Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 1 of 32 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INFORMATION ITEM: ISSUE: Regents Accountability Measures (RAM) The Regents are asked to review the 2006 report of the Regents Accountability Measures. This is the second presentation of the full report for system and unique university measures with progress toward the goals established during 2004. BACKGROUND • As part of its Changing Directions initiative, the Board approved policy changes requiring the addition of information and accountability measures in the areas of admissions and enrollment, financial aid, student access and graduation rates. The universities were asked to develop a plan for implementing these various reporting and accountability measures and to develop measures specific to their differentiated missions. • At its November 2003 meeting, the Board approved a set of 22 system and university accountability measures and a schedule for reporting the measures. • In June 2004, the Board approved the baseline measures and goals for each university’s five measures and the baseline measures for the seven system measures; the goals for the system measures were approved in November 2004. • The report on the Regents Accountability Measures (RAM) is to be presented to the Board annually in the spring. • When the RAM report was presented in April 2005, ASU and NAU had achieved their goals on some measures. At that time the Regents requested that they revisit these measures and return with revisions. In November 2005, Regents approved new goals for ASU’s measure #5 and for NAU’s measures #2, 4, and 5. • To provide timely data on affordability measures, mid-year estimates are compared to actual levels for the prior year. • All prior year data are subject to revision as updates are received. DISCUSSION A full discussion on the system measures and institutional measures may be located on the following pages. Pages • System Measures 5-11 • Arizona State University 12-16 • Northern Arizona University 17-23 • University of Arizona 24-32 Contact Milt Glick, ASU Liz Grobsmith, NAU George Davis, UA Stephanie Jacobson, ABOR Dan Anderson, ABOR 480-965-1224 928-523-2230 520-621-1856 602-229-2529 602-229-2544 glick@asu.edu liz.grobsmith@nau.edu gdavis@u.arizona.edu stephanie.jacobson@asu.edu Dan.Anderson@asu.edu Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 2 of 32 Summary Of System Measures and Highlights System measures are presented in each of three areas: (1) Access/Participation, (2) Affordability, and (3) Success and are described on pages 5-11. Access/Participation 1. Direct--% of eligible Arizona high school graduates who enroll in an Arizona public university within one year of graduation (by race/ethnicity). 2. Combined (Freshman/Transfer) Access--% of all Arizona high school graduates who enrolled in an Arizona public university within four years of graduation (by race/ethnicity). Affordability 3. Gift aid provided to resident undergraduate Pell recipients in Fall 2005 with a calculated cost of attendance not met by expected family contribution, grants, scholarships and waivers (by race/ethnicity). 4. Average amount of debt for resident full-time undergraduate students with subsidized loans (by race/ethnicity). 5. Total “unmet need” of all resident full-time undergraduate students with cost of attendance not met by expected family contribution, grants, scholarships and waivers, subsidized loans and federal work-study (by race/ethnicity). Student Success 6. Graduation rate for Arizona high school graduates 6 years after enrolling as freshmen (by race/ethnicity). 7. Combined (Freshman/Transfer) graduation rate for Arizona resident students who entered the university directly as freshmen, delayed their direct entry for one or more years, or transferred into the university as either a lower or upper division transfer student (by race/ethnicity. • System Highlights The number of eligible Arizona high school graduates who enrolled at ASU, NAU, or the U of A in the Fall 2005 semester increased by 220 or 2.2% over the last year. • Pell grant recipients received, on average, $135 more in Regents Set Aside funds this year (2005-06) than in 2004-05. • Average loan amounts for enrolled students decreased by 1.6%, at the same time that tuition and fees, as well as other costs, increased. • The average unmet need of students decreased by 1.4% or $79 dollars. • The 6 year graduation rate for the University System continued to climb, rising to 58.6% in 2004-05 from 58.4% in the previous year and 57.1% in the prior year. Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 3 of 32 Summary of University Unique Measures and Highlights ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY Arizona State University’s measures are grouped in three areas: (1) Student Access And Quality, (2) Resource Generation, and (3) Community Embeddedness. 1. Annual number of degrees granted. 2. Percentage of undergraduate degree recipients who begin as freshmen and graduate in five years or less. 3. Percentage of graduating seniors who rate their overall university experience as good or excellent. 4. Fiscal year gift, grant, and contract revenues. 5. Number of Arizona K-12 teachers served annually through ASU’s educational support programs. ASU Highlights • • • • Baccalaureate degrees increased nearly 7 percent in the last year. Overall satisfaction with the university experience for graduating seniors remains stable at 94%. ASU received a total of $287.7M in gift, grant, and contract revenues in FY 2005, a 17 percent increase since the prior year. In July 2005, the Arizona Department of Education committed resources to allow all public school districts and some private districts throughout the state an opportunity to sign up as members of the ASSET program. NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY Northern Arizona University’s areas of emphasis are: (1) Undergraduate Education, (2) Graduate Education, Research and Economic Development, and (3) Distance Learning Education. 1. Percentage of lower division undergraduate student credit hours taught by tenured or tenure-eligible faculty. 2. Percentage of undergraduate degree recipients participating in a research-related or capstone experience. 3. Percentage of graduating seniors who rate their overall University experience at NAU as excellent or good. 4. Graduate degrees awarded. 5. Student credit hours by Arizona region. Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 4 of 32 NAU Highlights • • • • NAU is proposing a change from tracking the percentage of lower division hours taught by tenured and tenure-eligible faculty to contact with full-time faculty. Although the percentage of hours taught by tenure and tenure-eligible faculty declined by two percentage points over the previous year, the percentage taught by full-time faculty increased, and 98% of lower division students are enrolled in two or more classes taught by full-time faculty. The percentage of undergraduates participating in a capstone experience reached the 5-year goal of 99%. The number of graduate degrees awarded in 2005 met the 5-year goal. Credits hours taken by students in the Arizona region increased by nearly 800 in the last year. UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA The University of Arizona measures are identified in the areas of (1) Student Progress and Engagement, (2) Research and Graduate Education, and (3) Service. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Undergraduate graduation rates for 4, 5, and 6 years. Student engagement Grant and contract expenditures. Doctoral degrees granted including Pharm D, JD, and Medical Doctor. People served by the AHSC Telemedicine and Telehealth program. UA Highlights • • • • The 6-year graduation rate increased to 58%, up by 1 percentage point over the previous year and now achieves the 5-year goal. The UA Retention Master plan was recently recognized nationally and has led to the development of a number of key retention efforts. Grant and contract expenditures increased from $483 million in 2004 to $501 million in 2005, representing a 3.7% increase. The numbers of advanced degrees awarded declined slightly from 702 last year to 698 this year. RECOMMENDATION/CONCLUSION That the Board review and accept the 2006 Regents Accountability Measures Report Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 5 of 32 ARIZONA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM 2006 Progress Report: Regents Accountability Measures Overview The seven system measures address three areas for resident undergraduate students: • Access/Participation. Measures 1 and 2. • Affordability. Measures 3, 4, and 5. • Student Success. Measures 6 and 7. Access/Participation Measures 1 and 2 focus on the percent of Arizona high school graduates entering the universities. • The number of Arizona high school graduates who enrolled in an Arizona public university rose from 9,885 to 10,105 (2.2%) in Fall 2005. • With the eligible high school population rising more than those enrolling (3.3% versus 2.2%), the direct access declined slightly from 41.9% to 41.4%. • Combined access is up over the last two years from 25.8% to 26.4%, with a goal in 200910 of 29.1%. Affordability Measures 3, 4 and 5 look at awards for Pell recipients, changes in unmet need and changes in student indebtedness. Results on affordability for resident undergraduates show some very positive outcomes: • Pell grant recipients received, on average, $135 more in Regents Set Aside funds than in 2004. The average award of $4,312 was $111 less than average tuition and fee charges. • Average loan amounts for enrolled students decreased by $67 (-1.6%), at the same time that tuition and fees continued to increase. • The average unmet financial need of students decreased by 1.4% or $79 dollars. Success Measures 6 and 7 address student success by tracking annual changes to the system wide graduation rates for freshmen and for transfer students. • The system wide graduation rate continued to rise in 2004-05. The rate currently stands at 58.6%, up from 58.4% last year and 57.1% in the prior year. • The first report on the transfer graduation rate will be made in 2008, when the high school information on transfer students is available. Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 6 of 32 ACCESS/PARTICIPATION 1. Direct—Percent of eligible Arizona high school graduates who enroll in an Arizona public university within one year of graduation. The most direct route that students access the university is by enrolling as freshmen immediately following high school graduation. This measure compares the number of freshman from Arizona who entered an Arizona public university with the total number of Arizona high school graduates who met the eligibility criteria for admission. Students meeting the criteria but not enrolling in a university may have attended a community college, attended another postsecondary education institution either in-state or out-of-state, or are not enrolled in higher education. PERFORMANCE: 2005-06 GOAL: Year Prior HS Graduates 55,540 Year Prior HS Eligible Grads 24,382 Fall Freshmen 10,105 Percent of Eligible Students 41.4% By 2009-10, 43.0 percent of eligible Arizona high school graduates will enroll in an Arizona public university within one year of graduation. DISCUSSION: • The number of Arizona high school graduates who enrolled in an Arizona public university rose from 9,885 to 10,105 (2.2%) in Fall 2005. • The number of eligible high school graduates in the prior year increased by even more from 23,599 to 24,382 (3.3%). • With the eligible high school graduate population rising more quickly than those enrolling at the universities, the direct access declined slightly from 41.9% to 41.4%. NOTE: 12002 Eligibility rates are multiplied by the Spring 2004 high school graduation numbers to calculate the numbers of graduates eligible for university admission in Fall 2005. Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 7 of 32 2. Combined (Freshman/Transfer) Access--Percent of all Arizona high school graduates who enrolled in an Arizona public university within four years of graduation. The more indirect approaches to entering the universities are expected to become more significant in the future. When admissions standards change in Fall 2006, more students may begin at a community college before transferring to one of the universities to continue their education. This measure compares cumulative access to an Arizona public university to the number of students who graduated from an Arizona high school. Since university admissions standards are different for transfer students than for directly admitted freshmen, the denominator for this measure is all Arizona high school graduates. PERFORMANCE: All Spring Freshmen/Transfer 2001 HS Grads 2005 Enrollments 50,696 13,366 Percent 26.4% GOAL: The Arizona public universities will maintain an enrollment level of 29.1% of Arizona high school graduates within four years of graduation through 2009-10. DISCUSSION: • The combined access rate this year of 26.4% is down from last year’s rate of 29.1%, but is up from the prior year’s rate of 25.8%. Due to anomalies in the number of high school graduates used in calculating last year’s combined access rate, it appears that the universities are making progress toward the goal. • This measure assumes high school enrollment at the universities will continue at the current level. • A 20% increase in high school graduates from the baseline year to the goal year is projected. • In order to achieve a 29.1 % combined access rate, the universities will need to increase the numbers of combined access students in the system by 27% from the baseline year (2004-05) to the goal year (2010) . Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 8 of 32 AFFORDABILITY 3. Gift aid provided to resident undergraduate Pell recipients each Fall with a calculated cost of attendance not met by expected family contribution, grants, scholarships and waivers (by race/ethnicity). This measure tracks the average amount of gift aid Arizona resident undergraduate students who receive federal Pell grants received in the Fall 2005 semester as compared to the 2004 year. Pell recipients are among the most needy students on campus with the lowest capacity for their families to pay the cost of attendance. Special emphasis, through the Regents Tuition Set-Aside, has been placed on this group of students to continue to keep their net tuition costs, on average, significantly lower than those for other students. The chart below depicts the Pell grant recipient population by ethnicity for the university system. PERFORMANCE: Fall 2004 (Year-End Actual) White NonHispanic Black, NonHispanic Native Am, Non-His. Asian, NonHispanic Hispanic Other/INA TOTAL Fall 2005 (Mid-Year Estimates) Change in Avg. Gift Award # Students Avg. Gift Award # Students Avg. Gift Award Change in # Students 8,834 $3,895 8,172 $3,966 -662 $71 846 4,262 849 4399 3 137 1,233 4,939 1,294 5,265 61 326 906 4,440 885 4,640 -21 200 3,667 4,484 3,604 4,651 -63 167 672 4,352 714 4,331 42 -21 16,158 $4,177 15,518 $4,312 -640 $135 GOAL: The universities will allocate no less than 50% of the Regent’s Financial Aid SetAside for Arizona resident full-time undergraduate Pell eligible students, effective Fall 2005 and thereafter. DISCUSSION: • The universities collectively awarded 60.0% of the Regents Set-Aside funds to resident undergraduate Pell students during 2004-05. • All identified student groups recorded increases in the amount of gift aid that was awarded, from $71 to $326, with the average increase at $135. • In 2005-06, average tuition and mandatory fees at Arizona’s universities was approximately $4,423. Total gift aid averaged $4,312, or about $111 less than tuition and fees costs. Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 9 of 32 4. Average amount of debt for resident full-time undergraduate students with subsidized loans (by race/ethnicity). One way that many students pay for their education is through educational loans. Loans can be used to pay a variety of expenses from housing to tuition to books and supplies. Interest and principal payments are deferred until graduation and the interest rate is set at favorable levels. This measure compares average loans between 2004-05 and 2005-06 for full-time resident undergraduate students who had demonstrated need. PERFORMANCE: Fall 2004 (Year-End Actual) Students White NonHispanic Black, NonHispanic Native Am, Non-His. Asian, NonHispanic Hispanic Other/INA TOTAL GOAL: Average Loan Fall 2005 (Mid-Year Estimates) Students Average Loan Change in Students Change in Average Loan 10,795 $4,097 10,261 $4,093 -534 -$4 902 4,188 911 3,989 9 -199 1,036 4,128 1,025 3,609 -11 -519 701 4,011 658 3,902 -43 -108 3,328 4,026 3,333 3,969 5 -57 710 4,333 726 4,172 16 -161 17,472 $4,096 16,914 $4,030 -558 -$67 The Universities will continually monitor average amount of debt for resident full-time undergraduate students with subsidized loans and apply appropriate strategies to maintain or minimize, where possible, the level of student debt. DISCUSSION: • The amount of debt for Arizona resident undergraduate students declined by $67 compared to the prior year. This represents a decline in debt for those undergraduate students of 1.6%. • Additionally, the number of students in this measure declined by 558, or 3.2%. Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 10 of 32 5. Total “unmet need” of all resident full-time undergraduate students with cost of attendance not met by expected family contribution, grants, scholarships and waivers, subsidized loans and federal work-study (by race/ethnicity). The costs for attending postsecondary education institutions include tuition and fees, room and board, transportation, personal expenses, books and supplies, and a variety of other expenses. Students have unmet need when this amount exceeds the amount of money a family can be expected to pay and other funds from waivers, scholarships, grants, subsidized loans, and federal work study. The universities have influence over only a portion of the costs of attendance and the amount of money students have to pay for those costs. The measure compares the change in unmet need for these students from 2004-05 to 2005-06. Since the students tracked by this measure have, by definition, found some way to cover the costs of attending a university, another way of looking at unmet need is as a supplemental investment (beyond the expected family contribution) that students are making in their education. They may forgo some of the expenses that they would otherwise incur, or they may supplement their income through unsubsidized loans, work off campus, or contributions from non-family members. PERFORMANCE: Fall 2004 (Year-End Actual) Students White NonHispanic Black, NonHispanic Native Am, Non-His. Asian, NonHispanic Hispanic Other/INA TOTAL Avg. Unmet Need Fall 2005 (Mid-Year Estimates) Students Avg. Unmet Need Change in Students Change in Avg. Unmet Need 13,587 $5,472 13,689 $5,404 93 -$68 1,098 5,727 1,160 5,640 62 -86 1,354 5,333 1,491 5,176 137 -157 1,198 5,329 1,236 5,330 38 1 4,776 5,503 4,970 5,373 194 -130 959 5,827 1,007 5,861 48 34 22,972 $5,490 23,544 $5,411 572 -$79 GOAL: The Universities will continually monitor average unmet need and apply appropriate strategies to maintain or minimize, where possible, the level of unmet need. DISCUSSION: • The number of students with unmet need rose by 572, or 2.5%, between 2004-05 and 2005-06, with all race/ethnicity groups recording some increase. Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 11 of 32 • • The average amount of unmet need for these students decreased by $79. All identified groups, except Asians, saw a decline in their average unmet need ranging from $68 to $157. The average decline in unmet need was 1.4%. Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 12 of 32 SUCCESS 6. Graduation rate for Arizona high school graduates 6 years after enrolling as freshmen. A traditional measure of success for the universities is their graduation rates. This measure takes those students who graduated from an Arizona high school and enrolled as first-time freshmen in the university six years ago and calculates what percent graduated within six years. Students who do not graduate within six years may have transferred to another institution, may have dropped out of school, or may continue their education for a longer period of time. The total system wide measure captures those students who initially enroll in an Arizona public university and graduate within six years at any Arizona public university. The university aggregate measure captures those students who enroll and graduate from the same university. PERFORMANCE: Total Freshmen System Graduates ASU Graduates NAU Graduates UofA Graduates* System Graduation Rate 1997-98 1998-99 6,814 7,293 3,891 4,257 1,466 1,583 685 725 1,531 1,732 57.1% 58.4% 1999-00 7,953 4,661 1,950 783 1,716 58.6% Freshman Cohort *Note: System graduates for the University of Arizona are estimated at 2% of university graduates. GOAL: 2009-10 61.2% DISCUSSION: • This measure recorded an increase in graduation rates from 58.4% in 2003-04 to 58.6% in 2004-05. • The total number of graduates of the Arizona University System increased by 770 or 19.8% over the last two years. • In 2004-05, a total of 212 graduates started their education at one of Arizona’s public universities and graduated from an institution other than the one in which they originally enrolled. 