n J Commisio~on Plannhg for
lWub rlic k~heEr ducation
Recommendations to the Arizona Board of Regents
PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION ENROLLMENT GROWTH
COMMISSION
Rwnt Andy Hurwitz
Mever, Hendricb, Vior, O.bom & Mebdon,
P.A.
P.O. Box 33449
Phoenix, AZ 850674449
640-9000
Regent Dougbs J. Wdl
P.O. Box 10
Flagstaff, AZ 88002
779-6951
Regent Donald Pitt
2200 Eest River Rod, Suite 115
Tucson, AZ 85718
577-0200
Rsgent John F. Munger
Munger & Munger
6131 E. Grant Road
T w n , AZ 85712-5802
721-1900
Regent Eddii Basha
Bash's
P.O. Box 488
Chandler, AZ 85224
895-9350
Mr. Gary Watson
Board of Dir for CC
Century Plaza
3225 N. Central, Ste. 1220
Phoenix, AZ 8501 2
758-7224
Dr. Morrison Warren
State Board of Education
1061 E. Magdslena Drive
Tempe, AZ 85283
638-4791
The Honorable C. Dine Bishop
Sup of Public Instruction
AZ Department of Education
1535 W. Jeffenon
Phoenix, AZ 85007
542-4361
Dr. Patty Horn
Dean, CoUege of Education
Grand Canyon University
3300 Weat Canelback Road
Phoenix, AZ 8501 7
249-3300 x3229
Linda B. Rosenthal
Maricopa Comnunity College Board
5808 N. 2nd Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 8501 3
731-8889
Mr. Steven Darak
2605 Broadway Bhrd.
Tucson, AZ 8571 6
881-0150
Mr. John Kelly
Governor's Mi
1700 W. Washington, 9th Fbor
Phoenix, AZ 85007
542-221 8
Regent Rhiin EVM
Northern Arizone University
Box 4093
FhgEtaff, AZ 8601 1
523-3087
Mr. Danny Siilino
455 W. Franklin 12036
Tucson, AZ 85701
884-8490
Dr. J.D. Garcia
h i d e n t AZ Fac. Council
Fac. Center
1400 East Mable
Univemity of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
621-1342
Mr. Burt Barr
270 Eat Sirra V i a
Phoenix, AZ 8501 2
2588257
Mr. John Whitaman
Empire sw
P.O. Box 2985
Phoenix, AZ 85062
8984507
Dr. Victoria Stevens
P.O. Box 349
Gbbe, AZ 85502
425-31 93
Mr. Abn Held
MicmAge Inc.
Corporate Headquarters
2308 S. 55th Street
Tempe, AZ 85282-1 824
968-31 68 x2339
Mr. John Schaefar
Wint
Reaearnh Corporation
6840 E. Broadway
Tucson, AZ 85710
296-8400
Mr. Daniel Baertbin
Coconino Cmunity College Board
601 S. 4th Stmt
WJliau, AZ 86046
835-4558
The Honorabb Bev Hermon
Arizona State Senate
1700 West Washington, 1302
Phoenix, AZ 85007
542-41 24
The Honorabb Laa Graham
AZ House of Representatives
1700 West Washington, 1225
Phoenix, AZ 85007
542-4225
The Honorable Ruth Solomon
AZ House of Representatives
1700 West Washington, t337
Phoenix, AZ 85007
542-3425
The Honorable Lela Alston
Arizona State Senate
1700 Wed Washington, 1301
Phoenix, AZ 85007
542-4485
The Honorable Tom Patterson
Arizona State Senate
1700 We6t Washington, 1205
Phoenix, AZ 85007
542-5955
COMMISSION ON PLANNING FOR PUBLIC
HIGHER EDUCATION ENROLLMENT GROWTH IN ARIZONA
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS
PREFACE
Arizona citizens have long recognized the importance of education to their quality
of life and to the economic vitality of the state. In planning for the future,
Arizona community colleges and public and private universities share
responsibilities with elected officials for making decisions that will enable the
state's institutions of higher education to prepare an educated and skilled
workforce and to conduct the high quality research that is essential for Arizona
to compete in today's global economy.
BACKGROUND
In 1990 the Arizona Board of Regents formally initiated the process of planning
for enrollment growth to the year 2010. The Board commissioned a nationally
recognized independent consultant to develop a model on which to project
enrollment demand. The resulting predictions for additional university students
over the next two decades ranged from slightly less than 40,000 to almost 80,000
headcount students. AU parties realize that the final numbers may vary because
of such factors as the state of the economy in the future, the numbers of high
school graduates, and the success of minority recruitment and retention programs.
