Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Report:
Renewing the University of Wisconsin System:
Creating the Capacity to Manage and Compete
By Thomas L. Fletemeyer
UWS System Structure. The UWS encompasses widely divergent
institutions that differ profoundly in terms of mission, scale, funding,
staff recruitment markets, and student profiles. A 2001 report from the
Wisconsin Policy Research Institute authored by James H. Miller and Frank
Cipriani, in the context of an analysis of the benefits of making
UW-Madison a charter university, persuasively argued the unique nature and
critical importance of UW-Madison to the state of Wisconsin.[i]
For a comprehensive discussion of the factors that set Madison apart from
the other UW institutions, see their article. Only
the Madison campus has a national stature both in terms of undergraduate
and graduate education. On measures of educational quality, it is ranked
34th among all universities and 7th among public universities. The
UW-Madison, with its 36,100 full-time equivalent students represents 26%
of the entire UWS and has almost twice as many students as the next
largest campus. Madison confers almost half of the graduate and advanced
degrees in the System and 90% of the doctoral degrees (UW-Milwaukee is the
only other campus offering doctoral degrees). Madison attracts 65% of all
nonresident undergraduates in the UWS. The campus with the next largest
nonresident enrollment, UW-Milwaukee, has 5%. Madison accounts for 83% of
all nonresident graduate students compared with 7.8% for Milwaukee. On
a number of indicators, the Madison campus is among the top research
universities in the world. Madison’s $49.9 million in revenues from
licensing and patent activity ranked 5th in the nation in Fiscal Year
2005. Its $325.9 million in charitable contributions received in 2006
ranked 10th in the nation. No other campus generates any amounts that are
significant in comparison. Its projected 2006 federal grants and contracts
of $527.3 million are almost four times as much as the next highest amount
for a UW campus. Madison ranks among the top six public research
universities in the United States. Madison is 7th nationally among all
institutions in the number of doctorates granted. UW-Milwaukee ranks
163rd. The
Madison campus accounts for 93% of research funding in the UWS and
generates more than two-thirds of outside funding. Over 90% of Madison’s
research funding of $857.2 million is generated from outside sources. The
research budget is nineteen times larger than the next largest research
budget in the UW System. From these data, it is clear than the Madison
campus is the primary focus for generating the external funding and
conducting the research that can be driving forces behind Wisconsin’s
economic future. The
Madison campus competes with the other top national universities for
faculty and leadership. Its peer group for faculty compensation includes
top national universities: the other Big Ten universities, UC-Berkeley, UC-Los
Angeles, and the University of Washington. Milwaukee’s peer group
includes a number of urban-based institutions. The other UW campuses have
state regional peers. The
issue then, is whether the performance of the Madison campus is enhanced
in the current UW System. While a single UW System serves other purposes,
it does not appear to be the best structure within which to advance the
missions of the UW-Madison. Further, the presence of UW-Madison within a
single system could be said to “overwhelm” the other institutions so
that their missions and interests are also not well-served. The
Miller and Cipriani argument for charter status for UW-Madison continues
to be a valid approach to address the situation in which the UW System
governance structure is not well-suited for an institution with the
distinct nature of the Madison campus and is a hindrance to maintaining
the national and international stature of the institution. This would be
even more the case were collective bargaining to be authorized for the UWS
as proposed in Governor Doyle’s biennial budget. It is unlikely that
UW-Madison faculty would opt for collective bargaining. It is likely that
the faculty at most, if not all of the other institutions, would choose
collective bargaining. The result would be a situation where the
non-unionized faculty at Madison would be included within a system where
most of the other faculty would be unionized. There
are compelling potential benefits from establishing a separate governing
board for UW-Madison. It
is important to note that these benefits would be jeopardized to the
extent that the current overlapping governance rights of the UW-System’s
internal constituencies were continued for the Madison campus.
Continuation of a governance system characterized by overlapping
authorities, where leadership is discouraged and focused action virtually
precluded, would not be consistent with the purpose of providing a
separate board for Madison: to allow the campus the flexibility to more
effectively compete among the other national research universities.
