dr. gary w. reichard executive vice chancellor chief academic office

The CSU Accountability Process:The CSU Accountability Process:Fourth Biennial ReportFourth Biennial Report

to the CSU Board of Trusteesto the CSU Board of TrusteesNovember 15, 2006November 15, 2006

Dr. Gary W. ReichardExecutive Vice Chancellor

Chief Academic Office

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

CSU Accountability

Fourth biennial report to the Board– September 2000 (1998-1999 Baseline Data)

– November 2002 Report (2000-2001 Data)



4

1. Quality of baccalaureate2. Access3. Progression to degree4. Graduation5. Areas of special state need (completed)6. Relations with K-127. Remediation8. Facilities Utilization9. University Advancement

Accountability Performance Indicators

5

Indicator 1

Program Quality: Outcomes and AssessmentContext 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

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

Indicator 2Access to the CSUContext 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

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

Indicator 2 – CSU Progress:CCC Transfers: 2000-2001 thru 2004-2005

676708

1,061 1,4961,206

1,9032,070

3,2504,336

3,20954,884

60,05759,735

56,89669,345

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000

Denied Eligible Upper-Division CCC ApplicantsAdmitted to Another CSU

Denied Eligible Upper-Division CCC Applicants

Upper-Division CCCAdmissions

2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005

Access to the CSU

10

Indicator 2 – CSU Progress:First-Time Freshmen – 2000-2001 thru 2004-2005

7,6958,171

17,38918,36418,993

10,81911,426

24,86126,203

25,532

106,567124,807125,172

129,047145,728

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000

Denied Eligible FreshmanApplicants Admitted to

Another CSU

Denied Eligible FreshmanApplicants

Freshman Admissions

2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005

Access to the CSU

11

Indicator 2 – CSU ProgressSummary

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

Indicator 3Progression 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

First-Year Continuation Rates

79%83%

77%

82%78%

84%79%

84%79%

84%81%

84% 82% 83%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Fall 1998 toFall 1999







Regularly-Admitted First-Time Freshmen Regularly-Admitted CCC Transfers

Progression to Degree

14

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

73

77

7375

7374 73 74 73

7472

7372

73

60

65

70

75

80

85

CY 1998-1999

CY 1999-2000

CY 2000-2001

CY 2001-2002

CY 2002-2003

CY 2003-2004

CY 2004-2005

Baccalaureate Degree Recipients who Entered the CSU as Regularly-Admitted Junior CCC Transfer StudentsBaccalaureate Degree Recipients who Entered the CSU as Regularly-Admitted First-Time Freshmen


15


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”


16

Indicator 4Graduation Rates


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

Fall 1999 First-Time Freshmen

47%

56%62%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

6-Year Graduation Rate atCSU Campus of Origin

Graduation Rate at CSUCampus of Origin

Graduation Rate within theCSU

Graduation Rates

18

Trend of First-Time Freshman 6-Year Graduation

42% 41% 42% 44% 45%46% 47%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Fall1993

Fall1994

Fall1995

Fall1996

Fall1997

Fall1998

Fall1999

Graduation Rates

19

Trend of First-Time Freshman Graduation from Campus of Origin

53% 52% 53% 54% 55% 56% 56%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Fall1993

Fall1994

Fall1995

Fall1996

Fall1997

Fall1998

Fall1999

Graduation Rates

20

Trend of First-Time Freshman Graduation from the System

59% 58%60% 60% 61% 62% 62%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Fall1993

Fall1994

Fall1995

Fall1996

Fall1997

Fall1998

Fall1999

Graduation Rates

21

Fall 2002 CCC Junior Transfers

53%

73%76%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

3-Year Graduation Rate atCampus of Origin

Graduation Rate at Campusof Origin

Graduation Rate within theCSU

Graduation Rates

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

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

Indicators 6 and 7 Helping K-12 Students Enter CSU Proficient

andRemediation

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

Indicator 6 Freshman Proficiency vis-à-vis Board Goals for Proficiency in

English and Math

90%

55%

64%

78%74%

53%

63%

52%

63%

51%

63%

54%54%54%55%

54%

52%

53%

46%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Fall1998

Fall1999

Fall2000

Fall2001

Fall2002

Fall2003

Fall2004

Fall2005

Fall2007

Percentage of Regularly-Admitted First-T ime Freshmen Prepared in MathematicsPercentage of Regularly-Admitted First-T ime Freshmen Prepared in EnglishTrustee Fall 2004 Mathematics GoalTrustee Fall 2004 English GoalTrustee Fall 2007 Mathematics GoalTrustee Fall 2007 English Goal

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

Student Proficiency

Working with K-12 to Address the Proficiency Issue:Early Assessment Program

Increasing numbers of 11th 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 12th grade– Reading Institutes for Academic Preparation (RIAP)

For 12th grade students: “English Success” and “Math Success” websites

28

Indicator 7 - CSU ProgressSuccessful Remediation (within one year) of Students who were Not Fully

Prepared in English and Mathematics at Entry

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Fall 1998Remedial Cohort

to Fall 1999


to Fall 2000


to Fall 2001


to Fall 2002


to Fall 2003


to Fall 2004


to Fall 2005

79% 79%81% 79% 82%

Fall 2004 – 22,004 Freshmen Needed Remediation Fall 2005 – 18,464 (84%) Fully Remediated

82% 84%

29

Indicator 8 Facilities UtilizationContext 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

Indicator 8 - CSU ProgressSummary

“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


0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

CY1998-1999

CY1999-2000

CY2000-2001

CY2001-2002

CY2002-2003

CY2003-2004

CY2004-2005

Off-site (excludes CPECapproved off campus centers)

Distance Learning

Summer Annualized FTES

Weekends and Term BreaksAY FTES (except SummerBreak)

Friday AY Lecture/Lab AYFTES

Monday-Thursday AYLecture/Lab Facilities FTESafter 4 p.m.

Facilities Utilization

32

Indicator 9Advancement


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

Indicator 9 - CSU ProgressSummary

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

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

dr. gary w. reichard executive vice chancellor chief academic office

Documents

csu progresssummarysteady

csu campusindicator

csu progress summaryindicator

csu accountability process

csu board of trusteesnovember

eligible applicants

eligible freshmenindicator

eligible transfers71