For present purposes, the figures settled on as "most likely" are 55,000 additional
students for Arizona's four-year institutions and 95,000 additional students for
Arizona's community colleges. However, it should be mentioned that several
groups, including the Community College Task Force on Enrollment Growth
Planning, believe that the predictions are conservative.
In preparing for decision-making, the Board also conducted studies of the
capacities of the present universities and identified a variety of strategies for
meeting future enrollment growth. The university presidents proposed to the
Board of Regents that the traditional main campus headcount enrollments be
capped at 39,000 for ASU, 16,000 for NAU, and 35,000 for UofA. Supporting
reasons included:
A general consensus that the size of the main campuses affects
their missions and the of education, particularly for
undergraduates.
The current state funding formula does not provide adequate
financial support for additional students.
The universities are approaching their revenue bond borrowing
capacities, which limits the ability to frnance additional facilities.
While approving the presidents' request for capping, the Board reiterated its
intent to provide access for all eligible Arizona residents to baccalaureate degree
programs and emphasized the importance of continued efforts to enhance diversity
on each campus.
The Board discussed possible strategies for meeting enrollment growth both in
rural and urban areas. It was particularly interested in bringing a broader
spectrum of educational services to rural communities so as to make them more
attractive places for people to live and for businesses to locate. Rural areas are
presently served by two-year community colleges and by some off-campus and
2 +2 education centers; however, baccalaureate and master's level education will
need to expand to meet the projected enrollment demands. The Board suggested
that:
Community colleges and universities develop more partnerships
and 2+2 programs, thereby making university level education
more widely available throughout Arizona.
Telecommunication delivery systems be further developed to bring
courses and programs to locations where higher education has
previously not been practical nor economically feasible.
In urban areas, about half of the projected demand is in the older, working
student age group. The Board suggested that:
Telecommunication can be helpful in urban areas by delivering
education to off-campus centers, the student's workplace, or even
the student's home.
Greater use should be made of main campuses and off-campus
centers in the evenings and weekends.
Two new, relatively small campuses should be built to
accommodate the needs of additional students seeking a traditional
college experience. The potential for a revised mission for ASU
West should also be examined. (See "Recommendations" at the
end of this report for further details.)
In the summer of 1992, the Board of Regents adopted a preliminary Decision
Summary document outlining the actions and thoughts mentioned above. In
recognition of the need to include the larger Arizona community in the planning
process, the Board established a Commission on Public Higher Education
Enrollment Growth Planning. Commission members include representatives from
the executive and legislative branches of government, community colleges, K-12,
private higher education, business, students, faculty, and the Board of Regents.
The Commission's charge was to review and make recommendations on the
preliminary Decision Summary report of the Board's strategies for meeting higher
education enrollment growth in the four-year sector over the next two decades.
Through monthly meetings, the Commission reviewed the Regent's Decision
Summary document and heard presentations and conducted discussions with
students, community representatives, the three universities, a private post-secondary
representative, the Arizona Community College Board, and the
Maricopa and Pima County Community College districts and a consultant on
higher education.
PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
ENROLLMENT GROWTH TASK FORCE
Working in tandem with the Commission has been a task force appointed by the
community colleges and charged with:
Preparing enrollment growth estimates for Arizona's community
colleges through the year 2010,
Developing alternative strategies to accommodate anticipated
growth,
Preparing a report detailing the projections and recommendations
developed by the task force.
A preliminary report (to be finalized in the summer of 1993) was presented to the
Commission on Public Higher Education Enrollment Growth Planning. It
contained three recommendations critical to the work of the Commission:
As a matter of public policy, space must be made to accept into
state supported baccalaureate programs those students who have
attended Arizona community colleges for their lower division
work, and have done well. Students who have graduated from a
transfer curriculum at an Arizona Community College should be
guaranteed admission to an Arizona Public University campus as
an upper-division student.
The current statewide articulation process needs to be extended to
ensure that credits acquired by students completing an Arizona
Community College transfer program will apply toward a
baccalaureate degree, and work done at the community college will
not have to be repeated at the university.
Admission policies should ensure that Community College transfer
students receive equitable treatment with native university students
in competing for admission to majors at the university.
The Community College Task Force also made the following statement on State
Aid for Community college facilities and operations:
Expansion of community college participation in the education of students
ultimately seeking baccalaureate degrees is a cost-effective strategy for the
State. It must not, however, be considered to be a cost-free alternative.
In recent years the State's participation in the expenses of community
college facilities and operations has been deteriorating when considered as
a percentage of total costs. This erosion of State participation is placing
an excessive load on the local tax base and on the students. Student
tuition and fees exceed State aid in the two urban districts now.