Clearly faculty governance should continue in the areas where it is
customary in institutions of higher education and where it is a necessity
for academic freedom and creativity. Commentators
have often remarked on the unchanging nature of the fundamentals of
university operation. About seventy-five
institutions in the Western world established by 1520 still exist in
recognizable forms, with similar functions and unbroken histories,
including the Catholic church; the Parliaments of the Isle of Man, of
Iceland, and of Great Britain; the governance structures of several Swiss
cantons; the Bank of Sienna; and some sixty-one universities. . . . [T]he sixty-one
universities, however, are mostly still in the same locations with some of
the same buildings, with professors and students doing much the same
things, and with governance carried on in much the same ways. . . . [T]he
eternal themes of teaching, scholarship and service, in one combination or
another, continue.[ii] The UWS is quite
successful. Two common sayings come to mind: “How can one argue with
success?” “If it’s not broke, don’t try to fix it.” These
slogans for complacency may well pertain to critical areas of the UWS. For
example, research is largely funded by non-state sources. By all
indicators, UW-Madison is managing the research area quite well. Another
area concerns that aspect of faculty governance related to the content of
academic programs. No one would argue that role of the faculty in
determining course content or the content of programs of study should be
compromised. There are many other such areas where the benefits of seeking
change are clearly limited. Other areas remain, however. The primary source of
funding to maintain the relevancy of UWS programs and to meet changing
needs will be reallocations of funding within the UWS budget. This is
actually the case today where most curriculum changes initiated at the
academic department level are funded in this way. Generating funding for
institutional and state-level needs will require greater attention to:
systematic, comprehensive planning; fostering efficiency; monitoring
faculty workloads; and potentially reallocating funding among
institutions. The current system was
created out of the former University of Wisconsin System which consisted
of the Madison, Milwaukee, Green Bay, and Parkside campuses together with
ten freshman-sophomore centers; and, the Wisconsin State University System
which included nine universities and four freshman-sophomore campuses.
Many of the goals which led to merger have been realized, in part or in
full, and, in some periods of time: program duplication and proliferation
have been reduced; common management systems are in place; a degree of
specialization among campuses has been achieved; salary disparities have
been addressed; budget challenges have been met through System actions. Major questions that can
be raised today are: The state and the UWS are
living in an environment that is very different from that of the 1970s
when the current governing structures of the UWS were established. The
world has moved on, but the state and the UWS have not fully adapted to
what is likely to be the reality of at least the immediate future. In 2005, the Board of
Regents passed a resolution supporting UW System President Kevin
Reilly’s call for a bi-partisan state commission to address fundamental
questions about what the people of Wisconsin want their public university
to be, and to do. The University itself, in President Reilly’s call for
a commission and in its “Charting” paper acknowledging the interaction
between self-help, state-help, and joint efforts, has identified the major
elements necessary to move forward: internal reform plus greater
management flexibility for the UWS. What is called for is
nothing less than a renewal of the “social contract” between the
University of Wisconsin and the state’s citizens. To achieve this, it is
necessary to conduct a comprehensive review of the structure and internal
operations of the UW System and its relationship to state government such
as has not occurred since merger. The review should: •
Legislature, UW System Not
On Same Page; Working Relationships Are At A Low Point As Sides Tug Over
Purse Strings and Principles. Megan Twohey, Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel, September 25, 2005. . . . [T]o get a taste of how
bad the relationship is between the Legislature and the University of
Wisconsin System, Listen to Dale Schultz, Jim Doyle and John Wiley: “There is a lot of
tension,” acknowledged Schultz (R-Richland Center), majority leader of
the Senate. “The relationship is very
poor,” conceded Doyle, the state’s Democratic Governor. “I’ve been on the faculty
for 30 years and in administration for 20 of those, and I don’t remember
a time when it was worse than it is now’” said Wiley, Chancellor of
UW-Madison. Legislators have
pounded the University of Wisconsin this summer for one example after
another of what they consider reckless spending: $700 car stipends given
to administrators, paid leaves guaranteed to those who relinquish
management positions, backup jobs handed out to seemingly everyone.
