San José State University’s Special Visit Report follows the format outlined by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). The institutional context and major changes since the October 2004 Capacity and Preparatory Review Visit are presented, followed by a description of the process used to develop the Special Visit Report. The report then focuses on the four issues highlighted in the Commission’s April 2005 action letter as topics for the Special Visit: 1) the connection between the Institutional Proposal and the Capacity and Preparatory Report, 2) institutional planning, 3) assessment and educational effectiveness, and 4) enrollment management, diversity, and student success. Updates on two additional areas raised in the CPR Review Team Report - institutional research and faculty composition - are also provided. 

Where the content of this report addresses one or more of the WASC criteria for review (CFR), they are noted at the start of a section. The specific CFRs (3.8, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5) noted in the Commission action letter are addressed in detail in the section on planning.

Institutional Context

SJSU History & Background (CFR 1.1, 1.2)

San José State University was California’s first public institution of higher education and is the country’s oldest such institution west of the Mississippi. Founded in San Francisco in 1857 as a teacher training school, its name was changed to the California State Normal School in 1862, and it moved to San José in 1871. Renamed San José State Teachers College in 1921, by 1935 its offerings had expanded to those of a complete liberal arts institution of the day and its name changed once again to San José State College. The institution was first accredited by WASC in 1949, the same year that it began awarding master’s degrees. In 1961 it became a member of the California State College system, and in 1972 was renamed San José State University. Over its 148 year history, the nature of the institution has changed from its initial focus on teacher preparation in the 1850s to a broad liberal arts institution with 17 departments in the 1930s, to a more comprehensive university with 26 departments organized in six schools in the 1950s, to its current status with seven colleges, 60 departments, and over 150 degree programs. SJSU is located in Northern California in the city of San José and the heart of Silicon Valley, a uniquely diverse, innovative, and dynamic region of the United States.

The accomplishments and contributions of students, faculty, and staff provide a lens for viewing SJSU’s history through almost a century and a half. SJSU’s role in teacher preparation makes part of its contributions to education clear, but fails to highlight the training of administrators and educational researchers in its graduate programs, recently augmented by a joint Ed.D. program in Educational Leadership with a second on the way. The scholarly and creative contributions of SJSU faculty and students provide a strong record from the middle of the last century forward. This can be highlighted by a few very famous individuals (e.g., Amy Tan), but is better represented by the research publications and creative works of large numbers of faculty and students. The university’s collaboration with NASA’s Ames Research Center has involved hundreds of people over the last 25 years. The systematic growth in research funding over the last 50 years, exceeding $60 million in 2005, provides another historical metric. SJSU’s internal newsletter SJSU This Week chronicles week by week the individual successes that are represented by this number. The systematic growth of the contribution of faculty in engineering and business through training students and consulting with both the private and public sectors provides another slice through history with more than 50% of the engineers in Silicon Valley having received their degrees from SJSU. Other key needs for California have been met by the University being one of the few to offer graduate programs in fields such as Nursing and Library Information Science. The University has also led and expressed its values by such actions as standing behind Olympic athletes Tommy Smith and John Carlos in 1968 when most of the country was vilifying them for their demonstration at the Mexico City Olympics. More recently SJSU’s collaboration with National Hispanic University and the creation of the CommUniverCity with the local community represent the ongoing life of these values. This history of expanding accomplishments in teaching, scholarship, and contribution to the community can be seen as it leads us into the future in the new DVD (SJSU: Tradition Meets Tomorrow) that is included in the supplementary materials to this report.

SJSU Mission (CFR 1.1, 1.2)

San José State University's mission has remained relatively constant for the last three decades. Central to its mission is the university's commitment "to enrich the lives of students, to transmit knowledge to students along with the necessary skills for applying it in the service of our society, and to expand the base of knowledge through research and scholarship." The current strategic planning process resulted in the adoption of six Shared Values, a common Vision, and Goals for 2010. This framework is now the basis for establishing priorities for initiatives and resource allocation over the next five to seven years. For a description of the strategic planning process and its outcomes, see the section on planning later in this report.

Major Changes at SJSU since the Capacity and Preparatory Review (CPR) Visit

Administrative Transitions (CFR 1.3, 3.10)

Presidency. Dr. Joseph Crowley served as Interim President during final preparation for the October 2004 WASC CPR Visit and the AY 2003-04 search for a permanent SJSU president. The presidential search led to the appointment of Paul Yu, former President of SUNY Brockport. President Yu took office in mid-summer 2004, but resigned for medical reasons less than a month later. Chancellor Charles Reed then selected long-time SJSU Vice President Don Kassing as Interim President. In May 2005 the California State University (CSU) Trustees named Kassing the permanent President of San José State University.

President’s Staff. One of President Kassing’s first appointments was Gerry Selter, Dean of the College of Science, to serve as Executive Assistant to the President. In November 2004 the President accepted the resignation of the Vice President and Provost and selected Dean Carmen Sigler as Interim Provost and Vice President of the Academic Division. He also accepted the resignation of the Vice President for Student Affairs and named Veril Phillips Interim Vice President. President Kassing selected Rose Lee, former Associate Vice President for Finance, to fill the vacant Vice President position in the Division of Administration and Finance. All three Interim Vice Presidents were appointed to permanent positions in Fall 2005.

In addition, President Kassing created a new management position, Assistant to the President for Institutional Planning, thereby strengthening the foundation for SJSU’s strategic planning activities. In Fall 2004 he appointed Dorothy Poole, formerly Director of Quality Assurance, to that key position.

