Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
0EC Meeting – January 29, 2010
The CSU Graduation Initiative:
Delivering on Access to Excellence
1
The ‘Access to Excellence’ Strategic Plan
The new CSU strategic plan sets forth three major priorities:
1. increasing student access and success2. meeting the state’s need for economic and civic development
through continued investment in applied research and meeting workforce needs; and
3. Sustaining institutional excellence through investment in faculty and staff, innovation in teaching and increased involvement of undergraduates in research and their communities.
The plan outlines eight specific goals within these priorities.
http://www.calstate.edu/AccesstoExcellence/
EC Meeting – January 29, 2010
2
The ‘Access to Excellence’ Strategic Plan
The plan outlines eight specific goals within these priorities:
1. Reduce existing achievement gaps
2. Plan for faculty turnover and invest in faculty excellence
3. Plan for staff and administrative succession and professional growth
4. Improve accountability for learning results
5. Expand student outreach6. Enhance student opportunities
for “active learning”7. Enhance opportunities for
global awareness8. Act on the CSU’s responsibility
to meet post-baccalaureate needs of the state, including those of working professionals
CAD Meeting – December 1, 2009
3
Planning for Delivery on ATE Priorities and Goals
In approving the new strategic plan, the Board asked that timetables and metrics be developed for the plan, and for periodic updates on progress towards achieving its goals.
An implementation plan will be developed over the next several months.
The Charge The Approach
A mandate for reform … an instruction to deliver.
CAD Meeting – December 1, 2009
4
Approach to Delivery on Priorities and Goals
“deliverology” (n.) is a systematic process through which system / campus / divisional / unit leaders drive progress and deliver results.
Priorities and goals can be delivered on time and on standard, but only if one keeps bringing people back to the fundamentals:
• What is our system / campus / division / unit trying to do?• How will we deliver that?• How, at any given moment, will we know whether or not we are
on track?• How, if progress is not what we hoped for, will we solve the
problem?• How can a central Delivery Unit help?
CAD Meeting – December 1, 2009
5
Approach to Delivery : Process Components
• Setting Targets –which set measurable goals• Develop a Delivery Plan—which is used to manage delivery
What is the delivery chain? What are the milestones and trajectories? What data will be collected at every stage in the process? Who are key stakeholders? Who is accountable at the top … and all along the delivery chain?
• Monthly Reports—on key themes• Stocktakes—held every other Executive Committee meeting /
Cabinet meeting / Divisional Team meeting / Unit meeting• Problem-solving/Corrective Action—where necessary• Delivery Reports—minimum of two reports to Board of Trustees
summarizing progress on delivery Recent performance with ‘assessment of likely delivery’ (traffic lights) Priorities summarized in a ‘league table’
CAD Meeting – December 1, 2009
6
Delivery Reports: Assessment Framework
CAD Meeting – December 1, 2009
7
Delivery Reports: Summary in League Table
CAD Meeting – December 1, 2009
8
Deliverology versus Deliveritis
CAD Meeting – December 1, 2009
9
Deliverology versus Deliveritis
CAD Meeting – December 1, 2009
10
The CSU ATE Delivery Plan: Goals
The CSU new strategic plan calls for three major priorities and eight goals within these priorities.
Goal 1: Reduce existing achievement gaps. “In adopting this strategic plan, the CSU leadership commits to halving existing achievement gaps within the next ten years. The first step in accomplishing this will be to set clear goals and performance benchmarks that can be the basis for accountability for achieving these results. Work will need to occur at each of the points in the educational pipeline where leakages are occurring: in college-going rates among recent high school graduates; in first-year retention rates; in transfer readiness and success; in baccalaureate degree completion; and in graduate and professional school readiness and completion.”
CAD Meeting – December 1, 2009
11
The CSU ATE Delivery Plan: Targets
Goal 1: Reduce existing achievement gaps.
• Target for six-year graduation rates : FTF and Transfers
• Target graduation rates for URM and Non-URM: Reduction in gap
CAD Meeting – December 1, 2009
12
9
6
10
6
6
7
6
6
6
7
10
14
9
9
6
7
6
13
6
8
9
The CSU adjusted the campus goals so that each campus either achieves top quartile performance within individual peer groupings or by an additional 6% increase if already near top.
