through their college career.

Draft Report—Comments welcome 11 7/26/07

Addendum: The 2006-07 Frosh Assessment Plan and its relationship to the current report. In the Spring of 2006, the Academic Council approved an assessment plan for entering frosh. That plan had six purposes, and designed a number of questions to address them. Those purposes and questions appear below. An single asterisk appears in front of any question that has been addressed (even if partially) in this report. A double asterisk appears in front of any question which has not been addressed, but for which we have or can obtain answers. Some questions regarding learning and outcomes will be addressed in a subsequent report that examines these matters more fully, not just for Frosh, but for all UWB students using NSSE and other data. Purpose 1: Improve Recruitment and Admission *What are the best recruiting tactics for UWB? (Why do students come to UWB? How do they first hear about UWB? What person/ information is most influential in decisions about which university to attend? **What high schools are we succeeding in? *What recruitment strategies produce the best results? *Why do some students decide NOT to apply after requesting applications? Why do some students who are admitted decide NOT to enroll? *What groups of prospects are most likely to apply/ accept/enroll? *How diverse is our entering class? **How does our enrolled class compare academically to other institutions in state and nationally? **How does our acceptance rate compare to other institutions? *To whom do we lose admitted students? Purpose 2: Improve Program Planning *What are student expectations for higher education at UWB, including academic, social/personal development, and constraints on students? Do student expectations match faculty understandings in areas such as effort required for success? *What expectations and hopes do students have for student life, campus activities? **What technology skills and access do students have as they enter UWB? *What are parents’ expectations for their children’s higher education, including academic and social/personal development? *What are parents’ expectations for their children’s higher education, including academic and social/personal development? *Why do students attend UWB, how did they hear of and decide to attend UWB, priorities for higher education, and background information (e.g., current employment, etc.)? **Identify extracurricular interests of new students **How well have we communicated about UWB offerings, opportunities?

Draft Report—Comments welcome 12 7/26/07

**Compare UWB students to students in other institutions in terms of background characteristics and expectations. Purpose 3: Improve Student Retention and Advising *Are beginning frosh satisfied with UWB? What can be learned about morale among frosh in their first quarter? *What proportion of our frosh return for Winter and Spring Quarters? Are students being admitted to majors of choice? **How do students perceive the support they receive? *Compare first year retention rates with other institutions. Purpose 4: Assess and Improve the Quality of the Student Experience at UWB *Assess students’ opinions of whether UWB is meeting their expectations; explore students’ opinions of how UWB could improve **Determine extent of participation in campus life events Determine whether students perceive that UWB is living up to its claims (e.g., strong faculty student relationships, engaged learning, etc **Determine whether campus life events live up to their goals **Compare overall satisfaction with other institutions **Compare UWB student experiences to those of students at similar institutions Do students make progress in all courses toward the four core learning goals--critical inquiry, quantitative literacy, communication, and community engagement Purpose 5: Assess and Improve Student Learning *Assess students’ perceptions of learning. Do frosh develop the level of proficiency we expect in the four learning goals? How does student learning at UWB compare to similar students at other institutions? Purpose 6: Assess and Outcomes and Impacts of UWB Attendance What changes in students' lives occur as a result of their UWB attendance Can employment opportunities (promotions, new jobs be documented (NOTE: Can we operationalize our goals related to "transformational education?") What percent of our students continue on to graduate school How do 5- and 6-year graduation rates compare to national norms? How does student loan debt compare to national norms?

Appendix D Student Profiles

UW Tacoma Freshmen Survery

The following data come from an Autumn Quarter 2006 survey that we administered to UW Tacoma students. The number of respondents for the freshman survey was 139 out of our total class of 187 (74%). The number of respondents for the transfer survey was 435 out of 1661 (26%). The number of respondents for the graduate survey was 189 out of 436 (43%). 1. Question: Why did you choose to enroll at UW Tacoma One of the choices was Location. Freshmen Total responses (N): 135 Did not respond: 4 Numeric value Answer Frequency Percentage 1 Very Important 67 49.63% 2 Important 41 30.37% 3 Somewhat Important 17 12.59% 4 Not Important 7 5.19% 5 Not Applicable 3 2.22% Transfers Total responses (N): 424 Did not respond: 11 Numeric value Answer Frequency Percentage 1 Very Important 243 57.31% 2 Important 130 30.66% 3 Somewhat Important 37 8.73% 4 Not Important 10 2.36% 5 Not Applicable 4 0.94% Graduate Students Total responses (N): 187 Did not respond: 2 Numeric value Answer Frequency Percentage 1 Very Important 119 63.64% 2 Important 44 23.53% 3 Somewhat Important 20 10.70% 4 Not Important 2 1.07% 5 Not Applicable 2 1.07%

