From: "Mark Thompson"
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:44:32 -0800 To: "ASNET" Subject: [ASNET] SWAS Notes 1.21-24.03 1. * Hal Charnofsky, Distinguished Senator and Beloved Colleague 2. * Faculty Workload Report 3. * Systemwide BudgetAdvisoryCommittee Meeting of 1.21.2003 4. * Comments from EVC/CAO Spence 5. * Task Force on Roles, Responsibilities, Resources, and Rewards for Department Chairs 6. * Principles for State-Level Accountability 7. * Implementation of Gerontology Legislation 8. * Faculty Trustee Recommending Committee 9. * February 13thOpen Plenary 3:30 to include Campus Senate Chairs Hal Charnofsky, Distinguished Senator and Beloved Colleague:The ASCSU adopted by acclamation a resolution in honor of Charnofsky, who died recently. Faculty Workload Report:(highlights) The results of a 3-year project conducted by the Social and Behavioral Research Institute at CSUSM at the behest of the ASCSU, CO, and CFA. Attempted to replicate data collected in a 1989-90 study. The study was of the CSU and 23 comparable institutions. The #1 finding of the study is that "CSU faculty work hard. They put in more hours of work for the university and more hours outside the university than their counterparts across the nation." The other findings are that: our workload has changed, lecturers make substantial contributions, faculty want more time for scholarship and creative activity, we spend about 4.4 hours per week in teaching activities, probationary faculty are less likely to achieve levels of scholarship comparable to those at other institutions, CSU tenured and probationary faculty are less positive about than their counterparts about their working conditions and relationships, one third of CSU faculty believe that effective teaching is not rewarded. Overall, based on this report and the long-established CPEC salary gap, it appears documented that CSU faculty are doing more work for less money--a recruitment tactic to attract the truly altruistic candidates. Also per our discussions of workload, see the CSUSJs senate plan for moving to 3-course/term norm http://www.sjsu.edu/senate/SS-S02-6.htm Systemwide Budget Advisory Committee Meeting of 1.21.2003: (Includes reps from CFA, Presidents, 3 VPBFs, Vice Chancellors, ASCSU, CSSA, Alumni.) The 0203 budget included cuts, then in December there were mid-year cuts which the legislature has not completed action on. The 0304 proposed governor's budget proposes a 10% reduction to the CSU base budget. The "real" budget for 0304 will likely appear in 6-9 months. The SBAC will meet monthly. There will be continual, broad planning, amid uncertainty, in the CSU to implement the stated goals of the system--to serve students and reduce the impact on instruction--based on assumptions that governor's budget will hold and that there will be a budget by the end of June. Presidents Rosser and Arminana have communicated that the presidents were informed they must involve campus budget decision making processes and consult broadly. There will not be prescriptions to campuses unless those prescriptions come from the governor's budget. The money for enrollment growth provides no excess to the system; however, the CSU must make its enrollment target to keep the money. One president noted that 88% of costs are in personnel and that an 0304 10% cut could not be achieved without reducing personnel costs. It would seem that a 10% reduction would make it impossible to meet enrollment targets unless the process is to eliminate positions and sharply increase SFR; however, the message from the SBAC is that targets can be met with the enrollment growth money and balancing many factors (release time, sabbaticals, SFR) etc. There must be a mix of strategies and that mix requires that everyone be at the table. If planning enrollment target numbers in February are "political" numbers, campuses will then likely face even sharper spikes in SFR. Failure to receive the fee increase and enrollment growth money would surely mean reducing access. Other state agencies are reducing services in the face of cuts, but higher education is being asked by the governor to increase services (to 19.9 SFR). The proffered funding for enrollment growth is a poison pill with a twist: marginal cost for enrollment growth is likely a net loss, but failure to accept the money will result in denial of access and the loss of the "funding" for the 8000 excess FTES not funded last year. An interesting consideration for campuses is whether the approach is what to cut first or what to cut last. COMMENTS FROM EVC/CAO SPENCE: We need to graduate more of our students; this has become a focal point for the BoT. Our graduation rates are good compared to similar institutions; however, of students who come to us as 1st-time freshmen, 40% do not graduate. The most pressing need is to