Download
the csu accountability process fourth biennial report to the csu board of trustees november 15 2006 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Dr. Gary W. Reichard Executive Vice Chancellor Chief Academic Office PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Dr. Gary W. Reichard Executive Vice Chancellor Chief Academic Office

Dr. Gary W. Reichard Executive Vice Chancellor Chief Academic Office

166 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Dr. Gary W. Reichard Executive Vice Chancellor Chief Academic Office

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

  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