Community colleges will not be able to accommodate the enrollment
increases projected by both the Commission and the Task Force without
a systematic increase in State funding for both operations and capital
expansion.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE ARIZONA
BOARD OF REGENTS
The Commission endorses the preliminary report of the Task Force on
Community College Enrollment Growth Planning and recommends that the Board
carefully review the final report when it is completed in the summer of 1993.
The Commission believes it would be helpful to the state and its post-secondary
education systems to have a report which examines the four-year independent
sector demand, capacity and interest in meeting future enrollment increases.
Recommendations
1. Implement in a timely fashion (See Table I) the following cost effective
strategies:
Cap the main campus enrollments at 39,000 for ASU, 16,000 for
NAU, and 35,000 for UofA.
Expand the evening and weekend course offerings for ASU and
UofA main campuses and explore the feasibility of fully
implementing evening and weekend course offerings for NAU.
Expand off-campus centers and/or distance education programs.
Expand telecommunications education delivery systems for all
three universities.
Expand consortium (2+2) programs in rural areas in conjunction
with NAU and the community colleges.
Continue to investigate cooperative efforts in urban areas by ASU
and UofA in conjunction with the community colleges.
2. Minority students should have equal access to all programs and campuses.
Student recruitment and graduation rates should reflect a goal of parity for
all qualified students.
Continue to support the development of the Sierra Vista Center under the
sponsorship of the University of Arizona. This off-campus Center may
eventually become a branch campus subject to the Regents policy
guidelines for such a designation. The Board of Regents Decision
Summary suggested that the Center might be shifted from the UofA to
NAU. However, testimony by Sierra Vista community leaders strongly
supports the existing arrangement, which the Commission recommends.
Sierra Vista may provide a positive example of the role that the private
sector can play in planning for future public higher education enrollment
growth.
4. Begin immediately and proceed simultaneously to plan for two additional
campuses (See Table I). One should be in the east valley of Maricopa
County and the other in Pirna County, each with a mission to provide
undergraduate education and some related master's degree programs.
Workloads of the faculty of these institutions should reflect an emphasis
upon instruction. Each of these campuses should develop appropriate
supportive student service programs. In this recommendation, the
Commission is endorsing the Board's preference for smaller institutions,
a focus on undergraduate education, and cost effective operations.
The Commission believes that the best way to proceed with planning and
initial governance for the new campuses is that they should be developed
by ASU and by the UofA, respectively. As each campus individually
begins to mature, the longer term issues of governance and affiliation to
the major universities should be evaluated at appropriate intervals by the
Arizona Board of Regents.
Testimony before the Commission indicates that Arizona State University
believes that in Maricopa County, ASU West and the new east valley
campus, should be integral parts of ASU. The University of Arizona
believes that the new campus in Pima County should be developed under
UofA guidance, but should eventually operate as an independent
institution.
At this time, do not change the mission of ASU-West, but allow it to
grow to its anticipated 10,000 headcount students. Testimony by west
side Maricopa County community leaders strongly supports ASU-West
remaining part of ASU. The Commission recommends continuance of
that relationship with evaluation at appropriate intervals. Planning should
take place in coordination with community colleges to determine the
feasibility of expanding ASU-West's mission to include offering lower
division classes and programs to reflect projected demand.
The costs and funding mechanisms for implementing the strategies recommended
above are being examined by a sub-committee of the Commission, which will
report separately to the Board. It is critical that funding plans be developed that
focus upon the educational benefits to the public, the economic development
benefits to business and the state, and the importance of Arizona being creative
and willing to pioneer new ways of delivering and funding education. In the
absence of additional funding to implement these enrollment growth strategies,
there will be a serious shortfall of capacity to enroll new students in Arizona's
universities. However, the Commission recommends that funding for enrollment
growth should not be at the expense of existing campuses.
TABLE I - HEADCOUNT ENROLLMENT STRATEGIES
1993 - 2010
Year: -2000 2005 2010
MAIN CAMPUSES:
U/ A-Evening
NAU
ASU-Evening
EXTENDED EDUCATION:
ASU-Off
Campus 2,400 4,100 7,600
NAU -3Q 300 300
2,700 4,400 7,900
CONSORTIUM CAMPUSES:
U/A 1,800 3900 4,000
NAU 2.400 3.000 3.000
4,200 6,000 7,000
TELECOMMUNICATIONS:
U/A 1,000 1,750 2,250
ASU 2,600 4,500 6,000
NAU 4.200 8.200 8.200
7,800 14,450 16,450
PROPOSED 4-YEAR CAMPUSES:
ASU-East
(Williams) 5,OoO 7,500 10,000'
ASU-West 5,600 5,600 5,600
U/A (Pima) 0 5 .OW 10.000
10,600 18,100 25,600
TOTALS : 21.800 50.82 64.850
'ASU-East campus fmm scratch would be 5,000 in year 2005 and 10,000 in year 2010.