University leaders have lashed out at legislators for not giving
them as much money as they want, saying the cuts jeopardize the system
of higher education in Wisconsin and slam the door on students from low
income families. •
UW-Whitewater Is Faulted in
Audit: It Says The University Failed To Notice A Dean Was Breaking Its
Rules. Ryan J. Foley, Associated Press, Wisconsin State Journal,
December 6, 2005. UW-Whitewater
failed to monitor the spending of a dean who improperly used $50,000 on
a academic group he founded and took trips that may not have been in the
university’s interested, according to an audit released Monday. •
UW-Whitewater Wants Credit
Charges Back: The Demoted Dean Says Audit Is A “Witch Hunt.” Dee
J. Hall, Wisconsin State Journal,
October 11, 2006. A demoted
UW-Whitewater dean is being asked to reimburse the university $113,600
for questionable charges on his state procurement credit card, according
to a letter released Tuesday. •
Lawsuit Details Allegations
Against Ex-Whitewater Dean. Ryan J. Foley, Associated Press, January
27, 2007. Escalating a legal battle
between University of Wisconsin-Whitewater and a former dean, state
lawyers have filed a lawsuit to try to recapture money they say the dean
spent for personal uses. The countersuit against Lee
Jones seeks to recoup at least $10,000 he spent during his one year as
dean of graduate studies and continuing education. It comes in response to
a federal lawsuit Jones filed last month alleging he was driven from
campus because he is black. The university removed Jones
as dean in 2005 after an audit accused him of financial mismanagement. He
left his position as a professor at the university last year. As part of their suit, state
lawyers representing the university made public its previously secret
investigation that alleged Jones improperly spent school money on
computers, furniture, travel and his personal consulting business. Jones' lawyer denied the
allegations and said that if his client had stolen the money, the
university was irresponsible for waiting so long to try to get it back. "If they sincerely
believed that he did the things they are now alleging, why in the world
would they wait until he filed suit to take action?" asked Jones'
lawyer, Robert Kasieta. The school's legal troubles
may continue to grow. Kasieta said a second black UW-Whitewater dean, also
demoted after an audit found he broke spending rules, is preparing to file
a similar racial discrimination complaint. Kasieta said he also would
represent Howard Ross, who still works as a professor at UW-Whitewater, a
school of 10,500 students 45 miles southeast of Madison. [M]eanwhile,
Kasieta said Ross would file a complaint with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission in the coming days. Ross was fired as dean after
an audit said he broke spending rules over a six-year period in which he
racked up $310,000 on credit cards. He has denied wrongdoing. •
UW Urged To Dump Payroll
System: After 5 Years, Program Still Unusable. Aaron Nathans, The
Capital Times, November 4, 2005. University of
Wisconsin information technology managers are urging the UW System to
dump a payroll software system that already has cost the university $25
million. •
UW System Halts New Payroll
System. Wisconsin State Journal,
May 4, 2006. The University of
Wisconsin System has stopped implementing new payroll software that cost
$26 million in tax and tuition funds, the system’s executive vice
President says. •
Assessments Show UW Payroll
Woes. Associated Press, The
Capital Times, July 29, 2006. Poor leadership, a
lack of planning and bureaucratic infighting plagued University of
Wisconsin System’s failed project to install a new payroll management
system, according to critiques by private consultants. •
UW Keeps Regents In Dark
About Snafu. Ryan J. Foley, Associated Press, The
Capital Times, March 3, 2007. University of Wisconsin
System leaders never informed the Board of Regents about a troubled $28.4
million software project until they canceled it last year, a report
released Friday shows. The regents did not receive a
single update on problems with the system to track payroll and benefits
information, the report said, despite warnings the project was in danger
as far back as 2004. Some campus officials doubted it would ever work even