Impact of Personnel Changes

The WASC CPR Visit took place just 10 weeks into Don Kassing’s appointment as President and six weeks before his appointment of the three new Vice Presidents. After the stability of President Robert Caret’s 8-year presidency, SJSU’s three years of relatively rapid management transitions were both unanticipated and uncharacteristic of the university’s executive leadership. President Kassing’s decision to fill the top positions – the three Vice Presidents, Executive Assistant to the President, and Assistant to the President for Institutional Planning – with highly experienced and well respected individuals re-established a welcome and productive stability in the campus community. In addition, the new leadership’s combined experience both within San Jose State University and at other institutions brought fresh perspective to the campus at a crucial time. Nowhere is this more evident than in their immediate commitment to full campus engagement in strategic planning.

Initiative-based planning had produced highly visible results in SJSU’s recent past, including the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Library, the new Campus Village, the PeopleSoft centralized data management system, and the First Year Experience program. However, even before the CPR Visit, it was becoming clear that SJSU would need to plan more strategically to achieve its mission and goals at the level of quality it desired. Campus concern, already growing in the context of persistent fiscal constraints and the challenge of providing access to growing numbers of students seeking admission, was heightened by the CPR Visit Report. By the time of the April 2005 Commission action letter, the university was well into implementation of its commitment to developing a permanent and proactive process for aligning resources with university-wide priorities. 

Several other important institutional changes have occurred at SJSU since the Fall 2004 Capacity and Preparatory Review Visit. Among the changes are an improved fiscal context, a system-wide initiative on enrollment management, campus engagement in strategic planning, and the creation of a new management position dedicated to institutional research. Each of these developments is briefly highlighted below.

The fiscal situation for the CSU system, and therefore for SJSU, has improved in the past year. Although still “under funded,” the 2005 Compact between the Governor and the University of California and California State University systems survived its first test in the last legislative session and suggests greater stability and predictability in funding in the future. Silicon Valley is also experiencing a modest economic recovery. SJSU student enrollment is back on a growth path which is part of the campus enrollment management plan and crucial for acquiring the financial resources designated in the Compact. Although some still question the long-term viability of the current funding approach to higher education within California, the short-term effect on real fiscal issues and on morale at SJSU has been important.

A second important change is the Chancellor’s Fall 2005 system-wide initiative on facilitating retention and graduation across all 23 CSU campuses.  Each campus is required to respond to the 22 action points identified in the initiative. SJSU’s comprehensive enrollment management plan enabled a quick and evidence-based  campus response.  System-wide attention to retention and graduation issues will likely create the context for increased support for the objectives and priority activities within SJSU’s plan. 

A third change in the 14 months since the CPR Visit is engagement of the campus community in strategic planning. In addition to the vision and commitment of the university’s top leadership, the creation of the position Assistant to the President for Institutional Planning was a critical step in the university’s ability to organize and orchestrate a fully engaged and ongoing planning process.  The Academic Senate provided key strategic planning leadership by developing vision, values, and goals recommendations that were accepted by the President and became university policy. Over the past year, the new strategic planning structure has been implemented, utilizing three distinct groups with overlapping membership to coordinate action on the university Goals for 2010 and corresponding resource alignment.  Every academic department and administrative unit on campus is engaged in some aspect of the university’s strategic planning, making this truly a university-wide effort.

Creation of the new management position dedicated to institutional research is a fourth recent and important development since the CPR Visit. The Associate Vice President for Institutional Research will report directly to the Provost and be responsible for leadership in the development and administration of effective practices for institutional research, information retrieval, and data analyses to meet campus needs. The AVP will manage all institutional data reporting and analysis, and support campus-wide requests for data, analysis, and reports that enhance the university’s ability to develop and implement data-driven decision making processes. The search for this position will take place in Spring 2006.

Finally, as evidence of organizational change already underway, units formerly in the College of Social Work have been repositioned. The School of Social Work has moved to the College of Applied Sciences and Arts, the Department of Urban and Regional Planning has moved to the College of Social Sciences, and the Departments of African American Studies and Mexican American Studies are reporting to the Dean of the College of Social Sciences.

Response to Issues Identified by the Commission & Visiting Team

1. Quality of the University Presentation and Self-Review

A. Refinement of the Proposal and Selection of Priority Areas

Commission: “…There was a significant disconnect between the Institutional Proposal submitted and approved in July 2002 and the Capacity and Preparatory Review Presentation completed in 2004. The Proposal identified goals for a comprehensive review that focused on institutional issues and challenges facing San José State University, including the alignment of budget and academic program planning, the assessment of academic programs and student support services, the feasibility of new long-range objectives, and enrollment management planning. Although the Proposal indicated that the campus would be selective in its focus for each review, there was no indication of how the decision was made to focus on enrollment management for the Capacity and Preparatory Review and on student development and success for the Educational Effectiveness Review, and why only one topic was selected for each review, given the number of issues cited in the original proposal………

SJSU Response

SJSU should have documented more effectively how the priority areas for the CPR and Educational Effectiveness Review Reports were determined from the wide range of issues identified in the Institutional Proposal. In summary, the selection was participatory, consensual, and based on participants’ best thinking at the time. However, in hindsight it is clear that the proposal was far too broad and its conceptualization of the issues, particularly regarding enrollment management, not yet fully developed. 

The process of narrowing the focus of the review began with a Spring 2003 campus-wide forum. Response from WASC and early campus accreditation participants had pointed to the need to select a useful and compelling focus for the review. The two-fold purpose of the forum was 1) to gather perspectives on the potential focus, and 2) to stimulate wider interest in accreditation activities. Analysis of forum discussions and emerging themes, reviewed against the range of issues raised in the proposal, led the Accreditation Steering Committee (ASC) and other campus leaders to identify enrollment management and student development and success as potentially exciting and particularly relevant focus themes for the full accreditation review process. While the ASC  assumed that each theme would be addressed in both reports, assigning a theme to a particular report seemed like a good way to explore the breadth and depth of each focus area and its relation to other relevant issues presented in the Institutional Proposal. At that time, the ASC and campus leadership conceptualized enrollment management as more of a capacity issue; as a result, it was selected for the focus of the CPR Report. Student development and success was planned as the heart of the EE Report to follow.