2. Question: How concerned are you with the following: a) Parking Freshmen Total responses (N): 139 Did not respond: 0 Numeric value Answer Frequency Percentage 1 Extremely 33 23.74% 2 Very 37 26.62% 3 Moderately 31 22.30% 4 Slightly 23 16.55% 5 Not at All 15 10.79% Transfers Total responses (N): 431 Did not respond: 4 Numeric value Answer Frequency Percentage 1 Extremely 117 27.15% 2 Very 93 21.58% 3 Moderately 113 26.22% 4 Slightly 44 10.21% 5 Not at All 64 14.85% Graduate Students Total responses (N): 189 Did not respond: 0 Numeric value Answer Frequency Percentage 1 Extremely 50 26.46% 2 Very 52 27.51% 3 Moderately 43 22.75% 4 Slightly 20 10.58% 5 Not at All 24 12.70% b) Transportation to and from campus Freshmen Total responses (N): 139 Did not respond: 0 Numeric value Answer Frequency Percentage 1 Extremely 35 25.18% 2 Very 25 17.99% 3 Moderately 26 18.71% 4 Slightly 21 15.11% 5 Not at All 32 23.02%

Transportation to and from campus Transfers Total responses (N): 430 Did not respond: 5 Numeric value Answer Frequency Percentage 1 Extremely 70 16.28% 2 Very 78 18.14% 3 Moderately 85 19.77% 4 Slightly 55 12.79% 5 Not at All 142 33.02% Graduate Students Total responses (N): 189 Did not respond: 0 Numeric value Answer Frequency Percentage 1 Extremely 14 7.41% 2 Very 26 13.76% 3 Moderately 40 21.16% 4 Slightly 31 16.40% 5 Not at All 78 41.27% Question: When classes are in session, how many hours per week do you plan to work at a job? Total responses (N): 139 Did not respond: 0 Numeric value Answer Frequency Percentage 1 None, I will not be employed 13 9.35% 2 Fewer than 10 14 10.07% 3 10-15 46 33.09% 4 16-20 25 17.99% 5 21-30 29 20.86% 6 More than 30 12 8.63% Transfers Total responses (N): 432 Did not respond: 3 Numeric value Answer Frequency Percentage 1 None, I will not be employed 88 20.37% 2 Fewer than 10 15 3.47% 3 10-15 54 12.50% 4 16-20 66 15.28% 5 21-30 73 16.90% 6 More than 30 136 31.48%

Graduate Students Total responses (N): 189 Did not respond: 0 Numeric value Answer Frequency Percentage 1 None, I will not be employed 19 10.05% 2 Fewer than 10 6 3.17% 3 10-15 7 3.70% 4 16-20 9 4.76% 5 21-30 19 10.05% 6 More than 30 129 68.25% Question: What will be your primary method of commuting to UW Tacoma? (students were allowed to choose more than one, for example some will both drive and ride the light rail) Total responses (N): 139 Did not respond: 0 Numeric value Answer Frequency Percentage 1 Walk 3 2.16% 2 Drive (alone) 112 80.58% 3 Car Pool 30 21.58% 4 Bus 26 18.71% 5 Train 4 2.88% 6 Bicycle 1 0.72% 7 Motorcycle 1 0.72% 8 Light rail 30 21.58% 9 Other: 0 0.00% Transfers Total responses (N): 428 Did not respond: 7 Numeric value Answer Frequency Percentage 1 Walk 7 1.64% 2 Drive (alone) 364 85.05% 3 Car Pool 31 7.24% 4 Bus 51 11.92% 5 Train 3 0.70% 6 Bicycle 7 1.64% 7 Motorcycle 2 0.47% 8 Light rail 62 14.49% 9 Other: 7 1.64%

Graduate Students Total responses (N): 189 Did not respond: 0 Numeric value Answer Frequency Percentage 1 Walk 2 1.06% 2 Drive (alone) 164 86.77% 3 Car Pool 16 8.47% 4 Bus 11 5.82% 5 Train 3 1.59% 6 Bicycle 2 1.06% 7 Motorcycle 2 1.06% 8 Light rail 6 3.17% 9 Other: 0 0.00%

Appendix E

K-16 Community Partnership for

Math, Science, and Technology Education

For many years, manufacturing, agriculture and natural resources jobs in the North Puget Sound Region enabled workers to support their families and to plan for the future. Schools reflected the reality that, for many students, there did not seem to be a need to prepare and plan for education beyond a high school diploma. Today the children in the North Puget Sound Region find themselves competing for jobs in a very different economic environment. In this now global economy, family-wage jobs go to those who are prepared for a highly competitive, high-tech, information society. Education - in particular, preparation of youth for college - must be an essential component of the economic development of the region. Education also plays an important role in preparing citizens in the North Puget Sound region to address the diversity that comes with participating in a global economy. Such citizens will need to know, understand and be committed to embracing the rights and responsibilities of citizenship in a pluralistic democratic society. To support the educational, economic, and community development of the North Puget Sound Region, the University of Washington Bothell proposes a new K-16 Community Partnership for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields. I. Goals:

� To increase the number of students from the North Puget Sound Region who leave high school prepared for college – particularly in STEM fields

o While many students will pursue STEM careers, it is important that mathematics, technology, and science are viewed as a means to provide students with access to a full range of career options, not simply STEM careers. High school preparation in STEM fields are gateways to college entrance for all college-bound students no matter what field of study will be pursued. Students interested in careers as artists, philosophers, writers, musicians, and social workers are all required to be fluent in the language of mathematics, science, and technology.

