GUEST COMMENTARY: UA stakeholder survey reveals chance to find common ground

When Gov. Michael J. Dunleavy imposed a one-year, $136 million cut in the budget of the University of Alaska, key stakeholders — students, faculty, staff, administrators, alums, native corporations, business leaders, legislators, and others — were unified around saving higher education in Alaska.

Now that it is $70 million over three years, the unity is fragmenting even though it is still a major cut that calls for a coordinated response.

WayMark Analytics, a double-bottom line organization that I co-founded, recently conducted a statewide survey of key stakeholders in Alaska’s higher education system. The survey was commissioned by the Board of Regents, which was looking for a neutral outside perspective.

We heard back from 3,932 people, including 732 students, 703 faculty, 1,069 staff, 445 alums, 157 business leaders, 43 tribal or Native corporation leaders, and others. On many dimensions, there is wide agreement.

For example, the vast majority of respondents (more than 90 percent) see these interests as important: “Having a world-class higher education system in Alaska”; “Ensuring dependable state funding for higher education in Alaska”;” Having all relevant stakeholders work together to ensure the best possible higher education system in Alaska;” and, “Maintaining existing areas of research excellence in higher education in Alaska.”

High marks also are given to: “Maintaining access to career and technical training programs at community campuses;” and, “Ensuring a cost-effective administration in Alaskan higher education.”

By contrast, the respondents are deeply divided on structural issues. The Board of Regents has indicated that it is exploring a shift from three accreditations (Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau) for the 16-campus system to a single accreditation in order to better integrate student services and reduce administrative cost (each accreditation requires a chancellor, provost, and supporting structure).

The response has been an outcry from many faculty, alums, and others focused on preserving the separate identities of the campuses. We surveyed stakeholders on these issues and they are deeply divided.

A total of 50 percent responded that “Enabling each campus to have its unique identity” is important (7, 8, 9, or 10 on a 10-point scale, with 10 being “very important”), while 32 percent said it is not important (O, 1, 2, or 3 on the same scale, with 0 being “not important”).

At the same time, 52 percent responded that “Having all of higher education operate as a single, integrated system with programs and courses available at campuses statewide” is important, while 35 percent said this is not important.

The results are particularly important for those who had indicated “student” as their primary role, with 39 percent seeing each campus having a unique identity as important (compared to 50 percent overall), while 43 percent said it is not important.

Among these same students, 61 percent indicated that operating as a single integrated system with programs and courses available at campuses statewide is important (compared to 52 percent overall), while 21 percent responded that it is not important.

Three things are clear from these and other stakeholder data. First, there are areas of common ground that represent a foundation on which to build.

Second, in the debate on structure, there is not a clear majority. Third, there are options that can take into account the interests of all stakeholders, but it will require skillful negotiation.

It is possible to have unified accreditation while still retaining strong separate identities (sports teams, areas of excellence, administrative leadership, etc.).

It is also possible to retain separate accreditations while still advancing integration (aligning academic programs, ensuring a seamless student experience, reducing administrative overhead, etc.).

At a time when most of the world’s nations see higher education as one of the leading engines for innovation and growth, it is essential for Alaska to ensure that it has a world-class higher education system that is matched to its unique location.

As one survey respondent commented: “To be naturally inspiring, higher education in Alaska must reflect its setting: unique, diverse, changing, resilient, and adaptable.” Another stated simply: “Globally respected, Alaska rooted.”

It will take all stakeholders pulling together to make this vision a continuing reality in the years and decades to come.

Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld is a professor at Brandeis University and co-founder, WayMark Analytics.

Updated: 
09/25/2019 - 9:08am

Comments