Since the CPR Report was completed, the ASC and campus leaders have developed far richer appreciation for the comprehensive dimensions of an effective enrollment management plan and its inextricable links to both institutional strategic planning and student development and success. Evidence of this conceptual shift can be seen in the designation of comprehensive enrollment management as one of the university’s strategic Goals for 2010. In addition to the update on the comprehensive enrollment management plan presented later in this report, enrollment management, from recruitment through retention, graduation, and societal contributions, will be an integral part of the focus on student development and success in the upcoming EE Report.
 

B. No Enrollment Management Plan of Action or Improvement 

Commission: “For the one theme the University ultimately selected - enrollment management - there was no plan of action or improvement developed. “

SJSU Response

Although it was selected as a primary focus for the CPR Review, the campus encountered substantial challenges to the development of a comprehensive enrollment management plan.  Key among these challenges were:

• The absence of a comprehensive strategic plan for the university which would provide the framework for a comprehensive and strategic plan for enrollment management;
• The prevailing and persistent campus perspective that enrollment management meant simply meeting annual CSU enrollment targets, and
• The limited capacity of existing data systems to provide the information necessary to support development and implementation of a comprehensive enrollment management plan. 

These challenges were significant and inter-related. The limited plans and fragmented data presented in the CPR Report represent the extent of comprehensive enrollment management planning possible under those constraints.

However, since the Fall 2004 CPR Visit, SJSU’s strategic planning process has provided the structure and is evolving the data systems needed to develop an enrollment plan far more comprehensive than what was originally envisioned for the Capacity and Preparatory Review Report. For more detailed information and updates regarding the Commission’s specific concerns about the plan itself, please see the comprehensive enrollment management plan section later in this report.

C. Lack of Evidence of Use of Data throughout the Institution for Decision Making

SJSU Response

One of the most beneficial impacts of the accreditation process to date has been the beginning integration of a culture of evidence into all aspects of the university. This will be evident in later sections of this report, particularly those addressing performance indicators, enrollment management, assessment, institutional research, and faculty composition. The EE Report will benefit greatly from this new orientation, as collection, reflection, and use of data for program and institutional improvement are central to the activities selected for exploring and supporting student development and success. SJSU now uses extant data (e.g. the 2002 Greater Expectations Report), comparative data (e.g. NSSEE, HERI, and other relevant surveys), and qualitative and quantitative data generated on campus (e.g. the 2005 SJSU Student Experience Study) to inform institutional and program planning and improvement. The creation of the position of AVP for Institutional Research, responsible for managing all institutional data reporting and analysis, and supporting campus-wide requests for data, analysis, and reports that enhance the university's ability to develop and implement data-driven decision making processes, has been critical. Finally, the EE Review extension provides a valuable window in which to better organize, institutionalize, and articulate the emerging culture of evidence at SJSU and the way in which it supports the university to achieve its mission.

2. Institutional Planning

Commission: "The development of a campus commitment to a shared vision with carefully articulated goals and performance indicators needs to begin immediately. A major challenge…will be to identify priorities and align resources appropriately. Decision making needs to be based on carefully selected data that can be used at all levels of the university. The plan needs to include a focus on the improvement of student learning…”

SJSU Response (CFR 2.1, 2.3, 2.11, 3.8, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5)

San José State University has developed, implemented, and continues to evaluate a strategic planning process.  The university has improved its data-based planning, become more proactive in determining where it is going, and begun to systematically link planning to the alignment of resources with seven specific Goals for 2010. This is in no small part due to the intensive campus engagement with the accreditation effort.

The Planning Process. Development and implementation of the planning process began in AY 03-04 and has been a major university focus over the past 18 months. In Spring 2004 the Academic Senate passed a policy recommendation related to the planning and budgeting process, followed by a policy recommendation in Fall 2004 establishing a strategic planning process, both of which were subsequently approved by the President. Later that semester, the President approved recommendations passed by the Academic Senate endorsing the shared values for the university and amending the policy related to planning and budgeting to further connect budget allocation to the strategic planning process.  In Spring 2005 the Academic Senate passed a resolution endorsing the vision and goals for the university with an emphasis on student learning in Goals 2010.  All of these recommendations were accepted by the President as university policy.

The shared campus vision statement was developed in final form by the Goals Advisory Council following campus input on proposed draft goals. The University Planning Council and its Planning Advisory Panels subsequently developed, analyzed, and prioritized strategies for reaching the seven established goals. In its first implementation year, 2005-2006, specific action plans were developed in the areas of learning assessment (Goal 1.0), enrollment management (Goal 2.0), community and connections (Goal 4.0), instructional technology infrastructure (Goal 6.0), and a SJSU marketing plan (Goal 7.0). Concrete steps have been taken to strengthen the institution’s ability to use carefully selected data in decision making regarding the selected goals and resources have been allocated to each action plan. This first round of planning based on the mission, vision, values, and goals 2010 will culminate in a strategic plan at the end of AY 2005-06. The campus anticipates the full strategic planning cycle to span a five-year period.

Performance Indicators and Use of Data. One way in which SJSU is formalizing its use of evidence is the development and use of performance indicators that comprise data “dashboards” for key university decision makers. A Presidential dashboard has been developed, along with a data dashboard for the Provost. The pilot dashboards include indicators from four broad categories: students, programs, resources, and external accountability, including the Chancellor’s office and accreditation. The campus is currently implementing the Cognos software to enhance its ability to extract data on an even broader array of performance indicators from the PeopleSoft common data management system.  AY 2005-06 is the first year in which SJSU will review its performance on these new indicators.