� To promote rigorous STEM education for all students. o Via innovative professional development for the community’s teachers and

the creation of a rich network of community partnerships, all students in the region will have access to cutting-edge instruction in mathematics, science, and technology and full community support to be successful.

2

� To work with families and community partners to engage in outreach to

families whose children will be the first in their families to attend college. o In many communities in the region, schools have, for generations, sent

only a small percentage of their graduates to college. Nationally, even the highest achieving young people from the lowest socio-economic groups attend college at the same rates as the lowest achieving students from the highest socio-economic groups. This partnership will stimulate growth in the student pipeline to college.

II. Areas of Activity

� academic preparation of K-12 students; � professional development of K-12 teachers and the preparation of new

teachers; and � economic development.

Academic Preparation of K-12 Students The Partnership’s primary work will be in creating a multifaceted approach to supporting the aspirations and achievement of students in K-12 schools. We work from the premise that preparing young people for college involves far more than what occurs within the school walls or just providing access to a college preparatory curriculum in high school. We will devise strategies in the early grades to encourage young people to aspire to college and to believe that they are capable of rigorous academic preparation. Our goal is to ensure that young people forge new academic pathways. Parents and families will by necessity play a distinctive role in preparing their children for college. Parents who did not themselves attend college may not have access to information about the academic requirements for new STEM careers. Recent research has shown, for example, that while universities, employers, and educators are stressing the need for high school students to take more math and science courses, most parents report that they are satisfied with their students’ current course taking in math and science. Further, it is clear that other community partners must influence and support students as well. Our partnership will initiate vigorous conversations with families and community members about the rapidly changing workplace and the central place of math and science in career planning. We will enlist civic leaders, clergy, youth workers, athletic coaches, public safety workers, librarians, and any others who have contact with youth to support the educational development of youth in the target area. We will also form a Task Force to formulate specific strategies to ensure the success of first-generation college students once they enroll. According to data from the National Center for Educational Statistics, less than half of first-generation college students complete a degree within eight years. When young people cannot call upon parents and other family members or close friends to help them to navigate the complicated financial, academic, and social terrain of college, the University can step up to provide an extra measure of support to ensure the success of these newcomers.

3

Professional Development of K-12 Teachers and Training New Mathematics, Science and Technology Teachers The need for high-quality teachers of mathematics, science, and technology is evident in preparing K-12 students for dispositions that will enable them to consider STEM careers. It has been argued that "the quality of teaching is the single most important factor in achieving quality schools. No innovation or effective school reform can take place if teachers are not equipped, prepared, and eager to implement change" (NC Professional Teaching Standards Commission). Ongoing professional development for K-12 teachers is critical to building a base of students who can meet the rigor of college entrance requirements in mathematics and science as well as to fostering students with interest in STEM disciplines. The UWB Education Program will work cooperatively with K-12 educators in preparing teacher candidates who not only have deep content and pedagogical knowledge, but understand how students’ thinking and ways of knowing can be linked to instructional practices that can be used to build their skills and knowledge. Teacher candidates will also be challenged to uncover "hidden curricula" as they explores the dimensions of multicultural education, learn about strategies for teaching students with diverse needs, and develop a range of assessment tools and pedagogical practices. Economic Development The North Puget Sound Region is poised for rapid economic development, and economic growth will hinge upon the availability of a workforce prepared for a highly competitive, high-tech information economy. For too long, too many college graduates from the region have had to move elsewhere for employment as the region offers too few opportunities for them to employ acquired skill sets geared to changing professional demands. The K-16 Community Partnership for Math, Science, and Technology Education will provide opportunities for UW Bothell students, particularly those in the target area, to engage in internships throughout the North Puget Sound community. Our efforts to work in partnership with the community will signal to businesses and potential employers that the region is fully committed to preparing its young people for high-tech careers; simultaneously, young people who can see these new opportunities in their communities are more likely to invest in their education. The Partnership will also encourage entrepreneurship among a new generation of college graduates who will be encouraged to live and to invest in their own communities. III. Actions In the first two years of the Partnership, we will:

1. Establish a Steering Committee: It is essential that opportunities for wide community participation be provided from the outset. To accomplish this a Steering Committee will be constituted, comprised of representatives of a broad spectrum of the community including the business and corporate community; the

4

clergy; human services agencies; members of social, civic, ethnic, racial and cultural groups; representatives of labor, parents, educators at the K-12 and community college levels, and members of the UWB community.

