The SYSTEM DESIGN PLAN
A Statewide Plan for
Moving the Blue Arrow
December 2009
The System
Design Plan
A Statewide Plan for
Moving the Blue Arrow
2009
917 Lakeridge Way SW
P.O. Box 43430
Olympia, WA 98504-3430
360.753.7800
www.hecb.wa.gov
Jesus Hernandez, Chair
Wenatchee
Charley Bingham
Tacoma
Ethelda Burke
Lakewood
Gene Colin
Seattle
Roberta Greene
Spokane
Bill Grinstein
Seattle
Earl Hale
Lacey
Andrew Helm
Spokane
Nita Rinehart
Seattle
Sam Smith
Seattle
Ann Daley
Executive Director
This publication is available on the HECB Website at:
www.hecb.wa.gov/publications
The SYSTEM DESIGN PLAN
A Statewide Plan for Moving the Blue Arrow
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................1
How the System Design Plan Addresses the Challenges
Growing the System
A New Process to Encourage System Expansion
Promoting Innovative Ideas
The Foundation ..................................................................................................................5
The Need for a System Design
A Look at the Current System
E-Learning
Revisiting Economic Needs Assessment
The Challenges .................................................................................................................12
Economic Downturn
Grappling with Declining College Participation Rates
Geographic and Regional Inequities in Access to College
Increasing Knowledge and Skills for Tomorrow‘s Workers
The Strengths We Build Upon ........................................................................................20
An Efficient System
WashingtonOnline
Early College Programs
Research and Innovation
Characteristics of the Delivery System Today ..............................................................23
Institutions, Branches, Centers and Sites
Regional Analysis: Reaching Increased Degree Production Goals
Key Elements of the Proposed System Design Plan Recommendations .....................28
Guiding Principles for System Expansion and Optimization
Enrollment Growth Strategies for the Near Term
• Expand pathways to baccalaureate
• Expand baccalaureate capacity
• Applied baccalaureate degrees
• Expand graduate education
Growing the System for the Longer Term
• Rules for Expansion (New Sites or New Missions)
• Expand on Demand
• Twin review and approval processes for major expansion
Fund for Innovation
A Final Consideration
Attachments ......................................................................................................................
A: Expand on Demand Chart
B: Process for Reviewing Proposals for Major Expansion
December 2009
The SYSTEM DESIGN PLAN
A Statewide Plan for Moving the Blue Arrow
Executive Summary
As stated in the 2008 Strategic Master Plan, Washington needs a higher education system
capable of delivering many more degrees, especially at the baccalaureate and graduate levels –
up to 40 percent more annually. The System Design Plan offers a comprehensive framework for
making decisions about how to reach this goal – by expanding system capacity, recruiting and
supporting a new generation of college students, increasing efficiency, and emphasizing
accountability.
Declining levels of baccalaureate and graduate degree attainment will result in real losses for
Washington, and not just in talented workers for business and industry. In real terms, losses
include lower median annual household income, a greater percent of the population living in
poverty, a higher percent using state or federal welfare, fewer taxes paid to the state, greater
reliance on state human and social services, less research and innovation to fuel Washington‘s
economy.
Acknowledging the significant near-term budget challenges we face, the System Design Plan
offers strategies to address immediate needs and to lay the groundwork for rapid improvement
once the recession begins to wind down. It also aligns well with the Obama Administration‘s
aggressive goal of restoring the U.S. as the best educated nation in the world by 2020.
By endorsing the 2008 Strategic Master Plan, the Legislature approved a significant new higher
education benchmark for the state – increase degree attainment 40 percent annually. Originally,
the plan called for this to occur by the end of its 10-year framework – in 2018. The depth and
severity of the current recession have made it apparent that reaching this goal may take until
2030 or even longer.
Research on workforce needs and future economic growth has confirmed that in the next two
decades we‘ll need to confer tens of thousands of additional degrees and certificates beyond
those supplied by simple population growth or increased levels of aspiration. Even if our degree
production keeps pace with population growth—a big if, given the current challenges facing
higher education—we‘ll realize only a third of our degree needs by 2030.
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 2
We face a harsh reality: younger working-age adults are less well educated than their older
counterparts. Members of the baby boom generation, who constitute the best-educated
workforce in our country‘s history, are beginning to retire and will continue to do so in record
numbers during the next decade.
Washington must respond to what has been recognized as an alarming generational decline in
education levels among its younger citizens. In particular, the state needs to ramp up efforts to
include more people from groups traditionally under-represented in higher education. We will
also need to address regional inequities in access to postsecondary education. And we need to
prepare more workers to be competitive in Washington‘s labor market.
Forecasted demand for workers at all degree levels exceeds the supply. In some high demand
fields, the annual need for workers is twice that of the number of degrees we are conferring in
these fields, which include science, technology, aircraft mechanics and technicians, and selected
health care occupations. In specialized, high demand fields like physical therapists and
registered nurses, the gap is even larger—less than half of forecasted demand.
There are positive signs the public understands the important role higher education must play as
we move to overcome the current economic downturn. Despite record budget cuts and sharp
tuition increases, community college enrollments have increased significantly and branch
campuses and centers are growing rapidly. Our four-year institutions have also experienced
increased enrollments and are struggling to accommodate growing numbers of both regular
admits and transfer students.
Also on the positive side, there is a great deal of untapped potential in our workforce. An
estimated 440,000 working adults age 18-44 have had ―some college.‖ With a past track record
of success in college, these younger workers represent a tremendous pool of potential new talent
if we can re-engage them and move them successfully through the system.
In addition, the number of high school graduates is forecast to continue to grow and become
more diverse until at least the year 2025. We know which areas of the state are growing fastest
and we can document where expansion in the higher education system is likely to be successful.
However, we won‘t succeed in meeting master plan degree goals unless we do far more than rely
on existing demand and population demographics.
How the System Design Plan addresses the challenges
The System Design Plan‟s recommendations are based upon extensive data analysis and seven
months of work by a System Design group made up of state partner agencies.
1
Numerous
meetings also were held to discuss ideas with presidents and provosts of all public universities
and several independent institutions.
1
State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC), Council of Presidents (COP), Workforce Training
and Education Coordinating Board (WTECB), and the Independent Colleges of Washington (ICW)
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 3
The plan consists of four key recommendations:
1. A set of guiding principles on which to base future growth decisions.
2. A near-term strategy to grow enrollment without major capital investment.
3. A new process for evaluating major new expansion proposals (new branch campuses,
capital investment in university centers, new campuses, or major technology
innovations).
4. A new Fund for Innovation to foster innovation, pilot programs, and partnerships
focused on improving access and completion, increasing system productivity, and
alternative program delivery.
Growing the system
The System Design Plan‟s recommendations rest on several key concepts:
First, invest in effective programs to improve the motivation and preparation of K-12
students and young, working-age adults.
Second, make strategic use of existing capacity at the branch campuses, centers, and
comprehensive institutions to broaden the geographic availability of baccalaureate
education.
Third, when new capacity is proposed, employ an ―expand on demand‖ philosophy
building it only when demand is clearly present. This process would base further
growth decisions for higher education on documented evidence that significant
numbers of students in region are ready to attend.
Fourth, focus investment in expanded doctoral and high-cost graduate education at
the main campuses of UW and WSU. Over time, shift the mix of undergraduate and
graduate education at selected institutions so that graduate education also increases.
The System Design Plan also proposes connecting undergraduate and graduate education in
optimal strategies so that both can expand rapidly across the spectrum of four-year institutions.
To do this:
1. Undergraduate programs would be diversified and expanded to more locations to
provide greater opportunities for more students.
2. Expansion of high-cost graduate programs would be focused at the two Research I
universities.
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 4
A new process to manage system expansion
A set of key criteria have been developed to determine when a change of institutional mission is
required or substantial new capital expenditures are warranted under the ‗expand on demand‘
process.
Institutions and/or communities would submit proposals – either developed at their own initiative
or in response to HECB-initiated RFPs – to identify under-served regions and populations or
high-need program areas requiring capital investment. The HECB would then evaluate the
proposals and make a recommendation to the Legislature.
If institutional expansion plans did not require new capital investment, existing budget and
program approval processes would be employed to determine when and where such expansion
could take place.
Promoting innovative ideas
Achieving the 40 percent increase in annual degree production and other important goals
outlined in the Strategic Master Plan will require efficient and strategic growth throughout the
system. To support this growth and improvement, the System Design Plan recommends
Washington establish a new Fund for Innovation, which would foster innovation and
improvement statewide by providing support for strategies and programs with significant
potential to help achieve Master Plan goals.
The new fund would be established in part with seed money provided by state appropriation,
which would then be used to leverage additional federal and private foundation support for
initiatives designed to increase retention, speed time to degree, increase the number of high-
demand degrees being conferred, and other key objectives – programs that would increase
current capacity while also encouraging innovation.
Administered by the HECB, the new fund would create a process for competitive grants open to
all public and private institutions to foster innovation, collaboration and systemwide
productivity. This Fund for Innovation is modeled after a very successful federal program,
FIPSE. Given the current environment of declining resources for higher education, the Fund for
Innovation would represent a relative modest investment capable of achieving significant
improvement in the core academic enterprise.
