ML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> Postsecondary Subgroup

APPENDIX A
An Evaluation of the Impact of Rapid Increases in Student Fees Within the California Community Colleges:

Highlights from Two Studies

California Community Colleges. Study of Fee Impact: Final Report. Sacramento: The Chancellor’s Office. June 1987.

California Community Colleges. 1993 Report on Fee Impact. Sacramento: The Chancellor’s Office. December 1993.

While the differential impact of fee increases is undeniable, the role of other factors-- even within the community colleges— such as student financial aid and fee stability are quite important as well. In this regard, the CCC Chancellor’s office prepared two extensive studies that examined student behavior during two periods when fees increased the most (1984-5 and 1992-4). These studies are worth quoting at length because of their important insights on fees in this segment, which provides the most access for those most sensitive to fee changes.

Impact of the Initial Imposition of State Fees in the CCC

In the spring of 1984, state government imposed a $50 fee per semester on credit students, or $5 per unit, for the first time in history. After studying several years of effects, the Chancellor’s Office concluded:

Credit enrollment declined... by 7% in 1984...the third consecutive year of enrollment losses since the colleges recorded their peak of 1,430,000 students in 1981. Budget and program cuts are thought to have been the primary reasons for 6% and 8% declines in 1982 and 1983. For 1984, however, there was a budget increase for inflation and enrollment growth and incentives in the funding mechanism to restore enrollment loses that had taken place in 1983. Reacting to these budget incentives, colleges attempted to grow, increasing their number of course sections by 4% over 1983. Despite this effort at growth, credit enrollments declined. Results of this study indicate that the new enrollment fee did contribute, along with several other factors, to the 1984 enrollment loss.

California’s enrollment loss in 1984 was almost twice that...across the country. ...[T]he larger losses in California, particularly among part-time students, appear attributable to the impact of the new enrollment fee. [However,] few of the effects reported for 1984 in California continued into 1985, the second year of the fee. ...Thus, the new enrollment fee appears to have had a significant impact in its first year, but not in its second and third years. By contrast, the Board’s Financial Assistance Program for students had less than the expected impact in its first year, but is now exerting a positive impact on enrollment.[41]

Impact of the Rapid Escalation of CCC Fees During the Early 1990s

Legislative action in 1992 raised enrollment fees for CCC students who already held baccalaureate degrees from $6 per unit to $50 and, for all other students from $6 per credit unit to $10--by far the most dramatic single jump in history. In 1993, the credit enrollment fee was raised from $10 per unit to $13 per unit but the per unit fee for credit students with BA degrees continued at $50. After analyzing attendance data and conducting an extensive telephone survey, the Chancellor’s office concluded:

Community colleges’ spring 1993 enrollment declined from fall 1992 by 106,000 students (7%). Those with BA degrees reduced enrollment by 54,000 in spring 1993, or by 41%. In terms of those without BA’s, the $4 per unit increase resulted in an 8 percent increase in student cost (fees plus other costs of attendance), and produced a 4 percent decline in student enrollment [the number of course sections also declined by 4,000].

The fall’s numbers are down 2% from last spring (1993). Most of the impact (7% loss) of new fees occurred last spring.

Among a sample of students without BA/BS degrees who were enrolled in Fall 1992 but not in the spring, fees were a major reason one third did not return in the spring of 1993. Another one-third had completed their work or transferred.

The spring 1993 loss in students without baccalaureate degrees took place primarily among full-timers ...This reversal [of a trend toward more classes being taken] can be attributed to the spring 1993 policy change which lifted the ten-unit limit on fees...making it substantially more expensive to attend full time. ...Minority students appear to have been impacted by the fee to a greater degree than were white students, a finding consistent with the lower incomes (less ability to pay) of minority students generally found in other studies. Students over 20 years of age also appear to have been impacted to a greater degree by the fee increase than were younger, recent high school graduates.