Another way in which SJSU is strengthening its use of data is through the revision of program planning guidelines to include review of a common set of data elements. Templates are being developed that will facilitate program and department data collection that is comparable across the university and meaningful for individual unit program planning and improvement. In addition to providing standardized data across the diversity of SJSU’s programs, the revised guidelines and common data elements are intended to further extend the culture of evidence and information-based decision-making throughout the university.

Commission: "The Commission is concerned that the approaches to planning among the University Planning Council, the Resource Planning Board and the Goal Advisory Council may be so segmented that they make the integration of planning and resource allocation to support institutional goals and priorities difficult (CFR 4.2)."

SJSU Response (CFR 3.5, 3.11, 4.1)

San José State University has developed and implemented a strategic planning structure uniquely tailored to the issues, challenges, and opportunities of the current context. The explicit goal of this new structure is to strategically align resources with clearly established university-wide goals in support of the institutional mission. A secondary goal is to establish a framework for strategic, evidence-based planning that will be infused and supported through all levels of the university. In its first implementation year, the evidence suggests that the model is working.

The unique SJSU approach was designed after careful review of various successful campus planning models and analysis of previous SJSU strategic planning efforts. The SJSU model is inclusive, iterative, and integrated. Ultimate responsibility for strategic planning rests with the University President. To advise the President, a planning structure has been established comprised of the Goals Advisory Council (GAC), the University Planning Council (UPC), and the Resource Planning Board (RPB). The three planning groups have distinct charters, tasks, and timelines. Each group focuses on its specific planning charge and then hands off the product of its work to the next group in the planning cycle.  The Assistant to the President for Institutional Planning, the Chair and Vice Chair of the Academic Senate, the Provost and Vice Presidents are members of all three bodies, thus facilitating effective communication and coordination at each step. 

The membership of each planning group is augmented to meet the unique needs of its charter. Overlapping membership enables efficient decision making.  Further, each group seeks additional input and/or augments its designated membership as needed to ensure broad campus engagement. For example, although the Goals Advisory Committee (GAC) is a relatively small group, it has used forums and surveys to engage the campus community. The University Planning Council (UPC) is a larger group with more representation from various constituencies. However, the UPC further engages the community by convening Advisory Panels on specific areas, such as Student Experience and Marketing. A member of the UPC sits on each Advisory Panel in addition to representatives from affected/interested constituency groups. The Resource Planning Board (RPB) includes representation from the faculty and administration in overseeing the allocation and alignment of University resources to strategic goals. By intention, the RPB includes individuals with expertise in budgeting/financial management. 

The charge, membership, and actions to date of each of the three strategic planning groups are displayed in Figure 1 below. The flow between planning groups has worked out in reality as it was designed: setting goals, priorities, and future directions (GAC), followed by strategy development, review of performance indicators, and recommendation of action plans (UPC), followed by specific recommendations to the President for integrated resource allocation (RPB). The Assistant to the President for Institutional Planning supports the work of the various planning groups, conducts background research, prepares analyses, and reports information as necessary to facilitate the strategic planning process. The Assistant to the President also prepares and maintains a planning schedule and web site. In Jaunary, 2006 a three-day planning retreat, modeled after the AAC&U Greater Expectations Institute, will foster increased interchange between the groups' members as they address goals and plan actions related to the year's theme of student success.

Figure 1

SJSU will continuously evaluate the effectiveness of the new planning process. Changes in composition and/or operating procedures of the planning groups will be made as needed at the completion of the first full planning cycle in order to enhance the planning process; help SJSU achieve performance targets; meet shifting budgetary, campus and regional needs, and make the process manageable so efforts can be sustained long term.

Enrollment Management, Diversity, and Student Success

Development of a Comprehensive Enrollment Management Plan Integrated with Strategic Planning Processes

Commission: “The Commission expects the university to move forward with a comprehensive enrollment management plan as it prepares for its EE Review, and to the extent possible, to integrate this plan with strategic planning processes.”

SJSU Response (CFR 1.7)

Integration of Enrollment Management Planning with the University’s Strategic Planning Process: In its Spring 2005 Sense of the Senate Resolution SS-S05-2, the Academic Senate endorsed the goals and vision drafted by the Goals Advisory Council (GAC) which establish long range priorities for the university. Goals 2010 identifies enrollment management as one of the seven priority goals for the five year period ahead and specifies three specific objectives under that goal. As stated in the document, by 2010 SJSU will have:

Goal 2.1 Developed and implemented a comprehensive enrollment management plan that sets an annual enrollment growth target in consultation with the CSU (currently set at 2.3% per annum). Incorporated in that plan are recommended targets for:

• Enrollment distribution between undergraduate and graduate students;
• Enrollment distribution between general fund and self-support programs;
• Enrollment distribution between residential and non-residential students;
• Enrollment distribution between classroom-based and distance-learning instruction;
• Recruitment of specific majors and high-achieving students; and
• Recruitment of high school graduates from the entire service area and beyond, including state, national, and international areas.

Goal 2.2 Enhanced advising programs to increase retention and reduce time to graduation for all students.

Goal 2.3 Obtained measurable improvement in recruitment and retention rates thereby increasing graduation rates by five percentage points.

Identifying enrollment management as one of the university’s seven priority goals for the next five years brings significant new visibility to the efforts in this area. It also guarantees that enrollment management strategies will be coordinated with other strategic priorities and that resources will be aligned to achieve the related objectives.

Comprehensive Enrollment Management Plan: Historically, SJSU focused enrollment management activities around meeting FTES targets set for SJSU by the CSU Chancellor's office in consultation with the President. Decisions were driven by available resources (e.g. physical, human, technology), student demand, changes in disciplines and industry, and regional workforce needs. There were no university level goals guiding decision making with respect to program and student mix.