earlier. . . . The report said
the actual cost of the project was $28.4 million, or $2.1 million higher
than officials have stated previously. The previous figure did not
include salaries and benefits of UW employees transferred to work on the
project, it said. . . . •
UW Reacts To Stiff Dose Of
Discontent in Survey. Karen Rivedal, Wisconsin
State Journal, February 25, 2006. . . . [H]oward Cosgrove of
Wood Communications on Friday said his company decided to do the poll
because business interests believe that the System is one of the state’s
most important economic engines. But
it also needs more support from the public, Cosgrove said, to be as
successful as it could be. . . . 69 percent of Wisconsin
residents: Agreed that System “campuses have more administrators than
they need.” 50 percent: Agreed that
system “campuses pay their faculty too much.” 62 percent: Agreed that
System campuses provide health benefits to faculty and academic staff that
are “more expensive and generous than the rest of us get.” 59 percent: Agreed that
System “campuses don’t think they have to watch their dollars like the
rest of us.” 72 percent: Agreed that
System “campuses spend too much money on things they don’t need
instead of concentrating on educating students.” 74 percent: Agreed they
couldn’t afford to send their child to a System campus without financial
aid. 60 percent: Agreed the value
of a System education compared to the cost is good or excellent. 79 percent: Agreed the System
is doing an excellent job of providing a good education. 19 percent: Agreed they
cannot afford to give their children a System education at all. 65 percent: Agreed the System
could manage itself more effectively to overcome budget cuts. 80 percent of
System graduates: Believe they received a good or excellent education. •
Audit Finds 40 Felons In UW
Employ: The Audit Reported The System Was Unaware Of Many Of The Felons,
27 Of Whom Were at UW-Madison. Ryan J. Foley, Associated Press, Wisconsin
State Journal, March 1, 2006. The University of
Wisconsin System employed 40 felons this fall, including two who
committed homicides in the 1970s and four child sex offenders, according
to an audit released Tuesday. •
New UW Rules Would Speed Up
Firing of Felons. Ryan J. Foley, Associated Press, The
Capital Times, February 9, 2006. University of Wisconsin
System Professors convicted of felonies could be immediately suspended
without pay under proposed rules meant to quickly remove criminals from
the system’s payroll. . . . Under
current policy, UW schools do not fire professors based on felony
convictions alone and instead conduct separate investigations to
determine whether the offenses were employment-related. The employees
then can appeal all the way to the regents and collect pay in the
meantime. •
UW Felon Still Working On
Campus. Madison Channel 27 News, September 19, 2005. 27 News has uncovered
UW-Madison literature professor Lewis Cohen, a convicted sex offender,
works on campus as part of a state work release program and has access to
student records. "To give this person,
who's been convicted of a serious crime against children, access to
student records, simply doesn't make sense," Rep. Scott Suder
(R-Abbotsford) told 27 News. "This
offender should not be on campus," said Rep. Samantha Kerkman
(R-Burlington). •
UW Staffer Has Theft
Conviction: List Shows 40 Felons On System Payroll As Of Last Fall.
Ryan J. Foley, Associated Press, Wisconsin
State Journal, March 6, 2006. A UW-Madison employee who has
handled donations, grants and credit card transactions was convicted last
year on charges she embezzled more than $30,000 from a previous employer,
court records show. The Legislative Audit Bureau
identified Jennifer K. Joas, a financial specialist in the university's
agronomy department, as one of 40 felons on the UW System payroll as of
last fall in a list obtained by The Associated Press. . . . The audit
recommended that the UW System conduct background checks on candidates
for positions in which employees have access to financial information or
cash. UW-Madison told auditors they conduct checks on some employees
with financial responsibilities. •
A Faculty Committee Has Been
Swamped After Three Professors Were Fired After Committing Felonies.
