1. The CSU Accountability Process:Fourth Biennial Reportto the CSU Board of TrusteesNovember 15, 2006 Dr. Gary W. Reichard Executive 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) • November 2004 Report (2002-2003 Data) • November 2006 Report (2004-2005 Data)

4. Accountability Performance Indicators • Quality of baccalaureate • Access • Progression to degree • Graduation • Areas of special state need (completed) • Relations with K-12 • Remediation • Facilities Utilization • University Advancement

5. Indicator 1Program 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. Indicator 1 - CSU Progress Summary 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

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

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

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 DegreeContext 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. Progression to Degree First-Year Continuation Rates

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

15. Progression to Degree Indicator 3 – CSU ProgressSummary • 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 RatesContext 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. Graduation Rates Fall 1999 First-Time Freshmen

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

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

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

21. Graduation Rates Fall 2002 CCC Junior Transfers

22. Graduation Rates Indicator 4 – CSU ProgressSummary • 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

23. Graduation Rates 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

24. Indicators 6 and 7 Helping K-12 Students Enter CSU ProficientandRemediationContext 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

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 ProficiencyWorking 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 • Fall 2004 – 22,004 Freshmen Needed Remediation • Fall 2005 – 18,464 (84%) Fully Remediated 84% 82%

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. Facilities Utilization Indicator 8 – CSU ProgressSummary

32. Indicator 9AdvancementContext 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. 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