ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, ACCOUNTING FOR ’08-09,
PLANNING FOR ’09-10
2
ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE
2
ACCESS
2
ASSESSMENT
3
RESEARCH
6
LEARNING-CENTERED AND ONGOING PROGRAMS
7
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
9
SHARED VALUES
11
COLLABORATION
11
TECHNOLOGY
12
REVENUES
13
ALIGNING STRUCTURE WITH REALITY, BASED ON EVIDENCE
14
AGENDA
17
INDEX
19
1
ACADEMIC AFF
Academic Quality
CSUN
ACCESS TO EXCELLENCE, CSU
CORNERSTONES, CSU
Academic Excellence
Demonstrated Learning, Graduate and Professional
Education, Faculty Support
Quality, Access, K-12, State
Needs, Remediation
Student Engagement
And Success
Student Engagement and Success
Student Engagement, Student Outreach, Retention,
Graduation
Progress to Degree, Graduation
Rate
Shared Values
Resource Enhancement
Viable Financial Compact, Integral Master,
Accountability, Autonomy
K-12, State Needs, Advancement
User-Friendly Business Practices
Campus and Community Collaboration
ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, ACCOUNTING FOR ’08-09,
PLANNING FOR ’09-10
This document summarizes the main trends in the college and central plans. COH perhaps said it best
this year. While we must temper expectations for resources and rewards equal to accomplishments, we
must not say what the hell, whatever comes first. Planning, in the short term, has cushioned us
financially. In the long term, we must plan alternatives for the instability in the general fund. We can do
so in the contexts of CSUN and CSU planning. AA goals (top) regroup CSUN’s five into three; and they
address the priorities in the new CSU directive, Access to Excellence, as well as the older one,
Cornerstones. There are three big differences, though. CSU reports still stress outputs, lack meaningful
comparisons, and assume fiscal competency. We stress as well learning outcomes, make meaningful
comparisons, and assume fiscal incompetence in the state.
ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE
ACCESS/IMPACTION: To the left, we see that CSUN has been averaging 3-4% growth. The result has
been that a) we now exceed CSUN target, b) we steadily become
more diverse, and c) international
INTERNL AF AM
M-A
08
6.0%
8.3%
17.0%
students’ higher fees compensate
04
4.9%
7.5%
15.0%
98
4.0%
7.3%
14.0%
for the resident growth, above
04 TO 08
22%
11%
13%
target, that the state does not
98 TO 04
23%
3%
7%
fund. Despite the relative success
of this approach, we must reduce 1,800 FTE in AY ’09-10. The
theory is that the state then will fork over dollars for the 12,000
FTES CSU is over target. If we go down 1,400 in the AY (and 400 in summer), F9 would be between F6
and F7, recording a 5% decline. But, normal growth would have us at 29,300 in F9; thus, the reduction
for impaction is 7.65% for F9. There is cost, and there is gamble. Reducing FTES reduces fees, which in
turn reduces FTEF, as here, directly to the right. At least 80 to 90 FTES are endangered. However, if the
state restores full funding for the 12,000—despite the 42,000,000,000 dollar debit—CSU gains
100,000,000, roughly $300 per FTES. Roughly, $300
LOST FTE SUF APPROX CQF APPROX
TOTAL
FROM F8
1,800
6,112,800
261,000
6,373,800
per FTES is what we stand to lose by going down
FROM F9
2,700
9,169,200
391,500
9,560,700
1,800. We are trading in the gospel of works, praying
for the reinstitution of grace.
2
To take the full 1,800 out of the pool of 4,100 enrolled FTF was not tolerable; to do so would reduce the
freshmen class by nearly 40%. After broad discussion, we declared impaction:





We divided the state into a local Tier 1 that includes LAUSD, North County, Ventura County, and
the westernmost San Gabriel Valley and into a Tier 2, all other regions in CA. We expect most of
3,500-3,700 FTES from T1; they must be CSU-eligible. Tier 2 applicants will be admitted after T1
acceptances are projected. This approach mixes regionalism for T1 with slightly higher academic
criteria for T2; thus, the approach amends access to accent excellence.
We are turning away 200-350 FTES who have not taken the ELM or EPT by June. Research
indicates that those who declare late persist poorly.
We are reducing summer by about 400 FTE.
We are stiffening the implementation of probation and appeals policies—500 to 600 FTE. Like the
second bullet, this targets those who do not meet obligations and requirements.
We are identifying the students with 140 cr, who have completed requirements, as well as those in
search of a second BA. Hectoring and restricting them through advising, we anticipate 150-200
FTE. And we can restrict transfer admissions in spring.
So, we are turning many valves, in case several yield too much or too little. We are focusing on resident
students who either under-perform or displace others; and we are introducing merit into out-of-region
admissions, thereby shifting acceptance from geography to achievement. Of course, impacting
universities, losing high school drop-outs, and wringing community colleges are poor answers to the
questions, who will replace baby boomers in the knowledge economy, and when will society and
education step up to the plate?
ASSESSMENT: The chart on the next page indicates that most departments are probing direct outcomes
of learning with local instruments—essays with rubrics, pre- and post exams, oral presentations, projects,
etc. Only a few cite accreditation as proof of assessment; it is not. Those who use surveys, interviews, peer
evaluations, and self-reflection apparently know that these are indirect measures; thus, they tend to be
linked with other method and criteria. Faculty on the assessment committee, faculty in several colleges,
and central administrators report