December 2009
The SYSTEM DESIGN PLAN
A Statewide Plan for Moving the Blue Arrow
The Foundation
The reality we face today is that younger Washington adults are less well-educated than their
parents and grandparents, and even than those in other developed countries. The 2008 Strategic
Master Plan for Higher Education presents a compelling picture of double-digit increases in the
educational attainment levels of younger citizens – up to 30 percent, in Canada, Japan, Korea,
Ireland, Spain, and France, compared to a real decline in the educational levels of 25-34 year-old
Washingtonians.
Countries with rising educational attainment levels report rising incomes and productivity. If we
want our children to live in societies that are capable of advancing economically,
technologically, culturally and socially we must reverse these alarming generational declines.
Another challenge we face is the need to educate more people from groups under-represented in
higher education – students from certain racial and ethnic groups or those who are the first in
their families to aspire to college. These students make up a rapidly growing part of our school-
age population, and many more need to earn certificates and degrees. For example:
Participation rates for Hispanic students are almost half that of the statewide average at
community technical colleges and almost 60 percent lower at four-year institutions.
Rates for African-American & American Indian/Alaskan Native students are also low
at four-year institutions.
Hispanic and American Indian/Alaskan Native populations are widely distributed
across the state.
By 2030, more than 37 percent of Washington‘s K-12 students will be people of color.
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 6
The state also needs to address regional inequities in access to postsecondary education.
While Washington has an abundance of natural resources, the impact of mountains and
waterways and the limited access to highways in some areas make it difficult for
portions of the population to go to college.
Low population density over large tracts of land also makes it difficult to provide
opportunities for people to go to college.
Conversely, rapid population growth in some areas where we have minimal higher
education presence also poses challenges.
The 2008 Strategic Master Plan established the overarching vision of educating more people to
higher levels than ever before. Underlying this broad goal are three major initiatives.
1. Get more people into college and to help them succeed once they get there.
2. Promote economic growth and innovation by focusing on skills and knowledge needed
for the 21
st
century.
3. Develop incentives and accountability measures to achieve the results we need.
Strategies to increase college-going rates and success include
reaching out to and engaging more students of color;
creating higher expectations for K-12 students;
creating a system of lifelong learning that supports transfer students, adult working
and re-entry students; and
making college affordable and easy to access.
These efforts also need to be aligned with the needs of the state‘s businesses and industries.
Higher education plays a critical role in fostering economic growth through better-educated
workers and leading-edge research and innovation. Increased student enrollment in critical high-
demand fields, particularly science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) is needed, as
well as expansion of our research capacity.
To encourage colleges and universities to step up to the plate, we need to provide incentives that
go beyond simply funding student enrollments. We need to fund results. Colleges and
universities that are successful in graduating more students should be rewarded for their
performance in helping achieve master plan goals.
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 7
In a follow-up report to the 2008 Strategic Master Plan for Higher Education, the HECB
published an Implementation Plan with four basic priorities to achieve the goals of increased
educational attainment. The Implementation Plan was written as an action plan and contained the
recommendations of working groups of experts in education, business, labor, planning, and
economic development. The System Design Plan resulted from item number four below.
1. Preserve the progress we have made by sustaining current levels of support for higher
education.
2. Build a larger ―pipeline‖ to postsecondary education that captures more students
graduating from our K-12 schools and more working adults.
3. Expand on demand by targeting growth and tailoring institutional plans to respond to
known demographic, regional and workforce needs.
4. Redesign the delivery system for higher education by creating a new process to determine
when and where to build new campuses or centers, develop new programs, expand
eLearning and other delivery modes, and change college and university missions.
2
The need for a system design plan
A new growth plan for the entire system of higher education in Washington is long overdue. It
has been nearly 30 years since the state undertook a comprehensive study of how its higher
education system should respond to the changes taking place in our state, its people, and its
economy.
Washington‘s last comprehensive study – Building a System: Foundation Elements (1989) – laid
the groundwork for construction of the branch campuses and defined the ―territory‖ of existing
institutions, as well as other system policies. Since then, the state has conducted other studies to
determine regional needs in areas like Skagit, Snohomish and Island Counties and the Kitsap
Peninsula. But no additional comprehensive study has been completed.
Over time, higher education systems develop in response to a myriad of internal and external
prompts from policy-makers, institutions, the public, and civic/business leaders. These pressures
for higher education to grow outward and provide access in new areas and using new
technologies are occurring at the same time there is pressure by some institutions to change their
missions and purposes.
Studies of how higher education systems grow have found that issues arise when
educationally under-served areas experiencing rapid population growth require
expanded access to graduate and professional programs; and
senior colleges exhibit too few differences in mission and purpose.
2
Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2009). Opportunities for Change: Implementing the 2008
Strategic Master Plan for Higher Education. Olympia, Washington. P. ii.
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 8
“ „To many governors and legislators, all institutions look and sound alike and
compete for the same programs and students‟ (Mingle, 1988, p. 3). Lawmakers wonder
whether all programs offered are needed in all institutions. At the same time, needs may
be unmet that the state or campus could fulfill.”
3
To summarize, specific future workforce needs are going unmet, demand for higher education is
increasing and will continue to increase, resources are declining, and there is a generational
education gap to fill. An ad hoc, piecemeal approach to delivering higher education in
Washington will not meet these challenges. Therefore a new comprehensive growth
management plan is essential as we move further into the 21
st
century.
A look at the current system
Like many states, Washington has coordinated the role and mission of its postsecondary
institutions to further the goals of access and affordability for its citizens. But is higher education
in our state available to all Washington citizens? Is it affordable? Is there unnecessary
duplication? How are demographic changes affecting demand? Should the role and scope of
some institutions change in response to changing needs? The answers to these and other critical
questions will significantly impact our ability to achieve central master plan goals.
Washington’s baccalaureate institutions
State statutes define the role and scope of Washington‘s baccalaureate institutions.
■ The University of Washington and Washington State University provide nearly all of the
state‘s doctoral programs.
■ The three regional-comprehensive institutions (Western, Central, and Eastern
Washington Universities) and The Evergreen State College (RCW28B.35.050).
♦ provide undergraduate and master‘s level programs;
♦ serve particular regions;
♦ focus on applied or professional areas;
♦ serve transfer students; and
♦ provide extended occupational and complementary studies programs integrated
with the community and technical colleges in their regions.
■ The branch campuses of the two research institutions provide expanded regional access to
baccalaureate and master‘s degree programs. These campuses award master‘s degrees at
the same rate as the research institutions, but do not provide doctoral or professional
programs. (RCW28B.45.030, 040, 050).
3
Mingle, J.M. (1988). In Hines, Edward R. (1988). State leadership in higher education. Higher education and
state government: Renewed partnership, cooperation or competition? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report #5,
Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education.
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 9
Community and technical colleges
The state‘s 34 public community and technical colleges have three major educational missions
(RCW 28B.50.020): 1) academic transfer; 2) professional-technical education and basic skills;
and 3) literacy.
■ The community and technical colleges serve a substantial number of freshmen and
sophomores who continue to upper division work. Two of every five bachelor‘s
graduates transfer from a community college in Washington.
■ Seven of the state‘s 34 community and technical colleges now award Bachelor‘s of
Applied Science (B.A.S.) degrees under a pilot program established by the Legislature in
2005. In 2009, 57 students earned B.A.S. degrees, and about 100 are expected to
graduate in 2010.
■ More than 40 university and/or teaching centers are located on community and technical
college campuses. They represent a small but fast-growing sector of the system, having
nearly doubled in size over the last five years.
Independent Colleges of Washington (ICW)
The Independent Colleges of Washington (ICW) is the association of the 10 private, liberal arts,
nonprofit universities and colleges in the state. These institutions are generally described as four-
year liberal arts institutions.
■ Founded in 1953 by college presidents and Washington business leaders, the ICW is
governed by a volunteer board with a staff based in Seattle.
■ The ICW institutions offer primarily bachelor‘s and master‘s degree programs, including
75 percent of the state‘s professional degrees in the field of law.
Private Career Colleges
In addition to the ICW institutions, the independent higher education sector in Washington also
includes some of the 85 private career colleges that are part of the Northwest Career Colleges
Federation in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. Their mission is to ―provide opportunities for
education and training in high demand industries to offer programs of study in which graduates
with the right knowledge, skills and behaviors have higher employment potential; and to provide
a foundation and desire in graduates to pursue lifelong learning.‖
4
4
Northwest Career Colleges Federation. Retrieved November 10, 2009 from
http://nwcareercolleges.org/resources/about-us/
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 10
E-Learning
A recent U.S. Department of Education study reported that ―students who took all or part of their
instruction online performed better, on average, than those taking the same course through face-
to-face instruction. Further, those who took "blended" courses – those that combine elements of
online learning and face-to-face instruction – appeared to do best of all.‖
5
Washington‘s community and technical colleges have taken an integrated approach to e-learning
by offering about 100 associate degree transfer courses centrally through a statewide program
known as WashingtonOnline. Online, hybrid and web-enhanced courses now make up 16 percent
of the total two-year instruction, outpacing the nation, and the SBCTC estimates that by 2019
nearly 40 percent of its total FTE will be enrolled in at least one online or hybrid course.
