EO1110

As you’ve probably heard, the CSU has tired of waiting for K-12* to give us college-ready students and has decided to do something bold:

LJB to Presidents cover memo EO

1110EO 1110 Academic Preparation

If you don’t feel like reading / listening to interviews with CO folks about this, here are the answers they will find ways to give to any question**:

academic-preparation-faq

There are a ton of good commentaries floating around. Here’s one which makes several excellent points (and some bad ones) from the San Diego Union Tribune

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/editorials/sd-csu-dropping-remedial-classes-20170804-story.html

Indeed, this paragraph at the end could’ve been written by pretty much any ASCSU Senator:

All this means there are reasons for optimism about CSU’s gamble. But it could just as easily put the nation’s largest four-year university system — with 23 campuses and 470,000-plus students — on the road toward the mindset seen in some California school districts, which put more emphasis on graduation rates than on having a high-school degree being a genuine accomplishment. That would be a painful irony — CSU adopting the public-relations-first tactics of California public schools in response to problems partly caused by such tactics.

This must not happen.

For my own part, I’ll just say that it’s nice to hear our friends at the Chancellor’s Office express such confidence in the magic-working powers of CSU faculty. To be sure, if anyone can figure out how to get students ready for the curriculum they are taking as they take it, CSU math and writing faculty can.

It has, however, been a long time since magic has been fully funded….

———

* I guess we’ve also given up on reminding the state that this was supposed to be the community colleges’ job.

** FWIW, I don’t mean that as a complaint. I’m open to the possibility that the norms guiding mass communication are not the same as the norms guiding conversations (e.g., in a face-to-face conversation, you are a jerk if you ignore your interlocutor’s questions; we shouldn’t make the same judgment about the character of the interviewee who stays on message).

San Bernadino Miscellany

Here are a couple of stories / editorials about the discord at our sister campus, which I just discovered lurking in my open browser tabs:

http://www.sbsun.com/social-affairs/20170522/csusb-rocked-by-allegations-of-racism-during-leadership-fight

Editorial (from a CSUSB philosopher):

http://www.sbsun.com/opinion/20170605/former-csu-trustee-owes-apology-for-violation-of-confidentiality-guest-commentary

CSU San Bernardino: Results for the campus-wide referendum on the Faculty Senate’s May 9th resolution of no confidence in President Morales

From an email sent to the CSUSB campus by the Faculty Senate Elections Committee:

Subject: [Campus] Results for the campus-wide referendum on the Faculty Senate’s May 9th resolution of no confidence in President Morales

Dear Campus,

In my capacity as the Chair of the Faculty Senate Elections Committee and in accordance with the resolution passed by the Faculty Senate on May 9th, I am announcing the results from the faculty referendum by today’s deadline of May 26th, 2017. The results are below, followed by an outline of the process that was followed this afternoon to count the votes.

A total of 299 ballots were received. 2 of the ballots were deemed invalid by the committee for lacking a signature. Thus, a total of 297 valid votes were received. The results were:

Yes, I support the resolution of no confidence:                 181 votes

No, I do not support the resolution of no confidence:    113 votes

Official abstentions (blank ballot received):                       3 votes

Total Votes:                                                                                       297 total valid votes

At 1pm today the Elections Committee of the Faculty Senate began collecting all of the referendum ballots from the locked boxes in the 5 college offices. The ballots were then brought to the Faculty Senate conference room where they were first verified as eligible voting faculty according to the Senate By-Laws. The outer envelopes were then opened and the inner envelopes were separated. These inner envelopes were then counted to ensure the numbers matched the verified voting totals. The inner envelopes were opened and the actual ballots were separated and counted. The votes were then counted again to ensure that the totals once again matched the verified voting totals. Upon completion of this process the elections committee then certified the results above.

 

Board of Trustees: ASCSU report

One final item from this weeks BOT: The report to ASCSU, shared with permission

Report to the ASCSU
Board of Trustees Meeting
May 23 & 24, 2017
Submitted by Kevin Baaske

The BOT convened its public meeting ahead of the 12:45 scheduled start time.

Committee on Institutional Advancement – All motions approved

Naming of Bookstein Hall – California State University, Northridge

Naming of Dignity Health Baseball Clubhouse – California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Naming of The Bartleson Ranch and Conservatory – California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

‘Naming of The Swanson Cal Poly Golf Program – California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

 

Committee on Campus Planning, Buildings and Grounds Consent—All motions approved

  • Categories and Criteria for the Five-Year Facilities Renewal and Capital Improvement Plan 2018-2019 through 2022-2023, California Environmental Quality Act Annual Report, Information Mark Nelson,
  • California State University Seismic Safety Program Annual Report, Information
  • Intramural Field Upgrade for California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

 

Discussion Items

  • Replacement Space for Residential Life Programs and Conference Center for San Diego State University, amends physical Master Plan. Proposal is to two new facilities replacing the existing Tula/Tenochca conference facility. The new Tenochca Community Space to support student housing will be built on the site of the demolished building, while the new Tula Conference Center will be built in closer proximity to the parking structures and at the terminus of a main campus walkway serving the east campus facilities. 
Cost is estimates at $24 million to be paid for through CSU Systemwide Revenue Bond with the balance funded from housing reserves. Approved
  • Replacement and Expansion of the Equine Center for California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. Land use refinements of Physical Master Plan. The Equine Center improvements are the first of four improvements in this revised Master Plan.  Phase 1 primarily includes the renovation of the existing equestrian arena, replacement of the breeding and stallion barns, and expansion of the hay barn at the north end of the Equine Center.  Approved
  • Holloway Avenue Revitalization: Replacement of Student Housing (High Density, Mixed-Use) and Creative Arts for San Francisco State University. Provides housing opportunity for 500 students and commercial properties.  Financed by a private developer.  Creative Arts Replacement Building.  For broadcast and electronic arts departments.  It will serve Broadcast Electronic Communication Arts (BECA) the largest SFSU College, and interdisciplinary inquiry. Paid for through CSU-system bonds and CSU reserves. Approved
  • North Campus Enhancements and Soccer Training Facility for California State University, Los Angeles. Partnership with the Los Angeles Football Club (a new soccer franchise).  Paid for by this club, including maintenance.  The LAFC added money for student athletic support.  Proposal provides new student housing facilities (1,500 beds), additional sport and recreation fields, and a parking structure. Approved

Open Comment

  • Representatives from the CSU Employees Union spoke about the significant adverse consequences of moving of work from CSUEU employees to the private sector (outsourcing) and the need for compensation increases in the next contract.

Committee on Finance Consent Actions

Appointment of Three Members to the Fullerton Arboretum Commission. Approved

Discussion Items

  • Approval to Issue Trustees of the California State University Systemwide Revenue Bonds and Related Debt Instruments for Project at California State University, Los Angeles (Bioscience Incubator, Overseen by University Auxiliary Board). Approved
  • Approval to Issue Trustees of the California State University Systemwide Revenue Bonds and Related Debt Instruments for Project at San Diego State University. Approved
  • Final Approval of a Public-Private Partnership with the Los Angeles Football Club to Develop a Practice Facility at California State University, Los Angeles—described above. Approved
  • Final Approval of a Public-Private Partnership Mixed-Use Development Project at San Francisco State University—described above
Approved

Report on the 2017-2018 Support Budget

As a result of past board of trustees’ discussions, the Chancellor’s Office has implemented an active strategy to obtain an additional $167.7 million from the state than is proposed in the governor’s budget proposal. That amount will bridge the gap between the trustees’ support budget request ($324.9 million) and the governor’s January proposal ($157.2 million).

Governor’s May Revise

  • Proposes $4 million redirected from CSU budget to supplement Cal Grant funding to cover the cost of tuition increases. Increased Cal Grants will cost the State of California $28 million.
  • Governor signaled in the future CSU growth will lead to a 3% budget increase, instead of the 4% CSU has been receiving. This would result in a loss of about $30 million in recurring funds.

Senate Budget Committee

  • Supported $153 million budget, which is consistent with the governor’s may revise
  • Senate added $25 million in one-time funding for graduation initiative 2025

Assembly Budget Committee

  • Taking action today (5/23/17)
  • Restored Middle-Class Scholarship

Open Comment

A CFA representative spoke about the threats posed by Border Patrol and ICE to our students and the need for the BOT and campus presidents to reassure DACA and DACA eligible students.

Legislative Update

I have attached the bill by bill assessment provided to the BOT.  I have highlighted the bills where the CO’s position has changed.

