Transcript Student Affairs Division Meeting Spring 2012 Lori Varlotta Vice President for Student Affairs March 8, 2012

Student Affairs
Division Meeting
Spring 2012
Lori Varlotta
Vice President for Student Affairs
March 8, 2012
Overview of meeting
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Staff Recognition—10 – 15 years of service
Staff Introductions—new colleagues
Tobacco-Free Initiative
Position Searches, Reorganization
Chancellor’s Office Perspective on Enrollment
State and CSU System Political Environment
Budget
Possibility Audits
Staff recognition—10 years
The following Student Affairs personnel have
served Sacramento State for 10 years:
• Janet Dumonchelle, Student Health
• Lori Harrison, Global Education
• Jodi Howe, Campus Life
• Elaine Myers, Student Health
• Lien Nguyen, Registrar’s Office
• Sandra Perez, Registrar’s Office
• Gino Platina, Academic Advising
• Steve Tovar, University Union
Staff recognition—15 years
The following Student Affairs personnel have
served Sacramento State for 15 years:
• Georgia Allen, Admissions & Outreach
• Candace McGee, Career Center
• Bill Olmsted, University Union
• Joanna Sampanis, Student Health
• Darlene Weaver, Admissions & Outreach
Congratulations to all, and thank you for your
hard work and dedication!
New colleagues
Will the directors
please help
introduce any new
staff they have in
their areas?
Tobacco-free initiative
A small group of students is advocating to make Sac
State a tobacco-free campus.
• Three students from the Public Health Club have
taken a leadership role
• They recently made presentations to ASI and
Faculty Senate
• Currently they are working toward putting
together a cross-divisional task force with the help
of Student Health and Counseling Services
• Chancellor has delegated final decision to campus
Presidents on this issue
Searches currently
or soon to be underway
MPP positions currently open
• AVP - Student Engagement and Success (formerly AVP
Campus Life); pending posting, est. fill July – Aug 1
•
Dir., Student Organizations & Leadership; pending
posting, est. fill July 1 – Aug 1
•
Dir., Financial Aid; posted, est. fill June 1 – July 1
•
Dir., Parents & Families Program; posted, est. fill June 1
– July 1
•
Dir., Multi-Cultural Center; est. posting Summer 2012
MPP positions anticipated to open
• Student Conduct Officer
Tentative reorganization
The AVP of Campus Life will have a new title:
AVP of Student Engagement and Success.
• New Student Engagement and Success Unit:
• Housing & Residential Life
• Academic Advising & Career Center
• Student Organizations & Leadership
• Student Conduct
• “Identity/Success Centers”—PRIDE, WRC,
Multi-Cultural Center
• Success Centers will be combined under a
single director.
Enrollment update
We continue to do a very good job of hitting
our enrollment targets.
This year, Sac State was allowed to come in
up to 3% over or 2% under its FTE target.
Sac State ended up at 103.26% of target: a
quarter of one percent over our allowance.
Enrollment update (cont.)
2012 – 2013 allowed variance is - 1% to + 5%.
• 5% over the current headcount =
~27,3000 compared to ~26,000 in 2012.
In 2013 – 2014 we may take a 3% cut
depending on the state budget.
• Assuming we grow to about 27,300 in
2012 – 2013, a 3% cut would leave us at
about 25,000 headcount
State political environment—
current legislative proposals
CSU Executive Compensation – Sen. Lieu
• Prohibits CSU Presidents from making more
than 150% of chief justice’s salary
• Prohibits raises in fiscal years where fee
increases have taken place
• Requires CSU to give primary consideration to
Presidential candidates that are employed by
the CSU and are CA residents
Legislative proposals (cont.)
Transferable CSU to CSU GE Units – Assemblymember
Olsen
•
Guarantees GE courses directly transfer from one
CSU to the other
Student Consultation Requirements for Campus-Based
Fees (SB 90) – Sen. Rubio
•
Prevents campus from taking or redirecting campusbased mandatory fees that were approved by
students without a student re-vote
•
Prevents campus Presidents from setting fees not
already allowed by law without a student vote.
Legislative proposals (cont.)
Textbook Affordability – Sen. Steinberg
• Produces 50 high-quality, affordable, digital,
open-source textbooks and related materials for
use @ UC, CSU, and CCC
• Creates the CA Digital Open Source Library
and requires publishers to provide 3 free copies
of textbooks to campus libraries for reserve
Changes within
the CSU Board of Trustees
Appointed members of the CSU Board of Trustees
must be confirmed by the Senate within one year.
Herb Carter, long sitting BoT chair (2004), failed to
win Senate confirmation on February 27, 2012.
Steve Glazer, appointed by Governor Brown on
April 29, 2010, has not yet been reconfirmed by the
State Legislature.
Budget update
The CSU is expecting $200M in trigger cuts midyear; Sac State is building those cuts into its budget
planning.
This cut to the CSU will mean a $17M initial deficit
to the campus, which may be somewhat offset by
some central carry-forward funds.
These anticipated cuts will likely result in
significant baseline reductions to the Division.
Possibility audits
At Spring convocation, President Gonzalez asked each
Division to produce “Possibility Audits” in support of
Sac State’s new vision to Redefine the Possible.
Last month, Lori and Ed presented a list of emerging
possibilities to the President, Provost, and College
Deans.
The list focuses on the goals of the Graduation
Initiative—specifically, to increase retention and
graduation rates.
How do we
?