6
In strictly online instruction (excluding hybrid and web-enhanced courses), 20,583 FTEs were
served in the 2008-09 academic year. More than 122,795 (headcount) enrolled in eLearning
classes, including 96,671 taking fully online courses. WashingtonOnline provides 24/7
assistance for those in web-enhanced classes through a help desk.
Among the baccalaureate institutions, online learning is being pursued most aggressively by
WSU, EWU, and CWU. All institutions will use technology to augment classroom instruction
and total online enrollment statewide is expected to be 25,500 FTE by 2019. The great majority
of students now taking online courses also take campus-based courses. The greatest growth in
e-learning on campuses is occurring via hybrid courses, which, as noted above, is a very
effective way to deliver instruction for all types of learners.
Both the Master Plan and the Implementation Plan noted that planning and coordination for
online instruction should be occurring in all higher education sectors and levels.
Revisiting the state’s economic needs assessment
Growth in the state‘s economy will produce thousands of additional jobs for those with mid-
level, bachelor‘s and advanced degrees by the year 2030. To fill this demand, Washington
higher education will need to graduate large numbers of students traditionally under-represented
in higher education.
It is important to note that the challenges we face are not in the distant future – they are here and
now. State labor projections show that by 2016 Washington will fall short of meeting forecasted
demand for workers with mid-level preparation by 13 percent. Projections also show the state
falling 12 percent short of meeting the need for bachelor‘s degrees and an astounding 33 percent
short of the need for advanced degrees.
5
Inside Higher Education, (June 29, 2009), “The evidence on online education (Retrieved November 7, 2009, from
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/29/online, ¶2.
6
State of Washington, Office of Financial Management. (February 2009). Higher Education Trends and
Highlights. Also SBCTC Fall Report. (2007).
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 11
Even if Washington‘s degree production keeps pace with population growth – a big if, given the
current challenges facing higher education – we‘d only reach a third of the state‘s degree goals
by 2030. Currently, we‘re not even keeping pace in producing degrees consistent with
population growth – we‘re losing ground.
The Strategic Master Plan goal of increasing degree attainment by 40 percent annually was
developed, in part, to address these unmet workforce needs. The plan‘s projections were
confirmed in a 2008 study conducted by an Economic Needs Assessment work group, composed
of leaders in business, the professions and industry as well a policy and demographic experts,
and a subsequent 2009 update of the biennial report, A Skilled and Educated Workforce.
The supply of talent will be insufficient to meet our demand as the world economy recovers from
the current recession and becomes more reliant on knowledge workers. Therefore, the state
needs to do a much better job of educating its own citizens to provide the workforce of the
future, the 2008 workgroup report concluded.
In some fields, the need for workers is twice that of students graduating in those fields: science
technology, aircraft mechanics, technicians and selected health care occupations, and
construction. In specialized, high demand fields like physical therapy and nursing, the gap is
even larger; supply is less than half of forecast demand.
In addition, we face critical shortages of people with bachelor‘s and graduate degrees in high
demand fields, such as engineering, computer science, medical professions (including clinical
and laboratory sciences, and radiological technologies), human and protective service
occupations, and research, scientific and technical occupations.
At the mid-level (those with at least one year of college, but less than four years), there are
shortages of qualified workers in health care, early childhood education, auto mechanics, aircraft
mechanics, and installation and maintenance repair fields.
7
7
Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2006). State and Regional Needs Assessment Report
(Revised). Olympia, Washington. http://www.hecb.wa.gov/research/Issues/NeedsAssessmentbychapters.asp
Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board, State Board of Community and Technical Colleges, and
Workforce Education and Training Coordinating Board. (March 2009). A Skilled and Educated Workforce: An
assessment of the number and number of higher education and training credentials required to meet employer
demand. Olympia, Washington. http://www.hecb.wa.gov/news/documents/Skilled-EducatedWorkforce2009.pdf
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 12
The Challenges
We face many challenges as we attempt to reach the central master plan goal of increasing
degree attainment. We continue to experience one the worst economic downturns since the Great
Depression. Our population continues to grow, with the largest percentage of that growth
occurring among under-represented groups. The need for highly educated and skilled workers is
increasing while the education level of our younger adults is dropping below that of their parents.
Economic downturn
The funding constraints presented by the economic downturn present severe challenges to
accomplishing the increases in educational attainment levels envisioned in the Strategic Master
Plan. Significant budget reductions in the 2009-11 biennium (with even deeper cuts likely to be
discussed in the 2010 legislative session have set back institutional capacity for growth and
program diversity.
Facing a multi-billion-dollar revenue shortfall in the 2009-11 biennium, the state took drastic
action to reduce its operating budget. Although all areas of government were affected, higher
education was among the areas taking the deepest cuts to the level of funding required to
maintain current effort. While all institutions of higher education were affected, public
baccalaureate institutions lost up to a quarter of their state appropriations, funding primarily used
for the instruction and direct support of students.
Current economic forecasts call for slow economic recovery and continued revenue shortfalls for
the remainder of at least the 2009-11 biennium and probably the upcoming 2011-13 biennium.
Despite substantial tuition increases and the best effort of institutions, instructional programs
have been adversely affected by these funding reductions.
Recovering from cuts of this depth takes years at higher education institutions. Faculty and staff
reductions, which must account for the brunt of such cuts, strike to the heart of institutional
innovation and effectiveness. Although all areas of state government have been severely
affected by the recession, higher education was forced to take cuts proportionally greater than
most other budget sectors.
Grappling with declining college participation rates
Growth in Washington‘s economy will require thousands of additional bachelor‘s and graduate
degrees by 2030, in addition to thousands more mid-level degrees and certificates. To fill these
needs, the state cannot continue to carry out ‗business as usual‘ in higher education, even in
tough budget times. Even if Washington‘s degree production keeps pace with population growth
– which is quite uncertain, given the current challenges facing higher education – we‘d only
reach a third of the state‘s degree goals by 2030 as show in Table 1 below.
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 13
The growth in the chart below represents a 40 percent increase over Washington‘s degree
production in 2009, an aggressive goal that is consistent with the Obama Administration‘s goal
of a 60 percent increase in baccalaureate degree production throughout the nation.
Table 1: Degree Production Projections through 2030
Level
Population
Growth
Policy Growth
Total
Mid-level
5,100
5,200
10,300
Baccalaureate
2,600
7,900
11,400
Graduate
1,600
7,700
9,300
Total
9,300
20,800
31,000
At the graduate level, projections to reach Master Plan goals present even more of a challenge.
The gap in what we need and what we can expect to get from population growth alone for
graduate degrees is also very wide.
Through expected increases in the population and our understanding of how many people
typically continue on to graduate education, we could expect an increase of an additional 1,600
graduate degrees by 2030. That leaves a gap of an additional 7,700 degrees that must be filled by
targeted policies and programs to expand master‘s and doctoral degree production. Just as we
saw in the data for baccalaureate degree production, we‘re not even keeping pace in producing
graduate degrees consistent with population growth—we‘re losing ground.
In addition, although Washington is growing at a rate that will establish it as the nation‘s 14th
most populous state by 2030 (an increase of 2.7 million people) the fastest-growing demographic
in this growth are those from ethnical and racial groups and low-income families traditionally
under-served by higher education.
According to the 2007 American Community Survey data from the U.S. Census Bureau,
Washington‘s Hispanic/Latino population comprises 9.4 percent of Washington‘s population and
is widely distributed across the state. The American Indian/Alaskan Native population is small,
at 2.6 percent, but is also widely distributed across the state. Table 2 shows the percentages of
Washington‘s population by race and ethnicity. (Hispanic/Latinos can be of any race and are
therefore reported separately.)
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 14
Table 2: Washington Population by Race/Ethnicity (2007 Estimates)
Total Population
6,468,424
100%
White
5,428,452
83.9%
Black or African American
286,223
4.4%
American Indian and Alaska Native
168,578
2.6%
Asian
517,005
8.0%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
45,891
0.7%
Some other race
276,716
4.3%
Hispanic or Latino
Hispanic or Latino of Any Race
610,006
9.4%
Individuals from families who historically have not attended college at ―average‖ rates are more
likely to be the first in their families to go to college. Hispanics and Native Americans/Alaskan
Natives have lower college participation rates at both two-year and four-year institutions--far
below the statewide averages, as shown in Chart 1 below. For African-Americans, participation
in community and technical colleges is at the state-wide average, but considerably below the
average at public and private four-year institutions.
Chart 1: “College-Level” Participation Rates for 18-44 Year Olds by Race/Ethnicity, 2006-07, in 4-Year
Public Universities, Independent Colleges of Washington, and Community Technical Colleges (CTC)
NOTES:
• CTC enrollments are compared to the population with less than an associate degree. The higher CTC participation rate is
because the colleges serve more students and the divisor is smaller.
