From: "Deborah Hennessy" <dhennessy@calstate.edu>
Date: Fri Aug 30, 2002 03:36:00 US/Pacific
To: ascsu@calstate.edu
Subject: CSU Academic Senate Chair's Report
Reply-To: Deborah Hennessy <dhennessy@calstate.edu>




From:
Dr. Jacquelyn Ann K. Kegley, Chair
Academic Senate of the California State University
401 Golden Shore, Suite 139
Long Beach, CA 90802
phone: 661.664.2249 or 562.951.4015 (fax 562.951.4911)
e-mail: jkegley@csub.edu
dhennessy@calstate.edu
http://www.calstate.edu/AcadSen/




FYI - hard copy of this report and attachments were mailed to all senators this date (please see updated report re SB 1646 at the end of this Chair's Report).



Chair’s Report: May-September 2002
Jacquelyn Ann K. Kegley, Chair



Task Force on Facilitating Graduation- 5/7/02

The first meeting of the Joint Provosts-Senate Task Force on Facilitating Graduation was held on May 7, 2002. This Task Force is co-haired by Louanne Kennedy and me. Senate members are Kathy Kaiser, Rochelle Kellner, Unny Menon, John Tarjan, and Mark Thompson. The main focus of this group is to look at factors that aid and/or hinder students in their progress toward a degree. A number of issues were discussed including remedial education; first year experiences; peer mentoring, incompletes, withdrawals and drop policies, orientation courses, and graduation plans. Very useful to the discussion was a report from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement of the U.S. Department of Education entitled Answers in the Tool Box: Academic Intensity, Attendance Patterns, and Bachelor’s Degree Attainment." A draft document is being prepared for the next meeting of this group in early September. Two major questions will be addressed: (1) Where is CSU in terms of graduation rates and some of these indicators? (2) Where do we want to be and why?



Intersegmental Committee o the Academic Senates of the California Community Colleges, the California State University, and the University of California (ICAS) Meeting- 5/28/02

This meeting was the transitional meeting from 2001-2002 to the next academic year. Next year the CSU Academic Senate will chair and staff ICAS. Each of the segments reported their central issues. The community colleges are still concerned about Accreditation issues and the loss in the governor’s budget of money for key student support issues. UC is moving forward with the revision of the SAT and will work closely with CSU on this issue. (A presentation was made to Academic Affairs by a BOARS representative at our May meeting.) I reported for CSU on the SB 1646 issues (please see *update on SB 1646 at end of this report); ACR 73, and the Board’s action on the Non-Resident Fee increase. The new draft Master Plan was discussed with focus on responses prepared by me for ICAS related issues. There was extensive discussion of IMPAC and the roles, responsibilities of ICAS as well as its future directions. The three segment chairs will be meeting to discuss this further. The next meeting of ICAS was held August 12 (please see report on 8/12/02 meeting on page 5 of this report).






Hearing before Joint Committee to Develop a Master Plan for Education- Kindergarten through University- "Access" in the Master Plan- 6/3/02

The first hearing on the draft Master Plan was held on June 3, 2002 in Sacramento. In addition to my testimony I was able to hand deliver our set of responses to the draft Master Plan. We were the first segment senate to provide responses. The focus of this hearing was the section on "Access." One of the central points of my remarks was that "access without quality is not access worth having." I highlighted sections from our Baccalaureate study and argued that many of the goals expressed in that document were also key goals of the Master Plan. I focused on the many ways that CSU is already seeking to provide a high quality education for its students. This included our system and campus professional development activities to assist teachers in infusing community service learning, technology, assessment techniques, and new, interactive pedagogy as well as cutting edge research (including student research) into their teaching and classrooms. Building on the 21st Century document I expressed the Senate’s strong support for increased doctoral and master’s degree production by the CSU and urged the adoption of appropriate funding for graduation education. Finally, I stressed our crisis in faculty hiring and reported the success being achieved on the ACR 73 concern for a better ratio of tenured/tenure track faculty to temporary faculty.