Students with the BA/BS degree also were helped by financial aid. The Board of Governors Grant appropriation was increased...and was supplemented by $8 million in fee waivers. ...This brought the proportion of community college students on financial aid to nearly 25%.[42]

APPENDIX B
Ideas that did not Achieve a Consensus

The state government should adopt a methodology that would provide more student financial aid and less appropriations to public institutions in order to use “student choice to define the most efficient financial allocation to the institution. ...The student based model relies on the competitive forces of student choice to pressure institutions to become more efficient. [Special grants could be given] to “preserving overall capacity levels, serving disadvantaged and high-cost students, and targeting instructional areas, such as K-12 teacher credentialing. ...The Legislature would still ‘contract’ with the universities and colleges for specific research and public service roles as well as provide for capital investment.”[43]

The state has already taken a significant step in this direction through its expansion and recommitment to the Cal Grant program. Expanding the use of and increasing the level of differential student fees beyond their current limited use for professional programs in the UC to include other graduate programs and to more completely cover the entire cost of instruction in the UC and the CSU would be the next step. This would not only create market pressures and incentives to improve efficiency and quality, but could also serve to expand the overall level of resources available to postsecondary education (thereby expanding its ability to accommodate Tidal Wave II) while at the same time allowing for more effective management of enrollments.

Professor Michael Shires
Pepperdine University

Affordability: Defining what a student can afford to pay in fees is too complicated to implement and leads to many unintended consequences. The problem of an adult student (over 18 years of age) being judged based on his/her families income is not consistent with the way many families handle their economic lives. Fees based on ability to pay would also lead parents and grandparents to not put money away for college since it would work to the disadvantage of the student to have money available for his/her education. Since the economic well being of the state is improved by having an educated population, the state should provide the funds to provide universal education to its residents.

Accountability: The use of accountability efforts in other states should be looked at to see why many states are now moving away from this initiative. It should be strongly noted that outcome funding has not created any increase in quality where it was tried.

Student financial aid should not be structured in such a way that students are encouraged to attend costly private universities and colleges. State resources should be used to promote public education.

The report states that "in good times, the state provides large increases in appropriations to public institutions." I would maintain that, even in good times, the funding provided to the community colleges has never approached the need. In fact, based on program based funding standards, community college funding has never been in excess of 60% of the funding required to maintain the colleges at a reasonable level.

We should not oversell the value of distance education. As the report notes, distance education has proved to be more expensive than traditional offerings. In addition, while the growth rate (in percentage terms) has been high for distance education, the total use is still a fraction (less than 2%) of total enrollment. The report should note that groups offering distance education are shutting down. The high drop out rates in community college offered distance education classes should also be noted when policy is being developed.

The report speaks to the opportunity technology provides to "unbundle" instructional services. We should oppose this assembly line approach to education - the breakup of program development, course creation, instructional delivery, and student evaluation. If the educational process is to have integrity, the teacher must be involved in all aspects of the course - from presentation and development to grading. We should not be hiring actors to present material and underpaid barely professional workers to do the grading. This "debundling" is what destroyed correspondence courses in the last century. We should not let it dilute the quality of our offerings.

The California Federation of Teachers is opposed to the policy of fees. We believe that education should be provided free by the state.  We are opposed to any policy that would raise fees. I would suggest moving toward eliminating fees so that this did not become an instability from year to year.

We are in favor of continued lowering of fees even if this means that the state will "buy-out" these funds by providing state funds in their place. The suggestion that fees be increased is particularly destructive in the community college arena. As the report points out, studies by the Community College Chancellor's office have demonstrated that enrollment at the community colleges drops by about 1.34% for each 10% increase in fees. This would mean that a $1 dollar increase in the amount charged per unit would translate into a drop in enrollment in excess of 200,000 community college students (1.67 million x 1.34%). This is a number greater than the entire enrollment at the University of California (187,000). Even when grants are increased, the drop would still be at the 200,000 student level.

We should maintain the low fees moving to no fees approach. This policy has enriched California in the past and the continuation of this policy will continue to draw talented people to California.

We do, however, need to turn our attention on the cost of books - a high cost for community college students. In addition, it should be noted how much need there is for financial aid as opposed to the amount provided.

The CFT is opposed to differential fees. We are also opposed to allowing the Community College Board of Governors or the UC or CSU to set or adjust statewide fees. These boards are politically appointed and have no direct accountability mechanism (such as loss of political office) to the will of the people of California. Fee levels should continue to be determined by the legislature with the approval of the governor. The Board of Governors as well as CSU and UC should have no control over fees or surcharges. The ability to access education should be the domain of the elected representatives of the people of California.

Finally, I believe that the number of students served by the community colleges and the number of campuses in the community college system should play a role in the division of bonds. The estimation of the costs of building should be done using the same criteria independent of whether the building is done on a community college campus or on a university campus. Currently quite different assumptions of cost per square foot are used to the detriment of the community colleges.