• Four-year enrollments are compared to the population with less than a bachelor's degree.
• Only college-level student enrollments are shown in the graph. We have excluded students in “less-than-college-level
programs, such as students in ABE/GED/ESL programs. Students who already have associate degrees or higher at the
start of college and dislocated workers are also excluded.
• Reflects duplicated counts for individuals reporting two-or-more races for both enrollees and the population. Enrollments
include in- state and out-of-state students, but exclude international students
13.5%
11.6%
10.5%
9.3%
6.2%
11.6%
12.2%
4.3%
7.5%
4.2%
2.6%
6.9%
Asian Pacific
Islander
CTCn = 15,790
4-Yn= 17,400
African
American
CTCn = 9,630
4-Yn =4,155
White
CTCn = 116,760
4-Yn= 99,803
American Indian/
Alaskan Natives
CTCn = 4,580
4-Yn= 2,343
Hispanic
CTCn = 14,230
4-Yn= 6,501
Statewide
CTCn = 178,390
4-Yn = 130,202
CTC- College-Level Only*
4-Year
Sources: State Board for Community and Technical Colleges’ data warehouse; 2006-07 Public Centralized Higher
Education Enrollment System (PCHEES) data for public four-year institutions; U.S. Dept. of Education IPEDS data for the
Independent Colleges of Washington; population data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2007 American Community Survey.
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 15
Potential college students tend to fall into three groups with very different needs:
1. recent high school graduates;
2. transfer students from community and technical colleges; and
3. working-age adults who have ―some college‖ but no degree.
4. Working-age adults who have never attended college.
We need to develop awareness about the benefits of college among all these groups, and
especially among those who are from first-generation, low- income families and under-
represented groups. Increased participation and success among these groups is essential to
achieve degree attainment goals. Additional college enrollments resulting from population
growth won‘t be high enough to bring about the increased educational attainment the state needs.
Adult learners are also a potential source of additional students and include: working adults, re-
entry students, and underprepared students.
The fact is that many students today are graduating from high school unprepared for college-
level work. In 2008, 35% of high school graduates failed to meet the minimum public four-year
college admissions standards in math, more than any other subject area.
Among the 2007 public high school graduates in their first year after graduation:
33 percent who enrolled in a college or university took at least one remedial course
(English or math, or both);
55 percent who enrolled at two-year college took at least one remedial course, and 10
percent at four-year colleges did so; and
more than twice as many graduates enrolled in remedial math as in remedial English.
8
Improvements in science and math readiness are critical to preparing more students to enter the
science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields needed in Washington. Today‘s
students are ill-prepared to succeed in college in these fields, however, without considerable
remedial work:
In 2008, 12 percent of high school graduates failed to meet the minimum public four-year
college admissions standards in science.
31 percent of high school graduates did not take a math course in their senior year of high
school, and 52 percent did not take a science class.
Only 55 percent of 2008 high school graduates met the new CORE 24 minimum
graduation requirements in science. 89 percent met the math requirement.
Among 2008 Washington high school seniors taking the SAT, 34 percent had not taken
pre-calculus/calculus, and 54 percent had not taken physics.
Projections also show that the diversity of Washington public high school graduates will increase
considerably, although the overall number of graduates will increase just slightly.
8
Sources: SESRC 2007 Graduate Follow-Up Study, Washington State Board of Education Transcript Study (2008).
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 16
Hispanic/Latino students will increase the most, but are less likely to continue directly to college.
To increase the overall number of high school graduates going directly to college, we must
increase the number of Hispanic/Latinos who continue to college. As depicted in Chart 2 below,
a sobering report by the Western Inter-State Commission on Higher Education (WICHE) warns
that although the diversity of the student body in the pipeline will increase, many may not go on
to higher education.
Chart 2: Projected Washington High School Graduates
9
9
Source: WICHE projections from Knock, Knock Who‟s There. Findings from WICHE‟s Projections of High
School Graduates by State and Race/Ethnicity. Caseload Forecast Council forecasts are HECB calculations of high
school graduates based on the Caseload Forecast Council‘s grade 12 case load forecasts.
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
Projected Washington Public High School Graduates
Academic Year
White Non-Hispanic
American Indian/ Alaskan Native
Hispanic
Black Non-Hispanic
Asian/Pacific Islander
WICHE PROJECTIONS
CASELOAD FORECAST
COUNCIL FORECAST
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 17
In addition to recent high school graduates, we also need to encourage adult learners to enroll in
college – for the first time or as returning students. Many are working, have family obligations
and may also face the additional hurdle of inadequate language skill. In 2008, adult learners
nationwide made up about 50 percent of the 18.3 million total higher education credit
enrollments – and 40 percent of these were undergraduates.
The majority were female, non-minority, employed and juggling work, home, school. They were
also self-financed. Adult learners across the country are getting older, too, with average ages in
the late 30s and early 40s. National data predict that there will be continuous growth in adult-
learner enrollments.
10
Working-age adults with no more than a high school education are a critical part of the pipeline
for increasing degree attainment. In Washington, 630,000 adults 24-44 have a high school
education or less. This group is eight times as large as the 2007 high school senior class. One in
five (136,000) are limited English speakers.
11
Often from lower income and socio-economic status, most need financial aid, but often start in
programs that don‘t qualify them for aid (ESL, for example). Some need improvement in basic
skills. Many need additional help to ensure they persist and complete degrees – help defining
educational goals and selecting the right institution.
We are fortunate in the U.S. to have many options for higher education and it is important that
we provide learners with optimal opportunities to succeed. Washington‘s educational ―pipeline‖
includes large numbers of students who should be encouraged to consider college. If just a
portion of potential students in each group continues, as shown in Table 3 below, we are well on
our way toward achieving the necessary increases in educational attainment levels.
Table 3: Target Groups of Potential Students
Potential Bachelor’s
Degree Graduates
2006-07
completers
(rounded)
% of completers who
do not continue to the
next level
Potential additional
students who may
continue
High school graduates*
65,300
43%
28,100
GED completers
16,600
61%
10,100
Private vocational school degrees
12,700
n/a**
**
Technical degrees
7,350
87%
6,400
Transfer associate degrees
12,500
29%
3,600
Total
114,450
48,200
*Total Graduates and estimated potential based on percentage of respondents who reported continuation to college.
**Continuation Data for Private Career School Graduates is not currently available.
Sources: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction 2007 Graduate Follow-up Study (SESRC); State Board for
Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC) GED testing data; SBCTC Completions Files.
10
Source: Aslanian, C. Adult Students: A Profile of Demand Among Classroom and Online Adult Students.
Aslanian Group. 2008. Accessed at http://www.aslaniangroup.com/resources/default.asp - May 20, 2009
11
State Board for Community and Technical Colleges calculation based on 2007 U.S. Census Bureau‘s American
Community Survey & the Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Public School 12 Grade
Enrollments, Oct 2007. SBCTC Research Report 06-4 www.sbctc.ctc.edu/docs/data/research_reports/resh_06-
4_socioeconstudy.pdf
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 18
Geographic and regional inequities in access to college
With low population density over large tracts of land and an exploding population in the Puget
Sound region, Washington offers complex challenges with respect to expanding access to higher
education. Mountains, waterways, and, in some areas, lack of highways make it difficult for
potential students to negotiate even relatively short distances. Population growth is occurring
rapidly in areas like Snohomish, Island, and Skagit counties, where the state lacks sufficient
higher education capacity. These regional iniquities are especially problematic for those seeking
bachelor‘s and advanced degrees.
Areas with the greatest population density tend to have higher levels of educational attainment,
as Table 4 below shows. King County and Seattle have relatively high levels of participation
and, correspondingly, high levels of bachelor‘s or advanced degree attainment (more than 50%
of those 25-34 have at least a bachelor‘s degree).
In Pierce County and in the South Sound-to-Coast, Southwest, and Central & Southeast regions,
less than a quarter of those 25-34 have bachelor‘s degrees. Even more problematic, in the Central
& Southeast region, nearly one in five of those aged 18-34 who are not enrolled in school have
less than a high school diploma.
12
One caution in viewing the participation rates in Table 4 is that these are regional—not county—
data. Disparities at the county level can therefore be under-stated. These regional data are the
most current data from the U.S. Census Bureau‘s American Community Survey. Unfortunately,
the same data are not available at the smaller county level.
Table 4: Baccalaureate and Community and Technical College
Undergraduate Participation Rates
13
and Enrollments by Region
Region
Baccalaureates
Community & Technical Colleges
Participation Rate
N
Participation Rate
N
Statewide
6.0%
108,961
11.2%
171,421
King County
8.3%
35.543
14.4%
51,231
Spokane & Northeast Region
7.1%
13,090
10.4%
16,143
Central & Southeast Region
5.7%
14,278
7.7%
16,852
South Sound to Coast Region
5.5%
6,549
11.0%
11,103
Northwest Region
5.2%
11,993
11.7%
22,794
Snohomish County
5.2%
10,246
11.2%
18,387
Pierce County
4.5%
11,057
10.9%
22,592
Southwest Region
3.8%
6,295
8.8%
12,319
Source: Population data is from the 2007 American Community Survey. Baccalaureate enrollments are from the Public
Centralized Higher Education E System database. The Independent Colleges of Washington data are from the U.S. Dept. of
Education, IPEDS database. Military data are from individual institutions. The community and technical college enrollment data
are from the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges data warehouse.