Academic Technology Advisory Committee (ATAC) Meeting: 6/11/02

The primary goal of the June 11th meeting of ATAC was to develop an agenda for next year including recommendations to Executive Vice Chancellor’s David Spence for projects to be funded and/or pursued. The meeting began with a discussion of the April Academic Technology Conference in San Jose. Teams from all CSU campuses were present and the consensus was that the conference was useful for identifying issues for academic technology planning both for campuses and for the system. The participants at the conference were asked to identify barriers to exploration of emerging technologies that might benefit teaching and learning as well as how to address them. They were also asked to identify the key things that ATAC and the Chancellor’s Office could do to facilitate campus initiatives in academic technology. Based on these responses and other materials the committee identified five action items to be pursued by ATAC in the coming year. An ATAC web site will be established that will include the following: (1) provide links to campus sites and thus to their plans, activities, exemplary courses and programs and their team plans; (2) provide links to other groups working on academic technology such as SWAT, Merlot, ITAC, COLD, the Information Competency site, and the CSU Academic Senate with its Intellectual Property Task Force;
(3) provide links to bibliographies on research and assessment and to what other universities are doing with academic technology; and (4) provided opportunities for threaded discussions of various academic technology related issues such as rewards and recognition. There is also a recommendation for another conference that will bring together the campus teams and others to facilitate discussion of issues, collaboration across campuses, sharing of best practices, and discussion within disciplines groups on best uses of technology for teaching and learning. ATAC will also address a number of policy issues that impact on faculty and their use and development of academic technology including RPT and other recognition, supportive and sustaining structures, and intellectual property. Consideration will also be given to funding some startup grants.



ACR-73: June 17, 2002

The focus of the meeting was a draft document that will set forth a plan to achieve the goal of the 75/25 balance of tenure/track and temporary faculty within eight years as well as our recommendations for actions that will be needed to make the plan feasible. The group agreed on several key arguments for the success of the plan. First, in order to increase the number of tenure track hires, it is necessary to improve the hiring packages that CSU is able to offer candidates.
Thus the plan will argue for a gradual decrease in the overall CSU student-faculty ratio from the current 19.45:1 to 18.0:1.Further, the marginal cost funding for new faculty positions is assumed to equal the actual salary cost incurred in the most recent year. Thus, the costs analysis presented includes costs to maintain the position base for the annual estimated 600 tenured/tract separations and retirements; the costs of new permanent position required for enrollment growth, the costs of new permanent positions to improve the student-faculty ratio to 18.0:1; and the costs of new permanent positions replacing lecturer positions eliminated to achieve the 75:25 ratio. The document will present to the legislature a realistic picture of the required increment to the CSU budget and the need for new dollars. A major item of discussion was a proposed conversion designed to encourage moving long-term, qualified lecturers into tenure-track positions. The issue was resolved by an inclusion in the document of a statement that we anticipate many lecturers currently employed would apply for and be appointed to permanent positions. In addition, given the concern expressed by the lecturers on the Task Force about their academic freedom and their perceived status as "second class" faculty, the CSU Senate has agreed to establish a Task Force to address various issues that concern temporary faculty. The draft plan will be finalized and sent to the legislature in August.



Testimony before Master Plan Committee- 6/18/02

The focused topic of this hearing was "Affordability." In my remarks I argued that "affordability" is a concept that varies with context and California’s context is one of a very rich financial aid formula and a quite low cost fee structure for public higher education. I also presented the Senate’s strong support of stability of funding for core items in our budget as well as a serious review of the marginal cost formula. I also supported the earmarking of funds for applied research to address the state’s needs and presented a strong picture of the capability of CSU faculty and students to do this research. In addition, I presented the senate’s support for a stable student fee policy that addresses student needs as well as the revenue needs of the public postsecondary institutions. Finally I promoted a serious consideration of the option of comparable funding for comparable educational delivery in the three postsecondary segments. These remarks, incidentally, put the CSU representatives (all administrative) who were testifying somewhat "on the spot." I shared a copy of the testimony with senators this summer.



Faculty Flow Committee- 6/19/02

The group first reviewed the results of the survey sent to Provosts concerning proposed "best practices" for faculty recruitment and hiring. As one might have predicted, the survey indicates that unique qualities of each campus require that recruiting practices be personalized to accommodate their circumstances. Thus, while the Senate can recommend a set of "Best Practices," it also needs to strongly encourage each campus to develop its own internal set of such practices as well as an assessment process to judge success. The Task Force also reviewed the preliminary findings of a study done by Richard Serpe and his Social and Behavioral Research Institute of recruited candidates that either accepted or declined offers for faculty positions at CSU.


Provosts’ Retreat- June 20-21, 2002

Executive Vice Chancellor David Spence reported on SB 1646 as well as the intensive work being done on early assessment for high school students in English and Mathematics. He praised the senate for its strong support of this latter effort. In discussing SB 1646 various concerns were raised about Liberal Studies programs including Blended programs and in particular the tremendous variation among campuses. There was also some question about focus and quality. Perhaps this is an issue that TEKR and Academic Affairs might want to address during this coming year.