Martin Hittelman
President, Community College Council
California Federation of Teachers

To smooth the cycles of higher education finance, the State should create a “trust fund” called the California Higher Education Opportunity Fund. To do so, the state government should commit to providing to higher education at least its current percentage of total state appropriations, some funds for enrollment growth and assistance for financially needy students.

Whenever the increase to higher education generated from this guarantee was more than a certain amount (for instance 4 percent), the excess would be placed in an Opportunity Fund available to the UC and the CSU. Exceptions to the 4% threshold include enrollment increases and funds for one-time investments such as equipment replacement and deferred maintenance.

Funds collected in the Opportunity Fund would be available to each segment during any year when the increase in state general funds falls below 4 percent, as a means of stabilizing resources over the long-term. The amount higher education needs for annual increases is determined by many factors: the level of general inflation which erodes purchasing power, increases needed to offer competitive faculty salaries, and costs associated with escalating needs such as facilities repair. The recommendation of a “4 percent threshold” is based on an evaluation of the cost fluctuations during the past twenty years. Whatever the level, the threshold should be established at a percentage that will meet these needs projected into the future but will create a significant cushion for fiscal downturns.

The idea of creating a ”trust fund” for saving state general funds is a new and controversial approach to smoothing the excesses of fiscal swings. True, the idea seems contrary to a state appropriations process where the political priority is to spend all funds annually or return them to the citizens as tax relief. Higher education leaders are concerned that, without proper controls, the suggested approach might sequester their appropriations without really securing them. Later, they fear, the state government would seize the funds for purposes other than higher education. Certainly, the history of funds that are set aside with good intentions, but only statutorily protected, provides good reason for concerns.

Special funds, however, can be protected by legal devices that are not easily circumvented: examples include the vesting of benefits in retirement accounts and provisions protecting dedicated funds established in Proposition 99 (1988) and Proposition 111 (1990). Certainly, the trust fund would have to be established in conjunction with the following protections:

“Our ideas are based on a few assumptions:

  1. Public organizations are responsive...particularly to financial incentives.
  2. Paying the public system based principally on enrollments has generated large numbers of enrollments and high levels of access...but not high performance by other measures (Partnership Agreements are widely skewed toward process and away from performance).
  3. Programs that claim to have an impact on students’ success in the labor market should be held accountable—to some degree—for the labor market success of their students.
  4. Public accountability for performance is a powerful method for shaping institutional behavior.
  5. Incentives rather than regulation or traditional manpower planning models are the best way to align institutions with the labor market. ...
  6. Because of the law of unintended consequences, incentive systems must be used cautiously. ...

Recommendation:

Create a performance-driven system, which benefits students and aligns career preparation programs throughout the system with the labor market.

Identify the key mission-related outcomes the system should produce:

Create measures for these outcomes that cut across programs, institutions, and systems ...

Make accountability for these outcomes highly visible and public

Provide significant financial incentives tied to outcomes.

Once a performance measurement system is in place, create financial incentives which are relatively stable over time to drive performance, i.e., instead of tying all marginal funding to FTES, tie some portion of it—10% to 25% to the number of graduates (computer science, architecture, etc.).

Provide incentives for increasing graduates in high cost fields that are key to the economy, such as computer science.

Data on labor market performance will drive enrollments and hence resources to the most successful institutions.”

APPENDIX C
The Current Status and Measures in the “Partnership” with the University of California and the California State University

