Accountability Report 2002

Performance Criteria No. 1 Student Learning Outcomes. Under the direction of the Associate Vice President for Assessment and Planning, the university has set up a multi‑tiered assessment structure, including a university assessment committee, a general education assessment committees, and college and departmental assessment representatives and committees. The structure involves the participation of more than a hundred faculty across all colleges and departments in the implementation and administration of the assessment process. As of Spring 2002, 81% of the undergraduate and graduate programs at CSUSB (excluding Interdisciplinary programs) have submitted outcomes assessment plans to the University Outcomes Assessment Committee and of the plans submitted, and 67% have been approved for implementation. Overall, more than half of the undergraduate and graduate programs at CSUSB have university‑approved outcomes assessment plans, and have begun implementation, data collection and reporting. (See http://gradstudies.csusb.edu/outcome/ index.html for chart showing the progress of each degree program.)

The university established accountability goals, and revised our program review policy to call for reporting on findings and use of student learning‑outcomes assessment. Each fall, every department submits an annual report on progress in assessing students, findings made, and how the information gained has been used to improve both student learning and the curriculum. Some departments have already started to revise their curricula, course syllabi, and teaching methods and expectations. Meanwhile, the university has (1) provided incentive funding in the form of grants for the development of departmental assessment plans, (2) provided consultants and training, (3) sent faculty to national and CSU system‑wide workshops on assessment, and (4) provided on‑going baseline funding to programs which have had their assessment plans approved by the University Assessment Committee.

For the past two years substantial emphasis has been placed on the development of outcomes assessment for the General Education basic skills areas (written communication, oral communication, mathematics, and critical thinking) and the subject matter breadth areas in humanities, natural sciences and social and behavioral sciences. Faculty committees have developed goals and objectives for each of the general education categories and have solicited input from faculty campus‑wide. Based on the feedback received, these committees have revised the G.E. learning goals and are currently developing assessment methodology that will be piloted in the Fall 2002 and Winter 2003 quarters. The General Education Committee also piloted the ETS Academic Profile) test of GE knowledge and faculty committees are utilizing the results in the development of assessment tools specific to our campus. In addition, we have administered the National Survey of Student Engagement and developed a cohort of 12 other CSU campuses to provide benchmarking data and comparisons with other comprehensive institutions nationally.

Performance Criteria No. 2 Access to CSU. The campus continues to accept all qualified freshmen and transfers who apply the established deadlines. Applications continue to grow nonetheless. CSUSB is committed to serving the growing number of high school graduates and transfer students in our service region who are seeking a college degree. Our early outreach efforts with elementary, middle and secondary schools which have been in operation for over a decade are having a good impact on Hispanic and African-­American enrollments and the percentage of H.S. grads attending college, and the number and percentage of students taking the required college preparatory course sequence required for admission to the CSU.

Performance Criteria No. 3 Progression to degree. While the trend toward a higher continuation rate is not always going to be linear, the data and projections still look favorable. There may be some negative impact because of an unexpected decline in the number of freshmen in the Fall 2002 cohort. We are down 8.6°/a in first‑time freshmen from Fall 2001. If the students who did not come were among the stronger students academically, we might see some decline in the continuation rate.

Performance Indicator No. 4 Persistence & graduation: The projected improvements are predicated on having no more than 13 to 16% part‑time students. If this continues to hold steady, the predicted persistence and graduation rates should be fairly accurate. The projection for 2004‑2005 is a high but attainable number given some new initiatives that should increase the graduation rate of our lowest performing group.

Performance Criteria No. 5 Areas of Special State need The campus accommodated a very rapid enrollment growth in the College of Education since 1997, both in basic teaching credentials and in advanced and master's degree programs, which are also needed and highly demanded by our area's school districts. We have also developed off‑campus sites and internship programs to serve credential students and to assist beginning teachers. Oar BA in Nursing continues to be impacted despite expansion of the number of new students accepts, primarily due to the high cost of the program and lack of available faculty.

Performance Indicator No. 6.1 Relations with K 12: Assuming continuing support for PAD and CAPI, our Goals for "K‑12 students involved" for 2002‑03 and 2003‑04 should be adjusted upward. Funding for those two programs, which account for the majority of the students served, has not increased. For that reason, more reasonable goals would be 14,800 and 15,000 respectively. When the Goals for 2002‑03 and 2004‑05 were developed, we did not have accurate numbers for America Reads/America Counts, so we did not include counts for those programs. Conservative estimates that include those programs could increase the number of K‑12 students involved by 4,000 to 8,000. We do not anticipate the number of faculty involved to double, so that goal should adjusted downward to reflect a more accurate picture. If we have a growth of 8 faculty for a total of 40 in 2002‑03 and another 10 by 2004‑05, that would be a more realistic projection.

No. 6.2 Fully Prepared new freshmen: We expect small, generally linear, gains in the percentage of freshmen fully prepared in mathematics. Given the demographics of our region, the percentage of freshmen fully prepared in English is likely to increase at a much slower pace and may even show further declines in some years. The percentage of non‑native speakers of English has increased in our service area, and that will continue to impact the preparation level of incoming freshmen. Holding steady is actually a sign that improvement efforts by all segments are having a positive impact.

Performance Indicator No. 7 Remediation: A significantly larger percentage of our students require remediation than is true for the system as a whole. The quarter system format works as a deterrent to remediation in English because what non‑native speakers of English need is more time on task, and the quarter system does not afford them that added time. We have set ambitious targets for 2002‑03 and again for 2004‑05 which in light of the trends may need to be scaled back modestly to 75% and 78% respectively.

Performance Criteria No. 8.1 Facilities Utilization. This campus has always encouraged non­-traditional and part‑time students by offering many degree programs and a high percentage of its FTES during the evening. Weekend, off campus and distance learning enrollments are a growing part of that mix. With establishment of an Office of Distance Education, substantial federal funding for development of the infrastructure to support distance learning, and completion of telecommunication projects, the campus is poised to make steady growth in off campus and media‑assisted instruction.

Performance Criteria No. 8.2 Enrollment at approved OR‑campus Centers. Built on land donated by the city and constructed with over $20,000,000 in private funding, in summer 2002 our Palm Desert branch campus moved to a permanent site. Enrollment grew by 13% this fall and the PD campus is expected to grow more even rapidly due to the visibility of the new facilities, expansion of offerings, and provision of more student services. A strategic plan has been developed for marketing and sustaining the growth of this off‑campus center. With the aid of a federal Title V grant the institution also is developing programs and providing outreach and student support services at other community college sites in San Bernardino and Riverside counties.

Performance Criteria No. 9 Advancement. CSUSB continues to excel in fundraising with $5,000,000 in gifts in 2001‑02, a 47 percent increase over the previous year. The Annual Fund doubled the number of new donors and increased Alumni participation and pledges. Scholarship contributions totaled $231,00 and a scholarship campaign was launched to commemorate the Alumni Associations 35th anniversary. The University Advancement division plans to raise $9 million in external funds during 2002‑03 for completion of the Palm Desert Campus, increase Alumni membership by 18%, recruit more friends and supporters, and increase recognition of CSUSB in the region.