Karen Rivedal, Wisconsin State
Journal, December 11, 2005. Internal appeals of firing
decisions are nearly finished for two of the three UW-Madison professors
convicted of felonies in recent months, while the process for the
third—jailed stalker Steven Clark—is just getting under way,
university officials confirmed last week. UW-Madison's administration
had moved to fire all three by mid-September, but they remain officially
employed pending internal appeals, an option they are entitled to under
state and university rules. One of the three, registered
sex offender Lewis K. Cohen, is still drawing his $73,000 salary; the
committee expects to make a decision in his case by early January. "We made a very serious
effort to try to do all three cases in this semester," said professor
James Donnelly, who leads the nine-member appeals committee that hears
faculty disciplinary cases. "But we just couldn't find enough
time." In Clark's case,
an appeal request has been made to the committee, Donnelly said, but no
hearings have yet been set. •
UW Probe Uncovers Fraudulent
Research. Professor Resigned in March After Questions Were Raised.
David Wahlberg, Wisconsin State
Journal, June 1, 2006. A UW-Madison
genetics professor who resigned this year fabricated data in three grant
applications—misconduct unearthed by graduate students whose careers
suffered in the process—says a university investigative report
released Wednesday. •
UW Fertility Clinic Doctors
Can’t Get Along. David Wahlberg, Wisconsin
State Journal, March 31, 2006. Escalating tensions among the
three doctors at the UW fertility clinics, including charges of sexual
harassment and poor care, led to the announcement last week that the
clinic will close by June a university official said Thursday. . . . The
university can’t simply dismiss one or more of the doctors because a
full investigation is required before such disciplinary action, he said.
So the Medical Foundation Board voted late last month to stop pursuing
the new clinic. •
Fertility Clinic Closing
Stirs Furor: Patients Worry About Break in Care; UW Decision Firm.
Anita Weier, The Capital Times,
March 17, 2006. University Hospital’s
decision to close its fertility clinic on June 30 has produced a furor
among the clinic’s current and former patients. The hospital has
received about 100 phone calls and e-mails in response to its
announcement last week. Many opposed and some supported the decision,
but most were worried about what to do since their care would be
interrupted. •
Lawton, Falk Pushed Shift On
Fertility Clinic. David Callendar, The
Capital Times, April 7, 2006. In a little more than a week,
a hastily assembled coalition of state and local officials, women’s
health advocates and consumers convinced UW Hospital officials to reverse
their decision to close the hospital’s fertility clinic. The players
included Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk, Lt. Gov. Barbara Lawton,
Dane County’s legislative delegation, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin,
The Wisconsin Alliance for Women’s Health and numerous current and
former patients of the facility. •
UW Student Affairs Chief Is
Stepping Down. Karen Rivedal, Wisconsin State Journal, November 5, 2004. A top leader at UW-Madison is
stepping down to deal with personal issues, university officials said
Thursday. Paul Barrows, vice
chancellor for students affairs since 1999 and a university employee for
the past 15 years, will take a leave for an undetermined amount of time,
Chancellor John Wiley said. It
will be a paid leave covered by accrued sick time and vacation. •
Barrows Tries to Rebut
Allegations. Aaron Nathans, The Capital Times, April 11, 2006. Former top University of
Wisconsin-Madison Administrator Paul Barrows today sought to rebut
allegations that he was a womanizer, calling witnesses as part of an
appeals process. Former Provost
Peter Spear, who was at the hearing, last year decided to keep Barrows
in a lower-paying backup position after affirming an investigators’
conclusion that he had sexually harassed two women.