Education Policy Committee

  1. Graduation Initiative 2025

EVC Blanchard read, verbatim, what had been written for the Ed Policy Committee.  Since this is perhaps more relevant to Senators than some of the other things, I have copied it as a separate document (attached).

EVC Blanchard added a couple of points of elaboration.  These are provided below:

Increasing Financial Literacy

Blanchard cited programs at Fresno and Northridge as examples of CSU efforts to explain the financial benefits of graduating sooner rather than later

 

Micro-grants to help students graduate who only need a little more financial help

Fresno State has micro-grants of $150 and more, which can make a difference between a student dropping out and earning a degree. Trustee John Nilon argued for the importance of grants and the need to acquire private funds or to change state law so that public funds can be used.  Trustee Kimbell played “devil’s advocate” arguing that students need to be responsible.  James Minor pointed out that many campuses also have emergency loans.

 

ELM & EPT and the Graduation Writing Assessment Requirement (GWAR)

Trustees asked about these exams/requirements.  The ELM and EPT will be examined by the Academic Preparation Workgroup.  GWAR is not currently under review as the CO is focusing on preparation, but consultation with various entities has raised this as a possible barrier to graduation.

 

Campus allocation in support of GI 2025 plans

$10 million in May for:

Instructional innovations to improve academic preparation

Technology platforms to improve data-drive decision making

Increased hiring of tenure-track faculty, and

Increased course offerings

 

Residency determination

In accordance with the California Education Code, a campus determines each student’s California residency status for tuition purposes at the time of admission. Students who are deemed nonresidents for tuition purposes by the campus may appeal the initial residency status decision or the subsequent reclassification decision.

The proposed policy (which amends Title 5) would establish criteria for appealing this determination.

The campus decision may be appealed only if at least one of the following applies:

The decision was based on:

a significant error of fact;

a significant procedural error; or,

an incorrect application of law 
which, if corrected, would require that the student be reclassified as a resident; and/or,

Significant new information, not previously known or available to the student, became available after the date of the campus decision classifying the student as a nonresident and based on the new information, the classification as a nonresident is incorrect.

Amendments to Title 5 require a public hearing, so the BOT paused and asked if anyone was present to discuss the proposed change to Title 5.  No one did.  The BOT then approved the proposal.

Title 5 Amendments

Doctor of Audiology Degrees


As previously outlined

Bachelor of Arts Degrees


Proposal removes the minimum 40 upper division units required in BA degrees.

What the amendment would allow:

All existing degree programs may maintain existing unit requirements, including 40 overall upper-division units to complete BA degrees.

Through the usual curriculum procedures, campuses would have the authority to decide the number of upper-division units required for BA programs.

What the amendment would not do:

Change any campus’ existing BA policy requirements.

Change any existing BA degree program on any campus.

Prohibit campuses from requiring a minimum number of overall upper-division units in the BA.

These degrees do not specify minimum overall upper-division requirements:

Bachelor of Architecture

Bachelor of Fine Arts

Bachelor of Landscape Architecture

Bachelor of Music

Bachelor of Science

Lower-Division Transfer Patterns

Three Lower-Division Transfer Patterns (LDTP) Title 5 sections are proposed for repeal because LDTP pathways were rendered obsolete when Senate Bill 1440 (Padilla) The Student Transfer Achievement Reform Act (or STAR Act) was signed into law in 2010, creating Associate Degrees for Transfer.

Admission and Transfer

Amendments are proposed to ensure similar admission standards for freshman and transfer students such that grades in specific courses required for transfer applicants will be evaluated in the same manner as the course grades of high school applicants.

Amendments clarified that transfer students must earn a C- or better in the Golden Four.

Proposed amendments to sections 40804 and 40804.1 specify the conditions under which exceptions may be permitted for transfer applicants who have earned fewer than 60 transferable units. These changes will codify what is already admission practice at some CSU campuses, serving as part of an overall enrollment management strategy.

Audit Committee

Provided an overview of campus audits and technology audits, too.

Committee on University and Faculty Personnel

Sally Rausch Interim President San Diego State University

Salary = $420,64 + $60,000 housing allowance—currently waived + auto allowance. Compensation for the San Diego State University Interim President is at 94% of the median of the peers, in other words, it is less than the 50th percentile of peers identified by CSU. That makes the compensation within Board policy

Trustees Silas H. Abrego and Douglas Faigin both spoke against the salary for Dr. Rausch.  Her salary is higher than many (all?) long serving CSU presidents.  They also argued that it was the wrong message to send when also raising tuition.  Trustees Lillian Kimbell, Maggie White, and John Nilon spoke in support of Chancellor White’s request, including Chancellor White’s comparisons to presidential salaries at CSU identified peer institutions.  Trustee Maggie White also noted that the CSU needs to fairly compensate other CSU employees.  Motion passed.  Three “no” votes and one abstention.

Melissa Baird hired as Vice Chancellor of Human Resources

Salary = $287,000; 2% higher than previous Vice Chancellor. That makes the compensation within Board policy

Board of Trustees: Reports

Adam Day, Chair of the Board of Trustees (Chair Eisen was absent)

Thanked and congratulated folks. Spoke glowingly about the diversity of the CSU presidents

Timothy White, Chancellor of the CSU

Cal State East Bay is receiving more applications than they can support and has declared impaction. Los Angeles and Chico have implemented targeted impaction (by major). All campuses complied with the public comment process as required by state law.

Pomona and San Francisco have discontinued specific class level and academic programs for the 2018-2019 year.

Year-round Pell coming!

*In response to student speakers during the public comment period, Chancellor White announced that his office was in constant connection with Cal State LA President Covino, and that he had personally written to the presiding judge of the case overseeing the Claudia Rueda matter.  Ms. Rueda, a Cal State LA student, was recently arrested by the U.S. Border Patrol.

Reports were also given by David Lopez, CSSA President, and Dia S. Poole, President of the CSU Alumni Council.  Lopez presented two awards: Chancellor’s Office Staff Member of the Year: Kathleen Chavira,
Assistant Vice Chancellor Advocacy and State Relations and President of the Year: Judy K. Sakaki (Sonoma State).

 

Board of Trustees: Legislative update

[For those who weren’t able to enjoy the spectacle and pageantry of this week’s BOT meeting, I’m posting some  important items.]

Here’s the update on legislation regarding the CSU which was provided to the BOT (sadly I’ve had to remove the cute little clapboard icons of the original):

Board of Trustees Sponsored Legislation

AB 422 (Arambula) – CSU Authority: Doctor of Nursing Practice Degrees

This bill authorizes the CSU to permanently offer the Doctor of Nursing Practice degree.

  • Status: This bill has been referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File.

 

AB 819 (Medina) – CSU Regulatory Authority

This bill permanently grants the CSU the authority to draft its own regulations, an authority the system has had since 1996.

  • Status: This bill passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee and is awaiting action on the Assembly Floor.

 

SB 363 (Senate Banking and Financial Institutions Committee) – Financial transactions: loans and deposits

This bill provides a modification to the California Government Code that allows the CSU to deposit operational funds for study abroad programs in local accounts in certain foreign countries in which there is no FDIC insurance or an equivalent.

  • Status: This bill is awaiting referral in the Assembly.

 

Two-Year Bills

AB 52 (Cooper) – Public Employees: Orientation

This bill requires public employers to allow unions to provide a presentation during an employee’s orientation.

  • CSU Position: Oppose
  • Status: This bill is now a two-year bill.

 

AB 80 (Arambula) – CSU Authority: Doctoral Program: Agricultural Education

This bill authorizes Fresno State to award an education doctorate in agricultural education.

  • CSU Position: Neutral
  • Status: This bill is now a two-year bill.

 

AB 207 (Arambula) – CSU Authority: Doctor of Medicine Degrees

This bill authorizes Fresno State to award doctor of medicine degrees.

  • CSU Position: Neutral
  • Status: This bill is now a two-year bill.

 

AB 209 (Mathis) – CSU Authority: Agricultural Education: Professional Doctorate Degrees

This bill authorizes the CSU to offer professional doctorate degrees in agricultural education.

  • CSU Position: Neutral
  • Status: This bill is now a two-year bill.

 

AB 405 (Irwin) – CCC Baccalaureate Degree Cybersecurity Pilot Program

This bill authorizes the California Community Colleges to establish a baccalaureate degree cybersecurity pilot program at up to 10 campuses. The bill includes a requirement that these colleges consult with the CSU and UC.