There was extensive discussion of academic technology issues. Provost Herman Lujan (LA) and I reported on ATAC activities and Associate Vice Chancellor Gary Hammerstrom indicated that the Presidents have this topic as a major item for their Executive Council Retreat. David Spence urged strongly that ATAC and the Provosts take the lead in forging the directions for Academic Technology in the future. There was considerable discussion of the variation among campus on budget and administrative control of academic technology by the Office of Academic Affairs.

A draft document on changes in reporting program reviews was discussed. At issue was the proposed elimination of indicator #10 on graduate and post-baccalaureate programs. There was serious concern that elimination of this indicator might signal less concern with graduate study. It was decided to not eliminate indicator #10 but to provide more focused direction on what campuses were to report in this area. Four individuals were designated to work on a draft set of indicators and directions. This group includes our Cristy Jensen, Gary Hammerstrom and two Provosts- Kathleen Walton (DH) and Rick Brown (Sacramento).

David Spence and I reported on the work of the Task Force on Facilitating Graduation. After some discussion it seems that each campus will probably be asked to submit to the Chancellor’s Office a plan for increasing graduation rates.



Alumni Council- June 22, 2002

The Alumni Council met at CSU, Northridge on the 21st and 22nd. I joined the group on Saturday the 22nd. The focus of their meeting was developing a strategic plan for "Advocacy" for the system. This plan will begin with a pilot effort on promotion of the upcoming "University Facilities Bond Act." I reported on our Senate activity including the testimony before the Master Plan Committee.



ICAS and IMPAC Coordinators

At the last ICAS meeting it was recommended that the Chairs of the three segments and the Lead Faculty and Project Director of IMPAC meet to discuss relationships with ICAS, communication, marketing and accountability issues. Present at this meeting were Gayle Binon, Chair, UC Academic Council; Hoke Simpson, Chair of the CCC Academic Senate; Barry Pasternack CSU lead faculty member; Dan Finke, UC lead faculty member; Kate Clark, CCC lead faculty member and Project Director and Julie Adams, Executive Director (CCC Academic Senate). It was agreed that segment Chairs and particularly the ICAS Chair need to be fully informed about IMPAC and that they should attend IMPAC meetings as often as their schedules allow. In turn the chairs will assist in every way to inform their systems about IMPAC and to make sure faculty and discipline chairs attend meetings. Thus, for example, I will inform campus senate chairs and provosts about IMPAC as well as provide lists of faculty members and department chairs as well as inform IMPAC about meetings of Deans. There was also agreement that IMPAC will provide quarterly fiscal reports to ICAS as well as reports about meetings and numbers and kinds of faculty involved. There was also consensus that a brochure needs to be prepared both in ICAS and IMPAC to share with legislators and others. Kate Clark indicated that CAN is developing a new process for course approval and she promised to send the information to each Chair as soon as possible. Accountability issues were briefly discussed.




Intersegmental Coordinating Committee- 7/12/02

The ICC met in Oakland on July 12, 2002. Focus of the meeting was to discuss the progress made on implementing the Round Table’s Initiatives. This allowed the group to see what had been accomplished thus far as well as to project plans for the coming year. On Initiative I: "Aligning Standards and Assessments across Educational Boundaries," Bill Vasey, California Department of Education, reported on the ups and downs of the efforts to use the California Standards Test in admissions and placement for higher education, particularly in mathematics and English. Praise was given for the Herculean efforts on made by Marshall Cates, Gene Dinielli, Mark Thompson and David Spence of the CSU. There was some discussion of the attempt to provide a "coherence" document that would assist teachers in gaining greater understanding of the relationships between standards and assessment across educational levels. It was agreed that the ICAS Competency Statements play a very important role in this effort. Initiative 2 concerns enriching the quality of the teaching profession. There was discussion of various professional development efforts including the CSU Professional Development Institute on Reading. Initiative 3 addresses expanding inter-segmental collaboration in administrative applications of technology. A new effort called 4CNet (The goals of 4CNet are to support the academic and administrative needs and missions of the respective systems, and to increase the personal and intellectual productivity of their students, faculty, and staff) was discussed. Initiative 4 concerns preparing students academically and informing them about college with emphasis on regional collaboration and coordination. The College Making It Happen activities with middle schools have been very successful and more regional activities are planned with the cooperation of the California Leagues of Middle Schools, the California School Boards Association and the California Superintendents Association. Efforts to achieve initiative 5: "Strengthen
very successful. After the failure of the Transfer: the Next Generation effort, the SAPAT Committee has focused on a meeting of statewide program managers of transfer-related efforts. This includes efforts such as ASSIST, CASN, MESA, Puente and CCC Transfer Centers. I made a strong argument that faculty groups should be included in such a meeting and thus ICAS and IMPAC faculty will likely be included. Consideration will also be given by the ICC Executive Committee to the idea of a separate Transfer Subcommittee. In addition to this discussion, two excellent presentations were made, one on Student Friendly Services and the other concerned College Goal Sunday.