a pronounced move in COH, SBS, COBAE, and COSAM toward a core of common learning
outcomes. Critical thinking, writing, working with others, behaving ethically, and
undertaking/validating research are common. Using college rather than department SLOs
increases the N for analysis and decreases the number of faculty working in isolated analysis.
However, as the chart shows, we see not outcomes but process whereby assessment methods
(columns) channel feedback (right).
We have global indicators of relative outcomes, though. CSUN is one the top 25 public comprehensives in
sending BA students to PhD programs in COSAM and SBS, according to NSF. Real strength is in
biology, psychology and SBS generally for this result. CSUN accounting graduates as a cohort score
among the top three universities in CA on the CPA exam. CSUN graduates aggregate in the top quartile
on the state’s teacher certification exams. Not strictly a sample, it is indicative of baccalaureate
3
ACCRED ALUM
CASE
COMP EX
CPSTNEEMBED EX
FIELD W INTERN
ORAL
PEER
PROJ PORTF
PPR/RU
PRE/PO SELF R SHOW
SIT AUD
STAND EX
SURV
THESIS
TTL
MM
AMC
ART
1
CTVA
1
1
3
MM
2
MM
COURSE TOPICS
2
MM
INFORM TCHING
1
2
MM
DETERMINE COURSES
1
1
5
SM
MM
DETERMINE COURSES
BUILDING ASSESS
5
MM
DETERMINE COURSES
2
MM
DETERMINE COURSES
5
MM
6
MM
7
MM
3
MM
RESOURCES
0
NO
DETERMINE COURSES
3
MM
1
COM
1
JOU
1
MSC
TH
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
COBAE
ACCT
1
BL
1
1
1
EC
1
FI
1
1
INFO SYS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MRKT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MS T
MBA
1
1
1
DETERMINE COURSES
MDCCOE
DF S
1
ED L
1
1
SM
MOD ASSESS MNT
2
MM
ED PSY
1
DETERMINE C AND FW
2
3
MM
EL ED
1
STUDENT SATIS
2
3
MM
2ND ED
DETERMINE C AND FW
1
1
SM
DETERMINE C AND FW
1
SP ED
1
1
2
MM
CRED P
1
1
2
MM
REORG
1
SM
DETERMINE CONTENT
4
MM
DETERMINE CONTENT
4
MM
DETERMINE CONTENT
5
MM
DETERMINE CONTENT
MS SOFT
0
NO
MS S E
0
NO
COE
CE
1
ECE
1
1
MS
1
CS
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
MS CS
NO
HHD
CD
1
1
3
MM
REDO SLOS
1
2
6
MM
REDO SLOS
1
SM
REDO SLOS
2
3
MM
REDO SLOS
1
4
MM
REDO SLOS
1
1
SM
REDO SLOS
1
COMM D
1
EOH
1
1
1
FCS
1
HS
1
1
1
KI
PT
1
1
1
3
MM
REDO SLOS
RT
1
1
1
3
MM
REDO SLOS
1
SM
REVIEW SLO/ASSESS
3
MH
REVIEW SLO/ASSESS
1
1
SM
REVIEW SLO/ASSESS
1
1
2
2
MM
MM
REVIEW SLO/ASSESS
REVIEW SLO/ASSESS
2
2
MM
MM
REVIEW SLO/ASSESS
REVIEW SLO/ASSESS
3
MM
REVIEW SLO/ASSESS
3
4
MM
SM
REVIEW SLO/ASSESS
2
MM
2
MS
REVIEW
4
MS
REVIEW
1
SM
REVIEW
COH
AAS
1
CS
1
1
ENG
WS
MCLL
1
1
PHII
RELIG S
2
1
1
CAS
OK
1
1
JS
LS
1
LING
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SCM
BIO
1
1
CHEM
1
GEO
1
1
1
1
MATH
1
1
1
3
MS
REVIEW
PHY AST
1
1
1
3
MS
REVIEW
1
SM
REVIEW
2
MM
REVIEW
0
NO
SSCI
AIS
1
ANTH
1
1
GEO
0
NO
PAS
HI
1
1
SM
REVIEW
PS
1
1
SM
REVIEW
3
MM
REVIEW
0
NO
SOC
0
NO
URB S
O
NO
PSYCH
1
1
1
SW
TTL
X
2
3
5
18
ACCRED ALUM
CASE
COMP EX
2
12
12
CPSTNEEMBED EX
FIELD W INTERN
3
11
2
ORAL
PEER
9
6
PROJ PORTF
17
PPR/RU
3
5
0
PRE/PO SELF R SHOW
3
SIT AUD
13
STAND EX
14
4
SURV
THESIS
TTL
competency for advanced work.
4
competency for advanced work.
Other global assessments are more sobering. To the right we see that the
75CR 25M 75M
average critical reading and math scores for students entering CSUN are below PEER 25CR
451
550
453
555
scores at MA universities. The left box displays scores on the Collegiate
NOR
400
530
410
550
Learning Assessment, which purports to measure value-added by the senior year
FR
SR
MAKE AN ARG
977 1068 BLW
in making and criticizing arguments. Overall, we show the improvement that one
BREAK AN ARG
1043 1285 AT
TTL
1031 1177 AV
would expect after college. But, remember our low beginnings. That means that
modest improvement is not sufficient to propel students into advanced literacy and writing.
Indeed, assessment in the OL (right)
indicates that freshmen can do 50% of the
tasks associated with independent
research and evaluation. After immersion,
competency increases to 64%--and as
others have shown, will not go much
higher.
NSSE data, below, indicate that students
at CSUN study longer as they mature, and
read slightly more. Although they write
longer papers, they submit fewer drafts.
Projects under way to improve literacy
include
> 11 HRS STUDYING
>MORE THAN 10 BKS
SEVERAL DRAFTS
GOOD OR EXC ED



CSUN FR
46.6
29.1
77.2
86.0
CSU OTH PRS CSUN SR
47.3
51.1
55.9
28.9
30.3
29.3
63.6
56.8
54
83.0
85.0
83.0
CSU OTH PRS
51.4
53.6
34.6
30.8
50
46
79.0
82.0
the writing project in UGS,
the emphasis on reading in Univ 100 and Freshmen Experience
college convergence on critical reading and writing as generic
SLOs.
Student’s responses suggest that we already develop both recognition
and tolerance of divergence views. In that way, oral culture in campus
and in classes effects considerable learning as an outcome, possibly
beyond what students achieve in writing.


