Student Affairs Division Meeting Spring 2012

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 33
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.


Document Related
Document Description
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
Document Share
Document Transcript
Student AffairsDivision MeetingSpring 2012Lori VarlottaVice President for Student AffairsMarch 8, 2012Overview of meetingStaff Recognition—10 – 15 years of serviceStaff Introductions—new colleaguesTobacco-Free InitiativePosition Searches, ReorganizationChancellor’s Office Perspective on EnrollmentState and CSU System Political EnvironmentBudgetPossibility AuditsStaff recognition—10 yearsThe following Student Affairs personnel have served Sacramento State for 10 years:Janet Dumonchelle, Student HealthLori Harrison, Global EducationJodi Howe, Campus LifeElaine Myers, Student HealthLien Nguyen, Registrar’s OfficeSandra Perez, Registrar’s OfficeGino Platina, Academic AdvisingSteve Tovar, University UnionStaff recognition—15 yearsThe following Student Affairs personnel have served Sacramento State for 15 years:Georgia Allen, Admissions & OutreachCandace McGee, Career CenterBill Olmsted, University UnionJoanna Sampanis, Student HealthDarlene Weaver, Admissions & OutreachCongratulations to all, and thank you for your hard work and dedication! New colleaguesWill the directors please help introduce any new staff they have in their areas?Tobacco-free initiativeA 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 roleThey recently made presentations to ASI and Faculty SenateCurrently they are working toward putting together a cross-divisional task force with the help of Student Health and Counseling ServicesChancellor has delegated final decision to campus Presidents on this issueSearches currentlyor soon to be underwayMPP positions currently openAVP - Student Engagement and Success (formerly AVP Campus Life); pending posting, est. fill July – Aug 1Dir., Student Organizations & Leadership; pending posting, est. fill July 1 – Aug 1Dir., Financial Aid; posted, est. fill June 1 – July 1Dir., Parents & Families Program; posted, est. fill June 1 – July 1Dir., Multi-Cultural Center; est. posting Summer 2012MPP positions anticipated to openStudent Conduct OfficerTentative reorganizationThe 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 updateWe 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 headcountState political environment—current legislative proposalsCSU 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 campus-based 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 TrusteesAppointed 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 updateThe CSU is expecting $200M in trigger cuts mid-year; 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 auditsAt 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 termsOur advising modelHow one gets to be “a major”How we identify “timely progress”How we structure priority registrationHow we package financial aidRedefining access: access to a degree, rather than to the doorStudent 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 termsConsider 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-viablecredits 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.)Spring 2011 Percentage of Graduates by Unit Range—undergraduates onlyAgree on institutional distinctions between “types” of seniors e.g:Standard Seniors (90 – 120 units)High Unit Seniors (121 – 150 units)Super Seniors (151+ units)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 modelConsider moving away from the traditional “exploratory” model of advising to a more “directed” approach.
  • This might mean that there are common first-year 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 degreeIdentify 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 upper-division 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 aidCurrent 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 headcountConsider 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:
  • we do not know the extent to which students are willing and able to increase the number of units they take each semester
  • 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
  • we are not sure if we have the faculty or the facilities to teach the courses we would need.
  • Questions?Thank you very much.
    Search Related
    We Need Your Support
    Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

    Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

    No, Thanks