University of California

Progress on Accountability Measures 2001-02

  • UC continues to admit all eligible applicants who wish to attend. UC has exceeded budgeted enrollment levels each year of the Partnership.
  • Graduate enrollments at UC have increased by nearly 3,000 students over the last three years – as much as these enrollments grew over the previous 25 years.
  • This is the seventh consecutive year without a systemwide fee increase for UC students. In 1998-99 and again in 1999-2000, fees for resident undergraduates were reduced 5%. Annual student fees at UC are now more than $1,000 below the average of our public comparison institutions.
  • UC students continue to receive more than $1 billion a year in financial aid, more than half of it in the form of gift aid.
  • The University has implemented a new path to eligibility that opens UC’s doors to the top 4% of students in each California high school. Preliminary data indicate that the ELC program generated 2,100 additional applications to UC this year from students who otherwise might not have applied – half of them from underrepresented minorities and one-fifth from students who live in rural areas of California. All ELC-eligible students who applied to the University were guaranteed a space in the UC system.
  • The Partnership specifies an increase in community college transfers of 6% per year, from 10,150 in 1998-99 to 15,300 in 2005-06. Over the last two years, full-year transfer enrollment growth has averaged 5.2% annually – very near the Partnership goal – and last year UC enrolled more than 11,000 new community college transfer students for the first time in its history.
  • The University has honored its commitment to maintain the agreed-upon 6.7% increase in faculty teaching workload and has continued to provide the classes that students need to graduate in a timely manner.
  • Average time to degree for undergraduates who entered in 1993 is now 13 quarters, down from 13.4 quarters for students who entered in 1984. Of the freshmen who entered UC in 1994, 36% graduated in four years, 69% in five years, and 77% in six years. These rates are an improvement over 10 years ago, when the four-year rate was 31%, the five-year rate was 67%, and the six-year rate was 73%.
  • UC has created four institutes pursuing cutting-edge research in fields that will be critical to the future of the state’s economy by bringing together university researchers and private-sector partners to push the boundaries of knowledge, maintain California’s economic leadership, and create jobs for the state’s growing population. While the Institutes are expected to provide non-State matching funds at a 2:1 ratio, they expect to do so at a level of 3:1.
  • Planning for the University’s 10th campus at Merced remains on track for enrolling the first UC Merced students in 2004. In the meantime, the campus has established a system of distributed learning centers in conjunction with local community colleges at three locations: Fresno, Merced, and Bakersfield; a fourth is planned for Modesto. Central Valley outreach programs developed by the campus have led to a 69% increase (817 students) between 1990 and 2000 in the number of freshmen students enrolled in UC from Central Valley high schools.
  • The Partnership called for the University to seek to increase its share of federal research and development dollars to help maintain high-quality programs. Federal funding for UC research has increased by an annual average of 9% over the last three years.
  • Similarly, the University has met with great success in securing private support to supplement State funding, raising $1.2 billion in 1999-2000 – the first year ever over $1 billion – and exceeding $1 billion again in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2001.
  • UC will meet its goal in 2001-02 to increase engineering and computer science enrollments by 50%, from 16,000 to 24,000 students – four years ahead of schedule. The University is assessing industry demand to determine if continuing this strategy beyond the original goals that were outlined is necessary to continue helping meet state workforce needs.
  • As specified in the Partnership, UC embarked on a multi-year plan to more than double the number of education credential students – from 1,000 in 1998-99 to 1,800 this year and to 2,300 by 2002-03. UC is meeting this goal.
  • The UC-administered professional development summer and intersession institutes for teachers of reading, mathematics and English language development are now reaching more than 70,000 educators each year. The professional development provided by these programs will help maximize the performance of California students in core academic areas.
  • The Governor’s Teacher Scholars Program offers a teaching credential and a master’s degree to participants who agree to teach in a low-performing school for at least four years. The first year saw 200 students enroll, building toward an ultimate enrollment of 400 annually by 2003-04.
  • The University has developed the Governor’s Principal Leadership Institutes, a two-year master’s degree program at the Berkeley and Los Angeles campuses to help meet the state’s demand for talented, highly trained school principals. Participants in the program receive full scholarships in return for the commitment to serve four years as a principal, vice principal, or in another administrative role at a public elementary or secondary school. In 2001-02, the enrollment is estimated to be more than 100 FTE students, and when fully operational in 2003-04, the two-year program will serve a total of 400 FTE students.
  • The Governor and the Legislature provided funds in 2001-02 for the first State-supported summer terms at the Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Santa Barbara campuses; funds to reduce student fees at all campuses in the summer to the level of the rest of the year were provided in 2000-01. As a result, summer enrollments increased substantially this year, enhancing UC’s ability to plan for and accommodate the 211,000 students expected to enroll by 2010. The three campuses enrolled 9,615 FTE students in summer 2001, an increase of 2,800 FTE over the previous summer. Those campuses increased the number of classes they provided by 28% and the number of regular-rank faculty and lecturers who were assigned to teach by 27% over summer 2000. They also provided nearly $4.4 million in student financial aid that was not available in previous summers.