Work by IR, which coincides with findings by TNE, suggests that earlier and more concerted
focus on English and Math in feeder high schools is a difficult but probable effective remedy to
students’ weaknesses. MDECOE is piloting an approach that, unlike EAP, brings faculty from
like high schools together to exchange successful strategies. See the last section.
We expect both high performance and challenge in assessment next year:
o The Learning Habits project will continue to enrich, with qualitative detail, the NSSE.
o Somehow we must institute a facsimile of PACT, at the least, in MDECOE;
5
o And we expect that the TNE/LAUSD link will provide with data for HLM/VAM.
RESEARCH: This section will end with a brief description of research under way. It begins with an
effort to see how inputs convert to outputs and outcomes. We begin again with NSF. When you strip out
system-wide, research university, and doctoral university data from the rankings, CSUN falls in the top
tier—(10 to 25)—of schools with NSF funding, graduates students on grant support, and minority
students in sciences, engineering, and social. However, comparisons in CSU are revealing:
CAMPUS
Bakersfield
Chico
Dominguez Hills
East Bay
Fresno
Fullerton
Humboldt
Long Beach
Los Angeles
Northridge
Pomona
Sacramento
San Bernardino
San Diego
San Jose
San Luis Obispo
San Marcos
Sonoma
Stanislaus
G/C
12,450,037
20,607,871
16,027,917
12,707,962
35,805,919
16,155,362
14,225,049
36,929,929
25,527,345
20,244,036
14,960,190
16,683,144
30,455,127
109,719,393
56,736,054
22,026,202
5,978,251
25,651,446
5,340,043
FTES
6,639
15,083
8,940
10,539
19,010
28,631
6,738
29,816
16,208
27,822
17,924
23,786
13,858
28,000
24,170
19,100
7,221
7,384
6,589
RANK FTES
RANK G/C
Long Beach
San Diego
Fullerton
San Jose
San Diego
Long Beach
Northridge
Fresno
San Jose
San Bernardino
Sacramento
Sonoma
San Luis ObispoLos Angeles
Fresno
San Luis Obispo
Pomona
Chico
Los Angeles
Northridge
Chico
Sacramento
San Bernardino Fullerton
East Bay
Dominguez Hills
Dominguez HillsPomona
Sonoma
Humboldt
San Marcos
East Bay
Humboldt
Bakersfield
Bakersfield
San Marcos
Stanislaus
Stanislaus
RANK G/C FTES
San Diego
Sonoma
San Jose
San Bernardino
Humboldt
Fresno
Bakersfield
Dominguez Hills
Los Angeles
Chico
Long Beach
East Bay
San Luis Obispo
Pomona
San Marcos
Stanislaus
Northridge
Sacramento
Fullerton
(Some CSUs are missing from the ’07 tally.) Nonetheless in overall comparisons, we are 4th in FTES, 10th
in G/C, and 17th in G/C to FTES. Closer inspections show that engineering and health fields elsewhere
out-pace CSUN, while COSAM and MDECOE lead here.
The chart below displays that the colleges spend a lot on assigned time. CSUN SFRs vary a lot, as do
CSU’s. The relative closeness of a college to a CSU division’s SFR suggests the degree of flexibility the
college has. Not visible here are the highly differentiated COA in the colleges/divisions.
HEAD CNT FULL T FAC
ASSIGNED TIME
FTES/FTEF
CSU FTES/FTEF
ASSIGNED TIME/ HC F T FAC
ECS
45.0
210,312.0
17.2
17.0
4,673.6
SSCI
112.0
834,624.0
28.9
23.0
7,452.0
COBAE
82.0
1,032,350.0
28.9
26.0
12,589.6
HUM
103.0
1,136,016.0
19.2
17.0
11,029.3
ED
70.0
563,567.0
15.1
15.0
8,051.0
SCI
81.0
1,019,765.0
20.4
20.0
12,589.7
HHD
76.0
658,260.0
21.5
17.0
8,661.3
AMC
80.0
375,414.0
20.5
18.0
4,692.7
On the next page we can begin to so see the impact of investing in research-related activities.

We have over 1,000 students working on grants or research-motivated community and campus
projects. The literature points to the value for retention.
6
GRANTS
GRANTS, CONTRACTS ASKED
ASKS AWARDED
$
GR TTL
$
SERVICE
COMMUNITY PROJECTS
COURSE, PROGRAM CHANGES
RESEARCH RESULTS
AWARD, IE HONORS, ELECTED…
CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS
CREATIVE ACTIVITIES
PATENTS
PUBLICATIONS
STUDENT RESULTS
STUDENTS ON GRANTS BY AC A
STUDENT INTERNS
ST AWARDS
ST CONFERENCE PRES, PUBS
ACCEPTED INTO GRAD
ADVANCE AND EXT
ADVANCE 3 YR AV
EXL REV
DOLLAR FLOW
ADV
IDC
ASSIGNED/R
YIELD
PEER COMPARISONS
ADVANCE/FTES
NTNL PEERS: ADVANCE/FTES
PUB PER F T FAC
PUBS PER F T FAC IN PEERS
PRES PER F T FAC
PRES PER F T FAC IN PEERS



ECS
SSCI
24
830,722 $
931,976 $
COBAE
15
1,599,201 $
1,739,993 $
27
4
HUM
19
438,859 $
505,910 $
LIB
9
65,402 $
71,545 $
2
186,761 $
186,761 $
ED
SCI
22
4,544,346 $
4,852,565 $
79
5,467,184 $
6,782,347 $
6
57
4
HHD
AMC
12
285,463 $
329,652 $
20
18
26
10
3
7
22
21
5
2
48
185
41
109
10
99
24
21
26
117
9
164
3
26
9
147
207
141
8
36
137
73
24
142
5
273
87
358
8
2
20
290
129
93
33
39
1
228
63
60
125
1,182,000
190,629
798,000
695,564
515
143
35
208
1,233,025
667,881
195,000
236,778
1,348,000
7,000
747,000
155,130
OTHER
3
16,444 $
17,514 $
360,000
219,555
2,803,574
419,942
2,726,375
3,031,699
TTL
$
$
185
16,160,757
18,449,962
79
96
84
754
60
2
762
539
873
435
505
529
2,992,970
130,124
11,659,569
2,722,603
4,200,000
2,290,000
5,830,310
2,061,862
455
443
1.55
1.2
1.1
0.78
According to comparisons with NSOPF data for like institutions, CSUN faculty publish and
present at or above rates on peer campuses.
Advancement dollars brought in per FTES exceed the national average for comprehensive
universities.
Overall, with TExL direct returns and IDC accounted for, we are to the good by $2,000,000.
Still, we need to refine how we collect data on student effects, impacts on curriculum and culture, and
influences on the local community. And we need to examine why research seems not to emerge publicly in
all the units, though we tried for broad definitions.
LEARNING-CENTERED AND ONGOING PROGRAMS: As the assessment chart and the WASC work
indicate, to the degree that we are able to fiscally, many programs have undertaken the principles of
learning-centeredness:




