A study released Wednesday by the University of Alaska recommended the state's sprawling higher education system not move from three separately accredited universities to a single accreditation at this time.
Overhauling UA's accreditation model would likely not improve educational quality or result in significant cost savings. Instead, it would likely add more layers of bureaucracy and limit local control, according to the report prepared by Dana Thomas, a former UA vice president of academic affairs and research and incoming University of Alaska Fairbanks interim chancellor.
In May, University President Jim Johnsen said a single accreditation should be studied as a way to save money, in part by reducing the number of top administrators. The move to save money developed urgency in the face of the state's $3.2 billion budget deficit.
The report won't be the last word on the proposal — the UA Board of Regents will continue to discuss the issue in September.
A single accreditation would merge the Anchorage, Fairbanks and Southeast campuses of the university into a single academic unit, even if the campuses themselves still existed, each, perhaps, with its own speciality. But specialized campuses may happen anyway under another university initiative designed to increase efficiencies and lower costs: Strategic Pathways.
Thomas was contracted for $16,000 to complete the study on single accreditation, selected because of his long association with UA and his knowledge of the accreditation process, said Robbie Graham, UA associate vice president of public affairs and federal relations. Thomas has served as UAF's vice provost and accreditation liaison officer, as well as an institutional accreditation evaluator for the regional accrediting agency, Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities.
Johnsen commissioned the study in April after the regents and state lawmakers asked him to examine the university's accreditation model. The Legislature passed an operating budget this year that included intent language that UA report back with "a specific plan for consolidation." (Currently the three branches each has its own accreditation).
Johnsen said in May single accreditation could potentially lead to benefits including greater flexibility, fewer administrators and lower operating costs. However, Thomas's study found there was little evidence to suggest a merger would produce significant savings and would likely result in more layers of bureaucracy, creating both campus-level and systemwide evaluations for processes like promotions.
The study said merging the universities would also lead to a single, diluted mission. It would be disruptive and take at least two years to complete. It would probably not result in less competition between campuses. A vast majority of administrators and staff interviewed did not support the merger, according to the study.
Orion Lawler, UAF faculty senate president, said in an interview Wednesday some faculty had expressed concern a single accreditation was a large, complex change UA should not make a quick decision about. He said university accreditation was much more of a broad, overall administrative function he felt "a bit alienated from." And he was more worried about department-level accreditation, which he has more of a hand in.
Lawler said he felt Johnsen had been clear the UA system had to figure out how to handle dwindling state funding. That larger question was on people's minds.
"The overall question of, 'How do we deal with the new budget reality,' is something that people are definitely concerned about," he said.
Thomas's study did find several positive results of single accreditation, including that with one mission, leaders would be working to achieve common objectives. There was also the possibility of more shared instruction because courses and programs would be aligned across campuses. The merger would also serve as momentum for change.
"A decision to pursue single accreditation would be a clear statement that business as usual is not acceptable; change is coming and old approaches and differences will likely be swept way," the study said.
The study concluded UA should not pursue single accreditation and could instead use performance-based budgeting, leadership incentives and accountability or initiative funding to address university performance measures. The study also said UA should allow Johnsen's Strategic Pathways process run its course, as the initiative to reduce redundancy across the UA system could result in consolidations and is designed to result in cost savings.
"Single accreditation could be reevaluated after the full impacts of Strategic Pathways are realized," the study said. "Meanwhile, UA could work on a more common positive student experience by, for example, adopting and implementing a common course catalog, a single transcript, and more consistent policies and procedures across all of its campuses. Many of these elements would be required under single accreditation so steps could be taken toward that end without merging the institutions."
A prepared statement from the university Wednesday said the study will be part of the information reviewed by Johnson and the regents as they decide on whether or not to pursue single accreditation. The regents are scheduled to discuss accreditation and the study at their September meeting.
Read the full report here.