Spring 2006 Convocation
January 25, 2006
Welcome to 2006 and the spring semester.
The year 2005 left us with a large amount of water on the campus which flooded on New Year’s Eve. I was here that day and significant parts of SSU were totally covered by several feet of rushing water coming from Sonoma Mountain and nearby creeks that were unable to absorb the high volume of water. Trees, branches, stones and mud came as well. Water created new paths.
Two of our buildings, Ives Hall and the Information Technology wing of the Schulz Information Center suffered significant water damage. There were fish in the rivers that flowed inside Schulz. We incurred more than $1 million in damage of which we have an insurance deductible of $100,000. Remedial efforts began immediately to restore these facilities to operational status before the start of the semester.
I want to commend and thank the members of our Police Services and Facilities Departments who came in the middle of a major storm to secure the campus, keep drains clear, move debris, assess and clean damaged areas, move cars and equipment onto higher ground, and restore the campus. They worked with enormous dedication and we suffered less because of them. We owe them our sincere thanks.
Let me talk now about the 2006-07 budget that affects the California State University and Sonoma State University. Based on the Higher Education Compact with Governor Schwarzenegger, a total of $2.8 billion in General Fund revenue will come to the CSU. This is a 7.3% increase over the current year General Fund and a 5.7% increase of total revenues (General Fund and fees: $215 million) and includes:
- 13% general fund increase ($75.8 million for general operations)
- 2.5% in enrollment growth (8,490 FTES or 11,000 headcount: $70.6 million)
- $2.3 million to expand master-level nursing programs
- $1.1 million to increase K-12 math and science teacher education
- 3% compensation pool ($77.4 million)
- First year of a five-year plan to close salary gaps ($16.6 million)
- Total compensation pool of 3.64%, subject to collective bargaining ($94 million)
- $33.6 million for mandatory costs (health benefits, space, energy costs, and service-based salary increases)
- $10 million for technology, libraries, deferred maintenance and instructional equipment
- $5.6 million in increased financial aid
- $54.4 million to eliminate the proposed 8% fee increase for undergraduates and 10% for graduates. The CSU has the lowest fees in the country among its 15 comparison public institutions ($3,000 less than the comparison average and $100 less than the next lowest cost institution.)
- $7 million reduction in outreach programs and systemwide academic preparation. We hope to recapture this during the budget process with the Legislature.
Other important features of the Governor’s proposal:
- marginal cost increase of $400 per FTES for the new students ($5 million)
- reduce graduate FTES calculation to 12 units rather than 15 units for undergraduates (in line with the UC system)
- student fee revenue will reside in a local trust fund which can be invested in short-term interest-bearing accounts creating a new source of revenue for the campus after a systemwide reduction of $5 million. The UC system already does this.
On the topic of enrollment:
Enrollment at both the CSU and SSU, presently and in the future, is a major concern. It is possible that this year the system could be slightly short of enrollment targets. It looks as if SSU will also end slightly short. With the exception of four to five campuses, this is also true for the other CSUs. I do not think there is a single cause for this problem; rather it came together due to a number of situations and decisions.
Is there a tidal wave of students as it had been predicted? There is no simple yes or no answer to this question, but clearly the situation is not what had been expected. There is predicted growth in the student population in California, mostly in the Los Angeles Basin. But this growth will peak nationally in approximately 2010. We already are seeing declining numbers of students in San Francisco and in Sonoma County with the closing of some K-12 schools. It is expected that the number of state public high school graduates will peak in 2008-09. Some statistics recently shared with the CSU Board of Trustees and presidents highlight the issues for colleges and universities:
- 1/3 of high school students drop out before they graduate
- Of the students who do graduate high school (the remaining 2/3), no more than 40% are eligible (taking the a-g curriculum in high school) to attend the UC or CSU.
- The range of UC and CSU-eligible students ranges from 40.5% in the San Francisco bay area to 40% in San Diego and 28.8% in the Inland Empire near San Bernardino.
- CSU takes 1/3 of 1/3 or about 11% of the high school graduates. The UC takes the top 1/8.
- On the Community College side—they report a drop in enrollment of about 7-10% this fall. Last year there were approximately 245,000 students in the community colleges who have 56 or more transferable units with a minimum GPA of 2.0. But only 53,695 (22%) transferred to the CSU.
Conclusion: There are many students in the system, but not as many who are eligible from high school to attend CSU. There are many students in the community colleges, but they are not transferring to comprehensive universities. Finding ways to increase the number of students who are eligible to attend four year colleges straight from high school and those who transfer from community colleges is paramount to the CSU, Sonoma State University and the State of California.
At Sonoma State University it is obvious that the days of “build it and they will come” is passing. Increased competition for students in a flat or declining market requires greater differentiation and clarity of purpose. SSU must become more aggressive in its recruiting by being very clear and explicit about who we are, what we offer, and what transforming experience we provide to students.
I have asked that we identify the distinguished characteristic of an SSU graduate; the intellectual tattoo that is easily observed by them and others. As we will see later, many graduates and students refer to “faculty contact and small classes” as distinguishing features. I fully agree with this and believe that it is of most importance. As we improve our finances we must not lose any more ground and even recoup some. But these are process features. The next important question is: because "close and small" is what specifically happens to our students, how does that make them different and define them? Is that characteristic(s) observable and can it be institutionalized?
I hope today begins that conversation and exploration.
I wish you a very good semester.
Dr. Ruben Armiñana,