It is pretty much a foregone conclusion that this state is not graduating enough folks with engineering degrees. Thompson writes: ”A $500,000 study last year concluded that 15,000-18,000 students in the three-county area (Snohomish, Skagit, and Island) will be unable to get four-year degrees by 2025 even if the state's existing universities and community colleges expand to capacity.” She continues: ”Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon said (in testimony before the committee) the state is No. 1 in the nation in engineering jobs, sixth in jobs for computer specialists and ninth in physical- and life-science jobs, but 38th in producing graduates in those fields.”
So, why the division? Even though State Senator Jean Berkey (D-38) was able to move legislation that she co-sponsored with State Senator Paull Shin (D-21) through the Higher Education Committee that would begin the process of securing land in Everett or Marysville for a new four year college, ”… House members Mike Sells, D-Everett (38), and Hans Dunshee, D-Snohomish (44), said given the opposition of existing state institutions, the Berkey bill could be defeated in the Senate, jeopardizing $2 million in the governor's budget to develop a plan to meet the region's higher-education needs.” She quotes Sells, "It's a risky strategy." "If we get stuck on a stand-alone university, we could lose it."
I am not sure on what Senator Berkey bases her optimism in securing a stand alone university in Snohomish County. According to Thompson, ”Sells said that other underserved regions in the state lobbied for years for new colleges but had to settle for less-expensive branch campuses of existing state schools. Those communities are unlikely to support a new, comprehensive college in Snohomish County. "They couldn't do it in Vancouver. They couldn't do it in the Tri-Cities. Do you think they'll stand for us getting our own college? I don't think so," Sells said.”
I made an effort to contact Sen. Berkey to get a comment for this but, so far, she has not responded to my request for a statement. As a Snohomish County resident I would certainly enjoy the prestige of housing “our own” university. I also appreciate pursuing the option of reaching for the highest goal rather than “settling” for what is offered. However I understand the argument that Representatives Dunshee and Sells make when it comes to the potential for entrenched forces of opposition to completely derail this course of action; which brings us back to the beginning.
Why haven’t our legislators (County and State) come together before now to nail down a unified course of action for this important legislative session? In my opinion, the County Executive should have invited the entire delegation (ok, maybe just the Ds) to a “family get-together” prior to the beginning of the session and worked out the strategy for moving forward. All arguments should have been laid upon the table and debated until consensus was reached. As I stated before, the goal of establishing a four year college here is not new and most of the players are the same.
Finally, where do you stand on this and are you willing to join the discussion and the fight to achieve this goal? The folks in Olympia need to hear from all of us. Start with your own legislators and then start working on the rest. Reach out to friends and family in Skagit and Island Counties (as well as North King County) to talk to their delegations. So far, Senator Berkey’s is the only legislation I have seen. Having passed out of the Committee on Higher Education, it has now been referred to Ways and Means. Snohomish County representatives on that committee are Senator Darlene Fairley (D-32) and Senator Steve Hobbs (D-44).
Peace,
Chad Shue
Vice-chair, Democracy for Snohomish County
6 comments:
Represenative Dunshee offers the following comment:
Chad
I have actually called the delegation together a couple of times and we have discussed this. We plan to do a weekly meeting on all subjects related to our county. Our differences on higher education are minimal but the press loves to see differences and therefore tends to highlight them. Fights are much easier to get people to read about than the policy arguments for each option.
I do also want to complement the Mayor of Everett for his engagement in this effort. We have more agreement than disagreement. Nothing, not even a whisper, of what is going on in Seattle regarding the viaduct. Everyone is working pretty well together.
Perhaps some day Snohomish County will have an independent university.
That would be fine with me. Communities with branches debate this option but so far none have seen it as desirable.
I do think the reality of Olympia is that a four year independent is not possible. This is just handicapping the probability of success. Since
Evergreen was created in the 1970s the legislature has not created a stand alone but has used branch campuses to meet need. These have been very successful and well received in their communities. I think it will be very hard to convince legislators from across the state to return to an option turned away from for some very good reasons. We are moving to a unified system in higher education like California and many other states. It is best for students and taxpayers.
Here are some reasons a two year upper division is more desirable than a four year.
Brand name: In the recruiting of faculty and students, having the name of one of the top universities in the nation is a very powerful draw.