  • CSU Position: Watch
  • Status: This bill is now a two-year bill.

 

AB 1231 (Weber) – CSU: Support Staff Employees:

Merit Salary Adjustments 
This bill mandates that a support staff employee of the CSU receive a merit salary intermediate step adjustment of an unspecified amount each year that they receive a satisfactory performance evaluation.

  • CSU Position: Oppose
  • Status: This bill is now a two-year bill.

 

Senate Bills

SB 1 (Beall) – Transportation Funding

This bill addresses road infrastructure and funding throughout the state. It includes a provision to direct $2 million annually from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to the CSU for transportation research and transportation-related workforce education, training and development.

  • CSU Position: Support
  • Status: This bill was signed into law on April 28.

 

SB 25 (Portantino) – Public postsecondary education: nonresident tuition exemption

This bill makes statutory changes to ensure that California remains in compliance with federal law regarding benefits under the GI Bill for veterans and dependents.

  • CSU Position: Support
  • Status: This bill passed the Senate Appropriations Committee and is on the Senate Floor Consent Calendar.

 

SB 68 (Lara) – Exemption from Non-resident Tuition

This bill expands eligibility for the exemption from paying nonresident tuition at California’s public postsecondary institutions established by AB 540 (Firebaugh, Chapter 814, Statutes of 2001) to students who have completed three or more years of attendance at an elementary school, secondary school, adult school and/or California Community College.

  • CSU Position: From Watch to Support
  • Status: This bill has been referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee 
Suspense File.

 

SB 169 (Jackson) – Education: sex equity

This bill codifies the federal Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights’ “Dear Colleague” letter in the California Education Code.

  • CSU Position: Watch
  • Status: This bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and is awaiting 
action in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

 

SB 236 (Nguyen): Public postsecondary education: UC: CSU: student financial assistance: tuition and mandatory systemwide fees: admission of out-of-state students

This bill freezes undergraduate tuition rates for five years at the CSU and UC starting with the 2018-2019 academic year. It also caps out-of-state students at 10 percent of total undergraduate enrollment at each campus of the CSU and UC.

  • CSU Position: Oppose
  • Status: This bill failed passage in the Senate Education Committee.

 

SB 244 (Lara): Privacy: Agencies: Personal Information

This bill restricts the manner in which any state entity, including the CSU, can utilize and keep personal information received from an applicant for public services or programs.

  •  CSU Position: Watch
  • Status: This bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and is awaiting 
action in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

 

SB 318 (Portantino) – CSU: Personal Service Contracts

This bill mandates that the CSU follow the State Civil Service Act for the purposes of contracting out. The CSU has historically been exempted from the Civil Service Act and addresses the issue of contracting out through collective bargaining.

  • CSU Position: Oppose
  • Status: This bill has been referred to the Senate Appropriations 
Committee Suspense File.

 

SB 331 (Jackson) – Domestic Violence Counselor-Victim Privileges

This bill expands the list of employees who enjoy confidential privilege to include a domestic violence counselor who works for a public or private institution of higher education.

  • CSU Position: From Watch to Support
  • Status: This bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and is on 
the Senate Floor Consent Calendar.

 

SB 483 (Glazer) – Education Finance: Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of 2018

This bill enacts the Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of 2018 which, upon approval by voters, would authorize the issue of $2 billion for CSU and UC education facilities, with a fifty-fifty split of the funds between CSU and UC.

  • CSU Position: From Watch to Support
  • Status: This bill passed the Senate Education Committee, the Senate Governance and Finance Committee and is awaiting action in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

 

SB 573 (Lara) – Student financial aid: service learning programs

This bill requires the three segments of public higher education to provide service learning agreements for students in exchange for grants, fee waivers and reimbursements.

  • CSU Position: Watch
  • Status: This bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and is awaiting action in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

 

SB 577 (Dodd) – Community College Districts: Teacher Credentialing Programs of Professional Preparation
This bill expands the authority to offer professional preparation for teacher credentialing programs to include campuses of California Community Colleges.

  • CSU Position: From Watch to Oppose
  • Status: This bill has been referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee Suspense File.

 

SB 769 (Hill) – CCC Baccalaureate Degree Pilot Program

This bill extends the sunset date of the California Community College Baccalaureate Degree Pilot Program from 2023 to 2028; expands the number of pilot projects from 15 to 25; and authorizes participating community colleges to offer bachelor’s degrees similar to the CSU and UC if those programs are located over 100 miles away from a CSU and/or UC campus.

  • CSU Position: From Watch to Oppose
  • Status: This bill passed the Senate Education Committee and is awaiting 
action in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

 

SB 803 (Glazer) – The California Promise

This bill authorizes the trustees to provide specified grants or a tuition freeze to students who participate in the Promise program subject to the provisions of funding for this purpose. The bill also requires the CSU to waive systemwide tuition fees for a participating student unable to complete their degree within 4 years, due to limited space or no course offerings.

  • CSU Position: From Watch to Neutral
  • Status: This bill passed the Senate Education Committee and is awaiting 
action in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

 

Assembly Bills

AB 10 (Garcia) – Feminine Hygiene Product Availability

This bill requires K-12 and higher education segments to supply feminine hygiene products to all female students in school bathrooms.

  •  CSU Position: Watch
  • Status: This bill has been referred to the Assembly Appropriations 
Committee Suspense File.

 

AB 17 (Holden) – Transit Pass Program: Free or Reduced-Fare Transit Passes

This bill requires the controller to allocate funds to the Department of Transportation to provide free or reduced transit passes to specified students.

  • CSU Position: Support
  • Status: This bill has been referred to the Assembly Appropriations 
Committee Suspense File.

 

AB 21 (Kalra) – Public Postsecondary Education: Access to Education for Every Student

This bill, among other things, prohibits the CCC, CSU and independent colleges from releasing specified confidential information about students, faculty and staff, and mandates that the institution provide regular guidance about their rights under state and federal immigration laws and how to respond to a federal immigration order. The bill requests that the UC do the same. It also requires staff be available to assist students whose education or employment is at risk because of federal immigration actions. Finally, it requires that the institution ensure that AB 540 students subject to a federal immigration order continue to receive financial aid and other academically related financial benefits.

  •  CSU Position: Watch
  • Status: This bill has been referred to the Assembly Appropriations 
Committee Suspense File.

 

AB 214 (Weber) – Postsecondary education: student hunger

This bill clarifies existing state and federal policies for purposes of increasing consistency of county-level determinations of student eligibility for CalFresh benefits, with the intent of increasing participation in CalFresh for eligible students.

  •  CSU Position: Watch
  • Status: This bill is awaiting referral in the Senate.

 

AB 393 (Quirk-Silva) – CSU Tuition

This bill, sponsored by the California Faculty Association, freezes tuition and fees at the CSU and CCC until the completion of the 2019-2020 academic year. The bill requests the same of the UC.

  •  CSU Position: Oppose
  • Status: This bill passed the Assembly Higher Education Committee and is 
awaiting action in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

 

AB 394 (Medina) – CSU: assessment and course placement of admitted students

This bill requires the CSU to implement specified measures for determining course placement of admitted students.

  •  CSU Position: Watch
  • Status: This bill is awaiting referral in the Senate.

 

AB 453 (Limon) – Postsecondary education: student hunger

This bill establishes criteria for a “hungry free campus” and requires the trustees and Board of Governors to designate campuses as such if they meet specified criteria. Meeting this designation would also make campuses eligible for a yet to be determined funding incentive.

  • CSU Position: Watch
  • Status: This bill passed the Assembly Higher Education Committee and is 
awaiting action in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

 

AB 586 (Holden) – Personal income taxes: credits: deductions: qualified teacher: professional development expenses

This bill provides a tax credit up to $500 for teacher professional development expenses.

  • CSU Position: Support
  • Status: This bill passed the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee 
and is awaiting action in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

 

AB 746 (Gonzalez Fletcher) – Potable Water and Lead Testing

This bill requires K-12 districts, community colleges, CSU and UC to annually test for lead in the potable water system at every campus. Any part of a campus potable water system with an elevated level is required to be shut down.

  • CSU Position: Watch
  • Status: This bill passed the Assembly Education Committee and is awaiting 
action in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

 

AB 766 (Friedman) – Foster Youth

This bill allows foster youth or former foster youth to use existing dollars (i.e., Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care AFDC-FC Program) for a minor dependent living in a university dorm or other university designated housing.