Through the strategic planning process now in place, the University Planning Council (UPC) has stimulated development and the initial implementation of a more comprehensive enrollment management plan. Enrollment management at SJSU now refers to the effective implementation of policies and procedures for recruiting, retaining, and graduating students. The plan guides and focuses efforts to enhance purposeful recruitment, retention of those admitted, and graduation rates.  Further development, implementation, and assessment of the enrollment management plan are key activities under review for the Educational Effectiveness Review.

Both short and long term action items have been planned for each element in the comprehensive enrollment management plan. Some have already been implemented, including the campus response to the CSU initiative on facilitating graduation and the Enrollment and Academic Services Communication Plan. Other activities are in the early planning stages. For example, the UPC’s Enrollment Management Panel is planning a best practices study based on the experiences of other CSU campuses. Results from this study will be used to strengthen SJSU advising processes and procedures.

Assessing the Relationship of Demographic, Curricular and Co-Curricular Diversity and Campus Climate to Student Success, Retention, and Graduation Rates for All Students as a Regular Part of Program Review

Commission: “…the campus needs to carefully assess the relationship of demographic, curricular, and co-curricular diversity, and campus climate to student success, retention, and graduation rates for all students. This analysis should be a component of University-wide enrollment management planning, and the data should be a regular part of program review.”

SJSU Response (CFR 3.7)

Since the time of the CPR Visit, SJSU has begun tracking and using a wider array of data to guide institutional and program planning, particularly in the area of enrollment management. In some cases, the data are relatively easy to access but challenging to influence. For example, a recent analysis of existing demographic data revealed marked disparities in six year graduation rates by race and ethnicity: 27% for African Americans; 34% for Native Americans; 39% for Hispanics; 46% for Asians, and 52% for Whites (Source: Chancellor’s Office Website).  With respect to gender, rates for women (47%) exceed those for men (32%).  A retrospective look at six-year graduation rates within SJSU going back to the 1993 freshman and transfer cohorts revealed that the graduation rate for the freshman cohort has been fairly stable while the graduation rate for transfer students has increased 8%. In other cases, new data need to be generated, such as current information on student perceptions of campus climate. The university’s enrollment management goal and the comprehensive enrollment management plan now provide the framework for determining resources, data systems, and needs with respect to analyzing existing demographic data, and collecting new data as needed. These data will then be used to strengthen recruitment, enrollment, academic, advising, and support procedures and services necessary to address disparities between groups and enhance retention and graduation rates for all SJSU students. 

Analysis of curricular and co-curricular diversity is also a key part of efforts to support student development and success. For example, transfer student retention data show that 20% of SJSU transfer students do not return for a second year. As part of the effort to achieve the new enrollment management goal, Undergraduate Studies, in conjunction with colleges and departments, will be coordinating the development of a Student Transfer Experience Program   (STEP) for the 5,000-6,000 students who transfer to SJSU each year. The new STEP program will be based on assessment of SJSU’s First Year Experience Program and analysis of both internal and external data on the unique needs and experiences of transfer students. Similarly, analysis of the discrepancy between the first year retention rates (nearly 80%) and 6-year graduate rates (36-38%) between 2000 and 2004 have led to discussions of the importance of better understanding and supporting students in their “middle” years. In contrast to previous endeavors, new initiatives such as these are evidence-based, linked through the comprehensive enrollment management plan, and an integral part of university-wide strategic planning.

While the relationships between student success and various co-curricular elements of the student experience have yet to be fully understood, SJSU is consistently moving toward purposeful analysis and dissemination of data to guide decision making. For example, the 2004 NSSE data have been analyzed and reported to inform university-wide enrollment management planning for educational effectiveness. Last summer, data from the 2005 SJSU student experience study were used by various groups (e.g. GAC, UPC, Advisory Panels on service culture and student experience) working on strategies to achieve strategic planning goals related to the student experience, many of which involve the components of comprehensive enrollment management. The new common data elements will provide demographic, curricular, and co-curricular data which can be analyzed at the program level as part of program review and planning, as well as analyzed across academic units. As the campus prepares for the EE Review, analysis of diversity, campus climate, and student experience are crucial to assessing and supporting student development and success.

While the relationships between student success and various co-curricular elements of the student experience have yet to be fully understood, SJSU is consistently moving toward purposeful analysis and dissemination of data to guide decision making. For example, the 2004 NSSE data have been analyzed and reported to inform university-wide enrollment management planning for educational effectiveness. Last summer, data from the 2005 SJSU student experience study were used by various groups (e.g. GAC, UPC, Advisory Panels on service culture and student experience) working on strategies to achieve strategic planning goals related to the student experience, many of which involve the components of comprehensive enrollment management. The proposed new common data elements will provide demographic, curricular, and co-curricular data which can be analyzed at the program level as part of program review and planning, as well as analyzed across academic units.  As the campus prepares for the EE Review, analysis of diversity, campus climate, and student experience is important to assessing and supporting student development and success.

Assessment and Educational Effectiveness

Commission: “…The University will ultimately need to assure that the intended outcomes of the general education program, and of the baccalaureate program, are assessed at the time of graduation and reflect the cumulative learning experiences of students…Program reviews should not only provide evidence that departments have identified learning outcomes but also that they collect quantitative and qualitative evidence of educational effectiveness and use the results from assessment of student learning to make appropriate changes in the curriculum and approaches to teaching.”

“The University will need to show that …structures and processes to assess educational effectiveness…and…[use these results]…for improvement…are fully in place as it moves forwards to the EE Review.”