California State University

Progress on Accountability Measures 2001-02

  • CSU continues to admit all eligible applicants who wish to attend.
  • In 2000-01 the CSU admitted 66,471 of the 88,548 first-time freshmen that applied.
  • The numbers of elementary, middle and high school students participating in CSU outreach, academic preparation, and K-12 collaboration programs was 459,056.
  • A total of 2,058 CSU students served as tutors in the Precollegiate Academic Development Program. An additional 4,127 CSU students also served as tutors in the Educational Opportunity Grant Program, College Readiness Program, Summer Bridge, MESA, Upward Bound, Talent Search, Collaborative Academic Preparation Initiative, and other campus academic development programs.
  • After several years of decline, the percentage of freshmen proficient in English and in mathematics has improved for the last three years. In addition, 97% of CSU Fall 1999 freshmen who returned in the fall of 2000 were proficient in both mathematics and English, an increase of 3% over the prior year.
  • In 1999-2000, the CSU recommended 8,605 Multiple Subject and Single Subject First Time/New Type Credentials. A total of 6,081 were Multiple Subject Credentials and 2,534 were Single Subject Credentials. In addition, 1,253 First Time/New Type Educations Specialist Credentials (special education) were issued to CSU applicants. The number of Education Specialist Credentials issued by the CSU in 1999-2000 is more than twice the combined production of the UC and independent colleges (21 from the UC and 521 from the independents. This data will serve as the baseline against which future years’ performance will be measured since new methods were agreed upon by the CSU and the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC).
  • The CSU is credited with 3,847 (50%) of the total number of students participating in pre-internships. These are emergency permit teachers who are taking subject matter coursework and are not yet admitted to teacher preparation programs.
  • Calstate TEACH and 19 campuses participate in internship programs, including 430 campus-district partnership agreements with 3,600 enrolled students in Multiple Subject, Single Subject, and Education Specialist Credential (Special Education) programs. CSU Internships constitute 61% of California’s Multiple Subject Internship Credential students in university –based programs, 75% of Single Subject Credential students, and 86% of Special Education Credential students.
  • The CSU Teacher Preparation Program continues to collaborate with K-12 schools. In addition to the districts participating in Internship Credential agreements with the CSU, 13 campuses continue to support Teacher-in-Residence programs, and all campuses participate in district teacher induction programs, Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) programs, and employment of K-12 personnel as adjunct faculty.
  • The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) reported pass rates in Fall 2001 for the Reading Instruction Competency Assessment (RICA), by campus, for AY 1999-2000. Twenty of the 21 CSU campuses exceed the 2003 goal of a 90% student pass rate. The remaining campus had a pass rate of 89%. With eight of the 21 CSU campuses below a 90% rate in the previous year, there has been significant improvement over the reporting period.
  • The CSU will continue to work with the CCTC in the development of the measurement process and assessment instrument, as well as a standard for campus success in terms of candidate pass rates.
  • The Partnership called for implementing Teaching Improvement Initiatives. The CSU is working in partnership with the UC and will include information when the report is completed by the contractor and released by the University of California in July 2002. The CSU expects that target estimates of teachers served will be met.
  • For 2001-02, state funding was increased to allow 6,621 K-12 teachers and administrators to enroll in the Educational Technology Professional Development Program. During Summer 2000 more than 5,000 K-12 teachers were enrolled in 28 local project sites hosted by 18 CSU campuses, three UC campuses, and one independent college.
  • The Partnership specifies an increase in community college transfers of 5% per year. In 2000-01 the CSU had an increase of 8% (43,160 enrolled transfer students) over the number of transfer students as reported to the California Postsecondary Education Commission.
  • In 2000-01, seven faculty-driven lower-division core alignment projects were initiated, two more than called for in the partnership agreement. An eighth discipline of history was added during Summer 2001. Including the regional alignment project in the Los Angeles basin, CSU is well on its way to fulfilling its commitment to increase the number of majors having common lower-division core requirements by 5 per year over the next four years.
  • The dual admission program under development between the CSU and the California Community Colleges will provide, among other services, academic advisement, development of an education transfer plan, and cross enrollment opportunities. The CSU will continue to work toward increasing transfer agreements and the number of students to whom dual admission services will be offered; our success will depend on the resources allocated in support of this program.
  • Since 1996-97, the CSU’s funding commitment to plant maintenance has provided $63.4 million to eliminate the annual shortfall in maintenance costs. During this partnership period, the CSU will reconfirm the appropriateness of the identified standards and may consider adjusting the maintenance costs per square foot.
  • The CSU continues to work toward reducing its deferred maintenance backlog. Campuses have been allocated $2.8 million per year for long-term deferred maintenance.
  • The total core deficiency in library materials has been estimated at approximately $90 million. CSU instructional equipment has annual depreciation replacement costs that average roughly $35 million each year. For the 2000/01 fiscal year, the CSU received $3 million that was applied toward these deficiencies. This effort will be supplemented by a one-time lottery fund allocation of $4 million to further reduce the deficiencies.
  • Sixteen of 21 campuses now offer YRO state-supported summer instruction. Seven campuses plan to convert fully in Summer 2002, assuming budget support is provided to convert the 1,923 annualized FTES currently provided for matriculated students through summer self-support instruction.
  • Between May 2000 and April 2001 (the time period for which we counted discontinuations for the partnership report), three degree programs were discontinued and 11 concentrations or options were discontinued or consolidated. During the same time period, the CSU also approved 12 new degree programs and initiate 2 pilot degree programs.
  • At its July 2000 meeting, the CSU Board of Trustees approved a change to Title 5 that reduced the minimum total units required for a bachelor’s degree to 120 semester units (180 quarter units). Added to Title 5 was a provision requiring each campus to establish and maintain a monitoring system to ensure that justification is provided for all program requirements that extend the baccalaureate unit requirement beyond 120 units.
  • For each of the last several years, CSU faculty salaries have increased at a rate higher than those of the comparison institutions, thus decreasing the difference between CSU faculty salaries and salaries at the comparison institutions. However, the 2% compensation increase pool budgeted for 2001 may be less than the average salary increases for the comparison institutions. It continues to be the policy of the CSU Trustees that merit pay should be one instrument to help take the CSU to the next level of quality by providing financial rewards to faculty considered outstanding by their peers. The collective bargaining agreement between the CSU and CFA has included a merit pay program since 1995.
  • During the 2000-2001 academic year, 327 courses with new service-learning components were created across 22 campuses (107 courses above our commitment of 22). These courses will be offered during the 2001-2002 academic year, providing new opportunities for over 12,000 additional students to participate in service learning. Service-learning offices were created or p on each CSU campus to ensure sustainability of service learning. Finally, systems have been developed and are currently being implemented to track, on an annual basis, the number of students participating in service learning and community service.