12
Education Research and Data Center (ERDC),
13
The populations used to calculate the participation rates are different for the four-year and two-year sectors. For
the four-year participation rates, the population is 18 to 44 year olds with less than a bachelor‘s degree. The two-
year participation rates include those ages 18 to 44 with less than an associate‘s degree.
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 19
Increasing knowledge and skills for tomorrow’s workers
Washington‘s economy relies on a well-educated and technically skilled workforce – a
workforce we have developed, in part, by importing specialized talent to the state. The state‘s
reliance on importing highly educated, highly skilled workers has been well-documented since
the 1990‘s,
14
and data from the 2005 American Community Survey suggest that trend has been
growing.
If we intend to expand our economy‘s innovation capacity and meet the need for highly educated
and skilled workers, we will have to take a different approach. The most direct way to confront
this challenge is to build capacity in high demand degree programs and leverage the research
capability of our research institutions.
As the current recession ends and world economic activity rekindles, educated and skilled
workers will be increasingly difficult to attract and retain – even to Washington‘s relatively
advanced, knowledge-driven economy. One 2005 research study shows that we import nearly as
many workers with bachelor‘s degrees as we produce – 92 for every 100 produced in state.
15
We
simply can‘t continue to do this.
Competition will be especially fierce for talent in research, scientific, medical and computer
science fields. But the need for highly educated workers will be distributed across a broad range
of occupations as well.
16
As previously reported, by 2016 our state is expected to fall 13 percent
short of meeting its mid-level workforce needs, 12 percent short of meeting its bachelor‘s degree
needs, and 33 percent short of meeting its advanced degree needs.
Declining levels of baccalaureate and graduate degree attainment will result in real losses for
Washington, and not just in talented workers for business and industry. In real terms, losses
include lower median annual household income, a greater percent of the population living in
poverty, a higher percent using state or federal welfare, fewer taxes paid to the state, greater
reliance on state human and social services, less research and innovation to fuel Washington‘s
economy.
14
Net Migration by State, Age-Group, and Degree-Level 1995-2000. National Center for Higher Education
Management Systems (NCHEMS). http://www.higheredinfo.org/.
15
Spaulding, R.S. (2007). ―Interstate migration: Washington‘s reliance on imported workers to meet employer‘s
human resource needs.‖ Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board. Olympia, Washington. P. 5.
16
Ibid, p. 3.
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 20
The Strengths We Build Upon
Despite the challenges we face in funding, access, and program emphasis, there is strong
evidence Washington continues to experience increasing demand for postsecondary education
opportunities.
Branch campuses and centers are growing rapidly and providing additional access to
residents throughout Washington. We know which areas are growing fastest, and we can
document where expansion in the higher education system is likely to be successful.
About 440,000 working adults in Washington have had “some college” and are a
likely target group to continue their education – if we can make going to college more
convenient.
The number of high school graduates will continue to grow until at least the year
2025.
An efficient system
Washington‘s higher education system is highly efficient. The sectors of higher education –
both two and four-year – rank at or near the top in national comparisons of degree productivity
relative to enrollments and funding per FTE.
Measuring Up 2008 reported that ―Washington performs extremely well in the percentage (80%)
of freshmen at four-year colleges and universities who return for their sophomore year‖ and that
―A fairly high percentage (54%) of first-year students at community colleges return for their
second year.‖
17
In comparisons among all 50 states, Washington’s public institutions rank:
♦ 1
st
in the nation in bachelor’s degrees awarded per 100 undergraduate students;
♦ 2
nd
in graduate degrees awarded per 100 graduate students;
♦ 5
th
in overall undergraduate degree and certificate awards per 100 public
undergraduate students;
♦ 3
rd
in the percent of freshman completing a bachelor’s degree within 150% of
normal time; and
♦ 12
th
in percentage of community and technical college students completing degree or
certificate program within 150 percent of normal time.
18
17
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2008). Measuring Up. The National Report Card of
Higher Education. Retrieved November 7, 2009 from
http://measuringup2008.highereducation.org/print/state_reports/long/WA.pdf
18
Sources: Education Research and Data Center, OFM, State of Washington. Also, Patrick J. Kelly (July 2009),
―The dreaded ‗P‘ word. An examination of productivity in public postsecondary education,‖ Delta Cost Project
White Paper Series. Retrieved November 10, 2009 from http://deltacostproject.org/resources/pdf/Kelly07-
09_WP.pdf.
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 21
Washington‘s public, four-year institutions have one of the nation‘s highest six-year
baccalaureate graduation rates, having increased that rate by almost nine points to over 70
percent during this decade. Our six public baccalaureate institutions produced more than 22,000
bachelors‘ degrees and 6,500 advanced degrees in 2007-08. About 3,200 of the bachelor‘s
degrees were in high demand fields.
Washington also has a strong independent college sector that contributes significantly to both
baccalaureate and master‘s degree production. The Independent Colleges of Washington (ICW)
is an association of 10 independent non-profit degree-granting universities and four-year liberal
arts-based colleges. There are other private institutions—baccalaureate institutions, proprietary
and career colleges—that are not part of the ICW group. The ICW accounts for 69 percent of the
bachelor‘s and graduate degrees awarded by private institutions in Washington. In 2008-09, the
ICW produced more than 6,000 bachelor‘s degrees and 2,900 advanced degrees. More than
1,700 of the bachelor‘s degrees were in STEM fields and the health sciences. This sector is also
concerned with efficiency and since 2000 has improved the four-year graduation rate by 11
percent.
Washington‘s public two- and four-year institutions have established performance measures to
track student progress and success in higher education and have helped develop performance
agreements to measure productivity. The SBCTC Student Achievement Initiative rewards
institutions for improvement, as will similar efforts being planned for the four-year sector.
WashingtonOnline
Throughout every sector of Washington‘s higher education system – public and private, two- and
four-year – eLearning continues to grow at all levels, expanding access for place-bound,
hard-to-reach, and working adults.
Improvements in e-learning affect not only direct instruction to students, but also related student
services, such as online advising and registration services that are so necessary to student
success. WashingtonOnline, a statewide eLearning program developed by the community and
technical college system, delivers more than 100 associate degree transfer courses through a
centralized program that provides 24/7 advising and instructional assistance.
Early College Programs
Washington institutions also benefit from the contributions of strong high school-to-college
programs. Robust dual credit programs, such as Running Start, College in the High School,
Advanced Placement, and International Baccalaureate programs expand early access to college.
These programs enrich high school and lower the time-to-degree for a number of students. In
Running Start alone, nearly 18,000 students are earning high school and college credit
simultaneously.
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 22
Research and Innovation
Graduate education and academic research is an essential component of Washington‘s economic
development strategy. College and university research and development expenditures, including
commercialization, approached $1 billion in FY 2007 and generated an additional $2.1 billion in
total sales and $200 million in state and local sales and B&O tax revenue.
The public research universities account for more than 98 percent of academic R&D
expenditures – 77 percent at the University of Washington (UW) and 21 percent at Washington
State University (WSU). UW and WSU have generated 227 licenses in the last year transferring
technology to the private sector. Public regional comprehensive universities and private
institutions also expended over $14 million in R&D in FY07, but do not have resources to
support technology transfer.
19
University research also creates jobs. In FY2007, university research and development
supported 16,000 jobs in the state‘s economy as shown in Table 5. For every 10 university
employees engaged in research, an additional 16 jobs were created elsewhere in the Washington
economy.
Table 5: The Economic Contributions of University Research and Development
Economic Impact
$1 Billion in Annual Academic
Research Expenditure
Total Employment (Direct and Indirect, 2009)
16,000 jobs
Direct Employment
6,000 jobs
Jobs Multiplier (Total Employment/Direct Employment)
2.62
Change in Total Earnings
$846 Million
Earnings Multiplier (Earnings from Total Employment
/Earnings from Direct Employment)
1.93
Change in Washington Total Sales
$2.1 Billion
Source: National Science Foundation (2008). Academic R & D Expenditures. Washington, D.C.
19
National Science Foundation. (2008). Academic R & D Expenditures. Washington, D.C.
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 23
Characteristics of the delivery system today
Overall, Washington‘s system of higher education has a small but comprehensive four-year
public university sector, a well-established and extensive community and technical college
system, an independent college and university sector that provides a quarter of the baccalaureate
and half of the master‘s degrees in the state, and a small but growing private, career sector that is
part of the Northwest Career Colleges Federation. Other private institutions – baccalaureate,
proprietary and career colleges – with varied missions exist outside of the systems above.