7. Combined (Freshman/Transfer) Graduation rate for Arizona resident students who entered the university directly as freshmen, delayed their direct entry for one or more years, or transferred into the university as either a lower or upper division transfer student (by race/ethnicity). In order to have adequate data, the earliest this measure will be reported on is in 2008. The data for this measure will come from the high school transcripts of transfer students, which, historically, have not been provided to the universities. GOAL: TBD Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 13 of 32 Arizona State University 2006 Regents Accountability Measures Report Through the Changing Directions policy initiative, the Arizona Board of Regents has addressed issues facing the state’s three universities, including growth, affordability, and the potential for greater flexibility of Board policies through differentiation among the universities. The various facets of the Board’s initiative complement Arizona State University’s (ASU) mission to provide outstanding programs in undergraduate and graduate education, cutting-edge and use-inspired research, and public service for the citizens of the State of Arizona with special emphasis on the Phoenix metropolitan area. ASU will provide annual updates of progress under the new Changing Directions initiative through the use of five accountability measures within three broad categories of university activity. Category of Activity Accountability Measures Student Access and Quality Degree Production Graduation Efficiency Student Satisfaction Resource Generation Gifts, Grants, and Contracts Community Embeddedness Educational Support Programs Student Access and Quality To broaden access to a quality education for all segments of the population, ASU, through its core campuses, instructional centers, and distance education programs, must be positioned to accommodate the continuing growth in the number of high school graduates and an increasing pool of older students desiring new job skills. Degree production, as measured by the number of degrees granted annually, is a basic measure of ASU’s progress in meeting the educational needs of our growing region. This measure represents the university’s capabilities to move students from entry to graduation and reflects combined efforts in student support, classroom instruction, counseling and advising, and course availability. Progress toward goal. The number of degrees awarded has increased over 20 percent in the last five years. Additionally, baccalaureate degrees increased nearly 7 percent the last year alone. This trend is expected to continue as ASU continues to find ways to remove barriers to student progress through the baccalaureate pipeline. Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 14 of 32 Measure One Annual Number of Degrees Granted Academic Year 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 10,612 11,278 11,803 12,526 12,821 Baccalaureate 7,742 8,190 8,566 9,116 9,729 Master’s 2,440 2,624 2,742 2,886 2,614 Doctoral 277 313 300 355 314 Law 153 151 195 169 164 TOTAL Goal Goal Year 13,500 2007–08 Graduation efficiency is another important measure of ASU’s use of resources to achieve student success. The six-year graduation rate for entering freshmen reflects our ability to be learner-centered by focusing on a quality academic experience for each student. ASU, through an emphasis on retention programs, student tracking, and timely intervention programs across all academic units and support offices, has been successful in improving its graduation rate in recent years, as evidenced in the table below. Six-year Graduation Rate for First-time, Full-time Freshmen 60% 55% 46% 40% 20% 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Entering Cohort ASU seeks to continue this success in future years by reducing class size and the student to faculty ratio, emphasizing new pedagogical techniques, such as collaborative learning, service learning, and other learner-centered approaches, and through the use of technology to enhance the classroom experience. Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 15 of 32 Another key measure of graduation is the percentage of degree recipients completing their academic programs in five years or less. This measure complements the graduation rate and provides insight on the extent to which students are able to register for needed courses, maintain full course loads, and complete their program of study in a timely manner. As shown in the graphic below, a significant percentage of students complete a degree within five years, with most graduating in four years or less. ASU will monitor this measure and seek ways to lessen or remove barriers to timely graduation. Progress toward goal. The percentage of degree recipients graduating in five years or less remained stable at 87%. However, continued focus on learner-centered approaches and technological enhancements is expected to gradually improve this measure. Years to Degree for ASU New Freshmen May 2005 Graduating Class Five Years 22.7% 7.2% Six Years 5.5% More than Six Years Four Years 60.9% Four Years 62% 3.6% Fewer than Four Years Measure Two Percentage of Undergraduate Degree Recipients Who Begin as Freshmen and Graduate in Five Years or Less Spring Semester TOTAL 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Goal Goal Year 89% 87% 88% 88% 87% 90% 2008 Satisfying customers is critical for any enterprise, including universities. ASU serves many different types of students across the Phoenix metropolitan area, from recent high school graduates attending full-time to working adults taking courses part-time in order to complete degrees or acquire job-related skills. ASU is pleased to report that in recent years well over 90 percent of its student customers consider their overall experience at ASU to be good or excellent. Through many varied efforts, such as offering smaller classes in English and mathematics, instituting new degree programs, and providing new and expanding campuses, ASU will seek to serve its student customers even better. Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 16 of 32 Progress toward goal. Overall satisfaction with the university experience for graduating seniors also remains stable at 94%. Continued emphasis on improved advising and expansion of programs should result in an increase in satisfaction over the next couple of years. Measure Three Percentage of Graduating Seniors Who Rate Their Overall University Experience as Good or Excellent Fall Semester TOTAL 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Goal Goal Year 94% 94% 94% 94% 94% 95% 2007-08 Resource Generation Many of the university’s strategic issues require significant resources and efficient use of those resources. Improved state support and increased tuition revenues along with the creation of new, diversified revenue streams are essential to the university’s success. An aggregate measure of the university’s ability to generate additional external resources is fiscal year gift, grant, and contract revenues. ASU has had considerable growth in awards over the past decade, and strategic investments in our research capacity and infrastructure will translate into accelerated growth in future years. Progress toward goal. ASU received a total of $287.7M in gift, grant, and contract revenues in FY 2005, a 17 percent increase since the prior year and a 30 percent increase since the base year of FY03. This rate of increase puts ASU directly on track to reach its goal of $357M by FY 2008. Measure Four Fiscal Year Gift, Grant, and Contract Revenues* Fiscal Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 Goal Goal Year TOTAL (in millions) $215.2 $221.4 $245.6 $287.7 $357.0 2008 *Includes gifts to ASU and the ASU Foundation and external grant and contract dollars received for research, instruction, public service, and student support. Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 17 of 32 Community Embeddedness ASU is committed to public service as exemplified in its focus on becoming a more active presence in our community, being socially embedded, and serving the needs of the people of Arizona and beyond. Choosing a single measure to represent this commitment is difficult since the university’s service to the community has many faces, such as faculty solving problems through applied research, partnerships with the education, business, industry, and government sectors in our state, and staff and students addressing the challenges of poverty, growth, social infrastructure, and quality of life. A measure that exemplifies the role of ASU in supporting critical needs within the state is the number of Arizona K-12 teachers served annually through ASU’s ASSET program (Arizona School Service through Educational Technology). This educational support program, coordinated through KAET television, combines the important ingredients of ASU’s education knowledge base with the power of technology to deliver educational programming to teachers across the state. As shown in the table below, the outreach is significant, and ASU will continue to foster this important support program for Arizona’s teachers. Progress toward goal. The following table gives the number of students served through the ASSET program for the years FY01 through FY05. In July 2005, the Arizona Department of Education committed resources to allow all public school districts and some private districts throughout the state an opportunity to sign up as members of KAET’s ASSET program, which provides a variety of educational resources to K-12 teachers in Arizona, including curricular materials and professional development courses. As a result, projections for future years were modified in December 2005 to accommodate the expected increases in numbers of teachers served statewide. Measure Five Arizona K-12 Educational Teachers Served Through ASSET Fiscal Year TOTAL 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Goal Goal Year 16,655 14,586 21,285 25,700 26,255 60,000 2008 Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 18 of 32 2006 Regents Accountability Measures Report Northern Arizona University’s institution-specific accountability measures reflect its mission as described through the Arizona Board of Regents Changing Directions policy initiative: • Outstanding undergraduate education • Research, graduate, and professional programs • Sophisticated methods of distance delivery Category Undergraduate education Research, graduate, and professional programs Access Accountability Measures Tenured and tenure-eligible faculty teaching lower division undergraduates Undergraduate student research or capstone experience Graduating senior satisfaction with overall education Number of graduate degrees awarded Student credit hours taken through distance delivery by Arizona region Undergraduate Education Measures Three of the five Changing Directions measures concentrate on undergraduate education. Each measure relates to characteristics that are typically associated with an outstanding undergraduate education. Lower division student instructional contact with faculty When the institution-specific Regents Accountability Measures were proposed, Northern Arizona University chose to track the percentage of lower division undergraduate student credit hours taught by tenured and tenure-eligible faculty. Although we had not tracked this indicator before, we had a history of examining several measures of lower division faculty-student interaction. Now after two years of tracking and careful assessment of why we have had difficulty making progress on this goal, it has become clear that a better measure of faculty-student interaction should be all full-time faculty rather than just tenured and tenure-track. Faculty availability, continuity, and contact with students, not just tenure status, is important to the new student experience. Being able to issue multi-year contracts gives us the flexibility to hire excellent nontenure-track teaching faculty and to retain them. Approximately two-thirds of our freshmen and sophomores have two or more classes taught by tenure eligible faculty and nearly all have two or more courses taught by full-time faculty. Intentional and productive use of faculty resources is critical, and the university seeks to maximize their deployment in teaching, research, mentoring, advising, and outreach in the community. Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 19 of 32 Thus, the university proposes changing the first RAM accountability measure to more broadly evaluate the lower-division student experience. We propose measuring three characteristics of lower division undergraduate instruction. The components are: - Percentage of student credit hours taught by full-time faculty Percentage of full-time lower division students enrolled per semester in two or more primary classes with tenure/tenure-track professors Percentage of full-time lower-division students who have two or more classes per semester taught by full-time faculty Why? • The change is reflective of structural and financial realities, while maintaining the institution’s commitment to the priority of teaching/learning. • It allows us to assess more fully the level of student and faculty instructional interaction, which we believe is important to creating an outstanding learning environment—for both the most capable and for under-prepared undergraduates.1 Regents Accountability Measure 1 Percentage of lower-division undergraduate student credit hours taught by tenured and tenure-eligible faculty Percentage of lower-division undergraduate student credit hours taught by full-time faculty Two or more primary classes taught by tenured and tenureeligible faculty Two or more primary classes taught by full-time faculty 2004* 2005* 2006 Goal Goal Year 46% 45% 43% 55% 2009 66% 64% 65% 70% 2010 66% 63% 67% 70% 2009 90% 91% 98% 95% 20062010 *Restated so all years are comparable and use the census datamart. Data in the prior years was based on the end-of-term datamart, which is not available until 18 weeks after the start of a semester. 1 The National Institute of Education’s Panel of Scholars in 1984 recommended that universities and colleges apply the principle of “front loading”—reallocation and redistribution of the institution’s best educational resources to serve the critical needs of first-year students. Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 20 of 32 Measures of Lower Division Contact with Faculty 98% 100% 91% 90% 90% 80% 70% 66% 60% 66% 50% 46% 67% 63% 64% 45% 65% 43% 40% PRIMARY SCH taught by tenured/tenure-track faculty 30% PRIMARY SCH taught by full-time faculty 20% 2 or more primary classes taught by tenured/tenure-track professors 10% 2 or more classes per semester taught by full-time faculty 0% 2003 2004 2005 Undergraduate student research or capstone experience The second undergraduate measure is the percentage of undergraduate degree recipients participating in a research-related or capstone experience. Why? • This is a student outcome measure that correlates to several of the characteristics underlying excellence in undergraduate learning. o A capstone experience, the culminating work in a major, provides evidence of a coherent curriculum with clear outcomes and student engagement in synthesis and application of knowledge and skills in the major field of study. o Undergraduate research experiences involve students in the discovery and application of knowledge with professors. • These experiences create opportunities for faculty and students to engage in joint, in-depth exploration of a field of inquiry and produce learning beyond that which could be accomplished with classroom instruction. Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 21 of 32 Northern Arizona University intends that 99-100% of its graduates fulfill this requirement. This goal was reached this year; next year, assuming the goal achievement remains stable, a new accountability measure of undergraduate excellence will be proposed. Undergraduate Degree Recipients Percentage Participating in Capstone or Research Experience 99% 100% 97% 95% 90% 89% 88% 86% 85% 81% 80% 75% 2001 Regents Accountability Measure 2 Percentage of undergraduate degree recipients participating in a research-related or capstone experience 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Goal Goal Year 81% 86% 88% 89% 97% 99% 99% 2009 Graduating senior satisfaction with overall education Why? • Northern Arizona University annually evaluates student assessment of their educational experiences. • Graduates are highly satisfied. Northern Arizona University’s goal is to remain in the 95-99 percentage satisfaction range. Percentage of Graduating Seniors Who Rate Their Overall Experience at NAU as Excellent or Good 95% 96% 96% 96% 2001 2002 2003 97% 98% 75% 2004 2005 Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 22 of 32 Regents Accountability Measure 3 Percent of graduating seniors who rate their overall university experience at Northern Arizona University as excellent or good na =not available 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 96% 96% 96% 97% 98% na Goal Goal Year 99% 2008 Northern Arizona University did not update this measure this year as the university has transitioned from a telephone survey sampling approximately 400 students to a web-based population survey (i.e. asking all students applying for graduation to complete the survey). The transition to the web-based survey met with some technical difficulties which resulted in an inadequate sample of the 2005 graduating seniors. Research, Graduate, and Professional Programs Number of graduate degrees awarded Why? • This is one way of showing that Northern Arizona University is responsive to Arizona’s economic and workforce development needs. • Although the number of awards decreased from 2005, the university met its goal. • Northern Arizona University’s Master’s level graduation rate is over 80%. Graduate Degrees Awarded 2,123 2,200 2,100 2,000 1,909 1,945 1,979 2,008 2,004 1,900 1,800 1,700 1,600 1,500 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 23 of 32 Regents Accountability 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Goal Measure 4 Graduate Range degrees 2,004 1,9501,909 1,945 1,979 2,008 2,123 awarded 2,200 Source: SR ODS as of 03/02/05. Business Objects report: SCH and FTE Web Redistribution_RAM_5.rep Goal Year 20042009 Access Student credit hours taken by Arizona region Why? • Evidence of Northern Arizona University’s presence throughout the state can be found by examining the number of student credit hours by Arizona region. • For the latest reporting period, Northern Arizona University saw growth of nearly 800 credit hours throughout the state. Regent’s Accountability Measure 5 Student credit hours taken by Arizona region 2004 (Fall 2003) 2005 (Fall 2004) 2006 (Fall 2005) Goal Goal Year 39,888 44,109 44,875 50,000 2009 Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 24 of 32 Excluding distance learning (web) student credit hours taken by Flagstaff campus students Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 25 of 32 The University of Arizona Regents Accountability Measures The Changing Directions measures began as an effort to accomplish two goals: 1. To simplify the UCAR report 2. To add new metrics on access and affordability designed to examine the impact of new enrollment policies effective in 2006 Additional measures have been developed and included here that better examine the diverse missions of the universities and the strategic direction of Focused Excellence. Student Progress and Engagement Measure 1: Undergraduate 4 and 6-year Graduation Rates The 6-year graduation rate is used nationally as a standard performance measure. It has been a Board measure through all UCAR iterations. Progress on the 6-year rate is a major commitment of the UA. 6-Year Graduation Rate