• GFO Bylaws
• Officials, Councils and Committees
• People »
  • Members
  • GFO Chairs
  • Founding Faculty
• Minutes
• Awards
• Documents »
  • Program Planning Policy
  • Faculty Governance Primer
  • The Lower Division Task Force Draft Report
  • Planning Parameters for a Lower Division Program
  • Good Teaching at UW Bothell
  • First UW Bothell Job Satisfaction Survey Report
• Annual Reports
• GFO Newsletters
• Blackboard

Executive Council Meeting: 10/04/2004

October 4, 2004, 4:00 pm., UW2 327

Present: Andrea Kovalesky, Kevin Laverty, Jim Miller, Clark Olson, Bill Seaburg, Jane Van Galen, Barbara Van Sant and Linda Watts

Guests: Tom Bellamy, Karen Brown, Bruce Burgett and Susan Franzosa

1. Consideration of EC resolution of support for the four "priorities for future development" contained in the SHB 2707 Report. (Issues to include the initiative to establish a lower-division program and the faculty role in planning.

Note for item 1 above: Tom Bellamy, Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs, distributed the draft of the 2707 report to the nbfac mailing list. The report (pp. 4-5) identifies the following "four priorities for future development" under the heading "The University of Washington, Bothell's Plan to Address Regional Needs":

• Remain a University of Washington campus.
• Expand upper division programs in partnership with community colleges.
• Establish a small targeted lower-division program.
• Expand graduate and professional programs that address regional needs.

Kevin initiated the meeting asking that the EC deliberate and consider appropriate faculty action in support of the four goals in the SHB 2707 report. He stressed the importance of faculty governance at UWB and asked for the EC's reaction, comments or concerns to the idea of endorsing the goals. These are important recommendations to the Legislature and faculty voice is important in these decisions.

Issues and areas of importance to the faculty:

Level of growth

• The vast majority of growth is in upper division - does this indicate that a lower division model is not needed?
• How do we assure quality with this amount of growth?
• Data indicate 70% of students meeting admission requirements at UW but not be accommodated are from King and Snohomish counties, our region.
• Will offering lower division at UWB compromise our standards for quality?
• Is offering lower division a better model to service the growth of the region?
• Will selected lower division foster a healthy academic environment of upper division or blend in less qualified students to upper division?
• The idea of small, targeted lower division must be fleshed out.
• There are many implications to the growth question; we must focus on endorsing the goals as a framework for planning.
• Can we absorb the increase in demand for BA degrees; is there a capacity issue?
• Is there long-term growth or are we looking at short-term demands, will the growth rate continue - will we be a four-year institution with no enrollment?
• UWB will not grow too quickly; we can make the transition happen. There will be incremental program growth, under faculty control.

Lower division

• Who will the lower division students be, how do we sustain enrollment?
• How will this affect teaching, how will faculty stretch itself?
• Not all faculty here want to teach lower division, what pressures may be involved to teach lower division?
• An associate director to coordinate lower division programs may be a possibility.
• Most universities want to re-work their lower division programs; we have the opportunity to create a dynamic lower division program.
• The difficulty will be how lower division aligns with our current upper division courses.
• What needs are we trying to fulfill, for whom?
• There is a budget question with lower division - are the budget figures separate from the biennial request?

Imperative of being a UW campus

• UWB is the University of Washington; students recognize the high quality of education we offer. It is very important that we let the Legislature know of our commitment to continuing as the UW.
• As part of the UW, we help the system respond to changing demands.
• Our identity is built upon our reputation and our distinct character.
• The overflow argument can make us vulnerable; we must emphasize what is distinctive about UWB and not just market to students who cannot get into UWS.
• We need to have a strong message showing the link of interdisciplinary curriculum with regional development.
• Students chose to come to UWB; we must stress our strengths - interdisciplinarity, small classes and innovational teaching.

2 + 2 model - better pathways

• We are asking for the authority to offer lower division, this will establish better pathways for students.
• UWB can offer alternatives to traditional students not wanting dorm life and non-traditional students returning to college.
• How do you sustain enrollment in lower division, we do not want to lose the support of community colleges.
• There is a clear mandate to align with community colleges, this is a political document, we need to retain our partnerships.
• Coordinated programs will create a better bridge; language and other courses will still be offered through community colleges.
• Co-enrollment/co-admission will maintain close ties with the community colleges.

Regional Impact

• Diverse population of the region, several kinds of communities, well-educated population.
• Interesting fact - increasing number of first generation immigrants attending college has risen significantly.
• 57% of community college transfers to UW or UWB.

Tom detailed some of the data from the report and budgetary issues for the EC. The capital proposal is a cost model for where we are now. Lower division is funded at a higher rate for community colleges than for UW Seattle; we are working on a budgetary plan. A faculty advisory body will be formed to continue to work on the strategic planning involved in campus growth and decision-making. The EC could be a short-term planning group. Kevin asked the EC to frame a resolution to endorse the four goals of the SHB 2707 report. The resolution follows:

The EC has reviewed the 4 goals described in the internal working draft dated September 30, 2004 of the "Report to the Washington State Legislature for Substitute House Bill 2707".

With regard to goal 1, the EC wishes to emphasize that growth, as a UW campus is critical to the faculty in any discussion that might arise about new configurations of higher education institutions to serve the region.

We support the report's goals as a plan for how UWB can address regional needs, as long as these initiatives are funded consistent with the quality of existing programs and the development of new programs at the same level of excellence.

We authorize the GFO Chair and the GFO Vice Chair to work with the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs to charge an advisory body to develop planning parameters for the proposed lower division program, within the context of UWB's mission and strategic goals.

Motion: A motion for approval of the resolution was made, seconded and unanimously approved.

Minutes submitted by Barbara Van Sant.