CSU Accountability Report Structure


The CSU indicators are arranged into five categories as follows:

Improving Access and the Transition to High School and College

  1. Improving Access to the CSU
  2. Improving Student Preparation
  3. Improving Proficiency of First-Time Freshmen

Improving the Quality of Teacher Preparation and Demand

  1. Increasing Credentialed Teachers
  2. Improving the Quality of Teacher Education
  3. Increasing Teacher Credentialing Requirements Pass Rates
  4. Implementing Teaching Improvement Initiatives
  5. Expanding the Use of Technology By Teachers

Improving Transfer and Articulation

  1. Increasing CCC Transfer Enrollments
  2. Increasing Common Course Requirements
  3. Increasing CCC Course Transfer Rates
  4. Developing Transfer Agreements

Improving Institutional Productivity and Efficiency

  1. Reducing Structural Deficits
  2. Shifting to Year Round Operations
  3. Reviewing Program Offerings
  4. Streamlining Graduation Unit Requirements
  5. Closing the Faculty Salary Gap

Improving the Academic Experience

  1. Increasing Community Service Learning

CSU Accountability Measures

Indicator 1: Improving Access to the CSU

Objective
Indicator
Performance Data
Ensure access under the Master Plan for all Californians.
Accept all eligible California high school graduates who wish to attend the CSU.
  • Admit all eligible students who seek CSU access.

Indicator 2: Improving Student Preparation

Objective
Indicator
Performance Data
Assume greater responsibility in working with K-12 schools towards improving student performance.
Expand current efforts to
(1) inform high schools and California Community Colleges (CCC) about student performance by working with those institutions, (2) develop early intervention programs for students who need assistance with high school graduation standards, and (3) use CSU students to tutor and mentor K-12 students.

Demonstrate greater educational achievements over prior years in high schools where CSU outreach, academic preparation, and K-12 collaboration is operational.
  • Increase the numbers of students participating in CSU outreach, academic preparation, and K-12 collaboration programs in direct proportion to increased funding for these programs.

Indicator 3: Improving Proficiency of First-Time Freshmen

Objective
Indicator
Performance Data
Assume greater responsibility in working with K-12 schools toward improving student performance.
Improve the percentage of regularly eligible students who are fully prepared in math and English composition.
  • By 2007, increase to 90% the percentage of incoming freshman proficient in English and math.