41.4
42.4
58.3
44.2
50.1
37.8
50.8
42.1
40.0
35.6
34.8
47.8
49.1
43.2
45.5
32.9
53.5
41.5
48.3
44.3
66.9
53.5
San Jose State University
San Francisco State University
San Diego State University
Humboldt State University
California State University – Stanislaus
California State University – San Marcos
Sonoma State University
California State University – Sacramento
California State University – Northridge
California State University – Monterey Bay
California State University – Los Angeles
California State University – Long Beach
California State University – Fullerton
California State University – East Bay
California State University – Fresno
California State University – Dominguez Hills
California State University – Chico
California State University – Bakersfield
California State Polytechnic University – Pomona
California State University – San Bernardino
California Polytechnic State University – San Luis Obispo
California Maritime Academy 71.2
75.6
43.1
58.7
43.8
55.0
40.1
45.7
45.7
54.6
55.0
44.3
49.3
48.7
50.9
50.7
44.5
44.6
57.2
59.0
50.6
50.6
Current graduation ratePercentCampus1
Top QuartilePercent % pts of improvement2
18
CAD Meeting – December 1, 2009
13
9
8
6
13
6
7
6
9
9
14
10
7
6
6
6
7
6
6
10
6
9
18
A2S Transfer Graduation rate, A2S FTF Graduation rate, and % improvement to achieve top quartile performance for each campus’ peer grouping – with at least 6% to all campuses
65.4
68.3
73.4
67.5
69.5
64.4
72.2
66.4
69.2
55.0
61.5
68.8
74.8
68.1
68.9
65.0
70.5
65.2
66.2
71.7
83.7
78.6
San Jose State University
San Francisco State University
San Diego State University
Humboldt State University
California State University – Stanislaus
California State University – San Marcos
Sonoma State University
California State University – Sacramento
California State University – Northridge
California State University – Monterey Bay
California State University – Los Angeles
California State University – Long Beach
California State University – Fullerton
California State University – East Bay
California State University – Fresno
California State University – Dominguez Hills
California State University – Chico
California State University – Bakersfield
California State Polytechnic University – Pomona
California State University – San Bernardino
California Polytechnic State University – San Luis Obispo
California Maritime Academy
47.1
40.9
53.1
31.6
44.9
42.0
48.1
46.7
34.0
35.1
39.4
40.7
49.8
36.1
48.3
43.9
55.1
40.8
39.7
A2S TransferPercentCampus1
A2S FTFPercent % pts of improvement2
66.6
52.5
43.0
CAD Meeting – December 1, 2009
14
Target graduation rate for URM FTF to halve the gap withnon-URM students given each campus’ overall graduation rate goal – includes
minimum 6% point increase at each CSU campus
1 Channel Island is not included – Since it was founded in 2002, there is insufficient data
California State University –
Fullerton
California State University –
East Bay
California State University –
Fresno
California State University –Dominguez Hills
California State University –
Chico
California State University –
Bakersfield
California State Polytechnic
University – Pomona
California State University –
San Bernardino
California Polytechnic State
University – SLO
California Maritime Academy
California State University –
Long BeachSan Jose State University
San Francisco State University
San Diego State University
California State University –
Stanislaus
California State University –
San Marcos
Sonoma State University
California State University –
Sacramento
California State University –
Northridge
California State University –
Monterey Bay
California State University –
Los Angeles
Humboldt State University
16
8
5
9
4
4
9
3
4
4
5
13
6
12
7
12
7
8
8
8
9
4
14
6
8
6
7
6
12
4
7
8
9
14
10
10
7
7
6
15
9
10
11
URM
Non URM
% pts of improvement% pts of improvementCampus1 Campus
22
CAD Meeting – December 1, 2009
15
The CSU ATE Delivery Plan: Draft Project Management
November 20 CO launch delivery team and begin reaching out to campuses December 8-9 Present plans to Presidents at Executive Committee MeetingsDecember 25 Receive all campus plansBy January 8 Respond to campus plans; prepare Chancellor presentation to
BOT; assemble ‘mega’ plan and trajectory for the systemJanuary 13-14 Work with McKinsey and Barber on a capacity reviewJanuary 26-27 Chancellor presents to the Board of TrusteesJanuary 29 Submission of first monthly report—one page: “We promised
___. ‘ “We delivered ____.”January 30 Develop initial draft of Delivery Chart (league table?) for CO;
problem solve / take corrective action where necessary
CAD Meeting – December 1, 2009
16
Towards a CSU Chico Delivery Plan: In Perspective
Over the past five years, Chico has been on a trajectory of increased institutional effectiveness and accountability:
• Alignment of divisional strategic plans with University’s Strategic Plan for the Future• Move towards linked performance indicators for the University Annual Report Card• Development of the Enterprise Data Warehouse and web-based Reporting Services
Thus, ‘deliverology approach’ dovetails nicely with campus efforts and will allow the campus to further address the WASC Commission Recommendation:
“The team viewed it as essential that the campus focus on the most important performance indicators and establish targeted goals and measurable objectives to be reached over the next five years. The Commission concurs.”
17
Towards a CSU Chico Delivery Plan: Next Steps
Key areas to be considered in development of delivery plan:
• Launch Chico delivery team—composition of team; assign leadership, management and accountability
• Set trajectory for implementation—define key milestones and overall time table
• Identify relevant activities and delivery chain—what levers are available? What activities to improve, remove, introduce?
• Detail Performance Management—what indicators and sub-indicators to monitor to see whether delivery is on track?
• Describe resources and support required—what resources are required for plan’s success, and if not currently available, how to be obtained?
• Prepare to engage stakeholders—who are relevant stakeholders? How to manage change over time? How to communicate key messages of change program?
• Anticipate and prepare for challenges—what risks and constraints might throw off efforts. How to manage?
18
Deliverology: The Promise
“Interestingly, as time went by, once officials had clarified the delivery chain and started to exert influence on it, they found their jobs much more worthwhile. Many civil servants, after all, had embarked on their careers motivated by the thought of making a difference, only to be ground down by the inertia of the machine of which they had become a part. Often we found we had reignited their motivation; they were once again making a difference.” (p. 87)
Sir Michael Barber
CAD Meeting – December 1, 2009