Barrow’s attorney, Lester Pines, today called people Barrows
had worked with to counter those allegations. •
Barrows Case Shows UW Flaws:
‘System Should be Overhauled.’ Aaron Nathans, The
Capital Times, May 9, 2006. The Paul Barrrows case has
exposed problems with how the University of Wisconsin handles disciplinary
matters, several educators and state leaders say. An appeals committee on
Monday slammed the UW-Madison for its handling of sexual harassment and
sick leave abuse allegations against the former vice chancellor for
student affairs. James Klauser, who was a
member of the Board of Regents, until 2003, said in an interview today
that the Barrows case has turned into an “imbroglio” that shows the
university has no competent system for handling charges of misconduct. Klauser said he has seen
numerous personnel matters that end up in an endless spiral of confusion. “By handling
these issues the way they’re handling them, poorly, they’re
discrediting the university,” Klauser said. “There’s so much more
to the university than these issues. They should be handled promptly and
resolved. They drag on forever. The system should be overhauled and
defined. •
Wisconsin Instructor’s
9/11 Conspiracy Theories Ill-Serve Students. The Anti-Defamation
League, Press Release, Chicago, IL, October 11, 2006. University of Wisconsin
instructor Kevin Barrett’s use of 9/11 conspiracy theories and choice of
a textbook that equates President George W. Bush with Adolf Hitler and
bashes Israel raise serious questions bout whether he has crossed the line
into political advocacy, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) said today. “While we
respect academic freedom, ADL is deeply concerned that the students in
Barrett’s class are receiving a taxpayer-funded indoctrination into
the instructor’s personal political views that the U.S. government
perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, that America is equivalent to Nazi Germany
and that Israel is a racist state,” said Lonnie Nasatir, Regional
Director of ADL’s Upper Midwest office and a University of Wisconsin
alumnus. “Students who
have signed up for a class purportedly about Islam are being ill-served
by this content, which has little to do with that great religion.” •
Green, Nass Renew Call to UW
to Fire 9/11 Conspiracy Professor: Upcoming Talk is Impetus. The
Capital Times, September 27, 2006. A Republican
lawmaker and a gubernatorial candidate renewed their call Tuesday for
the University of Wisconsin-Madison to fire a part-time instructor who
believes the U.S. Government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. •
Lecturer Says Taxes Go to
Kill U.S. Troops. Megan Twohey, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, November 11, 2006. “Your tax dollars are
paying for the killing of American soldiers in Iraq. The CIA is paying for
resistance in Iraq.” So closed Kevin
Barrett’s fourth and final lecture on the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks on the United States delivered as part of his course on Islam at
the University of Wisconsin-Madison. •
UW Faculty Not Taking Sick
Leave. Ryan J. Foley, Associated Press, Wisconsin
State Journal, October 14, 2006. University of Wisconsin
Faculty members report far fewer sick days than other state employees and
as a result earn hundreds of thousands of dollars more for health
insurance when they retire, according to an audit released Friday. . . . The disparity results
in a lucrative retirement benefit: UW faculty who retired last year
converted an average of $222,000 worth of unused sick leave into health
insurance credits—three times as much as the average state employee, the
audit said. The audit also
raised questions about whether faculty are accurately reporting vacation
time, excessive use of high-paid consultants, and backup jobs guaranteed
to hundreds of administrators. •
UW Curriculum Constantly
Evolving, Adjusting: No Harvard-like Overhaul Expected. Anita Weier, The
Capital Times, December 23, 2006. Harvard University is
considering revising its curriculum to make it "more relevant"
to the real world, but University of Wisconsin-Madison Provost Pat Farrell
said no major changes are planned for the UW, which evaluates courses all
the time. "The whole notion of
assessing everything we do in as many ways as we can, learning from those
assessments, and changing curriculum as needed to achieve the goals we
seek for ourselves and our students, is ongoing," Farrell said. But curriculum change usually
comes from departments, instead of taking a campus-wide approach. "We expect departments
and programs are always looking at the impact of what they do. We also are
looking on a campus-wide level at how what we do impacts what students
learn and what they are prepared to do when they leave." A student survey is done via
the Internet every other year, in which students comment on their
perception of the quality of the education they are receiving. They are
also asked whether needed courses are available, if faculty is accessible,
what is the quality level of teaching assistants, is the campus