2. Develop a Comprehensive Plan that includes:

� Needs assessment. � Support for K-16 schooling. � Formal and informal mentorships, internships, and enriched

opportunities for learning outside of school; these opportunities will be available to elementary, secondary, and college level students.

� Community strategies to support student learning with particular emphasis on preparing students for college.

� Opportunities for partnerships between the University of Washington Bothell, community colleges, and K-12 schools, community educational sites such as the Future of Flight Aviation Center and businesses in the region.

� New partnerships with low-income families, families of color, and families of children who will be the first in their families to attend college.

� Benchmarks for evaluating program success at regular intervals.

3. Engage K-12 Schools

� Professional development opportunities for K-12 teachers in math, science, and technology

� Curricula to enrich K-12 students’ understanding of science and math in their daily lives.

Appendix E K-16 Budget Justification

UW, Bothell K-16 Community Partnership For Mathematics, Science, Technology and Engineering for the North Puget Sound Region Delivering the Promise of Education Today to Fulfill Dreams of the Future Salaries: Salaries for one faculty and three staff positions in each of the two years are requested. The Assistant Professor will be a 100% FTE and at a $60,000 salary rate. He/she will hold expertise in mathematics, science, or technology, and also have teacher training expertise for teacher and curriculum development. The University Coordinator, as a professional staff position at 100% FTE and a $48,288 salary per year, will plan, implement, manage, and evaluate the K-16 community programs in the Education Program. The two Program Assistants, each at 50% FTE and a $16,194 salary, will organize and perform work related to program operations, and represent the program to participants. Benefits: Benefits are currently set at 23.8% of the salary amount for faculty, 28.3% for the University Coordinator, and 30.9% for the two staff support positions. All salaries and benefits have a 3% cost of living and/or merit increase added in the second year of the project. Equipment: We anticipate purchasing two computers, two typewriters, one fax machine, and one copier to supply the off-campus office site. Based on-line cost comparisons for these items, costs are set at $10,000. Travel: Domestic travel is required for Steering Committee members to visit exemplary K-16/community partnerships and attend conferences. A total of $15,000 is budgeted in each year, based on approximately ten trips at $1500 per person. The committee will determine the most cost efficient and effective use of members’ travel funds based on this amount. Consultants: As experts in community-based partnerships, the consultants and will assist staff in forming and then working with the Steering Committee. Consultant costs, including travel and honoraria, are anticipated at $5,000 each year.

Other Direct Costs: Other necessary costs each year are as follows: 1) Substitute teacher release time for K-12 employees serving on the K-16 subcommittees, based on at least 15 educators who would require 10 days of release time in one school year. Substitute teachers are approximately $75/day. Total cost: $11,250/yr; 2) Rental of off-campus space, based on $12 per foot for approximately 500 square feet of space. Costs range from $12- $30/ft in the Puget Sound area. Total cost: $6000/yr; 3) Office supplies, copying and telephone services for the off-campus location, anticipated at $5,000/yr; 4) Release time for three faculty members to assist in developing the K-16 Partnership, and plan and develop curricula. One class course release costs $5,000.

Total Budget Prepared 10/2/07

"Delivering the Promise of Education Today to Fulfill Dreams for the Future"Total

Key persons: Salary Rate Yr 1 Yr 2^^ Yrs 1& 2Assistant Professor, 100% FTE 60,000 60,000 61,800 121,800

Other personnel:University Coord,100% FTE 48288 48,288 49,736 98,024Staff Support, Progr Asst, 50%FTE 32388 16,194 16,680 32,874Staff Support, Progr Asst, 50% FTE 32388 16,194 16,680 32,874

140,676 144,896 285,572Fringe Benefits: Benefit RateFaculty member 23.8% 14,280 14,708 28,988University Coordinator 28.3% 13,666 14,075 27,7412 Program Assistants, 50% FTE each 30.9% 10,008 10,308 20,316

37,954 39,091 77,045TOTAL SALARY AND BENEFITS 178,630 183,987 362,617

Equipment:

2 computers @$2000, 1 fax, 2 typewriters and 1 copier.

TOTAL EQUIP: 10,000 0 10,000Travel:

Domestic travel for selected Steering Committee members,

ten visits total at $1500/visit. TOTAL TRAVEL 15,000 15,000 30,000

Consultant Costs:

Consultant visits, including honoraria and travel.