We have at least 1,000 students in research and community service, examples of active learning.
However, we need to specify assessments to learn about worthiness.
Significant seat-time experiments are under way in Math and English to shorten the time for
remediation and basic skills completion. Because of success, pilots will expand next year.
Across the states, learning technology and digital communications have caught on. 80% of public
universities offer some DE programs; on average they offer 6. 44% have virtual courses outside
designated DE programs, with 49% having such courses in hybrid form. Alas, as here 97% of the
work is developed on campus. High
percents of students report using
technology to communicate and access
course materials. CSUN statistics are
similar. With IT, we maintain a small faculty development center to advance web work in media,
LMS, and hybrid formats. Exigency requires us though to align with utilities like Merlot in order
to virtualize labs.
One can see the effect on the way the OL is used. Physical checkouts, including inter-library loan,
amount to 500,000 transactions, with a gate of 1,500,000. Meanwhile virtual retrievals from
7

electronic collections total 1,200,000 with 12,000,000 entries to the OL web. Thus, we must balance
the physical and virtual libraries, managing expenses to sort need. And increasingly, as the OL
has, we require robust orientations for both faculty and staff, as well as students, to virtual
resources. The OL assessment plan is a paragon of how to snag and respond to these needs and
data. We need, though, to plan for, capture, and tag data on-campus learning objects. Scattered
across servers, they are barely searchable, with no common nomenclature.
Ingenuity in TExL and regressive behavior about fees in the general fund position TExL as our
technology agent for academic change. TExL has a dynamic plan to grow and now is partnering
with the colleges and the OL in on-line and off-site advanced degree programs in fields as diverse
as COH, Public Policy, Librarianship, and K-16 systemization in the middle east. But it faces
challenges. See the next two charts. Since the phase-out of summer, TExL lost a revenue source
that required little investment.
Since the change, expenses
have exceeded revenue; TExL
invested in programs that
could run in the black,
eventually. But generous
MOUs with the colleges, as
well as charges by CSU,
complicate the effort to rebalance. Even were CSU to be
less charge-happy, there still would be a need to adjust
the investment/return ratio with the colleges. Otherwise,
TExL loses the ability to gain reserves against which it
can run risks. And ultimately we jeopardize the
$1,000,000 to 2,000,000 in extra pay that TExL generates.
We believe, however, that current recalculations of
internal MOUs will secure matters, even as nearby
counties reduce their investment in the professional
development of their staff. The last two displays put the
finances in different contexts. The first shows how
funding sources have adjusted to
the loss of stability in summer
and long-term contracts. TExL is
in the brave new world of
competitive credit programming
for a changing workforce. The final display shows, according to CSU accounts TExL’s relative
position in revenue, ’06Revenue
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09 (B)
07. Given the distance
Interest and Miscellaneous
133,915
125,183
131,434
(168,166)
54,019
Non Credit Extension
1,218,678
1,307,817
1,440,835
863,450
450,000
from LB and the lower
Winter Session
742,335
714,034
740,953
850,724
950,000
profiles of
Contract Programs
1,935,136
1,709,920
1,743,991
2,207,501
1,627,427
Open University
Intensive English (IEP)
Credit (Degree/Certificate)
Summer Session
Total
1,794,842
1,709,619
2,546,078
$ 5,646,394
$ 15,726,997
1,656,115
1,621,005
1,424,964
1,684,000
1,496,114
2,033,064
2,385,421
2,671,114
3,286,448
3,966,886
4,711,404
6,600,000
$ 3,542,267 $
469,747 $
470,858 $
650,000
$ 13,837,898 $ 12,147,915 $ 12,746,156 $ 14,686,560
-12%
-12%
5%
15%
8



CAMPUS
ENROLL
FTE
06-07 BOOKED
LA and DH, there should be room to grow.
Sacramento
23,413
840
21,919,392
Generally, other new programming must be
Long
26,286
1,969
17,673,712
restrained, given the budget. The EDD has launched
San J
23,655
1,583
16,875,506
Northridge
15,986
852
12,071,898
well, and hires continue. We are participating in the
San F
20,686
1,028
11,765,183
CSU nursing build-out, too. However, as the fate of
San D
17,895
1,299
10,787,078
Fullerton
17,177
1,020
9,620,256
the MBA fee and Audiology and Physical Therapy
Dominguez
15,709
846
7,830,863
indicates, we are stymied by the unwillingness of the
East
20,928
1,475
5,647,237
Sonoma
13,691
541
3,982,307
state and system to charge differential fees for highSan F
12,678
212
3,289,859
cost programs, and by the opposition of UC and
Fresno
7,750
488
3,186,140
Los
4,854
277
3,172,664
privates to CSU entering their world of degrees
Bakersfield
8,869
442
$2,916,869
beyond the MA, even if we limit to applied
Chico
3,960
320
2,250,861
San M
7,013
192
2,095,946
programs.
San LO
8,258
121
1,972,151
Pomona
2,977
203
1,965,563
To this end, a planning group from MDECOE,
Humboldt
7,961
316
1,676,342
Channel
3,256
137
1,671,080
HHD, SBS, and academic resources has made head
Stanislaus
4,155
215
1,053,659
way in plotting a clinical front, client support system,
Monterey
1,009
493
627,098
Maritime
939
—
618,473
and org chart for health and wellness programs. This
Total
269,105
14,870
$144,670,137
is key to efforts to be regionally relevant in ways that
capitalize on faculty expertise, likely developments in preventative health care, and regional need.
Finally, we secured dollars from the CQF to add peer advisors and instructional support for high
DUF courses. The CQF process requires close assessment. So, with one hand we try to keep
students in school; in the other hand, we hold the cudgel of impaction and pummel 1,400 or so
FTES out the door. Oh, tempores, oh, mores.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
Academic Affairs at CSUN has a rich array of activities for students. We will get to the data soon, but we
have these advantages:







A large number of identity based programs and languages that are hubs for student;
Perhaps the most cohesive EOP program in the CSU, partly decentralized in the colleges. Usually,
retention and graduation rates compare well with demographic peer campuses;
An organized administration within UGS that has cleared up policy confusions across colleges and
has help to make SOLAR legible. Additionally, the unit has worked virtual advising, as well as
just-in-time advising, to deal with the influx of FTES last year.
COBAE, which has had decent retention but, according to group confession, inconsistent advising,
has received an endowment for a career advising center; and it has made its advising center more
user friendly by opening up space.
COH runs an extremely effective peer mentoring program that benefits senior mentors and
freshmen.
COSAM has worked with health to develop an advising/mentoring program for students
interested in medical careers.
CECS has developed ACCESS to interest high school students in its fields. Recently, it redesigned
a major lab to promote project work.
9


While MCCAMC is busy with performances and capstones in the arts, HHD uses the extensive
Brown Center as a teaching lab, while COSAM does many field trips, and SBS clubs have won
awards and attract students.
Yet the effort, which has included an Honors program, University 100, and academic orientations,
apparently has hit a wall, reached intermittently since ’03. First to second year retention is at 76%
YR
3
4
5
6
7
to 77% as the high. 2004 witnessed high retention
F
3595
2975
3713
3690
4119
to the third AY term, but/because the freshmen
3RD T
76%
77%
76%
75%
73%
6 years or less


7 years or less
class was small. 2007 suffered; the class topped 41%. Virtualization
Count Rate
Count Rate
has made advising easier to get and understand. However, the severe
773
28.90%
966
36.10%
increase in the proportion of part-time faculty has made the TT/FTES
809
31.50%
977
38.00%
34:1. That probably is over the top. Six and seven year graduation
819
35.80%
985
43.10%
rates have improved steadily, but are still well below 50%.
936
36.00%
1111
42.70%
On average CSUN students spend 10-11 AY terms on campus just for
1097
38.90%
1296
45.90%
1280
39.10%
1492
45.60%
baccalaureate classes. However 70% of our students require
1434
39.20%
remediation for at least another term. Transfers, more often than not,
wandered in the CCC, adding a year. So 11+.5+1=6.5 years, if one continues at an even pace,
never steeping in academic hot water.
Clearly, remediation accounts for delay. But there is more going on, and it is predictable, really.
The chart below plots 3rd term retention (y) by SAT math, bottom quartile (x). CSUN is the red
dot. Note that it is above the trend line. The data imply that the test score weighs on retention.
However, three schools do better. Before investigating
their strategies, we should profile their students. The
chart in blue factors the test score with the 6th year
graduation rate. Again CSUN is the red dot; this
time, the nearest out-performer has a score 10 points
higher. In
both
graphs
peers are
public MAs
> 10,000 FTES, with .45 correlation for the third term,
.63 for the 6th yr. The orange display—CSUN on the
trend line—illustrates that as the percent of people on
Pell increases, the percent not finishing year 6 increases.
NSSE data allow us to probe campus climate for
students to see whether anything beyond math is
running them off. Although focus groups badmouth advising and sometimes staff for
unfriendliness, we now have sufficient NSSE and
CIRP data to put that to rest, as the top graph
on the next page shows. A difference-maker
between CSUN and non-CSU peers is, as we
know, more participation in on campus but out
10
of class activities. When we break data into undergraduate colleges, we can see a few things that
inspire inference but there I nothing
FR
SR
CSUN
CSU
Peers
CSUN
CSU
Peers
clinching. Two
Working for Pay On Campus, No
88.0
87.1
84.2
86.4
86.9
78.3
Participation in co-curricular activities, No
64.7
63.5
46.7
63.3
65.7
53.6
colleges are
Overall, the quality of academic advising
lauded
Excellent
25.1
23.1
25.5
22.7
23.3
22.6
Good
49.8
49.7
47.3
41.2
41.2
39.5
especially for
Assistance with non-academic
41.8
34.0
30.6
23.8
24.4
20.2
advising. Perhaps because of size and the largely non-interactive format of its classes, students feel
less passionate about COBAE than peers in other colleges do about their experience
AMC
COBAE
CSENG
HHD
HUM
CSM
SSB
Excellent 28.1
Good 52.1
20.6
55.3
25.0
61.0
34.5
52.6
38.5
50.4
30.0
54.3
33.0
52.4
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
On-the job experience
Community service or volunteer work
Culminating senior experience
Faculty members are available, helpful, and sympathetic
28.1
31.3
25.0
15.6
81.2
64.4
57.4
71.3
11.2
36.5
26.5
25.9
64.0
56.6
82.9
60.6
27.4
53.2
12.9
6.5
71.0
44.0
66.0
65.0
21.6
51.7
20.7
6.0
95.1
84.4
49.2
81.1
31.6
45.3
21.4
1.7
72.4
73.0
86.2
72.4
22.9
38.6
24.3
14.3
75.0
59.7
41.7
70.4
6 YR Grad
47
42
34
43
52
41
22.3
37.9
24.3
15.5
74.6
79.8
48.2
76.8
43
My entire educational experience
AAcademic advising