Access to existing faculty: A start up university needs faculty and having access to the professors who could transfer up to Everett now would give us a tremendous head start on bringing degrees to our county.
Muscle in Olympia: Even though Evergreen was established in the 1970s it continues to struggle and in fact is losing students to the Tacoma
Branch Campus which is going great guns. Better to have the 800 lb Gorilla on your side than against you. Size matters in Olympia.
Administration: For whatever is started in Everett, administration is needed to run the campus. For the first years with a few students this function can easily be preformed from the main campus; saving taxpayer dollars for instruction not overhead. Also remember it would take time to establish a new administration before the first student could be admitted. We can do it quicker and cheaper by using an existing university administration.
It will be amazing if we achieve a two year upper division school being established here and this is seen as a defeat. For many reasons, while an independent university has more "sex appeal", a two year upper division is better for the community, the taxpayers, and the students.
I know in the end, which is weeks away, everyone will come together to support what we can achieve. Conversations are continuing all over legislature. We will all work together. While I can't guarantee success
I am hopeful that we can bring a real victory to Snohomish county this session.
Thanks,
Hans
Rep. Mike Sells adds to the conversation:
Chad,
The only division I can see among the delegation is how to best get to where we want to go. The press loves to play up these kinds of things. It keeps people reading their papers. I would refer you to Lance Dickie's editorial on the issue in the Seattle Times a couple weeks back, which outlines where it is most likely to come out. The only thing missing in the editorial was some of the players.
Last December, (Everett) Mayor Stephanson and I arranged a meeting with the Governor because of our concerns when the Higher Education Coordinating Board chair managed to make a mess of the Snohomish Island Skagit regional university process by stating he was opposed to any college or university being opened in the area. Senator Shin, the new Senate Higher Education chair, also attended. As a result of the HEC Board chair's comments to his committee, the HEC Board did not vote on the final recommendation at that time. It became clear to me and Mayor Stephanson, that we needed to salvage the issue at this point, as everyone began to overlay the whole issue of governance of a new institution into what it is they wanted. The goal has always been delivery of baccalaureate programs in this area, and getting stuck on governance was a "no winner," at that point. The Governor responded with a budget proviso in the Capital Budget to finish off the issue and to provide help with siting. I felt, and still believe, that is the best way to deal it, rather than getting bogged down in the session around "stand alone" or "branch campus" issues.
County Executive Reardon did not agree with that. The night before our meeting with the Governor, he called the Mayor and said he would not be attending that meeting. He later told me, he felt there was "greater opportunity." That "greater opportunity" was, I believe, Senator Berkey's bill regarding a "stand alone" university.
The problem, I felt, with the bill, was that it energized all the opposition to doing anything in this area. Witness today's editorial from Everett Community College President, David Beyer, in the Herald. Four year universities, while not overtly opposing the bill in committee, have been very clear that they do not want another 4 year stand alone university with which they would have to compete for funds. Boeing representatives told me before the session that they have an excellent relationship with the University of Washington, and did not wish to endanger that relationship. Employers, like Microsoft, have not spoken out on it as part of the tech corridor. (There has been great support from the Everett Area Chamber of Commerce and Perteet Engineering, however.) The Puget Sound Prosperity Partnership has only said they would like to see the growth of programs around clusters of industrial excellence. Senator McAuliffe and First District representatives were concerned about the future of the U of W Bothell, even stating that it was slated to grow to 10,000 students, and that needed to be done first. Given that, the reality of running a "stand alone" bill in the House and having it succeed was a very risky way of dealing with getting where we wanted to go. If it failed, what would be the message? Instead, I worked with the Governor and the Mayor to finish off a process that had been originally undermined by the HEC Board Chair. Working through the Office of Financial Management and the Governor gave us a greater way to solidify getting the programs we need into our underserved area. It also moved the process away from the Higher Education Coordinating Board, which had made a mess of it in the first place. (The Higher Education Coordinating Board now has a new chair, and a new Executive Director. This issue may have played into some other concerns that the Governor had with the Board, as well as the natural changes in Board leadership. The old Board Executive Director suddenly resigned last week. The old Board chair did show up in the House Capital Budget committee a couple weeks ago to testify in support of the Capital Budget proviso. Also, the Senate Higher Education Committee is a new one. Before that, the bill would have had to go through the Senate Education Committee chaired by Senator McAuliffe.)
