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
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
2
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)
3
Accountability Performance Indicators
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Quality of baccalaureate
Access
Progression to degree
Graduation
Areas of special state need (completed)
Relations with K-12
Remediation
Facilities Utilization
University Advancement
4
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 accreditationsEngineering, Technology, Sciences,
Business, Health, Education
5
Program Quality
Indicator 1 - CSU Progress
Summary
 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
6
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
7
necessary)
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
8
Access to the CSU
Indicator 2 – CSU Progress:
CCC Transfers: 2000-2001 thru 2004-2005
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
69,345
56,896
59,735
60,057
54,884
Upper-Division CCC
Admissions
3,209
4,336
3,250
2,070
1,903
Denied Eligible UpperDivision CCC Applicants
1,206
1,061 1,496
708
676
Denied Eligible UpperDivision CCC Applicants
Admitted to Another CSU
0
10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000
9
Access to the
CSU
Indicator 2 – CSU Progress:
First-Time Freshmen – 2000-2001 thru 2004-2005
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
145,728
129,047
125,172
124,807
106,567
Freshman Admissions
25,532
26,203
24,861
11,426
10,819
Denied Eligible Freshman
Applicants
18,993
18,364
17,389
8,171
7,695
Denied Eligible Freshman
Applicants Admitted to
Another CSU
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000
10
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
11
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
12
Progression to Degree
First-Year Continuation Rates
Regularly-Admitted First-Time Freshmen
90%
80%
83%
79%
82%
77%
84%
78%
Regularly-Admitted CCC Transfers
84%
79%
84%
79%
84%
81%
82% 83%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Fall 1998 to Fall 1999 to Fall 2000 to Fall 2001 to Fall 2002 to Fall 2003 to Fall 2004 to
Fall 1999
Fall 2000
Fall 2001
Fall 2002
Fall 2003
Fall 2004
Fall 2005
13
Progression to Degree
Average Units Completed by Upper-Division Students as They
Progressed to the Baccalaureate (Semester Units)
Baccalaureate Degree Recipients who Entered the CSU as Regularly-Admitted Junior CCC Transfer Students
Baccalaureate Degree Recipients who Entered the CSU as Regularly-Admitted First-Time Freshmen
85
80
75
77
73
75
73
73
74
73 74
73
74
72
73
72
73
70
65
60
CY 19981999
CY 19992000
CY 20002001
CY 20012002
CY 20022003
CY 20032004
CY 20042005
14
Progression to Degree
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”
15
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
16
Graduation Rates
Fall 1999 First-Time Freshmen
62%
70%
60%
56%
47%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
6-Year Graduation Rate at
CSU Campus of Origin
Graduation Rate at CSU
Campus of Origin
Graduation Rate within the
CSU
17
Graduation Rates
Trend of First-Time Freshman 6-Year Graduation
70%
60%
50%
42%
41%
42%
44%
45%
46%
47%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Fall
1993
Fall
1994
Fall
1995
Fall
1996
Fall
1997
Fall
1998
Fall
1999
18
Graduation Rates
Trend of First-Time Freshman Graduation from Campus of Origin
70%
60%
53%
52%
53%
54%
55%
56%
56%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Fall
1993
Fall
1994
Fall
1995
Fall
1996
Fall
1997
Fall
1998
Fall
1999
19
Graduation Rates
Trend of First-Time Freshman Graduation
from the System
70%
59%
60%
58%
60%
60%
61%
62%
62%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Fall
1993
Fall
1994
Fall
1995
Fall
1996
Fall
1997
Fall
1998
Fall
1999
20
Graduation Rates
Fall 2002 CCC Junior Transfers
73%
80%
70%
60%
76%
53%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3-Year Graduation Rate at
Campus of Origin
Graduation Rate at Campus
of Origin
Graduation Rate within the
CSU
21
Graduation Rates
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
22
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
23
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
24
Indicator 6
Freshman Proficiency vis-à-vis Board Goals for Proficiency in
English and Math
Percentage of Regularly-Admitted First-T ime Freshmen Prepared in Mathematics
Percentage of Regularly-Admitted First-T ime Freshmen Prepared in English
100%
T rustee Fall 2004
T rustee Fall 2004
T rustee Fall 2007
T rustee Fall 2007
90%
Mathematics Goal
English Goal
Mathematics Goal
English Goal
78%
74%
80%
63%
54%
53%
46%
55%
54% 54% 54%
51%
52%
63%
52%
64%
63%
53%
60%
55%
40%
20%
0%
Fall
1998
Fall
1999
Fall
2000
Fall
2001
Fall
2002
Fall
2003
Fall
2004
Fall
2005
Fall
2007
25
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:
Fall 2001:
Fall 2002:
Fall 2005:
46%
54%
63% (change in level required)
64%
26
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
27
Indicator 7 - CSU Progress
Successful Remediation (within one year) of Students who were Not Fully
Prepared in English and Mathematics at Entry
20,000
18,000
 Fall 2004 – 22,004 Freshmen Needed Remediation
 Fall 2005 – 18,464 (84%) Fully Remediated
84%
82%
79%
79%
81%
79%
82%
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Fall 1998
Fall 1999
Fall 2000
Fall 2001
Fall 2002
Fall 2003
Fall 2004
Remedial CohortRemedial CohortRemedial CohortRemedial CohortRemedial CohortRemedial CohortRemedial Cohort
to Fall 1999
to Fall 2000
to Fall 2001
to Fall 2002
to Fall 2003
to Fall 2004
to Fall 2005
28
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
29
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
30
Facilities Utilization
Indicator 8 – CSU Progress
Summary
140,000
Off-site (excludes CPEC
approved off campus centers)
120,000
Distance Learning
100,000
Summer Annualized FTES
80,000
60,000
Weekends and Term Breaks
AY FTES (except Summer
Break)
Friday AY Lecture/Lab AY
FTES
40,000
20,000
0
CY
19981999
CY
19992000
CY
20002001
CY
20012002
CY
20022003
CY
20032004
CY
20042005
Monday-Thursday AY
Lecture/Lab Facilities FTES
after 4 p.m.
31
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
32
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
33
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
34