Institutions, Branches, Centers, and Sites
Unlike many states, Washington‘s research institutions shoulder a larger share of the
baccalaureate degree production load. The distribution of undergraduate enrollments among the
two- and four-year institutions gives the state‘s overall system the figure of an ‗hour glass‘ rather
than a pyramid. On the top the research institutions bulge outward; in the middle (at the
narrowest point) are the comprehensive institutions, and at the bottom, the community and
technical colleges again bulge outward. Washington‘s independent institutions in Washington
also serve substantial undergraduate and master‘s level enrollments.
Through its six main public four-year campuses, Washington provides a wide array of choice in
type of institution, ranging from the flagship research institution, the University of Washington,
to The Evergreen State College, one of the few U.S. public liberal arts four-year colleges with a
special focus on interdisciplinary programs.
Washington‘s two major research universities – the state‘s flagship university and its land-grant
university – award 35 percent of all undergraduate degrees. That percentage increases to 48
percent of all undergraduate degrees awarded among the six public institutions. Also among
public institutions only, regional-comprehensive universities award nearly 60 percent of all
teaching credentials at the undergraduate level and a quarter of all master‘s degrees. Table 6
below provides the FTE enrollments of Washington‘s public universities.
Five university branch campuses and 40 centers co-located on community and technical college
campuses provide additional access to baccalaureate and advanced degree programs. The UW
has branch campuses in Tacoma and Bothell; WSU has branches in Vancouver, the Tri-Cities
area and Spokane. More than 40 teaching centers also provide Washington residents with access
to higher education. All four-year public institutions—including branches and centers—produce
master‘s degrees. Branch campuses award master‘s degrees at about the same rate as the
research institutions, but do not provide doctoral or professional programs.
Public college and university degree production is growing most rapidly at centers, branch
campuses, and other off-campus locations. Centers and teaching sites also have grown rapidly
and awarded over 1,300 bachelor‘s degrees in 2005-06, up from less than 800 in 2001. The
University Centers are a small but fast-growing sector of higher education, just short of doubling
in enrollment over the last five years.
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 24
Eighteen of Washington‘s 39 counties have neither a public four-year institution nor a
community or technical college. Of these 18 counties, however, nine have a community
technical college center which provides access to four-year degree programs. The nine counties
with no higher education facilities of any kind – institutions, branches, centers, or sites – include
Adams, Columbia, Lincoln, Okanogan, and Pend Oreille in eastern Washington; Klickitat and
Skamania in the central part of the state; and Wahkiakum in western Washington.
The Independent Colleges of Washington (ICW) provide additional access to high-quality
baccalaureate, master‘s, and professional programs throughout the state, offering more than 175
programs at more than 25 sites, including military bases, community college campuses, and
business parks. ICW centers and sites provide additional access in seven counties that do not
have main ICW campuses, with four located in less populated central Washington. Five of these
institutions are located in the heavily populated Puget Sound region, providing higher education
opportunities to many Washingtonians
Table 6: Relative Size of Public Institutions, based on State-funded
Full-time Equivalent (FTE) Student Enrollment
Institution
Projected
Annual Average
2008-09 FTEs
2008-09
Budgeted FTEs
Percentage of
Total 2008-09
Budgeted FTEs
Public Four-Year Institutions
University of Washington
Seattle
35,341
34,067
14.5%
Bothell
1,920
2,045
0.9%
Tacoma
2,474
2,414
1.0%
Washington State University
Pullman/Spokane
20,198
19,272
8.2%
Tri-Cities
957
865
0.4%
Vancouver
2,161
2,113
0.9%
Central Washington University
9,027
9,322
4.0%
Eastern Washington University
9,317
9,184
3.9%
The Evergreen State College
4,484
4,213
1.8%
Western Washington University
12,401
12,175
5.2%
Total Four-Year FTE Enrollment
98,280
95,670
40.7%
Community and Technical College (CTC) System
CTC (excluding programs listed below)
NA
132,387
56.4%
CTC Worker Retraining Total
NA
6,200
2.6%
BAS/BSN Programs**
NA
160
0.1%
Total CTC FTE Enrollment
146,557
138,747
59.1%
Partnership Programs (in SBCTC budget
and FTEs reported by Baccalaureate Institutions)
291
490
0.2%
Total State-Funded FTE Enrollment
245,128
234,907
100.0%
**Baccalaureate programs (Bachelor of Applied Science, Bachelor of Science in Nursing) at Bellevue College,
Peninsula College, Olympic College, and South Seattle Community College.
Data Source: Washington Office of Financial Management, 2009 Budget Driver Report.
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 25
Together, the ten ICW institutions and the other private, independent colleges in Washington
award more than a quarter of the bachelor‘s degrees and almost half of the masters and
professional degrees. Twenty-one independent institutions that are not part of the ICW group
report information to the U.S. Department of Education, Integrated Postsecondary Education
Data System, and were included where possible in this System Design Plan analyses.
Well-distributed across the state, the 34 community and technical colleges provide transfer
education, workforce preparation, applied bachelor‘s degrees and basic skills. Two out of every
five bachelor‘s degree recipients (41 percent) transfer from a community or technical college. In
AY 2008-09, the system transferred 16,000 students to public baccalaureate institutions
The system also retrains 15,000 workers annually for a changing economy and provides literacy
and basic skills to those who do not complete high school and to immigrants. Nineteen percent –
nearly one in five – of two-year college students take at least one remedial class, with many
older, returning students included in this group.
20
Twenty-four of the two-year institutions host baccalaureate and graduate degree programs on
their campuses through partnerships with public and private universities. And recently, seven
community and technical colleges received approval to pilot eight applied bachelor‘s degrees
(B.A.S.) in selected fields:
Bachelor of Applied Arts in Interior Design – Bellevue College
Bachelor of Applied Science in Applied Behavioral Science – Seattle Central Community
College
Bachelor of Applied Science in Applied Management – Columbia Basin College
Bachelor of Applied Science in Applied Management – Peninsula College
Bachelor of Applied Science in Hospitality Management – South Seattle Community College
Bachelor of Applied Science in Radiation and Imaging Sciences – Bellevue College
Bachelor of Science in Nursing – Olympic College
Bachelor of Technology in Applied Design – Lake Washington Technical College
Bachelor of Applied Science in Hospitality Management - South Seattle Community College
Washington‘s private career colleges comprise a small, but fast-growing, portion of the higher
education system that provide baccalaureate degrees especially attuned for adult learners and
using technology as part of its delivery mechanism.
20
Washington Community and Technical Colleges. (2005). ―The Remediation Challenge.‖ Olympia, Washington.
Retrieved November 8, 2009 from http://www.sbctc.ctc.edu/docs/legislative/2005/remediation_jan2005.pdf
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 26
Regional Analysis: Reaching Increased Degree Attainment Goals
Regional differences in access represent one of the most formidable challenges in increasing
degree attainment. Washington will need about 8,000 bachelor‘s and 8,000 advanced degrees,
over and above what population growth will contribute, by 2030 to reach master plan goals. An
additional 5,000 CTC certificates and degrees also will be needed.
In all but three regions of the state--Northwest, King County, and Central and Southeast--
institutions‘ stated capacity is far less than the level needed to meet undergraduate education
goals. Additionally, growth plans at the 10 ICW institutions will provide less than half of the
total growth needed in the private sector to meet master plan goals.
The green bars in Chart 3 below show how many more degrees institutions located in the
identified regions think they can produce if resources are available to fuel their expansion plans.
The stacked blue bars represent level of growth needed to achieve the master plan goal of a 40
percent increase annual degree attainment.
The deep blue (bottom) portion of the stacked bar shows how many degrees population growth
might produce. Above it, the medium blue portion shows degrees that could be gained by
improving regional participation rates. And the top portion shows the additional degrees needed
to meet master plan goals.
Chart 3: Regional Capacity Available to Increase Undergraduate Degree Production
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 27
At the graduate level, the needs are even greater. The greatest need will be in King and
Snohomish Counties. Institutions‘ planned growth, however, is insufficient to meet goals in
all but two regions – the Southwest region and the Central and Southeast region, as shown in
Chart 4 below.
Chart 4: Regional Capacity Available to Increase Graduate Degree Production
Summary
Master plan degree production targets exceed the current capacity of the entire system.
We need to use all existing capacity at main campuses, branches, and centers.
A mechanism is needed to engage the independent colleges more fully in planning and
delivery of higher education (through expanded e-learning opportunities, for example).
Even building out the existing system to full capacity won‘t enable the state to achieve
a 40 percent annual increase in degree production.
We need a statewide plan that encourages institutions to reach their existing planned
capacity while also fostering innovative ways to expand educational attainment levels.
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 28
Key elements of the proposed recommendations
The System Design Plan offers a strategic framework for expanding Washington‘s higher
education system over the next two decades and beyond. It establishes a set of principles to
guide progress toward the central vision of increased degree production set forth in the 2008
Strategic Master Plan for Higher Education and it also aligns well with the 2009 Obama
Administration‘s aggressive goal of raising the nation‘s educational attainment levels 60 percent.
As the global economy rebounds, the need for a skilled and educated workforce and citizenry
will become even more critical to our future than it has been. The System Design Plan will help
Washington higher education institutions make full use of their existing capacity to meet current
demand while creating a new, more flexible and responsive system to produce even greater
numbers of graduates as we move further into the 21
st
century.