TOTAL CONSULT 5,000 5,000 10,000

Other Direct Costs:

Substitute teacher course release costs. 11,250 11,250 22,500

Rental for office staff and mtg use, 500 sq ft @ $12/ft 6,000 6,000 12,000

Office Supplies at office, copying, telephone services 5,000 5,000 10,000

Release time for three (3) faculty members, 1 class each. 15,000 15,000 30,000

TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS: 37,250 37,250 44,500

TOTAL SALARIES

TOTAL BENEFITS

Direct Costs: 245,880 241,237 457,117

Modified Total Direct Costs (Directs minus rent) 239,880 235,237 475,117

Indirect Costs at office-campus rate of 26%** 62,369 61,162 123,531

Total Direct and Indirects: 308,249 302,399 610,648

Budget Total 308,249 302,399 610,648

^^A 3% cost of living/merit increase for salaries is added in Year 2.

**The Facilities and Administration (F&A) cost rate was approved with the

Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) on November 16, 2006, at 26% for off-campus.

APPENDIX FUW North Sound

Interim Campus Budget ProjectionsYears 2008-2014

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014RN to BSN 619,661$ 619,661$ 618,140$ 623,122$ 619,661$ 623,122$ 623,122$

M. Ed. 516,476$ 516,476$ 515,840$ 519,412$ 516,476$ 519,412$ 519,412$ Other Degree Programs (TBD) 1,125,908$ 1,125,908$ 1,125,908$ 1,125,908$ Libraries/Instructional Support 25,000$ 10,000$ 45,000$ 206,800$ 206,800$ 206,800$ 4,000,000$

Operating Costs of Remote Teaching 507,400$ 1,048,000$ 1,057,400$ 1,048,000$ 1,048,000$ 1,057,400$ Less Tuition Revenues (386,459)$ (729,222)$ (729,222)$ (729,222)$ (729,222)$ (729,222)$ (729,222)$

State Support 776,686$ 926,324$ 1,499,768$ 2,805,431$ 2,789,635$ 2,796,033$ 6,598,634$

CC Outreach Program 243,243$ 243,243$ 243,243$ 243,243$ 243,243$ 243,243$ 243,243$ Campus Launch 449,714$ 448,270$ 449,163$ 449,163$ 449,163$ 449,163$ Marketing & PR 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$

Market Needs Analysis 45,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ K-12 Program 308,249$ 302,399$ 302,399$ 302,399$ 302,399$ 302,399$ 302,399$ Indirect Costs 322,977$ 610,088$ 773,445$ 1,098,512$ 1,098,512$ 1,057,400$ 1,098,512$

969,469$ 1,655,444$ 1,817,357$ 2,143,317$ 2,143,317$ 2,102,205$ 2,143,317$

Total State Support Requested 1,746,155$ 2,581,768$ 3,317,125$ 4,948,748$ 4,932,952$ 4,898,238$ 8,741,951$

APPENDIX FUW North Sound

Operating Budget Projections Years 2015-2025

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Costs 26,958,804$ 37,043,512$ 41,276,023$ 43,402,132$ 51,444,054$ Less Tuition Revenue (8,982,362)$ (13,202,209)$ (15,317,987)$ (16,837,864)$ (21,193,869)$

State Operating Funds 17,976,442$ 23,841,303$ 25,958,036$ 26,564,268$ 30,250,185$

CC Outreach Program 243,243$ 243,243$ 243,243$ 243,243$ 243,243$ K-12 Program 308,249$ 308,249$ 308,249$ 308,249$ 308,249$

551,492$ 551,492$ 551,492$ 551,492$ 551,492$

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Costs 50,649,727$ 54,484,993$ 58,320,259$ 62,155,525$ 65,351,581$ 70,620,385$ Less Tuition Revenue (21,193,869)$ (22,853,294)$ (24,512,718)$ (26,172,143)$ (27,831,567)$ (29,490,992)$

State Operating Funds 29,455,858$ 31,631,699$ 33,807,541$ 35,983,383$ 37,520,014$ 41,129,393$

CC Outreach Program 243,243$ 243,243$ 243,243$ 243,243$ 243,243$ 243,243$ K-12 Program 308,249$ 308,249$ 308,249$ 308,249$ 308,249$ 308,249$