environment safe and welcoming, and whether discrimination is an issue. Officials also look carefully
at grades. "This is done on a
program basis," Farrell said. "To the extent that grades are an
accurate indicator of learning, they are going to see whether grades have
changed substantially and are there things students seem to be
missing." For instance, he said, if
students who are expected to do well in math are not doing so, it would be
time to explore whether they are not as qualified as thought, if they are
not working hard enough or whether math instruction is not adequate. "Overall, we look at
large-scale things like graduation rates and times until graduation,"
Farrell said. "That is a good indicator of whether students can get
courses they want and the majors they wish to get into. It is also a
fairly loose indicator of student success. That is not largely an issue;
the quality of students we get is terrific." . . . Generally,
however, individual departments decide their degree requirements and
change what is required when needed. State-Help-Needed
Recommendations As
noted, the Board of Regents and the Governor have identified access to
higher education for all Wisconsin residents as a priority for the 2007-09
biennial budget. The Governor also prioritized the need to attract more
federal dollars. The University of Wisconsin System has been, and will
continue to be, a key player in meeting these goals. The GPR/Fee operating
budget request focuses on Access, Growth and Affordability, with a
particular emphasis on helping to grow the Wisconsin economy through
expanded research and technology transfer initiatives. One
of the cornerstones of the Growth Agenda is improving affordability
through the Wisconsin Covenant. The Board is committed to increasing
access to the UW System for low income students. The Wisconsin Covenant,
while not included in the UW System’s biennial budget request, is a top
priority for the Board of Regents. The Governor announced the Wisconsin
Covenant in his State of the State address in January, 2006. It would
provide funding for tuition and fees for Wisconsin students who pledge to
maintain good grades and demonstrate good citizenship. The Wisconsin
Covenant has been listed as a top state priority for the 2007-09 biennium
and is expected to be introduced as a Governor’s initiative this Fall. The
Wisconsin Covenant would provide funding for students attending a UW
System, Wisconsin Technical College System or Wisconsin Association of
Independent Colleges and Universities (WAICU) institution. The UW System
Board of Regents passed a resolution in support of the Wisconsin Covenant
in June, 2006 and, at its August, 2006 meeting, will consider a resolution
in support of a Hold Harmless Tuition Grant proposal that would serve as
the foundation for the Wisconsin Covenant. The Hold Harmless Tuition Grant
proposal would cover funding for tuition and fees as a last grant during
the 2007-09 biennium, and allow the state to begin setting aside resources
for the full Wisconsin Covenant program under which the first cohort of
students would enter college in the 2011-12 fiscal year. Affordability
for low to middle income families is expected to be maintained through
increased funding for the Wisconsin Higher Education Grant for UW Students
(WHEG-UW), which is statutorily required to increase by the same
percentage as tuition increases for UW institutions and through increased
tax credits included in the 2005-07 biennial budget. The Wisconsin
Covenant is also expected to include mechanisms to improve affordability
for all Wisconsin families with demonstrated financial need. To
further improve affordability, the Governor and the Board of Regents have
indicated their commitment to keeping tuition increases as a part of their
2007-09 biennial budget request at rates no higher than the rate of
inflation. The Consumer Price Index for 2005 (the last full year recorded)
increased 3.1%. In accordance with the Governor’s request, and the
Board’s own concerns about affordability, the recommended request for
the UW System includes revenue increases that would raise tuition by 3.0%
in 2007-08 and 1.96% in 2008-09, for an average increase of less than 2.5%
for the biennium. The
initiatives included in the 2007-09 Biennial Budget request would allow
the UW System to grow enrollments by 2,025 full-time equivalent students,
to address statewide needs for more teachers in high-demand areas like
math and science, and to increase the number of nurse educators in the
state to meet Wisconsin’s need for nursing professionals. The
initiatives target adult non-traditional students, who are more likely to
remain in the state following graduation, using directions outlined by the
Committee on Baccalaureate Expansion (COBE). The UW Colleges and
UW-Extension, in particular, seek to increase adult student participation
by developing seven (7) additional accessible degrees a year, including
online courses, and working collaboratively with UW System four-year
institutions. In addition, UW System institutions have worked, and will
continue to work, collaboratively with the Wisconsin Technical College
System to improve transfer opportunities.