The plan‘s recommendations were developed over seven months of meetings with the System
Design work group, with state partner agencies, and with presidents and provosts of the public
universities and several of the independent colleges.
The plan encompasses four key elements:
1. A set of guiding principles on which to base future growth decisions.
2. A near-term strategy to grow enrollment without major capital investment.
3. A longer term growth management strategy consisting of twin processes—one locally
initiated and the other state-initiated—to spur needed growth, from either the bottom up
or the top down.
4. A new Fund for Innovation based on competitive grants to foster innovation, pilot
programs, and collaboration.
To meet state workforce needs and master plan goals, many more students must participate and
succeed in postsecondary education than are currently doing so. The System Design Plan offers
specific recommendations on how to achieve this goal.
Invest in effective outreach programs to improve the motivation and preparation of K-12
students and young working-age adults to participate in postsecondary education.
Make strategic use of existing capacity at the branch campuses, centers and
comprehensive institutions to broaden the geographic availability of baccalaureate
education.
Apply an ―expand on demand‖ philosophy to proposals for new construction by funding
such proposals only when it has been demonstrated that a critical number of students in a
region are prepared and motivated to enroll in college.
Focus investment in expanded doctoral and high-cost graduate education at the main
campuses of UW and WSU. Over time, shift the mix of undergraduate and graduate
education at selected institutions so that graduate education also increases.
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 29
Guiding Principles for System Expansion and Optimization
Seven principles provide a framework to help gain maximum degree production capacity from
the current higher education system while also providing a way to facilitate new expansion.
1. The interests and needs of current and future students should be one of the primary
considerations in deciding whether and how to expand or revise higher education services.
2. Investments in higher education should advance the state‘s economic vitality, innovation,
and job growth, including meeting the high demand needs of the state.
3. Washington should restore and further invest in its higher education system to preserve and
build upon its excellence and productivity and optimize opportunities for future
generations.
4. Major new investments in expansion to meet the HECB Strategic Master Plan degree goals
should first leverage existing missions, institutions, partnerships, collaborations, and
educational delivery models.
5. Washington should place an early emphasis on policies that will raise educational
attainment in underserved populations and underserved regions of the state.
6. Incentives for innovation in outreach, access and completion, and alternative program
delivery should be developed.
7. Washington should invest in online and hybrid instructional delivery to transform higher
education so that it is better positioned to meet changing technological, cultural and
economic forces, improve the efficiency and quality of higher education, and provide
greater access for all students, particularly those place-bound and geographically isolated.
Enrollment Growth Strategies for the Near Term
Expanded pathways to the baccalaureate
The System Design Plan calls for expanding degree production on two fronts: through
existing capacity that does not require new capital investment and through future expansion
that does. In the near-term, educational pathways should be expanded to reach even more
potential students.
Target groups include under-educated and under-represented students graduating from high
school, those transferring from community colleges, and adult learners who may or may not
be working, and who may or may not have been enrolled in college before.
There are proven ways to reach these target groups. In helping develop the Strategic Master
Plan, the Pipeline, Policy and Demographics Work Group recommended the following areas
of research and analysis:
developing a better understanding of the demographics of the under-educated;
examining the policies and practices most likely to help them enter and succeed in
postsecondary education; and
creating a coherent set of recommendations to reverse the trends that continue to leave
so many behind.
21
21
HECB (November 2008). Policy and Demographic Analysis Work Group Draft Report and Recommendations. Olympia, WA.
Retrieved November 8, 2009 from www.hecb.wa.gov/boardmtgs/documents/TAB1B.PolicyandDemographicReport-final.pdf
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 30
For High School Graduates
The work group also recommended strategies to encourage preparation, participation and
success among under-educated and under-represented high school graduates that included:
Creating a ―college-going culture‖ in which students are expected to continue
with college or career preparation right after high school.
Developing early outreach partnerships between schools and colleges, beginning
in elementary school and involving families.
Using ―promise scholarships,‖ such as Washington‘s College Bound Scholarship,
to encourage low- -income students and their families to start planning for college
as early as middle school.
Offering academic and career planning courses to middle and high school
students to help them learn to navigate the educational system and to plan for a
career.
Expanding existing outreach programs that are proven effective (GEAR-UP,
College Bound, drop-out prevention, dual credit, Navigation 101, and mentoring
programs like ―Compass 2 College.‖
Encouraging mentoring programs, especially those that use college students as
mentors to K-12 students.
Encouraging innovative and collaborative efforts to encourage students to
consider all options for college.
Among new entrants to higher education, encouraging those who are more
academically prepared, – especially low-income students – to enter baccalaureate
institutions directly from high school.
Increasing participation in dual credit programs in which students can earn
college credit while still in high school.
Providing culturally relevant preparation for college so students learn to ―walk in
two worlds.‖
Asking universities to explore the best options for pre-enrollment and orientation
of graduating high school students to help them successfully transition to college.
Offering the proven support ―triad‖ of mentoring, tutoring and social support to
first-generation college students.
Increasing utilization of independent non-profit colleges, through increased
freshman, transfer, and graduate students.
Providing information on debt-avoidance strategies to low-income families and
students who fear debt.
Increasing P-6 efforts that link colleges and schools to promote highly qualified,
well-prepared teachers
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 31
For Working-age Adults
About 440,000 working age adults between 25-44 in Washington have had ―some college,‖ –
from a few courses to more than three years. Others have never enrolled in college, but as
they have matured and become employees, spouses and parents, they have decided that they
need further education to reach new career or personal goals.
Competing demands of family and work often make it difficult for adults to participate, just
as do language barriers, negative past experiences in school, and learning disabilities. The
following strategies have proven successful in expanding re-entry programs for working-age
adults:
I-Best and other re-entry programs that integrate academic, English language, and
job skills so that students see the connections between academic and professional
worlds.
Flexible scheduling, such as evening and weekend classes, and convenient class
locations near work or home.
Online and hybrid courses and online advising and student services, such as
registration
Employer partnerships, such as the Lifelong Learning Accounts (LiLAs) being
piloted by the WETCB, in which both employers and employees contribute to
funds for further employee postsecondary education
Financial aid for part-time students, such as Opportunity Grants.
Outreach to encourage students who leave before completing their degree
programs to return and complete them.
Sequencing portions of curricula into one or more certificate programs that
articulate with associate and/or baccalaureate degrees so that students who stop
out to work can return later and complete their degrees
Interventionist strategies that identify struggling students early on and provide
advising and support.
Credit for prior learning through portfolios assessments and other ways to
demonstrate competence.
Child care services at class locations—whether on- or off-campus.
For Those Transferring from Community Colleges
Transfer students seeking baccalaureate degrees can benefit from many of the strategies
listed above, such as mentoring and social support services. However, there are several
additional important transfer-specific strategies that deserve mention.
Preserve CTC transfer opportunities at the baccalaureate institutions.
Encourage more transfer students to enroll in independent colleges and
universities through transfer-friendly policies.
Develop financial aid programs to encourage transfer students to continue to the
baccalaureate institutions.
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 32
Expanded baccalaureate capacity
Near-term efforts to prepare more K-12 graduates, community and technical college transfer
students, and adult learners to participate and succeed in postsecondary education, will
require additional programs and facilities.
The main campuses, the branch campuses and the university centers all will need to operate
at maximum capacity to ensure we can meet the increased demand for bachelor‘s degrees.
Strategies to accomplish this include:
Growing the Vancouver, Tacoma, Bothell and Tri-Cities branch campuses to their
planned capacity levels and focusing on expanding program diversity.
Expanding transfer and freshman capacity at the comprehensive universities, TESC, the
branch campuses university centers, and community and technical colleges.
Providing additional service in under-served regions (for example Kitsap, Clallam,
Snohomish, Pierce) by rapid expansion of program diversity at existing university centers
and sites.
Providing additional access for hard-to-reach and place-bound populations through online
programs and course offerings
Expanding applied baccalaureate degrees at universities, university centers and
community and technical colleges, through the following process:
SBCTC and HECB collaboratively develop a statewide assessment of need for
additional applied baccalaureate degrees.
HECB and SBCTC develop a process to determine institutional interest in offering
applied baccalaureates among two- and four-year institutions.
For applied baccalaureate degrees, SBCTC and HECB approve programs for CTC
offerings. The HECB approves programs from public four-year institutions.
Applied baccalaureate degrees
Another way in which Washington can increase baccalaureate degree production is through
awarding a relatively new type of degree – the applied baccalaureate degree (B.A.S.). These
are degrees specifically designed for individuals who hold an associate of applied science
degree, or its equivalent, in order to maximize application of their technical course credits
toward the baccalaureate degree.
In Washington, several institutions offer such degrees including public and private
baccalaureates institutions and seven community and technical colleges that have been
approved to offer eight applied baccalaureate degrees, under a pilot program established by
the Legislature in 2005.