Intersegmental Council of Academic Senates- 8/12/02

This was the first ICAS meeting (for 2002-2003) to be chaired by CSU. During my report I shared the success that we had achieved with the ACR-73 Task Force and also shared a copy of our plan submission to the legislature. After some discussion of the new version of the Master Plan it was decided that a Master Plan Task Force, chaired by Cristy Jensen would be established to focus on special issues that should be addressed by ICAS. After a report by me on the continued interest by ICC in having a special group address transfer, it was decided that ICAS should take the initiative and establish its own Task Force to address transfer issues. In addition to affirming the centrality of faculty control of curriculum, this group will review the status of present transfer projects, investigate perceived problems with transfer, and recommend next steps. The eventual outcome for this group will probably be a white paper. An official transmittal letter for the new English Literacy statement was approved. The group also approved a resolution authorizing use of the survey data for the English literacy statement as long as proper acknowledgement is made of the authorship of Kate Clark, the Task Force and ICAS. ICAS will meet again on November 22nd.



System Budget Advisory Committee (SBAC) - 8/28/02

The meeting commenced with a report from Richard West on the status of the 2003/04 budget. Except for an additional cut to the funding for Community Service Learning, the CSU budget has remained fairly stable and CSU has been treated pretty well in comparison to others and in this budget situation. Further, Finance has told Richard that CSU will not be subjected to the 25% cut scenario that is projected for other state agencies. There will not likely be a budget resolution until September 15th or even later. Discussion then focused on the 2003/4 proposed budget. CSU is advocating a full partnership position including recognition of almost $116,000,000 of un-funded 2002/03 partnership money. The proposed budget requests a 4% increase in General Operations and a 1% increase for long term needs as well as full marginal cost funding for a 5% enrollment growth and for YRO conversion for the remaining six campuses. There are funding requests for compensation including the 2.64% increase for faculty, for health benefits and workers compensation. In terms of long range need, there are requests for funding for technology, libraries, deferred maintenance, off-campus centers and high-cost academic programs. Finally, there is a $35,615,000 funding request for the first year cost for the implementation of ACR 73. Attached to this report are copies of materials distributed at the SBAC, relating to the 2003-04 Support Budget, as well as an update on the 2002-2003 Support Budget, and the recommended Lottery Revenue Budget for 2003-2004. (The attachments referenced here were mailed as hard copy --- they are not available in electronic form. )




ATAC Meeting- 8/29/02

The first part of the meeting focused on discussion of the new systemwide Academic Technology Planning effort that is being launched with the support of the Chancellor, the Presidents, the Technology division of the Chancellor’s Office and by ATAC (which includes representatives from the CSU Academic Senate) and the Provosts. Representative faculty from ATAC and representatives from the Provosts will form the core of a small planning group that will engage in intensive planning for academic technology over the next three-five months. The planning process will include visits to campuses and campus focus groups to gather information on needs, present activities, and future hopes. The planning group will report regularly to ATAC and a subcommittee of the Provosts who will serve as an advisory and feedback group. Meanwhile, ATAC will continue work on crucial policy issues, planning for an April Technology Conference to include campus teams and the initiation of a website to facilitate sharing of information and best practices. The website will also include planning material. There was discussion of a proposed RFP document as well as the proposed list of policy issues to be addressed. These include a technology fee policy, policies on course articulation and curriculum approval across campuses for multi-campus programs and courses as well as multi-campus sharing policies on WTU, FTE and budget.



*Update on SB 1646 (Alpert) Teacher Credentialing

Today (8/30/02) the CSU Office of Governmental Affairs informed us that SB 1646: Teacher Credentialing, has been placed on the inactive file by its author Senator Alpert. At its May 2-3, 2002 meeting, the statewide Academic Senate CSU opposed SB 1646. The CSU Office of Governmental Affairs advised us that the Governor's staff recommended strongly that the Governor veto SB 1646. August 30, 2002 is scheduled to be the last day of the current legislative session. Senator Alpert has the option to re-introduce the bill (amended or otherwise) in the next legislative session (January 2003) .