In 2005-06 alone, UW-Madison established three new transfer
contracts with WTCS institutions, and UW-Stevens Point created a new
collaborative agreement as well. During
the 2005-07 and 2007-09 biennia, the UW System plans to increase outreach
to veterans and certain dependents of veterans. That outreach will include
informing veterans about benefits available to them through the
Veterans’ Tuition Grants, which allow Wisconsin veterans to attend UW
and WTCS institutions while paying only half of the cost of tuition and
fees in the 2005-07 biennium, up to 128 credits. In 2007-09, Wisconsin
veterans will not need to pay any tuition or fees for up to 128 credits
within either system. Spouses and dependents of veterans who died or
suffered a 30% disability are eligible to attend without paying tuition
and fees in the current (2005-07) biennium.
These benefits were generously provided by the Legislature and the
Governor to recognize the sacrifice that Wisconsin veterans and their
families have made to ensure the safety of all Wisconsin residents.
The Higher Educational Aids Board is expected to request funding to
support the Veterans’ Tuition Grant for both UW System and WTCS
institutions. A resolution in support of the Veterans’ Tuition Grant is
expected to be acted upon at the August, 2006 Board of Regents meeting. The
budget request includes initiatives that would address the need to
increase retention and graduation rates at four UW System institutions:
UW-Parkside, UW-River Falls, UW-Superior and UW-Whitewater. These
initiatives would improve productivity through the use of best practices
and increase the number of baccalaureate degrees in the state without
increasing the number of students enrolled on the campuses.These
productivity increases would build upon previous gains in the UW System.
The UW System was recently ranked by the National Center for Higher
Education Management (NCHEMS) as fourth most productive nationally in the
public research sector (UW-Madison and UW-Milwaukee) and fifth most
productive nationally in the public comprehensive sector (the eleven
four-year UW Comprehensive Universities) relative to resources. The
UW System has also demonstrated its productivity by increasing student
enrollment by 3,182 students over the past 6 years while absorbing base
budget reductions of $225 million and reducing state funded positions by
1,020 full-time equivalent positions. The UW System is committed to
searching for ways to improve productivity.
However, to maintain the quality of a UW degree, further increases
in enrollment need to be matched with increases in state resources. The
final component of the UW System’s budget request seeks to increase the
university’s research capacity. The
“Powering Southeastern Wisconsin’s Knowledge Economy” initiative
addresses business needs in the seven-county area surrounding Milwaukee,
and expands the Research Growth Initiative to permit UW-Milwaukee to
compete more successfully for federal and other extramural funds. It also
enhances the level of graduate and undergraduate education, research
support and training at the UW’s second largest public research
institution. The request also seeks to increase NanoSTEM capacity in the
Chippewa Valley (UW-Eau Claire and UW-Stout working in cooperation with
the Chippewa Valley Technical College), and to match funding provided by
WiSys to increase funding for Applied Research. Statutory
Language Changes (Section B, Page B-27) include proposals that would
enable the UW to use resources more efficiently, streamline procedures,
eliminate costly duplication, and make technical corrections. With these
increased efficiency measures, the UW System would be better equipped to
manage resources effectively in an era of limited state resources. [i] Miller, James H. and
Cipriani, Frank, “Chartering the University of Wisconsin-Madison,”
Wisconsin Public Policy Research
Institute Report November 2001, Vol. 14, Number 8. [ii] Kerr, Clark, in
association with Gade, Marian L., and Kawaoka, Maureen., Higher Education
Cannot Escape History: Issues for the Twenty-First Century. State
University of New York Press, 1994, pp 44-45. [iii] Articles are selective
and are excerpted and; therefore, may provide only partial information
on any particular topic. Readers
should refer to the full text and range of stories on any topic.
SUMMARY AND
CONCLUSIONS
ATTACHMENT I -
PRESS ITEMS [iii]
ATTACHMENT II
- CHARTING A NEW COURSE FOR THE UW SYSTEM - RECOMMENDATIONS
Self-Help
Recommendations
Joint Efforts
Recommendations
ATTACHMENT
III -
GROWTH AGENDA FOR THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
Wisconsin
Covenant
Tuition and
Financial Aid
Meeting State
Needs
Veterans
Student
Success
Building
Research Capacity
Statutory
Language Changes
<---Previous Page (1...2)