Last year, five campuses (Los Angeles, Davis, Santa Cruz, Irvine, and San Diego) made presentations about their outreach efforts and plans for responding to the Outreach Task Force recommendations. The remaining campuses will make similar presentations during this academic year. Today, I would like to present an aggregated view of the University’s efforts in this area in order to give you a systemwide view of our progress to date. My presentation today will focus on two major issues:

1. where the University was with respect to outreach before Proposition 209, and
2. where we are now and what we plan for the future in our outreach initiatives.

Moreover, the importance of a diverse student body has been reaffirmed several times throughout the University’s history. The legislature stated this intent in 1974, for example. Most recently, the Regents reaffirmed in the Outreach Task Force Report what President Daniel Coit Gilman remarked in his inaugural address: The University of California is "of the people and for the people of California."

By eliminating race and ethnicity as strategies, Proposition 209 posed new challenges for the University’s efforts to create a diverse student body that reflects the State’s population. If all students in our State were afforded the same pre-collegiate educational opportunities, it is less likely that the term "educationally disadvantaged" would be necessary, for the University eligibility pool would more faithfully reflect the demography of the State. I will use the term "educationally disadvantaged" to refer to those students who historically have been less well represented in higher education than in the general population of high school graduates.

I would like to give you three illustrations of the magnitude of the challenge of creating a more diverse University – from the current eligibility pool through undergraduate education to graduate and professional school. Students we want to reach are predominantly in the lowest performing schools as measured by SAT quintiles. The graph below shows that 79% of the students in the bottom quintile are Black, Latino, and American Indian.

Our data also indicate that, since the passage of Proposition 209 in 1996, the proportion of Black, Latino, and American Indian students at each stage of the pipeline into the University has decreased every year, even though the proportion of these students among high school graduates increased during that period. This is illustrated in the graph below. The set of bars on the far left show how these groups have increased proportionally among high school graduates between 1995 and 1998, while each set of bars to the right indicates that the proportion of these groups among those who applied to UC, those who were admitted, those who stated their intent to register (SIR), those among enrolled freshmen, and those among transfers from community colleges, have steadily decreased over the last four years.

If present trends in eligibility continue, our projections indicate that the University will less and less reflect the population of the State. As the two charts below illustrate so dramatically, we would expect to see an ever-widening gap between the high school graduate population and the UC student body. By 2006, the numbers of Latinos and African Americans will grow to almost half of all students graduating from California public high schools, as you can see in the pie chart on the left.

At the same time, however, applying current UC eligibility rates to the projected numbers of high school graduates from each group, the University's eligibility pool – shown in the right-hand chart - will include only 15% of students from these groups. Rather than becoming more and more representative of the population of the State, our student body would become – again, assuming continuation of present trends – increasingly different and apart from that population. Our challenge is to reverse this trend.

As a consequence of Proposition 209, we are developing new strategies and increasing our efforts to ensure that the eligibility pool better reflects the high school population and that more of these students are competitive for admission to UC. I would like to turn now to how we are doing this.

The Regents Outreach Task Force recommendations provide a blueprint for how we plan to meet this challenge. The goals we have adopted include:

1. To contribute to the academic enrichment of UC campuses through a diverse student body, and
2. To improve opportunities for California students in disadvantaged circumstances to achieve eligibility and to enroll at UC campuses.

Our primary objectives for the next five years are to increase substantially the numbers of UC-eligible students from partner high schools, the numbers who participate in student-centered programs, the numbers of community college transfers, and the numbers of undergraduate students who are prepared for graduate and professional schools. Specifically, we plan to

• Double the number of UC-eligible students from partner high schools and student-centered programs;
• Increase by 50% the number of competitively eligible students from partner high schools and student-centered programs;
• Increase by 1/3 the number of community college transfers; and
• Double the number of undergraduates in summer and academic year research internship programs

Of these objectives, let me emphasize particularly the challenge of increasing by half the number of competitively eligible students from both partner schools and student-centered programs over the next five years. Our goal is not simply to assist students to meet the minimum eligibility requirements for the University but also to increase the number of educationally disadvantaged students who are competitively eligible for admission to the most selective UC campuses.