Indicator 4: Increasing Credentialed Teachers

Objective
Indicator
Performance Data
Increase the number of qualified teachers that the CSU graduates.
Increase the total number of first time and new type teacher credentials recommended. Increase the number of teachers qualified to teach mathematics and science.
  • Increase the number of first time and new type teacher credentials offered to 14,000 by 2002-2003.

Indicator 5: Improving the Quality of Teacher Education

Objective
Indicator
Performance Data
Improve the quality of CSU teacher education
Implement teacher preparation reforms consistent with SB 2042 and California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) standards in at least the following areas:
  • Provide an annual progress report on the extent to which reforms have been implemented

5.1. provision of pre-internship, internship, other credential, and integrated undergraduate programs

5.2. curriculum aligned with standards for the teaching profession and with curriculum and performance standards for K-12 students

5.3. participation in individual candidate assessment programs for teachers and subject matter content preparation and pedagogy

5.4. collaboration between the CSU and K-12 schools

Indicator 6: Increasing Credentialing Requirements Pass Rates

Objective
Indicator
Performance Data
Improve the quality of CSU teacher education.
Increase the number of enrolling students who complete credential requirements.
  • Increase the campus passage rates of CSU graduates on the Reading Instruction Competency Assessment (RICA) examination to at least 90% by 2003.
  • Establish a success rate standard and measurement process for CSU students on individual candidate assessments once the CTC publishes those assessments.

Indicator 7: Implementing Teaching Improvement Initiatives

Objective
Indicator
Performance Data
Improve the quality of CSU teacher education.
In cooperation with UC and private institutions, expand the California Subject Matter Projects to 200 sites serving 35,000 K-12 teachers through institutes and other activities aimed at improving participants’ content knowledge and pedagogical practice in nine core areas of the K-12 curriculum.
  • Provide the results of the four-year independent evaluation of CSMPs consistent with AB 1734 (Mazzoni) due to the State Board of Education, the Governor, and the Legislature by July 1, 2002.
In cooperation with UC and private institutions, implement the Governor’s Professional Reading Development Institutes to provide professional training for 20,000 teachers in grades K-3 in Reading.
  • Cooperate with the UC administered evaluation of the Governor’s Professional Reading Development Institutes.
In cooperation with UC and private institutions, implement English Language Development Institutes to provide professional training for 5,000 English language learner teaching in grades 4-8 and 5,000 English language learner teachers in grades 9-12.
  • Cooperate with the UC administered evaluation of the English Language Development Institutes.
In cooperation with UC and private institutions, implement Algebra Institutes to provide professional training for 2,500 teachers in grades 7-10 in Algebra.
  • Cooperate with the UC administered evaluation of the Algebra Institutes.
In cooperation with UC and private institutions, implement Mathematics Specialist Institutes in grades 4-6 to assume leadership roles within their schools to improve the instruction of Math.
  • Cooperate with the UC administered evaluation of the Mathematics Specialist Institutes.
In cooperation with UC and private institutions, implement High School Mathematics Institutes to provide professional training for 8,000 high school teachers in Math.
  • Cooperate with the UC administered evaluation of the High School Mathematics Institutes.
In cooperation with UC and private institutions, implement High School English Institutes to provide professional training for 12,000 high schools teachers in English.
  • Cooperate with the UC administered evaluation of the High School English Institutes.
In cooperation with UC and private institutions, implement the Pre-Algebra and Algebra Academies to provide professional training for 1,000 teachers in grades 4-8 linked with summer school instruction for K-12 students in Pre-Algebra and Algebra.
  • Cooperate with the UC administered evaluation of the Pre-Algebra and Algebra Academies.

Indicator 8: Expanding the Use of Technology By Teachers

Objective
Indicator
Performance Data
Improve the ability of K-12 teachers to use technology.
Expand education technology professional development opportunities through the California Technology Assistance Project (CTAP).
  • By the end of Summer 2000, train 5,000 K-12 teachers during the first phase of the Education Technology Professional Development Program to integrate technology into their teaching and curriculum.

Indicator 9: Increasing CCC Transfer Enrollments

Objective
Indicator
Performance Data
Accommodate all CCC transfers who are fully qualified and seek access to CSU.
Enroll all fully qualified, upper-division CCC transfer students in accordance with the CCC/CSU MOU. Under the terms of the MOU, the CCC intends to increase the number of these students by 5% per year.
  • Accept, on an ongoing basis, all fully qualified CCC students who apply to the CSU.