So, we look now to those peer school in the scatter plots that out-did us. Grand Valley State is
much whiter with comparatively less Pell. Brooklyn and Baruch are smaller but demographic
matches. However, since they dumped remediation, their Math and English entry scores shot up.
Nonetheless, Brooklyn has been active in FIPSE and First Year. We need to review their work.
Finally, there is Fresno, a close match in nearly every way. There, where the dust flies, the heat
rises, and the athletic coaches whine, might be an answer that can help us make modest jumps in
retention and graduation, given the bounds that the correlations and scatter plots suggest.
SHARED VALUES
COLLABORATION: As the attached chart suggests, decision-making is shared widely. X indicates
participation in the decision while red signifies a lead role. It is striking that there are no isolated red Xs;
and one also can
AA
UGS ADM EOP
AC RES
PC
SA
IT
ADVAN
AD FI
FAC SEN UPBG
see how many
ACCNTBLTY/PLANS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ACCESSIBILITY
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
oars are in the
ADMISSIONS
X
X
X
X
X
X
ADVISING
X
X
X
X
X
X
water per topic.
BUSINESS PRACTICES X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Also, notable is
CMMUNITY
X
X
X
X
X
X
COMPUTING
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
how widely the
FEES
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
GF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
red Xs are
NGF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SECURITY
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
distributed. The
WEB
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
process requires
time for consultation. But, as this fall, it has accommodated discussions and decisions on LMS, email, and
impaction. The chart focuses mainly on current cross-divisional topics, not ones peculiar to AA. It is fair
to say that we have moved largely, though not entirely, out of silos.
11
PEERS
CSUN
TECHNOLOGY: When you look at national benchmarks in IT/AA, we
AC COMP
85%
SHARED
look like other MA universities with a few key distinctions. 85% of peers
DESK T
85%
LCL
DIST ED
15%
LCL
have academic computing and instructional technology, as well as other
CENTRAL
INSTR T
85%
SHARED
REPORT
WEB
85%
LCL
areas, report to a central IT. We share reporting. The central plus
ST COMP
85%
CENTRAL
INFRA
85%
CENTRAL
decentralized AA IT dollars per FTES hits the peer average for whole
TECH RD
85%
DISPERSED
campuses. The ratio will increase when we get data from other units.
EMAIL
97%
AGREE
SMART
70%
70%
That is why, for example, we must tease out the duplicative and least
TRAIN
93%
AGREE
DISC SP
28%
AGREE
effective ways that we provide training through centers, grants, disciplinary
CENTER
74%
AGREE
specialists, college help, etc. It is why we must control LMS proliferation,
GRANT
48%
DIFFER
HELP
73 HR
60 HRS
SMART room costs, etc.
1 LMS
0.78
67
78
DELTA
THINKING
2>
0.08
Without evidence of
Management and Supervisory
245,612
330,374
84,762
35%
HOME G
0.05
Staff
3,532,022
4,317,816
785,794
22%
IT/FTES
741
741.31
effectiveness, the principles
Special Consultants(Extra Pay)
12,793
42,161
29,369
230%
Student Assistant
92,283
140,926
48,643
53%
are want equals get, get entails integrate and update,
Benefits
1,503,164
1,844,847
341,683
23%
$ 5,385,873 $ 6,676,123 $ 1,290,250
24%
they suck up dollars.
Equipment and Servers
2,993,798
3,125,682
$ 2,993,798 $ 3,125,682 $
Software and Maintenance
$
131,884
4%
131,884
4%
363,501
773,639
410,138
113%
363,501 $
773,639 $
410,138
113%
Supplies and Services
89,089
94,915
5,826
7%
Training and Travel
44,029
24,442
(19,587)
-44%
349,240
506,724
157,484
45%
58,682
33,366
(25,316)
-43%
189,285
120%
Communications and Network
Repairs and Maintenance
SMART Construction/Equipment/Furniture
415,936
226,651
-
41,234
41,234
-
IT Construction
35,355
254,351
218,996
619%
IT Misc.
44,279
25,324
(18,954)
-43%
IT Furniture
27,247
67,145
39,897
146%
626,230
75%
$ 9,580,378 $ 12,038,880 $ 2,458,502
26%
Library Acquisitions
$

837,206 $ 1,463,436 $
Now, look in AA, at admittedly older data. Total
technology costs amount to 7-8% of the divisional
budget. Increased cost is not in hardware; it is in
distributed labs, physical modifications, and software,
as well as personnel. While costs in red should be
throttled, the entailed costs in green are the real
concern. Within AA and CSUN, we need cost effective
help and R/D:
OL and IT should apply to CQF to develop help sites.
We also have cost and complexity problem in handling data,
especially accountability. Accreditation agencies argue that their
disciplines need unique ways of collecting and modeling data.
CHEA and other regulators must step in to simplify. As alluded
to under Research, we need strategies on collecting, storage,
client access, security, refreshing data, and retrieval. Otherwise,
we will be awash in small Ns, monitored by a big staff.
In sum, we face these issues and tasks:





We need to insist on standardization in SMART classrooms, using a model that utilizes the
benefits of central, virtual capacity; or if not that, minimizing the capacity of pc’s that we buy.
We cannot afford software upgrades of over 100k each year, unless we can demonstrate offsets.
As an example, the delta of 2M amounts to 40 positions.
We must cue into the future of dbs at CSUN.
We must do this within the following plan:
 rolling out an amendable LMS
 using technology mainly to contract seat time, utilize lecture halls more efficiently
12




capitalize on dispersed expertise in the colleges, OL, and TExL, as well as IT and SA
to control R/D and implementations. Merge AA IT and TExL IT to leverage TExL’s
experience in program improvement.
Tether impulse buying, such as it is.
Look to various fees to offset costs.
This spring, get a handle on AA dbs and plans for new ones.
REVENUES: Much of this has been covered in previous sections. We will go over the short term and then
the long term. The short term leaves us with the need to meet the CSUN share of 97+66m cut over two
years. Calculated must be the contract hits, if ever implement of 11-13m. Then there are the truly
89
90
unknown things—whether GF cuts will be steeper, whether we will
ADV
1
0.5
MARKET
need to absorb, and how much, finishing costs of the COSAM
CQF
1.5
4
ESC
EXL
1.7
1.8
GROW
building—13.1m with group 2 equipment—and closing and starting
IDC
2
2
the VPAC. The numbers are staggering; and although we have large
OTHER
5
5
SUF
90
99
FEE INC
divisional reserve, it is not that large! The chart to the left reduces the
NR
12
13.7 AND GROW
problem to the fathomable. The left is an approximate model for this
GF
200
183
CUTS
TTL
313.2
309
year. The right adjusts—reducing Adv pay-out, counting on a 10%
TT/FTES
11.19
11.44
growth in TExL usable revenues, figuring a 10% fee increase across
resident and non-resident students, including the GF cuts referred to before. Then we arrive at the total
per FTES. The CQF helps a lot. The chart leaves out many of the other red marks, including costs like
promotions that we annually swallow. So, though we are decently prepared, we are guarding against
more silliness:





We are reimbursing MPP expenses at the per diem rate. We are cutting professional development,
equipment, etc., by at least 10% over spring, while aiming for 25% next AY. We will proceed with
excessive caution when hiring. We will discuss in March how to view faculty hires to be on board
in ’10-11. Decisions necessarily will be contingent on the state budget.
Academic Resources will work with Administration and Finance to insure that we have adequate
plans to backfill, where appropriate, GF with trust balances and endowed funds that are not
upside down.
The colleges, as requested, have submitted reports that show available funds, in a normal world,
through the end of AY. AA will work with AR on a division summit on the budget by early March,
when we might have a better idea of what is ahead.
All this accelerates the need for the deans to work with Adv and TExL on new funding. We have
worked, through PC, to right TExL budgeting, so that partner stake risk with greater equity. We
expect 10% growth next year. Expansion into markets in SA and the ME, however, might be set
back by the economy.
For their contribution to planning the deans and Adv should submit clear metrics that show meet
to ask ratios, ask to gift ratios, as well as data on number of prospect, number of vetted prospects.
Especially helpful would be their summary, too, of the climate for giving.
13
ALIGNING STRUCTURE WITH REALITY, BASED ON EVIDENCE: This is a big issue across higher
education. It plays out this way in AA at CSUN:




Over thirty years, the proportion of part-time faculty has doubled, the proportion of junior
faculty has increased, Al Gore invented the internet, and accountability became the vogue, while
shared governance became de rigueur. As a result, mid-career faculty find themselves working as
chairs or running accountability studies. That is shared practice. Shared values, however, demand
quietly that traditional research and teaching always come first, that research cannot really be
done about the campus, lest it be institutional reporting—a grave misunderstanding of that! We
must structure the conception and presentation of chair and major committee work, etc., so that
the academic value becomes clear. We need to do a better job (as we have with teacher prep,
health and well being, the environment, and student success) to align requirements for research
and service with university interests; and we must credit those activities. The CSUN blue book
allows for such work for credit, under an extended definition of peer review. Culture frustrates it.
So we need to change the culture.
o We have made this a theme, pressing department for statements of
equivalencies. We will tally and assess practices as we move through 4-6 yr
evaluation this AY.
Implicit in this is that we can’t have a cookie cutter workload policy. We need peer
designed and changeable guidelines that allow faculty to meet the goal in FTES in
the way that they see fit—assessment will confirm learning.. Numbers of classes
and class size can vary; central AA monitors mainly FTES. The extent to which a)
some classes can run larger, b) majors shed courses, and c) the elective cycle put
down favorite pets, is the extent to which schedule can become more flexible, and the mode of
delivery become even more differentiated. COBAE
and SBS are charging ahead, COH is picking up the
pace.
o This summer, we will extract data on course
load per FTES, for a comparison with national data.
Recasting how we credit and reconstruct workload might relieve internal pressures; it also might
help us improve the functionality of centers. Although not a drain on resources, they clutter the
mental landscape and give a false sense of what CSUN is about.
o We need a consistent template for tallying what they do: clients, students, research, service
activities, etc. And if they are to continue, we also need evidence of how they intersect with
workload and effect.
o GRIP will be commissioned to create and implement this before the review next
summer/fall.
o
Several centers, like the centers in HHD and MDECOE are very effective. In fact, these centers
are likely to coalesce into a pattern of institutes that will do applied research/service, in part,
through faculty clinical practice. Interest also has converged on well being and the environment
because of the exorbitant costs of health care. Preemption and prevention are necessary. Many
14


faculties are helping with this new conception. How do we fuse faculty research with public
mission; how do we get colleges and departments to share clinical and business practices, consider
clients holistically, and provide for “application” of knowledge? Planning proceeds, but we are
several years removed from a launch.
o The deans of MDECOE and HHD will present PC with a progress report by the end of the
academic year. During and/or after this review, we will decide on the next steps towards
rationalizing business practices and making clinical practice financially supportable.
o Alongside this, we need the equivalent of a COBAE impact report that charts the private
and public sectors, with number of clients. We really do not have a clear image of whom we
serve, who the lead contacts are in the community. This spring, money allowing, we will
commission a unit either in COBAE, SBS, or TExL to do such a review.
Such a review can also let us see more clearly where and how we can be strategic as we flesh out
“regionally relevant” in a fashion that supports the centers/institutes
and returns funds to the core. When we identify these sectors and
relevant centers and institutes, we provide clarity, too, for the
organization fund-raising personnel in AA. We have set precedent for
sharing them across units so that we maximize affinities, balance
prospects, and make economies. Already, the dean of TExL captured much of this in talks with
the deans.
This is part of the long-range strategy to diversify funding, a challenge in a master-planned system
like CSU that suffers the market but builds no buffers. Our total budget plans, as we have said
before, need to reflect the reduction in the general fund that has trended for three decades. The
world we build toward is on the right. (The percents are illustrative.)
15


There is one way, close to home, that we can make money. Consider these facts. With a 65%
graduation rate, LAUSD’s students make $100,000,000 less per year than if they finished. Factor
across the state; one totals at least $200,000,000 annually. Add the social costs…..we could near
$500,000,000. At CSUN this plays out in a less dramatic way, through remediation. That cost for
66% of 3,900 freshmen each taking several remedial courses can mount to $3,000,000 to
$4,000,000. Now, we know that thirty-four feeder high schools yield nearly 40% of our freshmen.
So, this spring we should commission TNE to work with deans’ council on a plan gradually to
reduce the need for remediation of students from these schools. The plan should have these
elements:
o Identification of those elements in literacy and numeracy in these schools that need work.
o Alignment of interventions in K8 feeder schools that affect performance in these HS.
o Work with sites on appropriate CST, graduation, and attendance goals.
o Recommendations for key places in the CSUN undergraduate to post-baccalaureate
elementary education program the need reform in order to improve instruction in math
and English.
o Recommendations about how to use campus PD funds toward the goal of reducing cost and
need in this area. Sufficient evidence mechanisms are in place.
As all this implies, we have exciting projects ahead because we are thinking how to align mission,
service, work, and resources. So, as we take on, for example sustainability, we must look for ways
to trim waste and consumption within Academic Affairs—paper, power . . .
16
AGENDA
ACCESS/IMPACTION