  • CSU Position: Support
  • 
Status: This bill is awaiting referral in the Senate.

 

AB 813 (Eggman) – Postsecondary education: California State University: campuses

This bill adds a Stockton campus to the CSU list of institutions, requires that satellite centers report specified information annually to the legislature, and prohibits any CSU campus that operates a satellite center from disproportionately cutting funding from a center in order to support the main campus.

  • CSU Position: Concern
  • Status: This bill has been referred to the Assembly Appropriations 
Committee Suspense File.

 

AB 847 (Bocanegra) – Academic senates: membership

The bill requires the Academic Senate to post its membership on its website and to also make the demographic information on their membership, including, race, gender and ethnicity available on request.

  • CSU Position: Watch
  • Status: This bill is awaiting referral in the Senate.

 

AB 848 (McCarty) – Public Contracts: University of California: California State University: Domestic Workers

This bill was amended to prohibit the CSU and the UC from contracting for services with a contractor who uses workers outside of the United States if that contract displaces a career CSU or UC employee.

  • CSU Position: From Watch to Neutral
  • Status: This bill passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee and is 
awaiting action on the Assembly Floor.

 

AB 917 (Arambula) – Student Suicide Prevention Policies

This bill requires the governing boards of the three public segments of higher education to adopt a policy on student suicide prevention.

  •  CSU Position: Support if Amended
  • Status: This bill has been referred to the Assembly Appropriations 
Committee Suspense File.

 

AB 1062 (Levine) – Trustees of the CSU

This bill expands the membership of the Board of Trustees from 25 to 26 by expanding the number of students who serve on the board from two to four members. The measure also removes the restriction of five nominees being presented to the governor and leaves the number of nominees as being open.

  • CSU Position: Watch
  • Status: This bill passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee and is 
awaiting action on the Assembly Floor.

 

AB 1064 (Calderon) – Cost of living for students

This bill requires the CSU to conduct a survey at each campus to determine a student’s annual cost of living every three years.

  • CSU Position: Watch
  • Status: This bill has been referred to the Assembly Appropriations 
Committee Suspense File.

 

AB 1178 (Calderon) – Postsecondary Education: Student Loans

This bill requires each higher education institution to annually send a letter regarding specified information on debt to students who take out loans.

  • CSU Position: Watch
  • Status: This bill has been referred to the Assembly Appropriations 
Committee Suspense File.

 

AB 1435 (Gonzalez Fletcher) – Student Athletes: The College Athlete Protection Act

This bill creates the Athletic Protection Commission, an 11-member body appointed by the Assembly, Senate and the governor, with the goal of protecting student athletes. The commission will be funded by fees paid by participating institutions. The commission would have the ability to enact regulations and penalties that could include civil penalties, temporary or permanent employment prohibition in higher education, or other penalties imposed by the commission.

  • CSU Position: From Watch to Oppose
  • Status: This bill has been referred to the Assembly Appropriations 
Committee Suspense File.

 

AB 1464 (Weber) – CSU: Tenure Track Positions

This bill requires the CSU to increase the number of tenured faculty to 75 percent by mandating the system hire between 700 to 915 tenure tracked faculty positions each year over the next eight years, without displacing any lecturers in the process.

  •  CSU Position: Oppose
  • Status: This bill has been referred to the Assembly Appropriations 
Committee Suspense File.

 

AB 1622 (Low) – Student Support Services: Dream Resource Liaisons

This bill requires the CCC and CSU, and requests the UC, to designate a Dream Resource Liaison on each of their respective campuses.

  • CSU Position: From Watch to Support
  • Status: This bill has been referred to the Assembly Appropriations 
Committee Suspense File.

 

 

Board of Trustees: EVC Blanchard on GI2015

[For those who weren’t able to enjoy the spectacle and pageantry of this week’s BOT meeting, I’m posting some  important items.]

Here’s the report Executive Vice Chancellor Blanchard (basically the CSU Provost) read verbatim to the Board’s educational policy committee about GI2025:

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATIONAL POLICY Graduation Initiative 2025

Presentation By

Loren J. Blanchard
 Executive Vice Chancellor Academic and Student Affairs

Summary

Graduation Initiative 2025 is the California State University’s (CSU) signature effort aimed at increasing degree completion rates and eliminating equity gaps, thereby ensuring student success and meeting the future workforce needs of the State of California. This report is designed to provide an update on the work underway at the system-level to achieve the Graduation Initiative 2025 goals.

Background

At the January 2017 Board of Trustees meeting, Chancellor White outlined five priority areas where focus is needed to achieve the Graduation Initiative 2025 goals: academic preparation, enrollment management, financial aid, data-driven decision making and administrative barriers. Based on feedback received from campus constituents, “student engagement and wellbeing” has been added as a sixth focus area. The following represents the CSU’s aspirational goals with respect to each of these areas of focus:

  1. Academic preparation: We will provide CSU students, including those who arrive academically underprepared, the opportunity and support needed to complete 30 college- level semester units—45 quarter units—before beginning their second academic year.
  2. Enrollment management: We will ensure students are able to enroll in the courses they need, when they need them.
  3. Student engagement and wellbeing: We will continue to address the wellbeing of all CSU students while fostering a strong sense of belongingness on campus.
  4. Financial aid: We will ensure that financial need does not impede student success.
  5. Data-driven decision making: We will use evidence and data to identify and advance the most successful academic support programs.
  6. Administrative barriers: We will identify and remove unnecessary administrative

At the March 2017 Board of Trustees meeting, the board received a presentation regarding a new approach to academic preparation intended to improve college readiness for all students. This approach includes promoting four years of high school mathematics/quantitative reasoning, improving placement and assessment, strengthening the Early Start Program and restructuring developmental education.

Priority Area Workgroups

Cross-representational workgroups are being created for each of the six priority areas of Graduation Initiative 2025 to provide policy and implementation guidance. Campus presidents, Academic Senate CSU Chair Dr. Christine Miller and California State Student Association (CSSA) President Mr. David Lopez were asked to nominate individuals to serve on each of the six workgroups. Members of the Academic and Student Affairs leadership team will staff each workgroup. The workgroup rosters will be finalized at the end of May. They will convene for approximately one year, meeting in-person quarterly and virtually several times throughout the year.

Update on Academic Preparation

Staff from the Chancellor’s Office has been consulting with a number of campus groups regarding academic preparation. Consultations have included campus presidents, provosts, vice presidents for student affairs, the Academic Senate of the CSU, the California Department of Education, the Math Council, the English Council and the General Education Advisory Committee, among others.

The feedback received from this consultative process was incorporated into a draft executive order, released in May. The Chancellor’s Office is currently soliciting a second round of feedback that will be used to draft the final policy, reflecting the collective advice of experts from around the system.

Financial Aid

More than 60 percent of all CSU students have their tuition fully covered by non-loan aid. As part of Graduation Initiative 2025, we are thinking about financial aid in two ways – as a support and as a potential incentive. For example, campuses are using their share of the $35 million in one- time funding to provide students with micro-grants and emergency loans to assist students who are on track to graduate but who face financial shortfalls that impede their path to a college degree.

Another strategy being implemented by campuses is increasing students’ financial literacy by providing information on the benefits of graduating a year—or a term—early. Students who graduate one semester early save more than $4,000 in tuition, fees, books and supplies. By ensuring students are aware of the potential cost savings, the CSU can help students make informed decisions when planning their course schedules. Some CSU campuses have already begun to incorporate this type of information into regular communication with their students.

Ed. Pol. Agenda Item 1 May 23-24, 2017 Page 3 of 3

The financial aid workgroup that is convening this summer will be exploring these topics and others in depth and making systemwide policy recommendations.

Year-Round Pell Grants

Restoring year-round Pell Grants has been one of the CSU’s top legislative priorities. In 2015-16, 52 percent of undergraduate students received Pell Grants. These grants help make college possible for thousands of CSU students, many of whom are from historically underserved communities. As such, a robust, flexible Pell program is critical to achieving the Graduation Initiative 2025 goals. By enabling students to complete coursework in the summer and providing flexibility for part-time students, year-round Pell leads to faster degree completion and increases the likelihood of on-time graduation.

In February 2017, Chancellor White joined Dr. Nancy L. Zimpher, chancellor of The State University of New York, in Washington, D.C. to advocate for the restoration of year-round Pell Grants. In April, the chancellor, trustees, presidents, Academic Senate of the CSU chair and CSSA travelled to Washington, D.C. for meetings with legislators and the administration about the importance of year-round Pell Grants.