Rep. Dunshee does make some good points on a branch campus. You can get the programs in play faster, and have the advantage of a recognized name in recruitment. While we might like to be the home of the "Washington Institute of Technology," you can bet a number of places in the state would like to do that, also. Their representatives are not going to settle for anything less than equal consideration with Everett, especially when they already have established 4 year programs, and we do not. WSU-Tri Cities and WSU-Vancouver come to mind. On the House floor last session, I said that I had broader vision, and that is Institutes of Technology clustered around areas of industrial and commercial excellence along the line of the Puget Sound Partnership, and all across this state. WSU-Tri Cities is particularly well placed to do that with its Battelle Northwest Laboratories, and WSU-Vancouver is seeking the addition of a laboratory centered around industries in their area. At least that is the desire of Rep. Bill Fromhold, Vancouver, chair of the Capital Budget committee. Our strength is the technology corridor from the northeast end of Lake Washington to Paine Field, and our aerospace connections. First, however, we need to get the institution located here that we can build on. And, remember that the U of W Bothell has some interest in that, also.
Finally, I don't know of too many 4 year stand alone institutions which are opened up in this day and age without some previous affiliation. Generally, they are grown starting from different permutations of 2 year programs that go beyond community college type AA degrees. In talking with Jerry Cornfield of the Herald last week, he noted his bias for a 4 year stand alone. I asked him where he went to school to get his degree. It was UC Santa Barbara. "How did it start?" I asked him. He said it started as a two year type community college. I suppose that begs the question of why not turn a community college into a 4 year baccalaureate delivery institution, and we do have some pilot programs going on in the state to deliver those degrees within community colleges. (Senator Kilmer, Kitsap County, also introduced a bill this week for a study of 4 year institution in his area.) My concern would be the loss in the process of the mission of those community colleges, particularly with regards to workforce education in skilled trades areas. In the beginning, however, they can be a great feeder into a new baccalaureate degree institution, especially in the area of liberal arts.
To recap, if there is division, it is more about how to get there, and less about what we would like as the ultimate result. The devil is always in the details, but you can bet that every one of your representatives and senators, the mayor and the county executive, care about getting the education programs into this area that will help grow the economy, provide for living wage jobs, and develop responsible citizens that understand the need for civic engagement.
Mike Sells
Rashida Harris joins the conversation:
Dear Mike,
I read with great interest your response to Chad Shue's blog. As you may know, this issue of the 4 year college in Sno. County is very very important and dear to my heart. I have, for the last two years advocated for this, and even testified at the County council chambers during the public hearings last year.
I also, then, as do now, favor the idea of a so called "stand alone" idea for the college. Having read your comments about the lack of feasibility for this concept, I am willing to accept much of the analysis you proposed, but I would like to add the following ideas for our discussion:
1. I am definitely FOR a site located in Snohomish County. Preferably in Everett (which will conform with Stephanson's vision). I definitely see funding for the selection of the site would move us in the positive direction of reality and break ground for a vision of a four year college in Sno Co.
2. I saw the vision in concert with Aaron Reardon, and believe that it is time for a college that would not be bogged down in the old ways of doing business. Here is where you and I may see a different road for this project. Whereas, I definitely agree that we could move ahead faster, and secure funding more easily, if we piggy back with either a Community College or an adjunct to the UW Bothell campus like institution, I see the OLD WAYS of doing things, not fresh, challenging or rewarding. I take inspiration from Bill Gates, who started something just from his personal vision, and made it what it is today. I share Aaron's vision that this has to be something new, a fresh look at things, a new direction to take, and to tap into the creative minds of our young people. I see this as moving our County in a new direction, with hope, with courage as a MAJOR PLAYER in the field of education that will draw attention from all segments of our society to say, WOW what are they doing in Snohomish County?????
Mike this may sound like Pie in the sky, but I want you to know that the practical advice that Hans Dunshee offered, and especially the advice you offered is absolutely valid and necessary. However, I just think, sometimes, a bold effort, coupled with practicallty, gets things done, makes real good things happen.
So~~~~~~~~~~~~What I propose is this:-
1. Secure the site first
2. Use the existing CC's or UW administrative help plus, first 2 year of eduction of basic building block toward the engineering/sciences/ humanities/ social sciences with emphasis on International Relations/ and global diplomacy and contract mediation (Todd Nichols, love your specialty)
3. Develop the 4 year college offering baccalaureat with possible Master's programs, much like Central Washington University (College when I graduated in 1981). In fact the way Central did it was a good example of a possible way of approaching this. I was so frustrated with trying to complete my Bachelor's in Finance with the UW, I just rolled the AA degree to the Central Washington program there at the Edmonds CC campus.