To redefine the possible, we will redefine the
following:
• “Access”
• Key enrollment terms
• Our advising model
• How one gets to be “a major”
• How we identify “timely progress”
• How we structure priority registration
• How we package financial aid
Redefining access: access to a
degree, rather than to the door
Student Affairs suggested that Sac State
redefine itself as a campus that defines
“access” primarily (though not exclusively)
as access to the degree—not just to the “front
door” of the University.
Redefining access:
potential benefits
• Augments the university-wide Graduation
Initiative
• Likely increases the overall graduation rate
• Clears some of the obstructed pathways that
block progress for those who demonstrate
aptitude and skills for moving forward
• Chips away at the current and
disproportionate numbers of seniors
Redefining access:
potential challenges
• Runs counter to many Californians’ long-held
notion of access
• Prompts administrators to consider a reduction
in headcount (which, in turn, reduces tuition
and fee revenues)
• Requires departments and advisors to know
exactly which courses to offer (and when), and
how to realistically deliver them amid current
budget constraints that may limit access to
facilities and instructors
Redefining access:
potential challenges (cont.)
• Requires an even more integrated approach to
enrollment—one that is integrated at the
university, college and department levels
• May compromise some priorities now given to
students who are struggling (since they may be
forced to “go to the back of the queue” in terms
of registration, course selection, repeats, etc.)
1. Consider redefining
enrollment terms
Consider how we label students in each “class.”
Class-standings (freshman, sophomore, junior,
senior) are based on a traditional 4-year model;
ours is a 6-year model.
• Our continued reliance on these terms is
confusing as the current nomenclature sends
a message to students, parents, and the
public that a 4-year college career is
common; however, it is not in the CSU.
• Can we come up with nomenclature that
reflects the more typical 6-year tenure?
1. Enrollment terms (cont.)
Consider being more explicit about how we refer
to the types of credits students take:
• “viable credits” are those that count towards
graduation
• “non-viable credits” are those that do not
Non-viable credits may help a student get
financial aid for the semester, but they do not
count toward the degree in terms of GE or major
requirements.
1. Enrollment terms (cont.)
Agree on institutional distinctions between
“types” of seniors e.g:
Standard Seniors (90 – 120 units)
High Unit Seniors (121 – 150 units)
Super Seniors (151+ units)
Spring 2011 Percentage of Graduates by
Unit Range—undergraduates only
1. Enrollment terms (cont.)
Provide each type of senior with the type of advising
that will help him/her complete the degree:
• Standard Seniors – require that they complete a
degree audit at 90 credits.
• High Unit Seniors – require that they meet with an
advisor to map out a specific (and exact) course
schedule and plan a graduation date.
• Super Seniors – require that they meet with an
advisor and graduation evaluator to see if a degree
can be conferred at this point in time; limit ability
to add minors, change majors, extend graduation
dates, etc.
2. Consider a new advising model
Consider moving away from the traditional
“exploratory” model of advising to a more
“directed” approach.
• This might mean that there are common firstyear clusters of courses for larger numbers of
first-year students.
• Perhaps in the second year, there would be
common pathways for students who are
generally interested in math; those who are
interested in business; those who are interested
in science; the arts, etc.
3. Consider redefining what it
means to “be a major”
Expect the label of “major” to be assigned by the
department rather than declared by the student.
•
This may necessitate that students successfully
complete any number of prerequisites or required
courses before they can apply for and be approved
for a certain major.
•
Students who do not have the required
courses/grades would be moved to an undeclared
(expressed interest) status.
•
Create a pre-major category through which
students can declare themselves “Interested in X.”
4. Determine who is making timely
progress toward the degree
Identify ways to accurately determine who is and
is not making timely progress toward the degree,
and reward those who are making progress.
• Work with colleagues across campus to see if
we can automate some type of progress
indicator (our current degree audit is a start but
needs refining).
• Ask departments to clearly communicate key
classes and key class sequences to upperdivision students interested in the major (this
would be a more “directed” form of
departmental advising).
4. Timely progress (cont.)
Consider creating a type of cohort structure that
would require students who need a certain sequence
of courses to pass all of those courses before they are
identified as “making progress.”
• Those who are making progress might be given an
earlier registration date than those who are not.
• All of this would propel those who can move to
move.
• Students who are making progress would be
rewarded and incentivized to continue on a timely
path, but the other group—of lesser performers—
may become even more frustrated. We would need
to address this frustration.
5. Consider redefining priority
registration
•
•
•
•
Use new definition of major
Use new definition of class-standing
Use new definition of progress (cohort idea)
Consider a GPA incentive
6. Consider revisiting how Sac
State packages financial aid
Current federal law allows a campus to award eligible
students with aid until they reach 150% of the credits
needed for the undergraduate degree.
•
•
•
Ask senior members of the financial aid office to
map out the pros and cons of awarding federal aid
in a more restrictive way.
Perhaps the campus should consider a percentage
lower than 150.
Students would still have the opportunity to
appeal, but would be required to provide a copy of
their academic plan signed by their academic
advisor to be considered for additional semesters of
financial aid.
7. Consider hitting our FTEs
target with a lower headcount
Consider bringing in fewer students but building a
course schedule that will allow more of them
(especially upper-division ones) to take an increased
number of units each semester.
This is somewhat risky for several reasons:
1) we do not know the extent to which students are
willing and able to increase the number of units
they take each semester
2) we may not know exactly which courses to offer
that will allow students to build the types of
schedules that will shorten their time to degree
3) we are not sure if we have the faculty or the
facilities to teach the courses we would need.
Questions?
Thank you very much.