Download
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
February 28, 2012 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
February 28, 2012

February 28, 2012

122 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

February 28, 2012

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Louisiana Board of Regents February 28, 2012

  2. COMMITTEE MEETINGS • Planning, Research & Performance • Academic & Student Affairs • Legislative • Sponsored Programs • Personnel

  3. Planning, Research and Performance Committee Victor Stelly, Chair Joe Wiley, Vice Chair Maurice Durbin William Fenstermaker Chris Gorman Roy O. Martin III Harold Stokes Larry Tremblay

  4. Agenda Item III. Achieving a Comprehensive Public University in Shreveport-Bossier: Analysis of Alternative Strategies

  5. A Comprehensive Public Institution in Shreveport-Bossier:Analysis of Alternative StrategiesPresentation of ReportFebruary 2012

  6. Chapter 1—Introduction

  7. The Study • How can a more comprehensive public university come about in Shreveport-Bossier (S-B)? • A long-sought goal • This time, consider wider range of possible solutions • Objectives • Develop new analysis of unmet needs • Identify and describe alternative models • Use hard data, interviews, and experience to assess models • Develop conclusions and recommendations

  8. The Sponsors • Sponsors • Committee of 100 • The Community Foundation of North Louisiana • Shreveport-Bossier Imperative for Higher Education (Chamber of Commerce) • Louisiana Board of Regents • Unusual shared effort of local community and Board of Regents

  9. MethodologyData and Interviews • Data • Economic, demographic, higher education—Louisiana, region, S-B • Models / examples—national higher education data • Interviews • LSUS and LA Tech and LSUHSC-S • Other higher education institutions in S-B and CERT • UL and LSU Systems—presidents, senior staff, and Board members • BoR—Commissioner, senior staff and Board members • Governance Commission representatives • Leaders of local sponsor organizations • Business and community leadership groups (open sessions) • Office of the Governor—staff • Review / Discussion Meeting (Jan 12, 2012)

  10. The ClientThe Geography • The Client • The people—present and future—of the metro area and region • Agreed that EKA could not represent interests of any specific institution, system, or organization • The Geography • Most direct focus on S-B • Then also Ruston, Northwest Louisiana region, and State

  11. Chapter 2—The Shreveport-Bossier Metro Area

  12. Metropolitan Statistical AreaPopulation • Shreveport-Bossier Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) = Bossier, Caddo, and DeSoto Parishes • Population of S-B MSA = 400,000 • The Consolidated Statistical Area (CSA) adds Minden and Webster Parish—adds another 70,000 • 8.8% of state population and 12% of urban population

  13. Racial Demographics • Higher percentage of African-Americans than in New Orleans and in the State overall • And, differences between Shreveport & Bossier City • City of Shreveport is 54.7% black—now the majority • Bossier City is 25.6% black • Important implications re: unmet higher education needs

  14. Industries by Numbers Employed • Biggest: • Health care • Government • Education • Next: • Retail • Entertainment • Manufacturing

  15. Economic Development Strategies(As compiled by EKA—Not Official) S-B Industry Sector Targets Reasonable Alignment with Louisiana Blue Ocean Targets Advanced Manufacturing Agribusiness Clean-Tech Digital Media and Software Energy Entertainment Specialty Health Care Water Management • Health Care (Regional Center and Specialty Health Care) • Biomedical/Biosciences • Gaming and Tourism • Military Base/Defense-Related • Film-Making and Digital Media/ Entertainment • Other/General Information Technologies • Energy/Gas Productionand Management • Advanced Manufacturing • Distribution/Logistics

  16. Conclusion:Future of S-B is Being Shaped Some Shreveport-Bossier Metro Area Rankings #1 ”Best Place to Raise a Family in Louisiana” (Forbes, 2009) #3 “Best City in Nation for Independent Filmmaking” (MovieMaker magazine, 2010) #4 “National Economic Development: (Site Selection magazine, 2011) #7 “Best Cities for Jobs” among mid-sized metropolitan areas (Forbes, 2011) #19 “Best Place to Raise a Family in the Nation” (Forbes, 2009) #20 “Top 25 Best Cities for Recent Graduates” (The Daily Beast, 2011) http://www.cyberinnovationcenter.org/ community/area-rankings/ • Continue focus on target industries • Bear down on growing competitive assets for the target industries • Grow the population • Increase talent and skill level of the population—Innovation Capacity