551,492$ 551,492$ 551,492$ 551,492$ 551,492$ 551,492$

UW North SoundProgram Budget Year 2008

Projected Enrollment 60 Students

Nursing Program FTE Total SalariesBenefitsTotal Salaries&

Faculty 3 110,000$ 330,000$ 75,900$ 405,900$

Assoc. Director 0.5 125,000$ 62,500$ 14,375$ 76,875$

Academic Adv. 1 60,000$ 60,000$ 17,220$ 77,220$

Nurse Recruiter 0.5 60,000$ 30,000$ 8,610$ 38,610$

Office Assistant 0.5 32,000$ 16,000$ 5,056$ 21,056$ 619,661$

Education ProgramFaculty 3 95,000$ 285,000$ 65,550$ 350,550$

Assoc. Director 0.5 110,000$ 55,000$ 12,650$ 67,650$

Academic Adv. 0.5 60,000$ 30,000$ 8,610$ 38,610$

Recruiter 0.5 60,000$ 30,000$ 8,610$ 38,610$

Office Assistant 0.5 32,000$ 16,000$ 5,056$ 21,056$ 516,476$

Libraries/Instructional Support 25,000$

CC Outreach PositionsEvCC 1 63,000$ 63,000$ 18,081$ 81,081$ SVC 1 63,000$ 63,000$ 18,081$ 81,081$

EdCC 1 63,000$ 63,000$ 18,081$ 81,081$ 243,243$

Total Direct Costs 1,242,218$

Total Indirects 26% 322,977$ Total Costs 1,565,195$

Needs Analysis 45,000$ Public Outreach 50,000$

95,000$

UW North SoundProgram Budget Year 2009

Projected Enrollment 203 StudentsNursing Program

619,661$

Education Program516,476$

Libraries/Instructional Support 10,000$

Remote Instruction FTECourse Instructional Designer 1 80,000$ 80,000$ 22,960$ 102,960$

Lead Techmical Support 2 60,000$ 120,000$ 34,440$ 154,440$ Hourly Student Help Varies 250,000$

507,400$

CC Outreach Positions243,243$

Campus Launch Costs FTE

Administrator 1 100,000$ 100,000$ 28,700$ 128,700$ Recuriter 1 60,000$ 60,000$ 17,220$ 77,220$

Admissions 0.5 60,000$ 30,000$ 8,610$ 38,610$ Student Affairs 0.5 60,000$ 30,000$ 8,610$ 38,610$

Service Learning 1 65,000$ 65,000$ 18,655$ 83,655$ Library Resource 1 45,000$ 45,000$ 12,915$ 57,915$

Adm Secretary 0.5 38,000$ 19,000$ 6,004$ 25,004$ 449,714$

Total Direct Costs 2,346,494$

Total Indirects 26% 610,088$ Total Costs 2,956,582$

Public Outreach 50,000$

UW North SoundProgram Budget Year 2010

Projected Enrollment 359 Students

Nursing Program618,140$

Education Program515,840$

Libraries/Instructional Support 45,000$

Remote Instruction1,048,000$

CC Outreach Positions243,243$

Campus Launch Costs29%

Administrator 1 100,000$ 100,000$ 28,700$ 128,700$ Recurite 1 60,000$ 60,000$ 17,220$ 77,220$

Admissions 0.5 60,000$ 30,000$ 8,610$ 38,610$ Student Affairs 0.5 60,000$ 30,000$ 8,610$ 38,610$

Service Learning 1 65,000$ 65,000$ 18,655$ 83,655$ Library Resource 1 45,000$ 45,000$ 12,915$ 57,915$

Adm Secretary 0.5 38,000$ 19,000$ 4,560$ 23,560$ 448,270$

Total Direct Costs 2,918,493$

Total Indirects 26% 758,808$ Total Costs 3,677,301$

Public Outreach 50,000$

UW North SoundProgram Budget Year 2011

Projected Enrollment 427 Students

Nursing Program623,122$

Education Program519,412$

CC Outreach Positions243,243$

Academic Degree Programs TBD

Graduate Program Total Salaries Benefits Total Salaries& BenefitsFaculty 3 110,000$ 330,000$ 79,200$ 409,200$