Goal Baseline FY94 FY 00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY09 Percent of students who began as freshmen and graduated within six years 49% 54% 55% 55% 55% 57% 58% 58% University of Arizona Freshmen Graduation Rates - Ten Year Trend 60 % Graduated 50 40 30 20 10 0 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 4 Year 6 Year Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 26 of 32 The UA has made substantial progress on 4 and 6-year graduation rates. Double and dual majors have increased significantly since 1997 while the average hours at graduation declined from 143 in 1997 to 137 in 2003 -- a significant improvement in institutional efficiency. This year, several major programs were implemented to improve overall retention and graduation rates. Retention Master Plan: a Comprehensive, Integrated Suite of Best-Practice Initiatives. Our Retention Master Plan was recently recognized nationally, earning the 10th annual Best Practices award at the National Symposium on Student Retention. Key efforts in the plan include: 1. Course Availability in high-demand majors is a problem. Required courses can be in short supply, taxing the patience of our students as they work to complete their undergraduate studies. Research is underway to identify the most pressing areas and to prioritize targeted solutions. 2. SuccessNet is an online, mid-semester, early intervention advising referral system for students having difficulty with one or more classes. Evidence from other institutions shows a link between early alert systems and increased student retention. 3. Math Boot Camp provides an intensive review of the concepts necessary to pass the math readiness test and place into college algebra. Data show that student math preparation is a problem for public universities and more critical for minority students. While retention efforts have traditionally 4. Enhanced Focus on Transfer Students. focused on incoming freshmen, transfer student numbers have grown over time and are a key to university access and success for many students. This component focuses on better understanding the needs of successful transfer students. 5. College-Based Retention Plans recognize the unique mix of students and programs in each college, better responding to specific student needs than a general, institution-level retention approach. 6. Calling Outreach personally contacts students who have not registered by the end of the priority period to see what can be done to assist them. 7. High School Counselor Communication Enhancement strives to more fully integrate the Arizona high school student pipeline with our recruitment and retention efforts. High school counselors play a critical front-line role in attracting more Arizona students. For minority students, recent evidence shows that participation in Multicultural Affairs and Student Success programs boosts student retention 20% compared to non-participants. Efforts are underway to boost student numbers in these effective retention programs. Measure 2: Student Engagement The UA offers many opportunities for students to engage actively in their own learning processes (including extensive student participation in front-line research, honors theses, study abroad), to directly effect the education of their fellow students at the UA and elsewhere (preceptorships and discipline-related organizations), and to be intensively involved in academic outreach to our wider communities-- state-wide, regionally, nationally, and internationally. We are committed to a University of high engagement with and among our students. Engagement Activities: The activities included in this effort are listed on Attachment A. These are intellectually-based, learner-centered experiences that include application, synthesis, Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 27 of 32 evaluation, and analysis beyond what is available in traditional classroom settings. These experiences are broadening for their own sake and distinguish a student as an individual with a rich and extended depth of active engagements in an intellectually rigorous University education. Engagement contributes to student success in completing their programs and in graduation. Student Perceptions of Engagement: Presently, more than 84% of our students are involved in engagement activities recorded in our student information system. But it is important to capture engagement from the students’ view. If the student does not feel engaged, nothing we can count will make them so. Thus, we are expanding the process of measuring student involvement in these areas and are pleased to present the initial findings here. The annual Survey of Graduating Seniors (SGS) has been used to gather information about UA students’ involvement in research-related projects, making active presentations at the University to substantial public audiences, and students undertaking volunteer, cooperative, or internship endeavors that build directly on their educational experience. The following table shows that overall, 90% of students report participating in at least one of these forms of engagement. Percent with at least one experience 100% 90% 91% 90% 90% 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Year of survey The percentage of students participating in faculty-conducted research has fluctuated between 57% to 65% since 2000-01. The percentage of UA students involved in public presentations has varied from 45-48%, and the number of students who report having had work experiences related to their fields of study varied from 70%-77 over this time period. Attachment B provides a more detailed view of SGS results. National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE): The Survey of Graduating Seniors has been revised to include a set of questions from the NSSE that gauge student participation in a wide range of engagement activities. Responses to the spring 2005 survey will be used to establish benchmarks and to track progress toward the goal of a 90% participation rate. Results for the 2005 survey appear in Attachment C. For 2005, 45% of students report completing at least one of the engagement activities, with 14% reporting that they are planning to do so. The Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 28 of 32 full version of the NSSE is currently being administered to UA students, and will provide data with which to judge our student responses against those from other institutions. Research and Graduate Education Measure 3: Grant and Contract Expenditures This measure demonstrates the performance level of an elite research university. The UA consistently ranks as one of the top institutions in the country in this area, providing rich opportunities for our graduate students. This is an existing JLBC and Master List measure, where it is broken out by main campus and AHSC. Our measure is for the UA total, a better representation of the unified UA entity and