  17. Chapter 3—Higher Education Contexts

  18. Higher Education ContextsLouisiana • Very active higher education environment at present, e.g.: • Four years of fiscal limitations and budget cuts • PERC Commission • GRAD Act • BoR New Master Plan to 2025 (Attainment, Research, Accountability) • Governance Commission • Recent Transfer of UNO from LSU to UL • Other Mandated Studies, e.g. Two-Year College Needs • Employment Outcomes (of higher education)—new use of workforce data • Flagship Coalition/agenda and LSU work on potential reorganization and collaboration • Big focus on pre-K to 12 • Very similar activity in many other states at present

  19. Higher Education ContextsShreveport-Bossier Operating programs in S-B LA Tech (programs at Barksdale and T2C) NSU (Nursing) UL-M (clinical Pharmacy) Louisiana College (planned Law School) University of Phoenix (Bossier City) Wiley College (BS-Bus Admin) Last 3 are especially interesting—others see unserved markets in S-B • Domiciled in S-B • LSU Health Sciences Center-S • LSU-Shreveport • Centenary College • BPCC • SUSLA • NwLTC • In the region • Grambling • Louisiana Tech • Northwestern State • Univ of LA-Monroe • CERT

  20. LSU in Shreveport • Good traditional program array; not large number • Stable enrollments—many years • Growing transfer population • Several niches of strength (listed in report) • Several interesting accomplishments • Attractive campus (underutilized) Average = 4,295 and growth of 20% in period of 31 years LSU-Shreveport

  21. LSU-Shreveport’s Concerns • Letters of intent approved; awaiting post-moratorium proposal submissions • EdD in Education Leadership (consortium) • PhD in Bioinformatics (with LSUHSC-S and LA Tech) • Recent proposal / approved • MS in Biology (approved in January 2012) • Proposed change in Role/Scope/Mission not approved • Local community support—not generating response in Baton Rouge • Effects of Regents’ program approval moratoria • New program list developed • Good mix of bachelor’s, master’s, and applied doctoral programs

  22. ConclusionsHigher Education Contexts—Louisiana • Providing contexts for S-B solutions: • Crossfire of opinions—higher education’s role in economic development • 2-year vs. 4-year and beyond • Fiscal constraints—certainly now; maybe forever • Admissions standards, accountability, efficiency = all good things • Current initiatives, e.g. Governance Commission and LSU flagship agenda or reorganization All change is hard… …and higher education is particularly change-averse… …but traditional ways of doing things are unsustainable—if we are to educate many more people to higher levels

  23. Conclusions:Higher Education Contexts—Shreveport-Bossier • Need to consider: Northwest / North Louisiana vs. metro area • Not the same; requires more refined considerations of program duplication • Dichotomy: Above average track record in collaboration • CERT • 2+2 • Social Innovation Grant (workforce collaboration; only 5 awarded in US) • BUT—fierce competition for S-B urban market enrollments • LSU-Shreveport—has not grown as one would expect/hope it would • Strained relationships • Significant local 2-year institution capacity • No residential students (housing prohibited in early years; then not pursued) • Program opportunities not pursued • Weak branding and marketing/recruitment (Airport example) • Very effective competition from UL institutions in I-20 Corridor

  24. Chapter 4—Unmet Higher Education Needs in Shreveport-Bossier

  25. Other Shreveport-Bossier Studies • A Time to Choose, Morrison Study, 1988 • Report of the BoR Ad Hoc Committee on Higher Education in the Shreveport-Bossier Metro Area, 1997 • Board of Regents Strategic Plan, LSUHSC-S, EKA, 2003 • Merger Concept Analysis—LSUS and LSUHSC-S, EKA, 2005 • Unmet Postsecondary Needs in S-B, NCHEMS, 2008 • Academic Program Strategy for LSU-Shreveport, EKA, 2009 • Two-Year Education Needs—Selected Regions, FutureWorks, 2011 • LSU System Work Group on Organization and Collaboration (Preliminary Report), LSU System, 2011

  26. Education AttainmentComparison with 4 Peer Metro Areas • Community Report Card • Baton Rouge, LA; Columbus, GA; Jackson, MS; Montgomery, AL • All have larger public institutions • S-B MSA underperforms in Bachelor’s and Grad/Prof degrees

  27. Education AttainmentComparison with More Metro Areas (2004 data)

  28. Education AttainmentComparison with Louisiana’s Largest MSAs • S-B compares favorably for high school completion and associate degrees • S-B compares unfavorably in Bachelor’s and Grad/Prof degrees

  29. Education AttainmentLouisiana, Although Improving, Lags SREB and US In 2009, Louisiana reached Bachelor’s degree percentage that US had in 1990.