The cumulative frequency distribution graph of applicant data from 1997 (see below) will give you an idea of the magnitude of the challenge. To be competitively eligible at the most selective UC campuses – that is, in order to have a reasonable chance of admission at these campuses - students’ grades must place them in the top 25% to the top 50% of the overall UC applicant pool. In 1997, this meant having a high school grade point average of at least 3.73 and preferably 4.09 and above, if one wanted to be in the top 25% of the applicant pool. The main point to gain from this graph is that our goal is not merely to get more educationally disadvantaged students over the bar to meet minimum eligibility standards, but to increase the number of these students throughout the entire range of UC’s eligibility pool.

Our strategic plan for outreach includes short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term strategies that are designed to work with students, schools, families, and communities in an effort to strengthen the academic preparation of greater numbers of California students. All four strategies are overlapping and inter-related as the following graphic illustrates. While each of these strategies targets students, the diagram draws attention to the complexity of the environment in which students live and learn.

In brief, these four strategies include the following:

1. Our long-term strategy is a school-centered approach (as shown in the upper left-hand corner of the diagram). This strategy is designed to support a select number of schools’ efforts to foster a culture that promotes academic success and high educational standards and to improve opportunities to help these students prepare for college.
2. Our intermediate-term strategy focuses directly on students – that is, it involves expanding effective academic development programs such as the Early Academic Outreach Program (EAOP); the Mathematics, Engineering, Science, Achievement (MESA) program, and the Puente Project to make greater numbers of students competitive for UC admission.
3. Our strategy for the short-term is an aggressive program of recruitment and of providing specific information for students, families, teachers and counselors to help them improve planning and preparation for college and for graduate and professional school.
4. Our fourth major strategy is also long-term, as it involves our efforts to research the issues and conditions of these schools and communities that contribute to educational disadvantage as we simultaneously evaluate the effectiveness of our efforts.

I would like to brief you on the status of our work in each of these four areas.

Let me start with our long-term strategy to partner with specific schools that traditionally send few students to college much less to the University of California. Our objective is to double the number of UC eligible and competitively eligible students from each of these high schools by raising the achievement of all the students in these schools and their feeder schools. As I mentioned earlier, the goal is to ensure that more students are prepared across the whole eligibility spectrum and not just to help more students achieve minimum eligibility. We plan to do this in two ways. One way is to marshal the efforts of some of our existing school-based programs with these schools. The other way is through school-based partnerships.

In the first instance, one of the University’s greatest opportunities to impact the quality of K-12 education is through existing programmatic efforts. Our programs, for example, focus on teacher professional development in the "a-f" subject areas (e.g., the California Subject Matter Projects), enhancement of curriculum, use of instructional technology (e.g., UC Nexus and UC Links), encouragement of parent/community involvement (e.g., the Urban Community-School Collaborative), and on the development of educational policy related to school structure.

I would like to highlight one example of how UC’s programmatic efforts have been expanding their work with K-12 in recent years. The California Subject Matter Projects have increased their capacity to serve greater numbers of teachers in the State. The graph below shows that the number of contact hours between the projects and teachers has increased steadily. "Contact hours" in the sense used here refers to engagement of teachers in the projects.

Subject Matter Project activities for teacher professional development range from intensive engagement of a group of teachers to one-on-one activities. These activities include year-round workshops in districts; follow-up in schools; standards and assessment workshops; new teacher support; study groups and seminars; ESL programs; and conferences.

That brings me to the second and our newest initiative to increase University/K-12 interaction through school-centered partnerships. These involve long-term commitments to a number of "educationally disadvantaged" schools. Because there is so much interest in this effort, I would like to provide some detail about progress to date.

