(Latest Revision: Wed May 15 22:14:05 PDT 2002 ) 2001_11_02_SWAS_Notes

2001_11_02_SWAS_Notes


From: "Mark Thompson" <thompson@rhet.csustan.edu>
To: "FACNET" <facnet@listbot.csustan.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 21:22:21 -0800

Constitutional Amendment
Comments from CAO Spence
Comments from CFO West
Remediation
CSU/UC Joint Ed. D. Programs
Support for Implementation of SB2042: Multiple Subject Teaching Credential

Constitutional Amendment: There was much discussion but no action
taken on proposed amendments to reshape the configuration of the
Senate as well as the process by which it is configured. This is
important to small campuses as larger campuses may gain greater
representation through this process. The proposed resolutions
will be forwarded to campuses.

Comments from CAO Spence: Campuses have to think about enrollment
management (including more restricted application and admission
periods). He believes the CSU/UC Joint Ed. D. agreement conforms
to the guidelines set forth in consultation with the Senate. He
emphasized the importance of regional common prerequisites to the
major as a way to treat community college students more fairly.
He also is very interested in 2+2 dual admissions program to get
community colleges to commit to a baccalaureate degree since.  On
access, he will never support a move to admit the top quarter
rather than the top third. The expectation will be that every
campus come in right on enrollment target in the near future. The
_effective_ growth at campuses will be less than 4% to compensate
for this year's unexpected ~6.5% growth.

We need to look at the burden placed on campuses with program
review, accountability and assessment from the system, WASC,
specialized accreditation. Cornerstones accountability was never
intended to put any burden at the department or college level.
(He mentioned specifically the conversation at Stanislaus related
to the burden of accountability.) He sees as very important the
chance through an alliance with the State Board of Ed and all
segments of higher education to revise the 11th grade CA
Standards Tests in mathematics and English to use as an exemption
based on scores determined by our faculty. Unsuccessful students
will have the senior year to work on remediation.

Comments from CFO West: He expects the system will face cuts of
$20-25M and that the Governor will attempt to push most of the
problem into next year.  Under that scenario, access, at least up
to 4% growth, job security for tenure-track faculty, and ongoing
tenure-track searches are not on the table for cost savings. Over
the past several years there has not been adequate funding in the
basic ongoing services of the University; rather, there has been
one-time funding for new initiatives. He believes that California
might have to "face up" to the need for increasing student fees
if we are to maintain access. For example, a 15% reduction would
trigger a 40% fee increase and an 8-9K FTES reduction (or to
maintain status quo with fees increase would require a 100%
increase). We can't expect to balance budgets just through cost
reductions but will have to increase income. From a system
perspective there has been money to convert to YRO for
matriculated students on 16 campuses with additional growth
funded at full marginal cost. The funds have been allocated to
campuses and they are expected to manage enrollment on a
year-round basis. The system seriously exceeded projections by
8400 FTES (essentially unfunded) where normally the target
"excess" is around 200. Campuses need to do serious planning
around CMS implementation.

Remediation: Academic Affairs will recommend specific types of
data collection (e.g. progress of remediated students in GE
courses) as well as looking at effects of the change to limit
time to remediation. There is also a concern that some campuses
may be farming out remedial courses into non-academic areas such
as Student Affairs.

CSU/UC Joint Ed. D. Programs: Spence reviewed the Senate approval
of the thrust for an independent Ed. D. offered by the CSU.
Subsequently, the UC forwarded several proposals for joint
doctoral programs. We do have a good chance to get a bill passed
on the independent Ed. D. if we promise not to pursue other
doctorates, but the governor would likely not sign the bill.
Additionally, there would be no funding for at least 3-4 years.
Reed and Spence met with the UC representatives on 9/21. The UC
would fund the program at their rate (about $10K/student) with
fees allocated between CSU and UC on a workload basis and money
will flow directly to the involved campuses with the UC faculty
workload as a basis. There will be a joint Ed.  D. board which
will have authority to oversee the program beginning with RFPs
for new CSU/UC joint Ed. D. programs in eleven different regions
of the state. There are currently three Ed. D. with UC. Each
system will commit $2M for startup funds. Campus approval
procedures will be respected with expedited approval. This
process is required because the recent, general joint doctoral
guidelines have proven ineffective. It is doubtful that the UC
will continue to offer any independent Ed. D.

Support for Implementation of SB2042: Multiple Subject Teaching
Credential:  We have new standards adopted for K12 in CA with
more rigorous requirements.  SB2042 will require that
credentialing programs will be revised and that certain content
be includeded, some of which must be covered in disciplinary
classes. The scope of change in curricula is not known, but, at a
late stage in the process, disciplinary faculty are being invited
to consult at an information and planning meeting which will
"feature national and state educational leaders and will include
briefings and technical assistance from CCTC staff." The meeting
will be held on 12/6-7 at the LAX Crowne Plaza.

~mt