graduate students with fewer accrued units: the average at graduation is 144. Some major recommendations are for clear "path to degree" plans and early degree audits. The report does not recommend any incentives or disincentives, yet. He does want a system guideline for course incompletes, withdrawals, repeats etc. and a renewed move to improve transfer without excess units. Also, we must promote better preparation for incoming students. Math-prepared students increased from 54% to 63%; English-prepared students was level at 54% for 3 years but has dropped to 51%. The main problem is in critical reading rather than in writing. Outreach programs budgets have been cut and it may be time to refocus. Recall: Spence will visit Stanislaus on 2/25. TASK FORCE ON ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, RESOURCES, AND REWARDS FOR DEPARTMENT CHAIRS: Conducted in Spring 2002 and is based on about 400 responses. Most departments are $1-$3M operations. Campuses are being provided campus specific data to compare with system data. System average is 61% of chairs with 12-month contracts; however there is tremendous variation with some campuses at 100% and some at 0%. Chairs estimated that 60-80% of their time is spent on administrative tasks--engaging in the "bureaucratic grind" of memoranda and reports and less time writing grants, fundraising, public relations, etc. About 20% of campuses have campus-wide chairs meeting monthly, but about 20% of campuses never have campus-wide meetings. Half of chairs do not meet with their disciplinary chair colleagues from other campuses. System chair turnover averages about 20%/year; 40% of chairs are serving under a dean within his or her first three years of service. About 20% of chairs do not know who determines the terms of their appointments and 60%+ do not know of the rationale by which the terms are negotiated. About 2/3 of chairs received zero hours of formal preparation before becoming chair. Only 25% of chairs can shift personnel $ to other areas. PRINCIPLES FOR STATE-LEVEL ACCOUNTABILITY: Meeting in Sacramento to address how to design a reasonable statewide accountability system for higher education, including independent institutions. The accountability will be to demonstrate how higher education is meeting the needs of the state (apparently, the state will also clearly articulate the needs). To include a select group: business roundtable, educational segment leaders, some key legislators -- convened by Dede Alpert and including Vasconcellos and Scott. The CSU is being highlighted because our "nested" system -- state, system, and campus-level accountability -- seems the most workable to deal with diverse audiences. It seems clear already that the K12 standards-n-testing format will not work for higher education. IMPLEMENTATION OF GERONTOLOGY LEGISLATION: In the continuing series of legislative intrusions into curriculum, AB2202 and SB953 require the CSU to provide courses and training in the field of gerontology for professional service delivery personnel. While the bills say the system is responsible for "developing, implementing, maintaining, and evaluating the necessary content in the curriculum," it also says that the curriculum will be developed through the regular processes on each campus. For several campuses, there is not currently faculty to teach such course(s); however, the mandate may be fulfilled through content in other courses (e.g. psychology, social work, etc.). The first step is to see if the CSU is already in compliance with the legislation. In 1997, 18 campuses offered at least one gerontology course; however, 2/3 of courses are offered by 1/3 of campuses. Academic Affairs discussed with Pauline Abbott, President of the California Council on Gerontology and Geriatrics. The licensed professions are under the rubric of geriatrics; many gerontology professionals handle tax money but lack any training in gerontology. The law requests that faculty teaching in programs on aging use a uniform set of standards and guidelines. The CCGG sees the instruction in the CSU related to gerontology as too sparse and too isolated and calls for a standardized curriculum. They also will ask Senator Vasconcellos to require certain state agencies to have language concerning gerontology education in their job descriptions. Campuses may choose to deliver gerontology certificates through UEE programs. The intent of the national guidelines and standards are that all students receiving a bachelor's in gerontology have a core of certain classes. FACULTY TRUSTEE RECOMMENDING COMMITTEE: Brought forward three names to the Senate for a vote at the March plenary: Gene Dinielli, Kathy Kaiser, and Jackie Kegley. February 13th Open Plenary 3:30 to include Campus Senate Chairs--Focus on budget. Thanks, ~mt rhetoric: when the baby says "wah."