The CSU’s leadership and sustained efforts on this issue have made a significant difference. As part of the omnibus bill for the current 2017 fiscal year, Senate appropriators restored year-round Pell Grant eligibility. Thousands of CSU students are expected to qualify, beginning summer 2018.

Campus Allocations to Support Graduation Initiative 2025

Funding is being allocated to all 23 campuses to support their Graduation Initiative 2025 work. For 2017-18, $75 million will be allocated to campuses in accordance with the board-approved tuition increase. Each campus will use its share of the funds to support its individual graduation initiative plan, including systemwide priorities of increased faculty hiring, offering additional high-demand course sections and providing additional academic and student support services such as advising, mentoring, tutoring and other supplemental instruction.

Separate from the $75 million, the Chancellor’s Office will begin providing additional resources to campuses in summer 2017 to support instructional innovations related to academic preparation. This includes approximately $10 million in reallocated funding to support faculty, academic departments and student affairs staff to enhance curriculum and instruction, improve data capacity and provide additional financial support for students.

 

LAO’s analysis of the Governor’s May Revise: Read it and weep

The Legislative Analysts Office has released its analysis of the Governor’s May Revise proposal.

The 2017-18 Budget: Analysis of the May Revision Education Proposals

I’ve posted the CSU portion below so you can read it and join me in weeping (though not sobbing or bawling)….
[for some reason, copying the text from the pdf omitted a few letters here and there like ‘ff’ or ‘th’; apologies for the gaps I missed]
California State University (CSU) Funding Up From January Levels by $121 Million, Primarily Due to Recognizing Tuition Increase. Under the May Revision, combined CSU funding from the two sources is $121 million (2 percent) higher than in the Governor’s January budget. is consists of $135 million in higher tuition revenue offset by a $15 million decline in state General Fund support. As compared with the revised 2016-17 level, CSU funding in 2017-18 is $247 million (4 percent) higher. Under the May Revision, CSU’s combined General Fund and tuition revenue reaches $6.8 billion in 2017-18. Below, we describe and assess the May Revision proposals for CSU.

Spending Changes

Revises Base General Fund Increase Downward by $15 Million. …this reduction results from two adjustments. Under the May Revision, CSU receives an unrestricted base increase of $153 million rather than $157 million. ( This $4 million drop could be framed in many ways, including being conveyed as an adjustment to reflect higher Cal Grant costs due to CSU’s tuition increase. The administration, however, links the drop to its proposal to keep private Cal Grant awards at their current level rather than cutting them as previously scheduled.) The May Revision also adjusts CSU’s General Fund support downward by $11 million to reflect recently revised state contribution rates for CSU pensions.

Provides $2 Million From Transportation Special Fund. Pursuant to Chapter 5 of 2017 (SB 1, Beall), the May Revision appropriates $2 million from the State Transportation Fund to CSU for transportation research and transportation-related workforce training and education.

Assessment and Recommendations

Under May Revision, CSU Has Sizeable Unrestricted Base Increase. In March 2017, the CSU Board of Trustees approved a tuition increase for resident and nonresident students. is increase, which is scheduled to take effect in fall 2017, will generate net revenue of about $95 million in 2017-18 ($135 million in gross revenue less about $40 million that CSU intends to use for tuition discounts and waivers for certain students). When combined with the $153 million unallocated ongoing General Fund augmentation included in the May Revision, CSU would have $248 million (4 percent) in additional unrestricted base resources in 2017-18 compared with the current year.

Administration Does Not Earmark Any of Increase for Enrollment Growth. CSU has indicated that it intends to use the additional unrestricted monies to address a number of its priorities, including using (1) $139 million to fund collective bargaining agreements that were approved by the Board of Trustees last spring, (2) $26 million to cover basic cost increases (such as higher health care premiums for employees), and (3) $75 million for the system’s Graduation Initiative (primarily to make available more courses to current students). CSU has indicated that without additional funding from the state (beyond the amount proposed in the May Revision), it does not intend to fund enrollment growth in 2017-18.

Recommend Approving May Revision Funding Level but Setting Expectation for Enrollment Growth. In The 2017-18 Budget: Higher Education Analysis, we note that CSU has reported denying admission in recent years to some eligible transfer students. Given this development, together with statute that requires CSU to prioritize transfer applicants, we continue to recommend the Legislature signal to CSU that increasing transfer enrollment is a priority. Thee Legislature could send this signal by adopting provisional language that sets an enrollment target for new transfer students. An expectation of 2 percent enrollment growth in the budget year would result in about 7,200 more FTE transfer students being served, which we estimate would allow CSU to accommodate all or virtually all transfer applicants in 2017-18. Under our recommendation, costs for CSU to serve these students, which we estimateat about $60 million (after factoring in about $20 million in net tuition revenue generated by the additional students), likely would come at the expense of CSU’s Graduation Initiative. Given the opportunities we have identified for CSU to reform its assessment practices and make available more course slots by reducing excess units, we believe CSU can make significant progress on improving student outcomes without funding set aside for the Graduation Initiative in the budget year.

CSU San Bernardino press war continues

The Chancellor’s Office’s daily news clippings highlight another round of public defenses of their President and attacks on the CSU San Bernardino Academic Senate (from 15 May).

Exceptional Leadership Under Pressure

Voice

As a second-generation alumna of California State University, San Bernardino who started my teaching career and gained my early experiences in community leadership on that campus, I have been enthusiastic and supportive of President Tómas Morales’ leadership and stewardship of one of our region’s most important assets. He has proven to truly be the multidimensional leader needed to lead a 21st century university who is accountable to the myriad of stakeholders that make-up the complex constituencies of a modern institution of higher education: from students, faculty, staff and the board of trustees to alumni, donors, legislators, and community and business leaders. He has been an advocate for the predominately first generation ethnically diverse student population, a regional collaborator, and responsive to the surrounding community’s needs.

 

No confidence in the CSUSB Faculty Senate vote of no confidence: Guest commentary

The Sun

Hell hath no fury like a faculty senate scorned. A faculty “vote of no confidence” often expresses the sense and sensibilities of the faculty on the state of leadership on vital issues affecting the mission of a university. On May 9, 2017, that vote (21-15) became “V” for vendetta and “C” for an attempted coup d’état at Cal State San Bernardino.

 

Valley Voice: Higher education is essential for our valley

Desert Sun

The Palm Desert Campus of California State University on Cook Street has an increasingly important role in building excellence in our economy.

 

USU Directors discussion of CSUN Faculty Senate resolution on support for undocumented students

It is my pleasure to share this excerpt from the University Student Union Board of Directors minutes, courtesy of Director Hammond:

Institutional Support of and Protection for Undocumented Students at CSUN – CSUN Faculty Senate Resolution

Director Ruelas-Bischoff discussed the Institutional Support of and Protection for Undocumented Students at CSUN resolution from the Faculty Senate. She noted that the campus has been engaged in several discussions focused on responding proactively to the national rhetoric and policy concerns under the current administration. The resolution that was passed by the Faculty Senate refocuses on the faculty perspective and how the campus, as a whole, can support undocumented students. Some examples within the document are as follows:

  • Increased support for the Dream Center.
  • Increased support for scholarship funds that support undocumented students.
  • Privacy and steps that should be taken in response to requests for information regarding the immigration status of CSUN students and community members.

Director Ruelas-Bischoff stated that the overall interest of campus leadership is to examine what additional steps should be taken to be proactive in responding to the national climate on immigration in support of students. Several members of the campus community have been meeting regularly with campus leadership to discuss these immigration reform policy issues and how to increase support for the needs of undocumented students.

Several members of the Board expressed their excitement for the Faculty Senate Resolution and stated the importance of students being supported by the faculty and staff. There was also enthusiasm for discussions about the Dream Center gaining more attention and financial assistance to continue its programs and services to students. Questions were raised as to how the campus would handle requests for cooperation from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) in identifying the immigrant status of students. There also were concerns about how the campus would protect students’ privacy and comply with privacy laws and immigration laws, and how the campus could prepare for the backlash in refusing to provide specific student information also was questioned. The campus and the system-wide chancellor’s office is working to address these concerns, several of which have also been outlined by our campus president and can be found on her website. The campus will continue to work through the potential situations and the consequences that could arise and examining how to support students through these processes. Many of the members thanked the Faculty Senate and the campus for recognizing the need to address the issues and support undocumented students.