4. So a program that starts with the 2 year AA level with the goal to complete the baccalaureat at a separate campus. namely the Polytec of Sno Co would make sense. WHAT I WISH TO AVOID IS the samo samo programs as proposed by the established instituition. Namely the Udub, and the existing CC's If Bill Gates can have a vision, I guess we can also.
Thank you Mike, for your input, thank you Chad for the forum and please consider some of my proposals herewith, knowing that Success is the common thread here.
Cheers,
Rashida G. Harris
Everett 63
--
Dedicated to Peace through Non-violence
Practicing vegetarian as part of this effort
Every practicing vegetarian contributes to the peace
and wellbeing of many on Earth
Mike,
I am curious though, will we see any specific legislation - or do we
even require any - to move forward with an extension program?
Peace,
Chad Shue
Rep. Sells responds to my question about legislation to advance the "extensions" agenda.
Chad,
If we get the Governor's request through in the Capital budget, that will put us on the road to where we need to go. I don't believe any specific legislation is needed at this time. The language will be contained in the budget proviso, and I may add some language to that around the ability to determine governance periodically.
Mike
Senator Berkey responds:
A new university in the North Snohomish, Island, and Skagit County region continues to be an important issue to our community and my highest legislative priority.
As you may remember, last session the Senate authorized (through Senator Haugen=s bill) a study of higher education needs in the North Snohomish, Island and Skagit county region.
The Governor appointed a Local Advisory Committee and they rolled up their sleeves and got to work. Aided by the Higher Education Coordinating Board staff and consultants, they studied eight different alternatives. The cost differences between the alternatives were negligible. Ultimately they determined that a four-year, comprehensive institution with a poly-tech focus would best serve the student and baccalaureate degree needs of the region.
To ensure that this process continues to move forward, I introduced Senate Bill 5322 to begin planning for the land acquisition phase and to make sure that whatever site is eventually chosen will best meet our needs. This bill received unanimous support from the Senate Higher Education Committee and is now in the Ways and Means Committee where the fiscal note is being developed. I am very thankful for the support of Senators Haugen, Shin, and Hobbs and remain optimistic that we will be successful.
So why build a new university in our area? The logic is crystal clear:
• There is a lack of capacity in our current higher education system.
• The state has focused on attracting high-tech employers to the state. Unfortunately, we=ve neglected the other half of the equation. These companies just can=t find enough qualified applicants from within our state. Why should Washington=s high-tech companies have to continue to import qualified candidates for their jobs?
• The Snohomish-Island-Skagit county region is growing rapidly but lacks a comprehensive, four-year university.
• Our community is strongly behind this project and I believe the opposition to this proposal is overstated. The existing research universities, regional institutions, and community colleges will all have different missions and a different student mix than a new regional polytechnic institution. The most serious opposition is coming from the UW-Bothell (as we expected).
Siting a new, four-year, comprehensive university with a polytechnic focus in the region achieves the following goals:
• Adds capacity to the current system;
• Serves a geographic region that is currently under-served;
• Emphasizes the job skills that are in demand; and
• Places a university amidst the very employers who demand Washington=s best and brightest.
I do not want to spend a lot of time and space here rehashing the arguments for the four year university option or the community college/upper division option. A thorough analysis is contained in the report to the Higher Education Coordinating Board by NBBJ and MGT of America, Inc. You can find this report at the HECB Research website at http://www.hecb.wa.gov/research/issues/NSIS-RFPpage.asp then click on Final Report-Assessment of Higher Education Needs of Snohomish, Island, and Skagit Counties (SIS), which I would encourage you to download and read. Our Local Advisory Committee voted 9 to 1 to recommend the four year university option (Alternative 1) and the branch campus option was ranked 5 out of the 8 alternatives studied.
I am realistic enough to know that this task will not be easy and will require not only legislative but strong community support. We have an obligation to our children and grandchildren to give it our best effort and build an educational system that will meet the needs of the students of our region and our State B accessible, affordable, quality education.
Respectfully,
Jean Berkey
State Senator
Thirty-Eighth District
Post a Comment