  30. Global and National Competition • S-B lags US, SREB, and Louisiana in some measures of education attainment. • So, if S-B wants to be an urban center that is competitive in the US and globally, it needs to work harder on education attainment • S-B leaders have known this for a long time. And, sadly, the US now lags several countries.

  31. Conclusions:Unmet Postsecondary Education Needs in S-B • 3 distinct types of unmet needs—not all subject to the same solution: • Degree Programs • Expanded range of programs needed for individuals and/or to support and enhance economic development strategies and targeted industries • Some baccalaureate programs, plus needs at master’s level, with selected applied doctorates • Better articulation from plethora of two-year to four-year programs • Underserved Population Segments • Program opportunities (above) • Different service delivery for the place-bound, including working adults—all levels and Shreveport’s “majority” minority population • Research and Innovation Capacity (Economic Development) • Perceived by many as the MOST serious deficit and requiring significant changes and rapid growth • NOT ONLY about research; it’s about human capital and deliberate outreach programs

  32. Chapter 5—Overview of Models/Alternatives

  33. Four Generic Models Reviewed • Grow an In-Place Institution • Partnership—Program Collaborations • Partnership—Program Importation • To an existing institution/campus • To a “university center” • Consolidation

  34. Four Additional Specific Scenarios • Georgia Tech-Emory University collaboration in Bioengineering • Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis (IUPUI) • Consolidation of LSU-Shreveport and LSU Health Sciences Center-Shreveport • Consolidation of LSU-Shreveport, LSU Health Sciences Center-Shreveport, and Louisiana Tech

  35. Chapter 6—Evaluation of the Alternativesfor Shreveport-Bossier

  36. Principles for the Analysis • Program Expansion • Acquire and develop undergraduate and graduate programs that are sound in quality, responsive to interests of current and future learners and target industries, and avoid unnecessary duplication—some programs to “lead” demand • Serving the Underserved • Sustain increasing educational attainment for metro area citizens • Provide local access to higher programs, with special consideration of working, place-bound adults and City of Shreveport’s African-American majority • Innovation Capacity • Increase metro area’s “intellectual capital and innovation capacity” to support innovation in business, industry • Contribute to social and cultural advancement in the metro area

  37. Principles for the Analysis • Administrative/Support • Produce some substantial results soon—as waiting decades for improvement is unacceptable • Provide efficient and effective administrative services that support the educational mission • Maintain an active, physical university campus/location in the metro area with instruction delivered primarily face-to-face, but supplemented with distance delivery as appropriate. The analysis assumes that LSU-Shreveport continues to exist as an independent institution, or exists in some form of consolidation.

  38. Structure of the Analysis • Examined for each model: • Advantages (pros) • Requirements (what it would take to make the advantages happen) • Disadvantages (cons, or risks) • Mitigation (what could be done to eliminate or mitigate the risks) • No silver bullet • All models have pluses and minuses—with various ways to ensure advantages and mitigate disadvantages • In the end—total solution comprised of a “core solution”—with specific applications of some other models Requirements Advantages Mitigation Disadvantages

  39. Grow LSU-Shreveport Advantages Disadvantages Still requires significant new program development and revisions Extended time horizon Brand building required Does not solve Engineering Resistance to cultural change Mitigation Enrollment growth College of Technology degree programs Positive attitudes: LSUS/System/BoR • Most straightforward • Least disruptive • Preserves S-B “ownership” • Retains LSUS identity Requirements • Role/scope/mission change • Get approval for new programs • Expanded marketing • Changed institutional culture

  40. Expand Program Collaborations Advantages Disadvantages Competitive & cultural barriers Logistics Mitigation Supportive policies and incentives by BoRand management boards Partners recognize and acknowledge mutual benefits • Possibly quick implementation • Eases Role/Scope/Mission issue • Gain economies of scale • 2+2/co-enrollment opportunities • Less unnecessary program duplication Requirements • Willing partners • Terms acceptable to both

  41. Import Programs to LSUS or to a Metro University Center Advantages Disadvantages No growth of local intellectual capital/outreach Market/not service driven Risk of impermanence Cost to students Quality control Mitigation Well crafted contract terms Systematic program needs assessment and evaluation Disciplined, selective use of importation • Quick implementation • Planned program selection • Great flexibility • Many partner options • If “university center,” greater community influence Requirements • Authority and governance clear • Competitive proposals • Cost coverage