SJSU Response

Assessment of Outcomes of the General Education Program (CFR 2.5)

GE Guidelines and Program Objectives: The campus recently completed an extensive review and update of the General Education (GE) guidelines for implementation in Fall 2005. Some of the more substantial modifications were 1) casting the learning outcomes in the context of what it means to be an educated person and intentional learner (as that term is used in the AAC&U Greater Expectations Report), 2) new emphases on information literacy, ethics and values, and 3) linking learning goals to the SJSU mission statement. This was completed in Spring 2005.

Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes within the GE Program: With the revised GE guidelines and program objectives in place, attention has now turned to assessment of the student learning outcomes associated with the GE program. The groups engaged in this assessment include the University Planning Council; university committees such as the Board of General Studies, Assessment, and the Writing Requirements Committees, and the Academic Senate.  No single strategy is being pursued. Rather, four different strategies are being employed that collectively have the potential to generate evidence of student learning related to the GE learning objectives from different and important perspectives. The four different efforts are supported through the strategic planning process.

The first assessment strategy flows logically from the extensive work done to build course embedded assessment into all areas of the General Education program. Working from this base, it is possible to map where in the GE curriculum evidence of student learning related to the overall GE program objectives can be captured and 'rolled up' to form the basis for assessment of the intended outcomes of the GE program. The first draft of the mapping of course embedded learning outcomes to overall GE program outcomes has been completed and approved by the Board of General Studies.

The second GE program outcome assessment strategy involves the writing skills test (WST). All SJSU students are required to pass this exam prior to enrolling in their upper division writing course. Writing prompts constructed to draw out evidence of student learning reflective of GE program objectives, along with rubrics designed to assess student performance, will facilitate assessment by making effective use of an existing examination. With each administration of the WST, different prompts can be used that collectively touch on the varied GE program objectives and facilitate assessment of both native and transfer students. The group responsible for the administration of the WST has agreed to utilize new writing prompts beginning Fall 2006.

To assess student learning specific to the GE information competency learning outcome, the information literacy exam developed by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) will be used. SJSU has data from the beta testing of SJSU students and will implement the revised test in Spring 2006. The test produces component as well as composite scores. Components include assessment of students' ability to access, manage, integrate, evaluate, create, and communicate information. Results will be communicated directly to faculty developing course content in core GE classes as well as major classes to facilitate development of curricular activities that address areas in need of improvement.

Finally, the University’s participation in two national longitudinal studies of general education, the Lumina and Wabash studies, will provide the opportunity to benchmark our program against a variety of other institutions.  The first round of data for the Lumina study was collected on freshmen in Fall 2005; data on seniors will be collected in Spring 2006.

Assessment of Outcomes of Baccalaureate Programs (CFR 2.1, 2.2, 2.3)

The academic division, under the leadership of the Provost, is presently engaged in a focused effort to have all degree programs not only articulate learning outcomes, but collect evidence of student learning on all learning outcomes and engage in discussions that lead to program changes intended to facilitate improvement. To support departments, assessment facilitators in each college have been identified. These individuals, commonly one faculty member and one associate dean, are working with chairs/program directors to incrementally move programs forward from their current position with respect to assessment. In some cases that means articulating student learning outcomes for the first time. On the other end of the spectrum it means establishing a data collection calendar for an already well-established assessment plan (see data element 7.0). The process is unfolding as follows:

• All degree programs collect data on at least one student learning outcome Fall 05 (discuss and propose changes Spring 06). In addition, every program identifies a complete set of student learning outcomes and a timeline for collecting data on the full set. 
• All degree programs collect data on an additional student learning outcome Spring 06 (discuss and propose changes Fall 06).
• All degree programs collect data on an additional/remaining student learning outcome Fall 06 (discuss and propose changes Spring 07).
• All degree programs collect data on any remaining student learning outcomes Spring 07 (discuss and propose changes Fall 07).

On such a timeline, SJSU will have in place evidence of both the effectiveness of the infrastructure, and some direct evidence of student learning for the Educational Effectiveness review. Presently, Spring 05 and Fall 05 status reports on assessment activities in the degree programs indicate that the campus has made substantial progress.

Integration of GE and Major (CFR 2.4)

There is substantial overlap between the goals of the GE Program and many baccalaureate degree programs. Examples at the skill level include information literacy, critical thinking, and oral and written communication. The overlap between SJSU Studies (advanced GE) student learning outcomes and those for baccalaureate degree programs is less universal but three examples from the different SJSU Studies categories illustrate where there is overlap: 1) apply a scientific approach to answer questions about the earth and environment, 2) describe how identities (i.e., religious, gender, ethnic, racial, class, sexual orientation, disability, age) are shaped by cultural and societal influences within contexts of equality and inequality, and 3) compare systematically the ideas, values, images, cultural artifacts, economic structures, technological developments, and/or attitudes of people from more than one culture outside the U.S. Many of the degree programs have students explore these issues in depth and from the perspective of their discipline thus complementing and integrating knowledge gained through other coursework. In fact most undergraduate degree programs list at least one SJSU Studies course as an elective in the major.

Regarding when to assess students, capstone courses or culminating activities in the major are where students can be expected to integrate their collegiate experiences. Evidence collected in capstone courses and culminating activities would be particularly valuable since the assessment would occur near the time of graduation and could credibly reflect the cumulative and integrated learning experiences of students. In addition, it is expected that part of the outcome of the proposed revision of the program planning (program review) guidelines will be an increased emphasis on assessing the degree to which program graduates have achieved the GE program goals.