We divided the state into a local Tier 1 and into a Tier 2.
We are turning away 200-350 FTES who have not taken the ELM or EPT by June. We are reducing
summer by about 400 FTE.
We are stiffening probation and appeals.
We are identifying the students with 140 cr.
ASSESSMENT:





Continue a pronounced move in toward a core of common learning outcomes. Critical thinking,
writing, working with others, behaving ethically, and undertaking/validating research are common.
As a result, continue the writing project in UGS,
the emphasis on reading in Univ 100 and Freshmen Experience.
Insure that the TNE/LAUSD link will provide data for HLM/VAM
Continue Learning Habits.
RESEARCH




Expand G/ in CECS AND HHD
Gather clearer data on students and their link to research.
Maintain current levels of publication; tighten but continue support.
CECS will implement Digital M, concentrate R/D funding on jr. faculty.
ONGOING PROGRAMS




Assume no centrally funded programs/positions.
Enact TExL growth and budget balancing
Build out EDD.
Have TExL, OL, and AA IT converge on web indexing, tagging, and archiving.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT




Determine the sources of the retention delta with peers like Fresno.
Set targets for calibrating college practices to converge on COH numbers.
Research whether internships, campus work, etc., improve retention.
Track the effect of the size of FTF.
SHARED VALUES
TECHNOLOGY


Insist on standardization in SMART classrooms.
Limit Db instances, set target for SW expenses.
17




Roll out an amendable LMS; clarify DE programs from hybrid maximization of lecture halls.
Mainstream pilots in Math and Eng.
Using common data, project a technology/FTES ratio for AA.
Use CQF to generate Help standards.
REVENUE





We are reimbursing MPP expenses at the per diem rate. We are cutting professional development,
equipment, etc., by at least 10% over spring, while aiming for 25% next AY. We will proceed with
excessive caution when hiring.
Insure that we have adequate plans to backfill, where appropriate, GF with trust balances and
endowed funds that are not upside down.
AA will work with AR on a division summit on the budget by early March, when we might have a
better idea of what is ahead.
All this accelerates the need for the deans to work with Adv and TExL on new funding. We expect
10% growth next year.
D and Adv should submit clear metrics that show meet to ask ratios, ask to gift ratios, as well as data
on number of prospect, number of vetted prospects.
ALIGNMENT OF CULTURE WITH REALITY







With PPR, structure chair and major committee work, etc., so that the academic value becomes clear.
Align requirements for research and service with university interests in regional improvement; and
we must credit those activities. The CSUN blue book allows for such work for credit, under an
extended definition of peer review
Free up workload policy. We need peer designed and changeable guidelines that allow faculty to meet
the goal in FTES in the way that they see fit—assessment will confirm learning..
Create a a more a detailed template for tallying what Centers do: clients, students, research, service
activities, etc.
The deans of MDECOE and HHD will present PC with a progress report by the end of the academic
year and HWB project.
Plan for equalization on GF and SUG over 10 years.
Commission TNE to work with deans’ council on a plan gradually to reduce the need for remediation
from feeder schools.
18
INDEX
A
F
AA IT DOLLARS
12
ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE
1, 2
ACCESS
1, 2, 9, 17
ACCESS TO EXCELLENCE
2
ACCESS/IMPACTION
2, 17
ADVANCEMENT
7
ALIGNING STRUCTURE WITH
REALITY, BASED ON EVIDENCE
14
ASSESSMENT
3, 17
FACULTY HIRES
FEEDER HIGH SCHOOLS
FRESNO
GRADUATION
GRIP
GROUP 2 EQUIPMENT
9, 10, 11, 16
14
13
H
BARUCH
BLUE BOOK
BROOKLYN
BUSINESS PRACTICES
11
14, 18
11
15
9, 14
9, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18
9
7, 17
HEALTH CARE
HHD
HIGH DUF
HYBRID
I
C
CECS
9, 17
CENTERS
12, 14, 15
CHEA
12
CIRP
10
CLIENTS
14, 15, 18
CLINICAL
9, 14, 15
COBAE
3, 9, 11, 14, 15
COH
2, 3, 8, 9, 14, 17
COLLABORATION
11
COLLEGIATE LEARNING
ASSESSMENT
5
CORNERSTONES
2
COSAM
3, 6, 9, 10, 13
CUT OVER TWO YEARS
13
D
7, 12, 13, 17
IT
L
LAUSD
3, 6, 16, 17
LEARNING HABITS
5, 17
LEARNING-CENTERED AND
ONGOING PROGRAMS
7
LMS
7, 11, 12, 17
M
MA UNIVERSITIES
MCCAMC
MDECOE
MISSION
MPP EXPENSES
7, 17
5, 12
10
5, 6, 9, 14, 15, 18
15, 16
13, 18
PART-TIME FACULTY
PC
PEER REVIEW
PELL
PREVENTION
6
7, 10, 11, 16, 18
3, 5, 6, 7, 14, 17, 18
6, 9, 10, 11, 17
13
RANKINGS
REMEDIATION
RESEARCH
RETENTION
REVENUES
S
SBS
3, 9, 10, 14, 15
SERVICE
7, 14, 16, 18
SFR
6
SHARED VALUES
1, 11
SLOS
3, 5
SMART
12, 17
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
9, 17
SUSTAINABILITY
16
T
7, 8, 12, 18
5, 6, 16, 17, 18
13, 18
TECHNOLOGY
TNE
TRUST
U
5, 9, 17
10
UGS
UNIVERSITY 100
V
N
9, 17
13, 18
14
9
14
7, 8, 13, 15, 17, 18
7
5, 10
NSOPF
NSSE
O
OL
OUTCOME
OUTCOMES
10, 14
13, 15, 18
14, 18
10, 11
14
R
13
VPAC
E
EDD
ENDOWED
ENVIRONMENT
EOP
EQUIVALENCIES
TEXL
13
5, 16
11, 17
G
B
DE
P
5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17
5
2, 3, 6, 17
W
WASC
WELL BEING
WORKLOAD
7
14
14, 18
19