the synergies across campus, especially in areas like Bio Science. $ In Millions Gifts, Grants and Contracts $800 $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 $650 $446 $312 $328 $349 $483 $501 $375 Fiscal Year This measure includes our commitments to use the TRIF and research facility construction funds efficiently. Earlier in UA history, the emerging Optical Science and the space sciences – not unrelated -- gave rise to a dynamic optics industry in Arizona. This is the model for future economic development in other TRIF and Focused Excellence areas. Measure 4: Doctoral Degrees Granted including Pharm.D., J.D., and M.D. This is also an existing JLBC and Master List measure reported for main campus and AHSC. This output metric represents many dimensions of the mission of the U of A and the quality and quantity of scholars we produce. Increasing these numbers is a challenge. Nationally, Ph.D. production has been flat. The recent nation-wide drop in international students coming to the U.S. is also hurting our graduate enrollments. We must become even more active in recruiting top graduate students for targeted areas. But this goal will be challenging for another reason. By increasing our focus on higherlevel degrees and our Focused Excellence areas, we are increasingly focusing on high-cost graduate programs. Our history of success with Interdisciplinary Programs (IDPs) helps. IDPs allow us to focus in new areas at a lower cost than by adding departments. Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 29 of 32 Advanced Degrees Awarded Baseline FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY99 Professional Doctorates Doctorate Total 292 415 707 307 406 713 311 359 670 305 369 674 295 378 673 304 398 702 310 388 698 Goal FY09 340 425 765 The strength of UA programs and progress on building much-needed new laboratory space suggest that future increases are achievable. Service Measure 5: People served by the AHSC Telemedicine and Telehealth program Telemedicine is a new application of technology to address health care problems. It is emblematic of new dimensions in our land grant role as we extend additional university services to the entire state. Making Safford, for instance, a healthier place to live, work, and retire is important to the economic vitality of this rural community. Originally created to provide quality medical services to more remote areas, Telemedicine has become a powerful tool for education, public health, outreach, and a reference source for health professionals. These new uses are being developed to extend this program systematically, hence the new name “Telehealth.” Expanding Telehealth Service People served by the Telemedicine program Baseline FY01 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 5,127 5,127 44,923 69,698 71,339 FY05 Goal FY09 80,272 100,000 The expansion of Telemedicine illustrates the increasing role of technology in delivering quality services to new populations. Conclusion In choosing our Regents Accountability measures, we have selected goals and measures that will challenge us toward the frontiers of excellence. We have also chosen them to represent new campus directions. We look forward to reporting on future progress, challenges, and opportunities through this process. Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 30 of 32 Attachment A Student Engagement at the University of Arizona Student Engagement: A documented, intellectually based and learner centered experience including application, synthesis, evaluation, and analysis that promotes the active involvement of students in the education of themselves and their fellow students and/or engaged educational outreach into their many wider communities. Active Learning: The students are active participants in their own learning • Entrepreneurship activities (e.g., Eller’s Investing for the Foundation) • Finish in Four • Senior Theses, capstone experiences • Honors Theses • Preceptorships (e.g., Teaching Teams Program) • Cooperative extension and farms • Research with faculty: field, lab, studio (e.g., RAIRE) • Internships and practica (internal and external), professional development Service learning: The student is engaged in outreach to local, national, and world communities • Athlete outreach • Science and Fine Arts programs • Community planning • Summer camps • International programs and Study Abroad • Education programs Leadership: The student endeavors to work with others to make the university community a better place • Wildcat reporters and editors • ASUA leadership and extensions • Discipline related clubs • Professional societies (e.g., Society of Earth Sciences Students) • Intramural and club sports Social Integration: The student is socially connected to the university and local community • Sports events • Cultural performances or events (e.g., concert, museum show, symposium, lecture, etc.) Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 31 of 32 Attachment B How many of the following experiences have you had while at UA. From the Survey of Graduating Seniors Participated in a research project or program (excluding being a subject in psychology experiments, doing lab work for a course or similar experience) Percent with at least one experience 100% 80% 65% 60% 57% 59% 00-01 01-02 65% 59% 40% 20% 0% 02-03 03-04 04-05 Year of survey Participated in a UA performance/public Presentation or design project (e.g., student research forum, gallery show, public lecture, recital, theater Performance, etc.) Percent with at least one experience 100% 80% 60% 47% 45% 00-01 01-02 48% 47% 46% 02-03 03-04 04-05 70% 71% 03-04 04-05 40% 20% 0% Year of survey Had career related work experience, such as internships in your field, volunteering, cooperative education, or working in a career-related job Percent with at least one experience 100% 80% 77% 75% 74% 60% 40% 20% 0% 00-01 01-02 02-03 Year of survey Board of Regents Meeting April 27 & 28, 2006 Agenda Item #28 Page 32 of 32 Attachment C Survey Questions for Student Engagement (from the National Survey of Student Engagement) Which of the following have you done or do you plan to do before you graduate from the UA? Practicum, internship, field experience, co-op experience, or clinical assignment n=870 Entrepreneurship activity n=869 Community service or volunteer work n=864 Participation in a learning community or some other formal program where groups of students take 2 or more classes together n=866 Work on a research project with a faculty member outside of course or program requirements n=865 Foreign language coursework n=867 Study abroad n=865 Independent study or self-designed major n=867 Culminating senior experience (comprehensive exam, capstone course, thesis project, etc.) n=864 Done Plan to do Do not plan to do Have not decided 61% 6% 28% 5% 9% 5% 76% 10% 68% 8% 19% 5% 23% 3% 67% 7% 24% 5% 63% 8% 69% 4% 24% 3% 16% 7% 71% 7% 23% 2% 71% 4% 40% 5% 51% 5%