Our campuses have identified 38 high schools as well as 100 feeder elementary and middle schools. Collectively, these partner high schools represent over 70,000 students and 3,348 teachers. Our goal of 50 partner high schools will be achieved by the end of this calendar year. We passed the three-quarter mark this past year through the dedicated efforts of many faculty and staff across our system, as well as their counterparts in the public schools. Establishing partnerships – genuine partnerships, sustainable partnerships – is by any measure a time-consuming, negotiated, and sensitive process. In addition, we expect eventually that campuses will develop partnerships with approximately 400 elementary and middle schools that feed into these 50 partner high schools.

Our partner schools are distributed across the State, including several in the Central Valley. Most, of course, are proximate to one of the nine campuses. The partner high schools are more urban (60%) than rural (24%) or suburban (16%).

Average SAT scores suggest that students in many of our partner schools may not have access to academic programs that would adequately prepare them for eligibility to UC. Below is the current distribution of the 38 high schools by SAT quintile. Approximately two-thirds (26) of our partner high schools fall in the two lowest quintiles.

I would like to note that some of our campuses were already involved in partnerships with high schools whose students scored in the upper three quintiles of the SAT. Campus leadership decided that terminating these partnerships in view of the outreach guidelines would, on balance, be unwise because these schools have substantial populations of low-income students with low UC eligibility rates. These existing partner high schools remain as part of our school-centered partnership network, and our student-centered programs will also be working with many of these students.

The baseline academic status of our partner schools is also indicated by the generally low performance of students on the recently released State Testing and Reporting System (STARS). These scores measure acquisition of basic academic skills in grades two through eleven of all students, including limited English proficient students.

As indicated by the graph above, the partner schools in the lower two quintiles score significantly below statewide averages in reading, language, and mathematics. The reading scores are particularly troubling and stand as a major challenge for our campuses. We will be carefully monitoring these scores throughout the duration of our partnerships.

It is clear from data like these that our partner schools serve a large proportion of educationally disadvantaged students. The students in these schools are largely from underrepresented groups and economically disadvantaged groups. Almost half of the students in these schools are Latino and 28% are African American, as the following graph illustrates.

Moreover, many students in these schools come from low-income families. The proportion of students in these 38 schools whose families receive AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) ranges from 6% to 90%, and averages 28%.

This brief portrait of our partner schools underscores the challenge facing the University in collaborating with our K-12 colleagues to ensure that more of the students from these schools are competitive for the University of California.

I am pleased to announce another component of our School Partnership plan. Today we are presenting a new initiative to provide additional incentives for disadvantaged students at UC partnership schools to excel academically and enroll at UC. Beginning in 1999-2000, the Partnership Opportunity Scholarship Program will offer four-year scholarships of up to $5,000 per year to needy, disadvantaged students from partnership high schools when they enroll as freshmen at the University of California. Each year, one student from each of the partner high schools who enrolls at a UC campus will receive a scholarship. This program builds upon successful programs for educationally disadvantaged students currently in place at several campuses, adding special emphasis to the role of partner high schools. Regental participation is a highlight for this program. Individual Regents will be invited to link with a UC campus to assist in raising money for the scholarships. The fundraising effort will generate $250,000 in scholarships the first year (1999-2000) and $1 million annually after four years.

I would turn your attention now to the University’s intermediate-term strategy, which focuses on student-centered outreach. The University has a number of programs that enhance the academic development of students along the entire educational pipeline from eligibility for UC to preparation for graduate and professional school. The three largest and best-known programs are the Early Academic Outreach Program (EAOP), Puente Project, and Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement (MESA). These programs provide an array of UC preparatory, advising and academic experiences that prepare disadvantaged K-12 and community college students. Large numbers of students who participate in these three programs become eligible for UC and go on to enroll on our campuses. The most recent available outcome data for the EAOP program, for example, indicate that, of those high school seniors completing the program in 1997, approximately 52% (5,000 students), became UC-eligible, of whom 15% (1,500 students) enrolled at UC. Furthermore, another 5,700 EAOP students enrolled at other higher educational institutions.

