1. The CSU Accountability Process: Fourth Biennial Report to the CSU Board of Trustees November 15, 2006 Dr. Gary W. Reichard Executive Vice Chancellor Chief Academic Office

2. 2 CSU Accountability OVERVIEW  Accountability Process adopted in 1999  Underlying principles: Indicators important and understandable Focus on campus’s progress over time, not comparative among campuses Continuous evaluation of performance areas and indicators  Three levels of reporting: –Campus to Trustees –System (aggregated campuses) to Trustees –System to State Government

3. 3 CSU Accountability  Fourth biennial report to the Board –September 2000 (1998-1999 Baseline Data) –November 2002 Report (2000-2001 Data) –November 2004 Report (2002-2003 Data) –November 2006 Report (2004-2005 Data)

4. 4 1.Quality of baccalaureate 2.Access 3.Progression to degree 4.Graduation 5.Areas of special state need (completed) 6.Relations with K-12 7.Remediation 8.Facilities Utilization 9.University Advancement Accountability Performance Indicators

5. 5 Indicator 1 Program Quality: Outcomes and Assessment Context for Indicator  Cornerstones: “demonstrated learning”  WASC: “culture of evidence”  Reinforcing national emphases: *The Spellings Commission *AASCU/ NASULGC *Disciplinary accreditations- Engineering, Technology, Sciences, Business, Health, Education

6. 6 Program Quality  Progress is greatest in individual degree programs– less progress in General Education –Especially in professional disciplines with special accreditation –All baccalaureate programs have student learning outcomes  Most common vehicles for outcomes assessment –Program reviews –Capstone courses –Standardized tests (professional programs)  Next challenge: assessment of baccalaureate degree outcomes *Campuses are experimenting with the National Survey of Student Engagement and the Collegiate Learning Assessment Indicator 1 - CSU Progress Summary

7. 7 Indicator 2 Access to the CSU Context for Indicator  Central to CSU’s mission  California Master Plan –Highest priority to CCC transfers –Eligible first-time freshmen (top 1/3)  Enrollment management challenges –Freshman impaction (Fall 2007: 6 campuses) –Program impaction/ upper division (frequently necessary)

8. 8 Access to the CSU Indicator 2- Measures of Access *Applicants Admitted *Eligible Applicants Not Admitted (Impaction) *Eligible Non-Admits who were Admitted to Another CSU Campus

9. 9 Indicator 2 – CSU Progress: CCC Transfers: 2000-2001 thru 2004-2005 Access to the CSU

10. 10 Indicator 2 – CSU Progress: First-Time Freshmen – 2000-2001 thru 2004-2005 Access to the CSU

11. 11 Indicator 2 – CSU Progress Summary  Increasing numbers of applications, admissions, and enrolled students  Denials by impaction: –5% of eligible CCC transfers –13% of eligible freshmen  Denied eligibles admitted to another CSU campus: –40% of denied eligible transfers –71% of denied eligible freshmen

12. 12 Indicator 3 Progression to Degree Context for Indicator  National focus on first-year retention –first-year attrition accounts for 75% of all attrition  Focus on units needed for transfer students to complete degree helps to address “pipeline” problems– and frees up space

13. 13 First-Year Continuation Rates Progression to Degree

14. 14 Average Units Completed by Upper-Division Students as They Progressed to the Baccalaureate (Semester Units) Progression to Degree

15. 15 Indicator 3 – CSU Progress Summary  Steady increase in retention of full-time freshmen (to 82% in 2005) reflects the attention paid by campuses to incoming freshmen  Retention for transfer students has been flat– but high (83% in 2005)  Steady reduction in the average units completed by upper-division students –Numbers about the same for transfer and native students  “Facilitating Graduation Initiative” designed to address the still-high “average units completed” Progression to Degree

16. 16 Indicator 4 Graduation Rates Context for Indicator  Goal is to help students earn the baccalaureate directly and effectively – persistence is key  Recognition that (especially in CSU) students will vary in pace to degree –traditional, full-time students –persistent part-time students –partial load/stop-out students

17. 17 Fall 1999 First-Time Freshmen Graduation Rates

18. 18 Trend of First-Time Freshman 6-Year Graduation Graduation Rates

19. 19 Trend of First-Time Freshman Graduation from Campus of Origin Graduation Rates