Assoc. Director 0.5 125,000$ 62,500$ 15,000$ 77,500$

Academic Adv. 0.5 60,000$ 30,000$ 8,610$ 38,610$

Recruiter 0.5 60,000$ 30,000$ 8,610$ 38,610$

Office Assistant 0.5 32,000$ 16,000$ 5,056$ 21,056$ 584,976$

Undergraduate ProgramFaculty 3 95,000$ 285,000$ 68,400$ 353,400$

Assoc. Director 0.5 110,000$ 55,000$ 13,200$ 68,200$

Academic Adv. 0.5 60,000$ 30,000$ 8,610$ 38,610$

Recruiter 0.5 60,000$ 30,000$ 8,610$ 38,610$

Office Assistant 1 32,000$ 32,000$ 10,112$ 42,112$ 540,932$

Staffing 154,800$ Workstations 18,000$ Site Licenses 34,000$

Libraries/Instructional Support 206,800$

Campus Launch Costs449,163$

Remote Instruction1,057,400$

Total Direct Costs 4,225,048$

Total Indirects 26% 1,098,512$ Total Costs 5,323,560$

Public Outreach 50,000$

UW North SoundProgram Budget Year 2012

Projected Enrollment 457 Students

Nursing Program623,122$

Education Program519,412$

CC Outreach Positions243,243$

Academic Degree Programs TBD

584,976$ 540,932$

Libraries/Instructional Support 206,800$

Libraries/Instructional Support

Campus Launch Costs449,163$

Remote Instruction1,057,400$

Total Direct Costs 4,018,248$

Total Indirects 26% 1,044,744$ Total Costs 5,062,992$

Public Outreach 50,000$ 5,112,992$

UW North SoundProgram Budget Year 2013

Projected Enrollment 534 Students

Nursing Program623,122$

Education Program519,412$

CC Outreach Positions243,243$

Academic Degree Programs TBD

584,976$ 540,932$

Libraries/Instructional Support 206,800$

Campus Launch Costs449,163$

Remote Instruction1,057,400$

Total Direct Costs 4,225,048$

Total Indirects 26% 1,098,512$ Total Costs 5,323,560$

Public Outreach 50,000$ 5,373,560$

UW North SoundProgram Budget Year 2014

Projected Enrollment 627 Students

Nursing Program623,122$

Education Program519,412$

CC Outreach Positions243,243$

Academic Degree Programs TBD

584,976$ 540,932$

Libraries/Instructional Support 4,000,000$ New faculty hires for campus opening/curriculum development

Campus Launch Costs449,163$

Remote Instruction1,057,400$

Total Direct Costs 8,018,248$

Total Indirect 26% 2,084,744$ Total Costs 10,102,992$

Public Outreach 100,000$ 10,202,992$

UW North SoundBudget Projections 2015

Projected Enrollment 1519

2015 FTE State Support Tuition Revenue Total CostsElectircal Engineering 30 279,000$ 151,488$ 430,488$ 569,085$

Mechanical Engineering 30 279,000$ 151,488$ 430,488$ 569,085$ Civil and Envirionmental Eng 30 279,000$ 151,488$ 430,488$ 735,108$

Computer Science 30 279,000$ 151,488$ 430,488$ 735,108$ Technical Communication 30 174,000$ 151,488$ 325,488$ 569,085$

Nursing 60 348,000$ 302,975$ 650,975$ 1,324,224$ Math and Science Education 20 116,000$ 100,992$ 216,992$ 441,408$

Education 120 696,000$ 605,951$ 1,301,951$ 2,648,448$ Pre major - AS 600 4,059,822$ 3,029,754$ 7,089,576$ 6,224,304$

Business 305 1,769,000$ 1,540,125$ 3,309,125$ 2,989,976$ M Ed. 87 1,305,000$ 681,416$ 1,986,416$ 1,785,188$

MN 57 855,000$ 471,602$ 1,326,602$ 2,335,700$ MS Eng 30 450,000$ 234,971$ 684,971$ 2,335,700$ MS CSS 30 450,000$ 234,971$ 684,971$ 685,344$

MBA 60 900,000$ 1,022,167$ 1,922,167$ 873,180$ 1,519 12,238,822$ 8,982,362$ 21,221,185$ 22,452,804$

Start-up Costs 376,500$ Additional Costs on UW-North Programming Costs 1,536,000$

Total Costs 24,365,304$

Avg Cost/ UG 13,259$ Avg. Cost/ Grad. 28,495$

UW North SoundBudget Projection 2020

Projected Enrollment 4024

2020 FTE State Support Tuition Revenue Total Revenue Total CostsElectircal Engineering 60 558,000$ 302,975$ 860,975$ 1,138,170$

Mechanical Engineering 60 558,000$ 302,975$ 860,975$ 1,138,170$ Civil and Envirionmental Eng 60 558,000$ 302,975$ 860,975$ 1,470,216$

Computer Science 60 558,000$ 302,975$ 860,975$ 1,470,216$ Technical Communication 60 348,000$ 302,975$ 650,975$ 1,138,170$

Nursing 120 696,000$ 605,951$ 1,301,951$ 2,648,448$ Math and Science Education 40 232,000$ 201,984$ 433,984$ 882,816$

Education 120 696,000$ 605,951$ 1,301,951$ 2,648,448$ Pre major - AS 1,050 10,149,555$ 7,574,385$ 17,723,940$ 15,560,760$

Business 750 6,066,800$ 5,281,871$ 11,348,671$ 10,254,147$ M Ed. 139 2,430,000$ 1,268,844$ 3,698,844$ 3,324,143$

MN 57 855,000$ 471,602$ 1,326,602$ 2,335,700$ MS Eng 57 855,000$ 446,445$ 1,301,445$ 2,335,700$ MS CSS 59 885,000$ 462,110$ 1,347,110$ 1,347,843$

MBA 138 2,430,000$ 2,759,850$ 5,189,850$ 2,357,586$ 3,623 27,875,355$ 21,193,869$ 49,069,224$ 46,938,054$

Academic Support Start-up Costs 705,673$ Additional Costs on UW-North Service Learning and Internships/Co-ops Programming Costs 3,006,000$