  42. Consolidate LSU-Shreveport and Louisiana Tech Advantages Disadvantages Time / effort / stress Risk of unintended consequences Commitment risk Political/governance/constituency considerations Cost comes first, savings and efficiencies later Mitigation Communications plan Statutory & contractual protections Implementation funding Leadership continuity Planning/planning/planning • Practical source of new programs • Clears Role/Scope/Mission issue • Gain LA Tech’s enterprise culture • Brand credibility/local knowledge • May be politically feasible • Expand collaboration with LSUHSC Requirements • Best management system home • Commitments: • Research and innovation • Economic development • Leadership

  43. Georgia Tech—Emory UniversityCoulter Department of BioEngineering Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering at Georgia Tech and Emory University Enrollment as of Spring 2011 1,174 Undergraduates 158 Graduates Undergraduate Degree Programs Bachelor’s degree in Biomedical Engineering conferred by Georgia Tech Graduate Degree Programs Doctorate conferred by Georgia Tech and Emory University Doctorate conferred by Peking University, Emory University, and Georgia Tech MD/PhD conferred by Georgia Tech & Emory University School of Medicine Total Degrees Awarded 638 BS degrees159 doctoral degrees • Summary • One public with Engineering • One private with Health Sciences • Both in Atlanta • $25 MM gift • Contractual relationship • Hugely successful example of synergies, because of complementarity • Conclusion • Definitely provides good model to adapt for Bioengineering—as collaboration of Louisiana Tech and LSU Health Sciences-Shreveport

  44. Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis Indiana University and Purdue University Programs at IUPUI Indiana University Programs Art and Design Business Dentistry Education Health and Rehabilitation Sciences Informatics Journalism Law Liberal Arts Library and Information Sciences Medicine Music Nursing Physical Education and Tourism Management Public and Environmental Affairs Social Work Purdue University Programs Purdue’s schools of Engineering and Technology and Science make up the other components of IUPUI. • Summary • Two large research universities—neither domiciled in Indianapolis • Both developed presence in the city—evolved from 19th century beginnings • Unusual, specific type of “merger” (1969) • Joint name • Indiana University operates campus, services, and provides huge array of programs • Purdue provides Engineering and Science Now 30,000+ students • Conclusion • IUPUI circumstances are so specific and unique that the model cannot really be adapted for Shreveport-Bossier

  45. Consolidation of LSU-Shreveportand LSU Health Sciences Center-Shreveport • Summary • Has been suggested many times as local version of the “Birmingham” model • 2005 EKA Merger Concept Analysis • Attractive feature is relatively less stress in consolidating two LSU institutions • Conclusions • No instant synergies in merging programs, faculties, campuses, policies, cultures, etc. • Program growth needed in S-B still would require more faculty, program development, and approvals (in all but Health Sciences) • Does not really enhance research or innovation capacity

  46. Consolidation of LSU-Shreveport, LSU Health Sciences-Shreveportand Louisiana Tech • Summary • Create a truly larger, comprehensive institution in the North of the State by this 3-way consolidation—very attractive hypothetically • Many substantive issues would require analysis • Politically challenging • Conclusions • An idea that merits future consideration • BUT well beyond the scope of this EKA study to analyze and develop a competent recommendation

  47. Chapter 7—Conclusions and Recommendations

  48. ConclusionsNarrowing the Options • Program Collaboration • Not best way to achieve the program and overall institutional growth • Excellent way to address some needs of the underserved • Specific applications in research—where complementarity exists • Program Importation • Normally the solution where no university exists • Has flexibility advantages • Does nothing to enhance local intellectual/innovation capacity • Can severely limit growth/success of LSU-Shreveport • Narrows the options to: • Grow LSUS • Consolidate LSUS and LA Tech

  49. ConclusionsSystem Questions • For Consolidation Option • Initial presumption was that consolidated, enlarged Louisiana Tech (including LSU-Shreveport) would best fit in LSU System • If a System of comprehensive, special purpose research institutions • Noted some potential willingness on both sides • Later, changed view due to • Flagship Coalition/agenda and potential reorganization uncertainties • LSU System’s preference • For Grow LSUS Option • If / as LSU reorganizes, incorporating flagship/research goals as priorities, UL System would be better fit for small institution in need of basic program and enrollment growth • Would reduce negative aspects of competition with UL institutions in North Louisiana, and make collaborations easier

  50. Recommendation #1—Consolidation • Consolidate LSU in Shreveport and Louisiana Tech University as a single, enlarged “new” Louisiana Tech in the UL System—a single university with a Ruston Campus and a Shreveport Campus • #1A: Consolidation Implementation Plan • #1B: Special, Interim Governance/Management. • #1C: Critical Leadership Continuity in the Early Years • #1D: One-Time Special/Transition Funding