The System Design Plan recommendations include the expansion of applied baccalaureates
based upon the principle of ―expand on demand.‖ The Plan‘s recommendations would move
applied baccalaureate degrees from pilot status to regular program status, following normal
SBCTC and HECB processes. The SBCTC and HECB will collaboratively develop a
statewide assessment of the need for additional degrees, as well as a process to determine
institutional interest in offering applied baccalaureates among two- and four-year institutions.
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 33
The process for approving applied baccalaureates would follow both SBCTC and HECB
approval processes. For applied baccalaureate degrees, SBCTC and HECB would approve
programs for CTC offerings, with the HECB approving programs from public four-year
institutions. Both University Centers and CTC B.A.S. degrees provide baccalaureate degrees
located on community and technical college campuses. Both should be eligible for capital if
they meet the FTE threshold.
To implement the System Design Plan recommendations regarding baccalaureate degrees,
the legislation for the Plan will need to include changing the status of applied baccalaureate
degrees from pilot to regular programs and spelling out the processes for approval of new
B.A.S. programs described above.
Expanded graduate capacity
Washington has fallen substantially behind most other states in the production of advanced
degrees, especially those in high demand fields. Only by sharply increasing the number of
graduate degrees being conferred in these fields can the state hope to develop the research,
innovation and creativity it needs for its current and future economy.
The projected need for annual advanced degree production is now just as large as the annual
need for undergraduate degrees – an estimated 8,000 a year more than any enrollment
increases driven by population growth alone.
Careful planning is needed to increase graduate degree production. Washington‘s Research I
institutions – the UW and WSU – educate nearly 90 percent of the state‘s doctoral students.
At the same time, they educate about a third of the state‘s undergraduate students. The best
way to increase graduate degree production is to focus on growing graduate programs at the
main campuses of the research institutions so that over time the enrollment mix shifts toward
a higher percentage of graduate students.
This does not imply that the number of undergraduates will not grow at these institutions.
Rather, the number of graduate students needs to grow more rapidly, which will gradually
result in a greater proportion of graduate students at the research institutions.*
Strategies to expand graduate capacity in Washington include:
providing more state support for high cost graduate and doctoral programs at the main
campuses of UW and WSU to leverage research and commercialization activity;
incorporating statewide economic needs assessment to target graduate programs for
expansion;
identifying 2030 goals for undergraduate/graduate enrollment mix at the University of
Washington and Washington State University;
expanding graduate education at comprehensives and branch campuses; and
providing financial aid and support for students pursuing graduate education.
*revised 1/11/2010
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 34
Growing the System for the Longer Term
Rules for Expansion (New Sites or New Missions)
Although the near-term strategies outlined above can help our system manage existing demand
and build new levels of participation, they will not be sufficient to meet our longer-term needs.
Even after we reach full capacity at existing campuses, branches, and centers, we will still need
to grow more. This kind of growth will require new capital investments.
If past recessions are an indicator, Washington will emerge from the current downturn faster than
many other states, largely because of its robust international trade relations, particularly with
Pacific Rim countries. And this will mean accelerated demand for seats at our college and
universities driven by the need for a more educated and skilled workforce.
This will occur at the same time we beginning to experience additional demand from a newly
prepared and motivated base of students from under-represented groups. As noted, additional
enrollment beyond the level of that provided by population growth and natural increases in
aspiration will be needed to reach new levels of degree production, and the brunt of this must
come from those who have been under-represented in higher education.
Expand on Demand
To meet this new level of demand, the System Design Plan proposes a new growth management
policy: expand on demand. This simply means the state can no longer afford to build facilities in
the hope that students will show up; it should build them only when there is evidence they are
showing up.
Expansion to new sites or new missions requiring substantial new capital expenditures would be
predicated on the concept that capacity should follow demand. In other words, institutional
growth requiring new capital expenditures would be approved by the HECB and Legislature only
after a set of external criteria had been met.
The Expand on Demand illustration on the next page shows how the process would work and
categorizes institutional types and characteristics, including costs to replicate capacity at new
sites. Under this process, a proposal to create or expand to a branch campus, a comprehensive
university or a research university requiring significant new state capital expenditure would need
approval from the HECB, based on enrollment thresholds and other criteria, then forwarded to
the Legislature for its consideration.
Other, less expensive expansion projects, such as growing university centers in leased facilities
and developing new teaching sites, would be accomplished through regular budget and program
approval processes.
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 35
Twin Review and Approval Processes for Major Expansion
System-initiated
Proposals for major expansion would be subject to a new review process by the state and
HECB. This process can be locally driven or HECB-initiated. A diagram of how this would
occur is on page 40.
In a locally-driven proposal, the institution(s) and/or the community would identify an
under-served area or populations or high demand program areas to be targeted for
expansion and submit a proposal to the HECB documenting the ability to ―expand on
demand‖ and the scope of the project. The HECB would evaluate the proposal and make
a recommendation to the Legislature.
These proposals would be evaluated using the Guiding Principles for the System Design Plan
listed in this report and criteria such as:
The specific scope of the project (e.g. large vs. smaller capital investment needs, number
of FTE and programs)
Sustainable financial plan
Response to the state‘s and regional economic/workforce needs
Extent to which existing resources are leveraged
Near-term goals: current FTE to support the proposed programs/institutions/innovations,
and 5-year projections
Long-term goals: plans to accommodate expected growth over the next 20 years
Extent to which new or existing partnerships and collaborations are part of the proposals
Feasibility of any proposed innovations (3-year programs, joint use, technology,
alternative calendar, etc.) to speed up degree production
HECB-initiated
A second path for major higher education expansion would be a competitive RFP process
initiated by the HECB. The HECB would identify under-served areas or populations or high
demand program areas and release an RFP to the higher education system. Proposals would
be evaluated using the same process as that in the locally-driven approach, with the HECB
again making its recommendation to the Legislature for approval.
In both paths—HECB-initiated or locally-driven—the proposals must respond to state and
regional economic development and workforce and innovation needs. But the process also
includes a way to prompt innovation and new thinking in delivering higher education through
a new ―Fund for Innovation‖ to support proposals that respond to the HECB‘s Master Plan
priorities.
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 36
Fund for Innovation
The Fund for Innovation is a critical part of the system Design Plan and would provide
incentives to further drive improvement and innovation in higher education by allowing our
public and independent institutions to test innovative and alternative ideas designed to help meet
Strategic Master Plan goals.
Administered by the HECB, the fund would seek to leverage federal dollars such as those
available through FIPSE and other grant programs, as well as some state dollars. This new
process for competitive grants would be open to all public and private institutions to foster
innovation, pilot programs, collaboration, and systemwide productivity. The Fund for
Innovation is a key component to foster the kind of change in the core academic enterprise that
can help raise educational attainment rates.
The fund would reward institutions for achieving specific outcomes such as:
Access and completion initiatives targeted to underrepresented population groups.
Partnerships among institutions, foundations and K-12 school districts to increase the
number of college-ready high school graduates who transition directly to college.
Expansion of hybrid and online courses, open courseware, and other uses of
technology and online services to improve educational outcomes.
Accelerated programs and alternative scheduling, such as three-year baccalaureate
degrees.
A Final Consideration
Continuing the conversation on higher education funding
Many worthy policy objectives have been sacrificed in unplanned responses to the boom-and-
bust cycle that characterizes higher education finance in Washington. A more stable and
predictable higher education finance system is needed if the state is to continue to play a central
role in providing higher education for its citizens.
Our higher education finance system should:
Allow students at an early age to plan with confidence for their college educations.
Encourage student choice among the state‘s public and private colleges.
Insulate students‘ access to quality and diverse educational opportunities from the
financial vagaries of the state‘s revenue base.
Strike an appropriate level of shared financial responsibility from available funding
sources, including tuition paid by students and their families, financial aid and state
appropriations.
Monitor and fund higher education to support system performance and sustainability.
Adopt a state-level strategy for investing in productivity enhancement.
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 37
At its November 19, 2009 meeting, the HECB recommended conducting a more comprehensive
education funding study as the next critical step in the implementation of the 2008 Strategic
Maser Plan for Higher Education (Board Resolution 09-29).
To achieve the targeted 40 percent annual increase in degree production called for in the 2008
Strategic Master Plan, higher education needs to grow efficiently and strategically. It can do
this only if it is given a reliable and predictable source of state funding.
The System Design Plan is an important first step in this challenge. It recommends strategies to
address both near- and longer-term expansion of degree production in Washington. It builds
upon current capacity, while encouraging innovation and accountability. It also makes a strong
commitment to serving under-served citizens and regions. And it provides a realistic growth
management strategy that builds toward new investment when economic conditions improve.
Today, raising educational attainment isn‘t optional. It is a requirement of our changing global
economy. A strong, resilient, innovative, and inclusive public higher education system is one of
the best investments we can make to ensure the future success of our state and its citizens.
T h e S Y S T E M D E S I G N P L A N
A S t a t e w i d e P l a n f o r M o v i n g t h e B l u e A r r o w | 38
The SYSTEM DESIGN PLAN
A Statewide Plan for Moving the Blue Arrow
Attachment A
The SYSTEM DESIGN PLAN
A Statewide Plan for Moving the Blue Arrow
Attachment B