20. 20 Trend of First-Time Freshman Graduation from the System Graduation Rates

21. 21 Fall 2002 CCC Junior Transfers Graduation Rates

22. 22 Indicator 4 – CSU Progress Summary  Graduation rates for first-time freshmen –Persistent part-time: 41% in six years (comparable to most comprehensives) –Traditional full-time: 68% in six years (up by 4%)  Graduation rates for CCC transfers –Full-time: 71% in three years (up by 3%) –Persistent part-time: 50% in three years (up from 47%) –Overall: 73% graduate from campus of origin Graduation Rates

23. 23 Indicator 4 – Helpful Measures Underway Facilitating Graduation Initiative  First-year experiences and learning communities  Roadmaps for students progressing at different paces  Courses scheduled at preferred paces  Progress-to-degree checks  Early warning and intervention  Engaging students academically and socially through hands-on service learning in their communities and chosen professions Graduation Rates

24. 24 Indicators 6 and 7 Helping K-12 Students Enter CSU Proficient and Remediation Context for Indicators  CSU Board of Trustees policy and goals for reducing need for remediation effective fall 1998 –Goal: 90% entering students proficient by fall 2007

25. 25 Indicator 6 Freshman Proficiency vis-à-vis Board Goals for Proficiency in English and Math

26. 26 Indicator 6 Students Entering CSU as Proficient  First-time freshman proficiency in English: –Fall1998: 53% –Fall 2001: 54% –Fall 2005: 55%  First-time freshman proficiency in Mathematics: –Fall 1998: 46% –Fall 2001: 54% –Fall 2002: 63% (change in level required) –Fall 2005: 64%

27. 27 Student Proficiency Working with K-12 to Address the Proficiency Issue: Early Assessment Program  Increasing numbers of 11 th graders taking the English and Math EAP test: –210,000 received scores on the English EAP test in 2006, compared to 186,000 in 2005 –134,000 received scores on the Math EAP test in 2006, compared to 119,000 in 2005  Proficiency rates from EAP tests fairly stable for past two years –English: 23% demonstrated proficiency in 2006, compared to 23.5% in 2005 –Mathematics: 55% demonstrated (full or conditional) proficiency in 2006, compared to 56% in 2005  Professional development for teachers and revised pre-service training –Expository Reading and Writing Course (ERWC) in 12 th grade –Reading Institutes for Academic Preparation (RIAP)  For 12 th grade students: “English Success” and “Math Success” websites

28. 28 Indicator 7 - CSU Progress Successful Remediation (within one year) of Students who were Not Fully Prepared in English and Mathematics at Entry  Fall 2004 – 22,004 Freshmen Needed Remediation  Fall 2005 – 18,464 (84%) Fully Remediated 82% 84%

29. 29 Indicator 8 Facilities Utilization Context for Indicator  In the face of predicted enrollment pressures due to “Tidal Wave II,” CSU needed to expand capacity by using existing facilities more effectively.  Multiple strategies suggested –Scheduling strategies (Fridays, weekends) –State-supported summer term (YRO) –Off-site instruction –Technology-mediated instruction

30. 30 Indicator 8 - CSU Progress Summary  “Non-traditional” instruction increased from 102,566 FTES to 126,581 FTES (almost 24% increase) from 1998-99 to 2004-2005 –Increase from 38% of all instruction to 40% –Evenings, Fridays, Weekends and Term Breaks – 62% of the increase –YRO (State-supported summers) – 20% of the increase  Technology-mediated instruction still developing

31. 31 Indicator 8 – CSU Progress Summary Facilities Utilization

32. 32 Indicator 9 Advancement Context for Indicator  First “budget compact” (1994-1998) aimed at establishing stable funding –For enrollment growth –For annual salary increases –For “high priority needs” such as libraries, technology, deferred maintenance  Margin of excellence would require increased external resources

33. 33 Indicator 9 - CSU Progress Summary  Charitable gift receipts (1998-99 through 2004-2005): $1.788M –over $200 million per year  Increase in alumni involvement and contacts –Formal membership in Alumni Associations: from 91,224 to 116,266 (almost 30%) –Increase in numbers of “addressable alumni/ae” to 2.156M (45% increase)  Steady performance at or above “10% goal” in private fund-raising –between 11% and 16%, System-wide, all six years Detailed 2004-2005 External Support Report at http://www.calstate.edu/UA

34. 34 CSU Accountability Copies of this Powerpoint handout; the Fourth Biennial CSU Systemwide Accountability Report; the report of campus-specific accountability summaries, indicators & goals; and other materials related to the CSU Accountability Process are available at the following URL: http://www.calstate.edu/AcadAff/accountability