Historical data show (see below), for example, that the proportion of all first-time, underrepresented minority freshmen who participated in EAOP has increased steadily. In 1990, a little over one-fifth of all underrepresented minority UC freshmen participated in EAOP programs. By 1996, the proportion rose to over one-fourth of this group of students.

Though the other programs are smaller in terms of the number of participants, their outcome data are no less impressive than EAOP's. Outcome data for MESA, for example, indicate that nearly two-thirds of the program participants became eligible for UC last year. One-third of those achieved competitive eligibility. In fact, one-fourth of the seniors completing the program enrolled in UC. In addition, the transfers to UC from MESA's community college program comprised over one-third of all UC transfers of underrepresented students from the eleven community college campuses with MESA programs.

Programs such as MESA make a difference, particularly in helping students not only achieve eligibility but also become competitively eligible for majors such as engineering.

In addition to pre-collegiate programs like MESA, there are undergraduate student-centered programs as well. As a consequence (see graph below), the number of minority science, engineering, and mathematics students receiving baccalaureate degrees at UC has increased steadily, thanks to programs such as MESA and the federally- and UC-funded California Alliance for Minority Participation (CAMP).

Let us turn now to our strategy for the short term – that is, for making an immediate impact on eligibility and transfer rates. This strategy is Informational Outreach. Our goal here is not only to expand our informational efforts to potential students in partner high schools and community colleges but also to expand information regarding UC’s graduate and professional programs. In addition to disseminating more widely information on UC programs and requirements for admission, we are expanding various outreach activities. For example, we are developing comprehensive college counseling programs, media announcements, and direct-mail campaigns to targeted students. Special efforts will be made to reach students in the Central Valley.

Graduate and professional schools are also working to expand outreach. For example, Graduate Divisions are working with departments to expand the faculty's role in recruiting students nationwide at professional meetings, in meeting with prospective students during campus visits, and in participating in statewide forums designed to encourage and inform undergraduates about graduate study. Also, Law and Medical Schools are expanding faculty and student outreach visits to undergraduate institutions and to pre-medical and pre-law conferences. They are also expanding campus conferences, forums, or tours for undergraduates, particularly disadvantaged students, and also for pre-medical or pre-law advisors. Because of the outstanding quality of students who are admitted to UC, other law and medical schools are trying hard to enroll them. Accordingly, our professional schools are undertaking aggressive efforts to persuade their admitted students to enroll. Such steps include 1) joining with alumni to host receptions around the country for admitted students, 2) providing welcome days and individualized campus tours for admits, and 3) increasing phone calls by faculty, students and alumni to encourage enrollment.

Research and Evaluation

Our fourth major strategy is also long-term. It comprises two separate, but related, components: Research and evaluation.

UC faculty will be enlisted to conduct research to advance our understanding of the root causes of educational disadvantage and practical implications of social, racial, ethnic and other factors in academic preparation. The multi-disciplinary Faculty Planning Group of the UC Research Initiative on Education and Equity has been organized to undertake this responsibility.

How we measure the actual progress and effectiveness of our outreach efforts is obviously crucial for our credibility and accountability, especially given the increased level of State funding for these programs. Thus we are developing a long-range evaluation plan.

The goal will be to provide consistent, annual, systemwide data on all UC outreach strategies as required for reporting to the Legislature, Regents, and senior UC administrators. The systemwide evaluation will be in addition to local program evaluation efforts. This is an activity to monitor and measure the effectiveness of our outreach programs and assess our progress toward the specific goals enumerated by the Outreach Task Force report. We have retained PACE - Policy Analysis for California Education, which also served as a consultant to the Outreach Task Force - to help develop the evaluation design. We have also established a technical advisory committee, including UC faculty with recognized expertise in educational research and evaluation methods, to oversee all aspects of the evaluation. In addition, although most routine data collection for the evaluation will rest with staff at the campuses and Office of the President, our plan is to involve UC faculty directly in commissioned research studies in order to ensure a rigorous, independent evaluation of our programmatic efforts.