Total Costs 50,649,727$

Avg Cost/ UG 12,162$ Avg. Cost/ Grad. 26,628$

UW North SoundBudget Projections 2025Projected Enrollment 5059

2025 FTE State Support Tuition Revenue Total Revenue Total CostsElectircal Engineering 120 1,116,000$ 605,951$ 1,721,951$ 2,276,340$

Mechanical Engineering 120 1,116,000$ 605,951$ 1,721,951$ 2,276,340$ Civil and Envirionmental Eng 120 1,116,000$ 605,951$ 1,721,951$ 2,940,432$

Computer Science 150 1,395,000$ 757,439$ 2,152,439$ 2,940,432$ Technical Communication 60 348,000$ 302,975$ 650,975$ 1,138,170$

Nursing 120 696,000$ 605,951$ 1,301,951$ 2,648,448$ Math and Science Education 120 696,000$ 605,951$ 1,301,951$ 2,648,448$

Education 120 696,000$ 605,951$ 1,301,951$ 2,648,448$ Pre major - AS 2,600 17,592,563$ 13,128,934$ 30,721,497$ 26,971,985$

Business 922 5,347,600$ 4,655,722$ 10,003,322$ 9,038,550$ M Ed. 162 2,430,000$ 1,268,844$ 3,698,844$ 3,324,143$

MN 57 855,000$ 471,602$ 1,326,602$ 2,335,700$ MS Eng 89 1,335,000$ 697,081$ 2,032,081$ 2,335,700$ MS CSS 114 1,710,000$ 892,890$ 2,602,890$ 2,604,307$

MBA 216 3,240,000$ 3,679,800$ 6,919,800$ 3,143,448$ 5,090 39,689,163$ 29,490,992$ 69,180,154$ 66,114,385$

Additional Costs of UW-North Academic Support Start-up Costs 1,500,000$ Service Learning and Internships/Co-ops Programming Costs 3,006,000$

Total Costs 70,620,385$

Avg Cost/ UG 12,323$ Avg. Cost/ Grad. 26,661$

APPENDIX FUW North Sound

Undergraduate Enrollment Model

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025Entering Class Size

Retention Rate Yr1 Yr 2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr 10 Yr11 Yr12 Yr13 Yr14 Yr15 Yr16 Yr17 Yr18

Freshman 750-850 500 500 600 700 700 800 800 875 875 875 902Sophomores 75% 375 375 450 525 525 600 600 656 656 656Positions Available for Transfer Students 125 125 150 175 175 200 200 219 219 219Juniors 80% 400 400 480 560 560 640 640 700 700Positions Available for Transfer Students 100 100 120 140 140 160 160 175 175Seniors 90% 450 540 630 630 720 720 788Positions Available for Transfer Students 50 60 70 70 80 80 88Additional Junior Transfers 250-500 30 120 200 200 200 250 300 500 375 300 325 350 400 400 450 450 500 500Transfer Students Continuing 85% - 26 102 170 170 170 213 255 425 319 255 276 298 340 340 383 383 425 Total Enrollment 30 146 302 370 370 420 513 1,255 1,800 2,219 2,380 3,126 3,498 3,740 3,965 4,183 4,308 4,452

New Enrollments - - - - - - - 500 500 600 700 700 800 800 875 875 875 902 New Transfers 30 120 200 200 200 250 300 500 500 525 575 695 775 810 880 909 974 981 Total Transfer Students 30 146 302 370 370 420 513 755 925 969 955 1,346 1,518 1,640 1,735 1,851 1,935 2,019

Lower Division - - - - - - - 500 500 1,100 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,675 1,750 1,750 1,777 % Enrollment 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 40% 28% 50% 55% 45% 43% 43% 42% 42% 41% 40%

Upper Division 30 146 302 370 370 420 513 755 800 1,119 1,080 1,726 1,998 2,140 2,290 2,433 2,558 2,675 % Enrollment 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 60% 44% 50% 45% 55% 57% 57% 58% 58% 59% 60%

APPENDIX FUW North Sound

Graduate Enrollment Model

Entering Class Size

Retention Rate Yr1 Yr 2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr 10 Yr11 Yr12 Yr13 Yr14 Yr15 Yr16 Yr17 Yr18

M. Ed. 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 8590% 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 54 54 54 77 77 77 77 77 77 77

MSN 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 3090% 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27

MS CSS 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 6090% 27 27 27 27 27 54 54 54 54 54

MSE 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 3095% 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29

MBA 60 60 60 90 90 90 90 120 120 120 12080% 48 48 48 72 72 72 72 96 96 96

Total Enrollment 30 57 57 57 87 114 114 264 395 395 450 496 526 553 583 607 607 607