Indicator 10: Increasing Common Course Requirements

Objective
Indicator
Performance Data
Expand course transferability.
Develop and maintain common lower-division course requirements across CSU institutions.
  • Increase the number of majors having common lower-division core requirements by 5 per year over the next four years.

Develop and maintain systemwide agreements between the CSU, UC and CCC on lower-division course requirements for 20 high-demand majors.
  • Report on the progress made in developing agreements for high-demand majors

Indicator 11: Increasing CCC Course Transfer Rates

Objective
Indicator
Performance Data
Expand course transferability.
Increase the number of CCC transfer students who complete all CSU general education requirements before transferring by using the CSU/CCC transfer certification process or the Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC).

Indicator 12: Developing Transfer Agreements

Objective
Indicator
Performance Data
Expand course transferability.
Ensure that transfer students are taking the appropriate required courses and will receive credit for classes they have taken by developing agreements with the UC and the CCC. This can be accomplished by September 2001 in a number of ways, including Articulation System Stimulating Inter-institutional Student Transfer (ASSIST), a common course numbering system, or IGETC.
  • Complete a set of transfer agreements with feeder institutions.
  • Complete a set of transfer agreements among CSU campuses.

Indicator 13: Reducing Structural Deficits

Objective
Indicator
Performance Data
Using resources provided under this Partnership, satisfy our core mission within Master Plan guidelines
Commit 1% annual increase in Partnership resources to ongoing maintenance, instructional equipment, library materials, and technology

Commit approximately 50% of State capital outlay dollars to address seismic, life-safety, capital renewal, and modernization needs of existing facilities; and about 50% to support enrollment-growth related projects
  • Satisfy ongoing maintenance needs using identified standards by the end of the Partnership period.
  • Reduce, on a net basis annually, the total CSU deferred maintenance backlog after offsets for any shortfall in ongoing maintenance funding
  • Report progress in eliminating identified structural deficiencies for library materials and instructional equipment
  • Increase basic technology access, training and support linked to the CSU Technology Plan for improvements in instructional delivery and student academic achievement

Indicator 14: Shifting to Year Round Operations

Objective
Indicator
Performance Data
Make more effective use of existing facilities to accommodate enrollment demands and to help alleviate enrollment pressure during the regular academic year.
Reach agreement with the administration and the Legislature on a plan for phasing in implementation of a state-supported summer term on a campus-by-campus basis. If agreement reached, beginning Summer 2001 implement summer term. The phasing plan should be based on the assumption that fees, financial aid, and the quality of programs should be similar to that offered during the regular academic year.
  • Include phasing plan in final agreement on budget for 2000-01.
  • Provide an annual progress report on implementation of year-around operations.

Examine incentives that might encourage more students to attend classes in the summer and more faculty to teach in the summer.
  • Report on incentives to encourage more students to attend classes in the summer and more faculty to teach in the summer.

Indicator 15: Reviewing Program Offerings

Objective
Indicator
Performance Data
Increase program efficiency.
Conduct comprehensive program reviews to consolidate and simplify CSU program offerings.
  • Report on number of programs reviewed.

Indicator 16: Streamlining Graduation Unit Requirements

Objective
Indicator
Performance Data
Increase program efficiency.
Review all CSU degree requirements to ensure that students have the option to complete degrees in four years, and seek to change Title 5 graduation requirements from 124 to 120 hours.
  • Report on number of degree programs reviewed and progress in changing Title 5 graduation requirements.

Indicator 17: Closing the Faculty Salary Gap

Objective

Indicator
Performance Data
Provide competitive faculty salaries that are increased based on merit, subject to collective bargaining.
Provide faculty salaries that are judged competitive using CPEC’s methodology.
  • Provide an annual report to CPEC on faculty salaries
Increase emphasis on merit-based pay.
Continue to emphasize merit-based pay to reward the most outstanding faculty.

Indicator 18: Increasing Community Service Learning

Objective
Indicator
Performance Data
Provide opportunities for all students to participate in community service or service learning.
Increase the number of CSU students who engage in community service or complete a service learning experience.
  • Increase student participation in community service and service learning based on funding provided.

Table of Contents
Summary Introduction Recommendations
Appendices References Members