Without going into detail, I would also like to say a word about the specific kinds of data we will be collecting as part of the evaluation. Obviously, the outcome goals specified in the Outreach Task Force Report will provide the ultimate yardstick by which we measure our success or failure. We are working with the California Department of Education to develop baseline data for all of our partner schools, establishing a benchmark against which to measure our progress five years from now. Clearly, we do not want to wait for five years to learn whether these programs are working. In addition to long-term outcome measures, therefore, we also need to look carefully at what may be called "milestone" indicators or "markers" of our progress in the short to intermediate term. In evaluating our campus/school partnerships, for example, key "markers" of this kind include

• the proportion of students enrolling in ninth grade algebra;

• increased participation of teachers in training and development programs; and

• increased offerings of, and enrollments in, "a-f" courses required for UC admission.

Similarly for our student-centered programs, key "markers" include increases in

• the number of students participating in these programs,

• the number of schools served, and

• the numbers of UC applicants and admittees.

By focusing our evaluation efforts not only on ultimate outcomes, but also on progress indicators earlier in the educational pipeline, we will be able to generate a much more useful picture of the extent to which these programmatic efforts are working.

Before closing, I would like to emphasize the potential afforded by this year’s State budget. Vice President Hershman has already provided an overview of the 1998-99 budget. The 1998-99 Outreach Budget includes

• $15 million for UC/K-12 Partnerships;

• $15 million for Academic Development Programs: EAOP, MESA, and Puente;

• $1 million for the Central Valley;

• $3.5 million for Community College Outreach;

• $1 million for Information Outreach; $500,000 for Professional School Outreach;

• $1.5 million for Evaluation and Research; and

• $1 million for a Charter School.

The $38.5 million provided by the State - assuming a full match by the K-12 system – will enable us to attain the $60 million that the Task Force Report estimated would be needed to achieve the goals and objectives that were recommended. Our plan for allocating resources to campuses respects the needs of chancellors and other campus leaders to exercise as much discretion as possible in responding to local needs and supporting campus initiatives, while at the same time focusing revenues on our targeted outcomes. Our interest in this regard, however, must be balanced by Legislative intent, which earmarks new funds for certain programs and priorities.

We also plan to address the unique problem of low-performing schools in the Los Angeles basin. Since all UC campuses draw students from this area, all share responsibility for addressing the issues surrounding eligibility of educationally disadvantaged students from this area. UCLA will take the lead in convening an inter-campus group that will develop a plan in which all our campuses can better serve the very significant numbers of educationally disadvantaged students and low-performing schools in the Los Angeles basin.

The 1998-99 State budget for UC outreach reflects the commitment of the Legislature and the Governor to the University’s outreach goals and strategic plan. I want to express appreciation to the many people, among them Regents and University officials, who personally invested time in building this commitment.

In concluding, I want to invite you to reflect on the fact that the University of California has committed to engage its human, physical, and financial resources in addressing the critical problem of access to higher education. This commitment is of unprecedented magnitude in the history of the State and the University. Two aspects of this engagement bear special consideration. First, engagement with K-12 schools and K-12 students and their teachers at the level of effort called for by the Outreach Task Force, and subsequently supported by the resources made available in this year’s budget, can only be accomplished by moving outreach closer to the core mission of the University. This is a task of no small magnitude and consequence. It will require a new level of collaboration of all constituencies in the University to make it happen. Yet, I continue to hold firmly to the Land Grant tradition of the University as a model upon which to construct and deliver the set of programs called for by our outreach effort.

Second, we must be reminded that our mission of creating and disseminating knowledge through teaching, research, and public service is largely accomplished through students, who become the vectors who carry the fruits of education into society. The historical record demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the University has been critically important to the economic well being of our State. This success is people-dependent – it has been our faculty, staff and alumni who have been the agents who made this possible. The 21^st century presents us with the opportunity to ensure that alumni who take on the responsibility of defining and implementing the social, political and economic policies of our State are truly representative of the people of California. In meeting this challenge, we will also have taken major steps in assuring the future of the University and the State in whose service it is chartered. We can do no less than meet this challenge.