Program Planning (CFR 2.7)

Data from assessment of student learning outcomes informs program planning while program planning guidelines provide the structure within which assessment activity can be sustained. Currently under review by Academic Senate Committees is a revision of the program planning guidelines which includes a set of common data elements to be given to academic programs as they begin to develop their program planning documentation. These data elements will include historical information on ethnicity for enrollments, retention, and graduation. Programs will be asked to demonstrate that they have taken these data into account in their analyses and plans with respect to future hiring, curriculum, and facilities goals along with advances in the discipline, emerging regional needs, and variations in state budgets. Changes to the program planning guidelines will make it possible to 1)  ensure that departments collect quantitative and qualitative evidence of educational effectiveness and use the results from assessment of student learning to make appropriate changes in their curriculum and approaches to teaching, 2) compile the information in a way that enables evaluation of the overall mix of baccalaureate and masters programs, and 3) ensure that assessments of effectiveness are in continual use, on a clear timetable at department, college and university levels, to enhance curricular and co-curricular student learning. In support of the process overall, the Provost has adopted a range of recognitions and incentives, at both the department and college level, to ensure that planning is evidence-based, comprehensive, and focuses on quality curricula with clear learning outcomes.

Assessment of Student Support Services (CFR 2.11)

This same level of activity and focus on outcomes assessment is being replicated in the division of Student Affairs and Academic Services. Under the leadership of the Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs, and the Director for Academic Services, each student service unit is focused on first articulating outcomes, then collecting data for one outcome in Fall 2005, and planning for the collection of remaining outcomes on a schedule that will have the process completed during Spring 2007 (see data element 7.0).

Other Changes/Issues Currently Confronting the Institution for the Future

Collecting and Using Data and Institutional Research

Commission: "There was little evidence in the report that the University is collecting and using data throughout the institution for decision making (CFR 3.8)".

"Gathering and analyzing various kinds of data about the many components of the institution is a critical function. At present, information is gathered in many places across the institution and is not readily available for decision makers. A well defined and appropriately staffed centralized institutional research function can enhance enrollment management, aid strategic planning and provide a good deal of data for ongoing assessment of institutional effectiveness."

SJSU Response (CFR 3.6, 3.7, 3.8)

Collection and Use of Data: Efforts to improve SJSU’s collection, analysis, and use of data have been proceeding along two coordinated tracks. First, the Assistant to the President for Institutional Planning convened an Institutional Data Reporting (IDR) committee. The committee consists of administrators and faculty, and its function is to analyze the data needs at a variety of levels within the university. The initial focus was at the Presidential and Provost level. The process began with a very broad examination and compilation of the kind of data needed to monitor ongoing functions and support institutional planning. This was followed by discussion of how to aggregate the data into a limited set of performance indicators that the President and Vice Presidents could monitor on a regular basis. These efforts culminated in data “dashboards” for the President and the Provost. To facilitate manipulation and comparison of information, the campus has obtained the Cognos software that provides an interface to the PeopleSoft system. A pilot of the Presidential and Provost’s dashboards was completed in Fall 2005 in preparation for implementation in Spring 2006.

Institutional Research: The second effort to improve SJSU’s collection, analysis, and use of data has involved establishing an Institutional Research (IR) function. The Academic Division has taken an integrated approach to institutional research and data reporting. Under the leadership of an Associate Vice President for Institutional Research (search planned for Spring 06), the IR unit will enhance the institutional research function that was offered historically by the Institutional Planning and Academic Resources unit. The intent is to centralize the data reporting function that is currently spread across several units in the Academic Division.

Making data readily accessible (e.g. CMS/Cognos) is an important first step. However, a process for effectively utilizing information provided by an Institutional Research unit is equally important. Both the strategic planning and program planning processes in place at SJSU provide the structure within which periodic review of data in support of planning and decision making will occur.

Faculty Composition

Commission: "The team noted that the university responded well to the issues raised by the commission during its 1995 WASC accreditation cycle, .... Budgetary constraints, however, have interfered with the University's ability to hire more full-time faculty."

SJSU Response (CFR 3.2, 3.3)

Like the Commission and the Visiting Team, San José State and the CSU recognize the importance of changing the balance of full-time and part-time faculty and are committed to increasing the percentage of faculty who are tenured or tenure-track. In 2001, Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 73 was adopted by the Legislature. This resolution requested that the CSU Board of Trustees, the California Faculty Association (CFA) and the CSU Statewide Academic Senate work together to create a plan to enable the faculty composition to eventually consist of 75% tenured/tenured track faculty. In July 2002, the CSU, CFA and Statewide Senate issued a report containing an 8-year plan for achieving the goals of ACR 73.

Presently, SJSU has a talented faculty composed of a mix of regular faculty and lecturers who are outstanding classroom teachers, many of whom have very strong records of research/scholarly activities. SJSU's graduate programs in particular rely on the scholarly and professional activity of the faculty to maintain its quality. Because most, but not all, of the scholarly and grant activity (60 million dollars last year) depends on tenured/tenure track faculty, moving toward the Senate target of 75% tenured/tenure track will enable SJSU to maintain and enhance an area of historical strength for the campus.

Recruitment (CFR 1.5)

In 2003/2004, 88 faculty searches were authorized, 42 conducted, and 19 tenure-track faculty were hired to start in Fall 2004 (a 45% success rate). Ninety-five searches were authorized and conducted in 04/05 resulting in 70 new tenure track hires (68 beginning Fall of 2005; a 74% success rate). The following data provide a summary of the demographics of the faculty hired.

With respect to our ongoing focus on increasing the diversity of the faculty, in Spring 2005 a new committee was formed (SM-S05-6) to more specifically address faculty diversity. The new committee – the Faculty Diversity Committee - is charged to “promote diversity by actively engaging the various colleges in promoting diversity through appropriate recruitment and retention strategies.” In addition, the Office of Faculty Affairs works closely with departments as they prepare to conduct their searches.

Retention (CFR 3.4)

Equally important to recruiting faculty is the retention of those we hire. In this area our efforts have focused on support at the point of entry through an orientation, ongoing support in the broad area of faculty development and  funding to support research and professional growth.

