Memorandum from Vicky Carwein, UW Tacoma Chancellor, to Norman J. Rose, TCAC Chair, and Debra Friedman, Associate Vice Provost for Academic Planning, Regarding Enrollment Planning (June 19, 2000).

UW Home > Discover UW > Strategies and Initiatives

TCAC

July 2000 Report Index

Index to Appendices

TCAC July 2000 Report to the Provost--Appendix H

Memorandum from Vicky Carwein, UW Tacoma Chancellor, to Norman J. Rose, TCAC Chair, and Debra Friedman, Associate Vice Provost for Academic Planning, Regarding Enrollment Planning (June 19, 2000).

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, TACOMA

June 19, 2000
TO:	Norm Rose, Chair, TCAC Debra Friedman
FROM:	Vicky Carwein, Chancellor
RE:	Enrollment Planning

As a result of ongoing discussion by UWT faculty and administrators (three of whom are members of the Provost's TCAC) I would like to share comments and raise questions related to current work and proposals around enrollment planning. I am somewhat confused and worry that there is a bit of disconnect in communications and proposals between at least two groups (TCAC which Norm chairs and the Start-Up group which Debra chairs). At UWT we have been discussing two enrollment planning proposals, the "float plan" and the "three point plan". It is my understanding both plans originated in TCAC and one plan, the float plan, has been presented by Debra to several groups on campus and the Board of Regents as the strategy for requesting new enrollments. In an effort to summarize thinking to date about future enrollment planning at UWT I offer the following:

A major concern for us remains, "what happens in the event of an enrollment shortfall"? This question is unanswered by the float proposal. Because of the many challenges related to new program start up of which we all are acutely aware, removing funding from our budget because of enrollment shortfalls would do serious damage to these new initiatives. For example, given our current target, if UWT is only 2% short (98% of target) we will lose approximately $220,000 in state funding. Any enrollment planning/legislative strategy MUST include some mechanism that allows flexibility in "meeting target" and must not include punishments and penalties for missing the mark by a few percentage points.
While it has been indicated the "details" of the float plan for enrollment increases will be worked out later, I would like to validate our assumptions regarding the plan and offer comment.

Assumptions

The UW will continue to request of the legislature a specified number of FTE's for each campus, plus a specified number of FTE's as a float pool.
UWT and UWB will have first claim on the FTE's in the float pool.
The float FTE's allocated to UWT and UWB will be funded at the Tacoma and Bothell upper division or graduate rate.
Any float FTE's allocated to UWT or UWB will be permanent allocations.
Float FTE's will not be used to finance start-up.

I am concerned that some are of the impression that the float plan will relieve the pressure on individual campuses to meet their respective targets and that a shortfall will easily be absorbed by the system, most likely the Seattle campus. Obviously, it is not the case that the campuses will be under less pressure or held less accountable for meeting their enrollment targets and I hope we can make this clear. The potential relief I see from the float plan is that the individual campus request could be kept intentionally low in an effort to "guarantee" making target. Float FTE's would then be used to make up the difference between what we are "sure" we can do and what we "think" we can do.

Questions:

Who decides the distribution of the float pool?
At what point in time (e.g., before or after 10th day) will the float FTE's be released to Bothell and Tacoma?

I am unclear as to where the TCAC discussions and proposal stand. Our TCAC representatives have kept our faculty and administration informed of the committee's work. I think it is fair to say many at UWT support the proposal currently under consideration, particularly the point that effectively establishes a 5% range of flexibility for meeting targets. Again, a non-punitive mechanism to assure flexibility in meeting target remains our most pressing and important concern.

I am most supportive and committed to an enrollment planning strategy that is in the best interest of and serves all three of our campuses. I commend all who have worked so hard in developing these ideas. However, I remain concerned about the specifics; i.e., how the proposals will actually work. In our view, details need to be worked out now if we are to have a clear understanding of how the ideas will be operationalized. Many important questions remain unanswered.

Thank you.

TCAC July 2000 Report Index Index to Appendices