USU BOD Minutes 04-10-17_ExtractedPage7

I think I can safely say that the Senate looks forward to continuing to work closely with other campus entities in protecting all of our students in these uncertain times.

CSU San Bernadino Senate smeared in advance of no confidence vote

A couple of days ago, the CSU San Bernardino academic senate was poised to consider a resolution expressing their lack of confidence the CSUSB President Tomas Morales.

Here’s the resolution they eventually passed:

CSUSB No confidence

Shortly afterwards, Chancellor White responded:

Open Letter to the CSUSB Community – Timothy P. White

Definitely not good times at our sister campus. They have our sympathies as they work through these difficult issues.

Unfortunately, I haven’t gotten to the crazy part yet…..

On the morning of the 8th, before the senate considered this resolution, the immediate past Chair of the Board of Trustees and an influential community member took to the local newspapers to help President Morales avoid bad PR in the community by smearing the academic senate in advance of the vote.

http://www.sbsun.com/opinion/20170508/academic-senates-need-more-transparency-guest-commentary

Pretty much the same article also appeared on the 10th in the Press Enterprise, with the slightly more aggressive title “Time to expose academic senate for who they are” (presumably the editor’s choice).

Time to expose academic senate for who they are

In both cases, the title and link to the op-ed was circulated by the Chancellors’ Office in their ‘Daily Clips’ compendium of news items.

Christine Miller, Chair of the statewide senate (ASCSU) and my personal role model, responded with professionalism and commitment to shared governance in this letter to the CSUSB campus senate

May 9, 2017

To My Senate Colleagues at CSU San Bernardino:

As Chair of the Academic Senate of the California State University, I wish to express my sorrow regarding the aspersions cast on you specifically, and academic senates generally, by Paul Granillo and Lou Monville, alumni of your fine institution.

Mr. Granillo, as a community member, might be forgiven his lack of knowledge about the ways a senate functions in the institutional enterprise; Mr. Monville, however, should know better: as former Chair of the CSU Board of Trustees, he should have a firm grasp on the notion of “shared governance,” as instantiated in law (the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act) and in the joint agreement expressed by the Association of Governing Boards and the American Association of University Professors in the “Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities.”  Indeed, the CSU Board itself issued a report on “Governance, Collegiality and Responsibility” which clearly states, “collegial governance allows the academic community to work together to find the best answers to issues facing the university.”

Sadly, there was nothing at all collegial in the vitriol jointly penned by Granillo and Monville in the San Bernardino Sun, under the thinly veiled guise of support for a piece of legislation that has nothing whatsoever to do with the sweeping indictments they level against senates generally, and yours in particular.  The editorial contained a shocking series of ad hominem attacks lacking any evidentiary support.  Indeed, the tone and substance of their litany of unsupported claims has the same force of effect as the very bullying they decry.  It’s not just ironic, it’s disturbing.

Please note that I take no position on the gut-wrenching decision that you face on your campus regarding confidence in the leadership of your president.  I’m certain there are well-reasoned arguments on both sides of the question you are considering.  I do take a position, however, on matters relating to how senates and faculty representatives function in the shared governance process.  To that end, I believe it is essential to point out that the “two current CSUSB Academic Senate Executive Committee members,” as well as the “former CSUSB provost, who also now serves on the Academic Senate Executive Committee,” while not mentioned in the editorial by name, are clearly identifiable by the virtue of the transparent processes that Granillo and Monville allege are absent.  Once again, it’s not just ironic, it’s disturbing.

Most critically, it’s important to acknowledge that the three individuals “outed” by Granillo and Monville never publicly breached the confidentiality of the presidential search process, which constrained (until now) everyone on the search committee–including the editorialists.  I find it unconscionable that Granillo and Monville, who agreed to the same terms and conditions of confidentiality as everyone else, now find it politically expedient to disregard those strictures and violate the confidentiality of an executive personnel process.  It’s doubly egregious coming from the former Board Chair, since it is the Board’s own policy which establishes the process as confidential!  This transcends irony, and isn’t simply disturbing.  It’s shameful.

It’s regrettable that your deliberations are now clouded by the defamatory claims in this editorial.  Nonetheless, deliberate you must.  Publicly.  Rationally.  Transparently.  I wish you the best in your deliberations, today and in the future.

Best regards,

Dr. Christine M. Miller

Chair, Academic Senate of the California State University

This has not escaped the notice of the American Association of University Professors:

So Much for Confidential Searches!

I plan update this post as information becomes available. That will probably include a formal response from the ASCSU at our May 17-19 plenary.

Governor’s May revise

Here’s a May 11th email from the Chancellor to presidents and trustees about the Governor’s May revision:

Governor Brown and his administration released the “May Revision” of their budget plan. Unfortunately, the budget proposal was reduced slightly from January’s proposal by $4 million (http://www.ebudget.ca.gov).

Nevertheless, this revision maintains a steady, incremental recovery of state funding for the CSU, and from that perspective we are grateful.

We have – and will continue – to discuss at length why greater investment to achieve the Board of Trustees’ budget request is necessary and critical for our ambitious initiative and California’s future. The CSU must – and is – maintaining our advocacy presence in Sacramento to urge the legislature and the governor to prioritize the state’s economic and societal future. In this regard, you will be engaged during the next trustees’ meeting in a discussion of the revision and our advocacy efforts.

I appreciate the continuing support of the CSU community writ large who are working for a strong future for the CSU and California. Particularly, my thanks to CSSA, the Academic Senate and bargaining unit leaders. I know that – together – we are making the strongest possible funding case in Sacramento.

Tenure density

 

Our very own Jerry Schutte (Sociology; Statewide Academic Senator) has been doing yeoman’s work on the statewide senate’s tenure density task force.

I recently saw a letter from him to a senior legislative staffer which I thought set out the problems with admirable clarity and suggests a more CSU friendly way of thinking about the costs.

I asked his permission to share it; he did one better and rewrote it to make the issues even more accessible. I am therefore pleased to share this with you:

Correspondence re AB 1464

CSUN and the recent auditor’s letter on MPP hiring

You’ve probably heard about a recent audit which found that hiring of administrators outpaces faculty hiring. From the LA Times’ report

The audit, titled “California State University: Stronger Oversight is Needed for Hiring and Compensating Management Personnel and for Monitoring Campus Budgets,” specifically found that between fiscal years 2007-08 and 2015-16, the number of full-time equivalent “management personnel” — which includes administrators, supervisors and other professional staff — grew by 15%. Over the same period, the number of faculty rose by 7%, while non-faculty support staff rose 6%.

The audit found that the six campuses it reviewed could not justify the growth in new management personnel. One campus, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, increased pay for at least 70 management personnel in 2016 who either had outdated performance evaluations or no evaluations on file.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-cal-state-audit-20170420-story.html

President Harrison had Human Resources compile the growth rates for CSUN. From her email to me:

CSU audit system-wide finding related to MPP growth from FY 2007/08 to FY 2015/16:

  • MPP = 15%
  • Faculty = 7%
  • Staff = 6%

CSUN data for the same time period:

  • MPP = 5.2%
  • Faculty = 18%
    • Tenure/Tenure-Track = 53.3%
    • Lecturers = -7.6%
  • Staff = 4.7%
    • Represented Staff = 5.1%
    • Non-Represented Staff = -7.8%

[Updated 21 May 2017]

Here’s the original letter from the auditor: https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2016-122/index.html

Here’s Chancellor White’s response: https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2016-122/response.html

March 2017 Faculty to Faculty

I’m a bit late in sharing this, but here’s the March 2017 edition of Faculty to Faculty (the statewide newsletter)

Faculty to Faculty, formerly The Academic Senator, acts as a conduit of information from the faculty of the statewide Academic Senate to the faculty of the CSU.

Current Issue: March 2017

Mascot history and background

I’ve long wondered about our mascot and it’s association with, well, what matadors do. Apparently, someone wrote to President Harrison with similar questions. I was copied on the response, which I found interesting and helpful. I thus though I’d share it here (with minor edits to make it look a bit less like a letter):

The Matador was adopted as CSUN’s official mascot in 1958 by a vote of the student body. The Matador was partly selected because it reflects the Spanish and Latin roots of the local Southern California region. Over the years, the mascot has become integral to the institution’s history and traditions, particularly our athletics program. More recently, the mascot has gained spontaneous momentum of its own through the number of student organizations and groups that use the identity. In 1994, students reaffirmed their support of the Matador as the University’s official mascot by an overwhelming majority.