One measure of our effectiveness in retaining faculty is the success of faculty reviewed for tenure and promotion. Forty-three faculty members were reviewed for promotion during Spring 2005. Thirty four (79%) were promoted. Twenty five faculty members were reviewed for tenure and 24 obtained tenured.

Concluding Statement

Commission: "Capacity and Preparatory Review did not demonstrate full compliance with Standard 4, particularly CFR 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5, and CFR 3.8 in Standard 3."

Preparation of this Special Visit Report enabled SJSU to assess more carefully and formally the current status of issues the campus already had identified as important and to evaluate the progress being made. Institutional planning has developed in a way that provides the needed structure within which sound planning and data-based decision making can occur. Enrollment management, as an integral part of strategic planning, has evolved to be more comprehensive, and plans for implementation of the campus enrollment management plan have been established. Progress on assessment of learning outcomes has been substantial and is focused on two goals: providing a clear picture of the quality of learning for students progressing through and graduating from SJSU, and providing the data and analyses that guide decisions about changes to curricula and pedagogy that nurture improvement. While much remains to be done, SJSU has a clear picture of both where it presently is and its future direction.

As the Commission letter indicated, the issue of alignment of resources, which was key to SJSU’s Institutional Proposal, requires “a campus commitment to a shared vision with carefully articulated goals and performance indicators…” Although the Commission also expressed concern about the approach SJSU was taking to planning, the campus experience in this first year suggests that the institutional planning structure initiated is a strong one. The development of Goals 2010, the action plans from the University Planning Council (UPC), and the recommendations from the RPB reflected in the Annual Budget provide strong evidence of its effectiveness. Intrinsic to the planning process is ongoing assessment of effectiveness that will provide the basis for evolutionary changes should they be needed.

Looking Forward

Goals 2010 and the action plans developed by the UPC provide a roadmap to reach the university’s strategic goals. The challenge is to stay focused and build on the progress to date. For example, having articulated a comprehensive enrollment management plan, the campus needs to systematically implement the actions planned to facilitate academic program management, as well as enhance recruitment, retention, and graduation rates. The actions in the campus Facilitating Retention and Graduation Report are good first steps towards implementation but ongoing sustained action will be needed.

With respect to assessment the actions described in this report indicate that the campus is engaged in concrete activities designed to provide structures and processes to assess educational effectiveness. As activities in each area (GE, degree programs, student affairs) progress, attention will need to be given to determining, based on evidence gathered, the actions needed to nurture and improve student development and success. The first steps represented by cooperation between Student Affairs and Enrollment Services on customer service training, based on evidence of dissatisfaction from the 2005 Student Experience Study, and the 2005 revisions to the GE Guidelines are concrete evidence that the campus is prepared for such changes.

The dashboards for the President and Vice Presidents, development of a standard set of data elements for program planning, and development of a more complete and centralized institutional research function provide an excellent foundation to build upon. The campus community must now focus on continuing to develop a campus-wide culture that uses these data to evolve current activities, develop new ones, and enhance the university’s growing reliance on evidence-based decision making.

In summary, SJSU has made significant progress on the issues identified in April 2005 Commission action letter. Indeed, the review process has focused the university on developing and using planning and analysis tools that will allow the campus to adapt and intelligently evolve as the SJSU context changes over time. We look forward to the response to this report and to the Educational Effectiveness review.

Appendices

WASC Standard 3

The institution sustains its operations and supports the achievement of its educational objectives through its investment in human, physical, fiscal, and information resources and through an appropriate and effective set of organizational and decision-making structures. These key resources and organizational structures promote the achievement of institutional purposes and educational objectives and create a high quality environment for learning.

WASC Standard 4

The institution conducts sustained, evidence-based, and participatory discussions about how effectively it is accomplishing its purposes and achieving its educational objectives. These activities inform both institutional planning and systematic evaluations of educational effectiveness. The results of institutional inquiry,research,and data collection are used to establish priorities at different levels of the institution,and to revise institutional purposes,structures,and approaches to teaching, learning, and scholarly work.

Criteria for Review addressed in Special Visit Report Related to Standard 3

Organizational Structures and Decision-making Processes

• CFR 3.8 - Organizational Structures and Decision-making: The institution’s organizational structures and decision making processes are clear, consistent with its purposes, and sufficient to support effective decision making.

Criteria for Review addressed in Special Visit Report related to Standard 4

Strategic Thinking and Planning

• CFR 4.2 - Alignment of Resources, Objectives, Priorities: Planning processes at the institution define and, to the extent possible, align academic, personnel, fiscal, physical, and technological needs with the strategic objectives and priorities of the institution.
• CFR 4.3 - Planning Informed by Data: Planning processes are informed by appropriately defined and analyzed quantitative and qualitative data, and include consideration of evidence of educational effectiveness, including student learning.

Commitment to Learning and Improvement

• CFR 4.4 - Assessment of Effectiveness: The institution employs a deliberate set of quality assurance processes at each level of institutional functioning, including new curriculum and program approval processes, periodic program review, ongoing evaluation, and data collection. These processes involve assessments of effectiveness, track results over time, and use the results of these assessments to revise and improve structures and processes, curricula, and pedagogy.
• CFR 4.5 - Institutional Research: Institutional research addresses strategic data needs, is disseminated in a timely manner, and is incorporated in institutional review and decision-making processes. Included among the priorities of the institutional research function is the identification of indicators and the collection of appropriate data to support the assessment of student learning consistent with the institution’s purposes and educational objectives. Periodic reviews of institutional research and data collection are conducted to develop more effective indicators of performance and to assure the suitability and usefulness of data.

San José State University - Home of the Spartans One Washington Square - San José, California USA, 95192 - 408.924.1000