CSU presents draft student success framework after systemwide "Year of Engagement"

Deputy Vice Chancellor Dilsey Perez and Pete Fritz of Deloitte presented an update to the Board’s Committee on Educational Policy on the CSU’s “Year of Engagement,” outlining a draft student success definition and six draft commitments that will guide a systemwide student success framework.

Pete Fritz said the discovery phase included outreach to more than one million stakeholders across the 23 CSU campuses and that the draft framework components will include a definition, commitments, objectives, metrics, and practices. He summarized five lessons from discovery, including the need to redefine student success to include graduate study, transfer, and career attainment; the importance of leveraging systemwide capacity; a focus on teaching and learning; better, timelier data for decision makers; and easier student access to resources.

The draft definition presented read in part: “Student success in the CSU is achieved through providing personalized and collective experiences with a supportive community that prioritizes flexible and impactful learning opportunities, self discovery, and holistic growth,” and includes academic excellence, career success, and economic mobility as central outcomes.

The six draft commitments shown to trustees were academic readiness; affordability; personalized journeys to success; equitable teaching and learning environments; experiential learning; and post-degree opportunity. Presenters cited discovery-phase survey results and internal data to justify the commitments: they reported that 39 percent of students had considered or taken lighter course loads for financial reasons and that a large share of students report awareness of services but low utilization. Examples from the presentation: 67 percent of fifth-year students reported rarely or never using academic advising, and 87 percent of Black students reported rarely or never using career services; other data cited included that 7 percent of students are parents, 19 percent are part-time, and 83 percent commute.

Trustees asked for additional, disaggregated and causal data. Trustee Kimbell asked whether the team had probed the reasons behind low utilization of mental health and advising (for example, long waits, scheduling conflicts, discomfort, or awareness); presenters said they had heard multiple, sometimes overlapping reasons but had not assigned proportional weights at this phase. Trustee Fagan and others requested more formal causal analysis and further data collection to move beyond anecdote to evidence. Trustees Rodriguez and Yi Malekar asked for subgroup disaggregation (race/ethnicity, gender, graduate students) and for cultural factors (such as stigma around mental health) to be included in future analysis.

Several trustees urged that the framework’s metrics be actionable and tiered: one set of campus-level operational indicators for timely decision making, a second set of leading indicators tied to implementation, and a third set of outcome metrics (graduation, progression, post-graduation outcomes) that would roll up for board-level oversight. Presenters agreed metrics work is next and said the board would see a completed framework in March with objectives, metrics, and practices.

Presenters reiterated that the framework’s aim is to move beyond offering services to measuring whether students utilize services and whether services change outcomes. The team said implementation planning will include systemwide and campus teams and additional engagement with intersegmental partners (K–12, community colleges, and employers) to address preparation before CSU enrollment and to account for regional differences across campuses.

Trustees generally expressed support for the direction of the framework but emphasized two persistent concerns: the need for clear, disaggregated data to understand equity gaps and the need for measurable, board-level metrics. Presenters committed to returning with a complete framework and a set of metrics at the March meeting.