We are aware of the controversial aspects of the matador and bullfighting. Over the years, we have downplayed and removed any suggestion of violence related to the mascot. No explicit representations of violence against bulls are ever used in association with the figure or image. Several years ago, for example, we removed a sword that used to be part of one of the Matador visual images.

When we commissioned the Matador statue, which was unveiled in 2011, the process was an opportunity to reach out to students, faculty, staff, and others who might have cause to be sensitive to the identity. Partly as a result of that consultation, in providing guidance to prospective artists, we asked for the piece to emphasize the beauty and grace related to the balletic movements of the matador, and to exclude any suggestion of violence. We believe the courage and grace embodied in this type of representation are positive qualities worth emphasizing as they relate to our mission and goals in service to our students. In addition, in many countries and regions, the practice of killing the bulls, or the sport itself, has been outlawed.

We recognize that the image of the matador is not easily separated from the history and realities of bullfighting. We believe, however, that we have found a way to preserve the Matador identity and to respect the wishes of our students and alumni in a way that does not celebrate or endorse violence, particularly against animals, in any way. Our current student body, which is 46% Latino, and our active alumni support our use of the Matador mascot and retain great affection for it as part of the CSUN identity.

We respect your views and feelings on this matter, and hope this letter shows the efforts that have been taken to consult with and respect the wishes of the broader campus community on this issue.

CSUN students take first place at Chapman University Datafest

Passing this along from an email I received from a colleague. Congratulations to our students and their faculty mentors!

Over the weekend a team of five students from CSU Northridge took first
place at the Chapman University “Datafest”. A “Datafest” is a regional,
intensive event where student teams from many Universities analyze a
large dataset and present their findings to a set of esteemed judges.
Annual “Datafests” were initiated at UCLA several years ago, and having
since been fully embraced by the American Statistical Association, are
now held at multiple universities across the nation. Typically a
company provides both actual (but anonymized) data to the Datafest
host/venue and also several, general, high-level, research questions of
interest. For more information on the Chapman University “Datafest”
competition, see:

http://www.chapman.edu/scst/conferences-and-events/datafest.aspx

The five CSUN students (the “Mean Squares”) who competed over the
weekend were:

Seyed Sajjadi (Computer Engineering, Team lead)
Matthew Jones (Computer Science)
Ian Postel (Computer Science)
Collin Miller (Computer Science)
Jamie Decker (Art)

Five victorious csun students hold up certificates and medals in a hotel conference room

Victorious CSUN students

It should be noted that not only did our students achieve success at the highest
level, they competed with strong teams from other universities such as
CSU Fullerton, UC Santa Barbara, UC Irvine, and USC.

For this particular “Datafest”, the students analyzed corporate-level
“big data” from the travel site “Expedia”. The dataset contained
approximately 10 million data points with information related to clicks,
searches, and bookings.

The judges were senior faculty and industry executives. The judges
indicated that the work done by the CSUN team was “incredible”. CSUN’s
team won “Best Insight” and “Best Overall”.

Our students’ 1), preparatory planning and vision; 2), ability to
navigate nuanced, technical questions and analytic, technology-based
queries; 3), skilled acumen with various statistical learning
methodologies and “data science” software tools; and 4), deep attention
to focused results are extraordinary and exemplary.

Through the looking glass: CA Assembly Budget Committee hearing materials

The Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance will be discussing the following issues:
1) Governor’s budget proposal and CSU funding request
2)  Graduation Initiative update
3)  Enrollment and impaction
4)  Review of outside compensation policy
5)  Review of Equal Employment Opportunity funding from 2016 Budget Act
The state’s views on the CSU’s challenges and what we need to be doing are rather, ahem, interesting:

http://abgt.assembly.ca.gov/sites/abgt.assembly.ca.gov/files/April%2026%20-%20CSU%20Agenda.pdf

March for Science with CSUN’s CFA chapter

I expect that most of you will have received this from CFA. But just in case you haven’t…

Dear Colleagues:

I know many of you are planning to participate in the March for Science on Saturday, April 22nd, in downtown LA.

http://www.calfac.org/event/march-science

The CFA is a strong advocate for government support of scientific research. As part of its commitment, the CSUN’s CFA chapter will be meeting at 9 AM on the corner of Hill Street and 5th Street in downtown LA to participate in the March for Science that will go from Pershing Square to City Hall.  The CFA will provide picket signs for you to write on and we will be carrying a CFA banner as we walk through the streets.

If you plan on participating, please pick up a picket sign at the CFA office between the hours of 10 AM and 3 PM from Monday-Thursday.  The office is located in Sequoia Hall room 283. You can reach the office at extension 5919.

Please remember to bring a hat, sun glasses, sunscreen and water.  If you have CSUN apparel or a red shirt, please wear those to represent CSUN.

Thanks, we look forward to marching with you.

Please email  cfa_no@calfac.org to let us know if you plan on marching.

Sean Murray

Professor of Biology

CSUN CFA Representative, College of Science and Math

 

Chancellor’s Office Resources for Undocumented Students

From the Chancellor’s Office

In an effort to provide additional resources for students and campuses, the Chancellor’s Office has relaunched a website on Resources for Undocumented Students. The site can be viewed at https://www2.calstate.edu/attend/student-services/resources-for-undocumented-students/Pages/default.aspx

The information includes admission process, financial aid, campus support, legal support services, overview of AB540/2000 and the California Dream Act, systemwide communications, and other resources that include organizations such as the ACLU, National Immigration Law Center, Immigrant Legal Resource Center and federal government agencies.

 

The CSUN College of Humanities Center for Ethics and Values Presents: International Trade and Immigration in the Age of Trump

Most of the events I pass along are pretty far from my own expertise, so it isn’t often that I can attest to their quality.

Happily, in this case, I am acquainted with both speakers’ excellent work. It thus my pleasure to pass along this announcement of a two lecture series:

“Reproduction as Resistance at the Mexico-U.S. Border: A Philosophical and Ethnographic Assessment”

Amy Reed-Sandoval, Assistant Professor of Philosophand Faculty Affiliate of the Center for Inter-American and Border Studies at the University of Texas at El Paso.

Wednesday April 19, 4-6pm, Whitsett Room

and

“Investor Rights as Nonsense — on Stilts”

Aaron James, Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Irvine

Wednesday May 3, 4-6pm, Whitsett Room

Abstracts and Bios are below:

Amy Reed-Sandoval

Assistant Professor of Philosophand Faculty Affiliate of the Center for Inter-American and Border Studies at the University of Texas at El Paso.

Reed-Sandoval works in political philosophy (particularly the political philosophy of immigration), Latin American and Latin@ philosophy, and philosophies of social identity (with emphasis on race, gender and class). She is working on a book entitled ‘Illegal’ Identity: Race, Class and Immigration Justice.

“Reproduction as Resistance at the Mexico-U.S. Border: A Philosophical and Ethnographic Assessment”

ABSTRACT:

On January 31st, 2017, Donald Trump ordered the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department to prepare a report detailing “the steps they are taking to combat the birth tourism phenomenon”. In so doing, he clearly made reference to the fact that many women from countries such as Mexico travel to the United States to give birth to babies who will then be granted U.S. citizenship as stipulated in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Of course, attacks on this legal practice are nothing new; “anchor baby” rhetoric has long been a core part of anti-Mexican, anti-Latina/o, and anti-immigrant speech and propaganda in the United States. Furthermore, the United States government is legally authorized to deny entry to visibly pregnant non-citizen women if they are deemed “likely to become a public charge”—a discretionary power that has been abused historically as outlined by Eithne Luibheid.

In this paper I employ the tools of philosophy and ethnography to explore, from the perspective of the women who do so, the act of crossing the Mexico-U.S. border while visibly pregnant in order to give birth in the United States. I draw from ethnographic research (particularly semi-structured interviews) I have conducted in December 2016 and January 2017 in Ciudad Juarez and El Paso with women who have crossed the border while pregnant and for this purpose, as well as with prenatal care providers (particularly midwives and OB-GYNs) who serve them on both sides of the border. I argue that the so-called “birth tourism” to which Trump refers is, in fact, is an act of resistance against gendered/sexist anti-immigrant policy in the United States. To make this argument I draw from James Scott’s theory of resistance in Weapons of the Weak, as well as Mariana Ortega’s work in In Between on the interconnectedness of “home,” the “politics of location,” the “multiplicity of the self,” and Latina identity.

Aaron James

Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Irvine

James works in political philosophy, moral theory, and ethics, and is the author of Fairness in Practice: A Social Contract for a Global Economy (OUP, 2012) and Assholes, A Theory of Donald Trump (Penguin, 2016). He has written about Rawls’s constructive method, its neglected realist and interpretive aspects, and its application to social structures within and across major domestic institutions such as international trade. He is planning a book on the morality and political economy of distribution for a world of increasing ecological scarcity and lower growth rates.

“Investor Rights as Nonsense — on Stilts”

ABSTRACT:

This essay is about the recent, post-Nafta surge of bilateral trade agreements that set up investor-state adjudication.  Investor treaties increasingly recognize a right to be compensated for “indirect expropriation.”  This essay argues that certain ideas of foreign “investor rights” exhibit a certain confusion about the very nature of an investment, and the social relations of international trade that give risk-taking its social purpose.  The argument develops both utilitarian and social contract theory positions, and challenges appeals to investor natural rights, especially natural promissory rights.

Watch the BOT meeting

The Board meeting has started, and it is, ahem, lively
The meeting can be viewed here:

 

Here’s the agenda:

https://www2.calstate.edu/csu-system/board-of-trustees/Pages/agenda.aspx

— late edit —

Two things of note:

  1. The BOT voted to approve the tuition increase.
  2. The BOT desperately needs a parliamentarian.

Your help needed; response rates for the Student Survey on Sexual Assault/ Sexual Misconduct Prevention survey

I’m posting the following on behalf of Senator Schutte and the folks doing this important work.

Please help; if we don’t know what is going on, we cannot fix it. 

I write to once again solicit your help in making the Campus Climate Student Survey on Sexual Assault / Sexual Misconduct Prevention, a success.  As you may know, this survey is required by the Department of Education.  To date, we are significantly behind our 2015 response rate numbers.  Therefore, I would request that this week you not only remind the students in each of your classes to participate in this important data collection, but that you further the effort with some incentive for them doing so.  This could be extra credit, a contest (to see who can get the most students to participate), or other meaningful reward.   The link to the survey is contained in the February 13th and 24th letters sent to students by President Harrison. 

Thanks in advance for helping in this campus wide effort.

New LAO report on Gov’s higher ed budget proposal

The Legislative Analyst’s Office has just issued the following report:

The 2017-18 Budget: Higher Education Analysis
In this report, we analyze the Governor’s higher education budget proposals. Though we think some of these proposals are reasonable and recommend the Legislature approve them, we recommend rejecting others and requesting additional information in a few cases. Below, we highlight a few of these recommendations.
We recommend the Legislature consider providing base increases for the University of California (UC), California State University (CSU), and California Community Colleges (CCC), as such increases would help the segments address certain cost increases, including salary, health care, and pension cost increases. Were it to support university cost increases beyond those that could be covered using the Governor’s proposed augmentations, the Legislature may want to consider tuition increases linked to anticipated inflation in 2017-18.
We caution against augmenting funding for some other proposals coming from either the administration or the segments—including UC’s Academic Excellence initiative, CSU’s Graduation Initiative, and CCC’s Innovation Awards—as they lack sufficient justification at this time. Instead, we recommend improving implementation of existing student support programs before expanding these initiatives.
We think a few proposals, such as the CCC guided pathways and CCC Chancellor’s Office staffing proposals, lack sufficient detail. We recommend the Legislature ask the administration to provide certain additional information about these proposals during spring budget hearings.
We discuss these recommendations as well as many others, including ones involving Hastings College of the Law, Cal Grants, and Middle Class Scholarships, in our report, which may be accessed using the following link: http://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3559

If you’re looking for the CSU part. Here it is:

California State University

In this section, we provide an overview of the Governor’s proposed budget for CSU, describe CSU’s proposed spending plan, and assess key components of that plan.

Overview

CSU’s Budget Proposed to Reach $10 Billion From All Sources in 2017‑18. As Figure 15 shows, CSU’s budget would increase by $182 million (1.8 percent) over revised 2016‑17 levels. Of total CSU funding, about two‑thirds ($6.7 billion in 2017‑18) comes from core funds—a combination of state General Fund, state lottery, and student tuition and fee revenue. These three fund sources, which would increase by a combined $126 million (1.9 percent) in the budget year, supporting CSU’s core mission of providing undergraduate and graduate education. CSU also receives federal funds and operates various campus enterprises, such as student dormitories and parking facilities. The remainder of CSU’s revenues ($3.3 billion in 2017‑18) mostly supports these other operations.

Figure 15

California State University Funding by Source

(Dollars in Millions)

2015‑16 Actual 2016‑17 Revised 2017‑18 Proposed Change From 2016‑17
Amount Percent
Core Funds
General Fund
Ongoing a $3,271 $3,479 $3,714 $235 6.8%
One time 5 110 1 ‑109 ‑99
Subtotals ($3,276) ($3,589) ($3,715) ($126) (3.5%)
Lottery $58 $55 $55
Tuition and feesb 3,022 2,963 2,963
Subtotals, Core Funds ($6,357) ($6,607) ($6,733) ($126) (1.9%)
Other Funds
Federal funds $1,256 $1,385 $1,385
Other CSU fundsc 2,104 1,844 1,899 $55 3.0%
Subtotals ($3,360) ($3,228) ($3,284) ($55) (1.7%)
Totals $9,717 $9,835 $10,017 $182 1.8%
a Includes CSU debt service on general obligation and lease‑revenue bonds and funds for pensions and retiree health benefits.

bIncludes funds that CSU uses to provide tuition discounts and waivers to certain students. In 2017‑18, CSU plans to provide $662 million in such aid.

cIncludes funds such as housing fees, parking fees, and extended education charges.

Governor’s Budget Proposes $3.7 Billion in General Fund Support for CSU. Under the Governor’s budget, ongoing General Fund support for CSU would increase by $235 million (6.8 percent) over 2016‑17 levels. This increase is offset by $109 million in expiring one‑time funds provided to CSU in 2016‑17. Altogether, General Fund support for CSU would increase a net of $126 million (3.5 percent).

Most of CSU’s General Fund Augmentation Unrestricted. Figure 16 details General Fund changes for CSU under the Governor’s budget. As the figure shows, the Governor proposes a $157 million ongoing unrestricted increase. This funding is a continuation of the Governor’s original long‑term plan for the universities, which since 2013‑14 has sought to provide annual unallocated base increases. In addition, the Governor’s budget provides a total of $78 million in earmarked augmentations. Specifically, the budget proposes (1) $50 million for increased pension costs, (2) $23 million for higher retiree health care costs, and (3) $5 million for higher lease‑revenue debt service for previously approved capital projects. (In an effort to encourage CSU to consider pension costs as part of its new hiring and salary decisions, the state changed how it budgeted for CSU pension costs a few years ago. Under the new policy, the state provides direct funding for CSU’s pension costs attributed to its 2013‑14 payroll level, but CSU is responsible for funding any additional pension costs using its unrestricted funds.) The Governor’s budget does not directly fund enrollment growth.

Figure 16

2017‑18 California State University General Fund Changes

(In Millions)

2016‑17 Revised Funding $3,589
Unrestricted base increases:
   Funding per Governor’s original long‑term plan $131
   Redirected savings from Middle Class Scholarship modifications 26
Subtotal ($157)a
Pension adjustment $50
Retiree health benefits adjustment 23
Lease‑revenue bond debt service adjustment 5
Remove one‑time funding provided in prior year ‑87
Other adjustments ‑21
Total Changes $126
2017‑18 Proposed Funding $3,715
aCSU indicates that it would use these funds to cover recently ratified bargaining agreements ($139 million) and various other cost increases ($18 million).

Governor’s Budget Does Not Assume Tuition Revenue Increases. The Governor’s budget assumes that CSU does not raise its tuition charges. Unlike recent years, however, the Governor does not condition his proposed General Fund increases on CSU holding resident tuition levels flat.

CSU’s Spending Plan

CSU Proposes to Spend the Vast Majority of Its Unrestricted Base Increase on Compensation Commitments. Of the $157 million unrestricted base increase proposed by the Governor for 2017‑18, CSU indicates that it intends to spend $139 million (88 percent) for collective bargaining agreements ratified by the CSU Board of Trustees in spring 2016. CSU indicates that the remaining $18 million would fund basic cost increases, such as higher medical and dental premiums for current employees and additional pension costs (on payroll exceeding the 2013‑14 level).

CSU Proposes to Support 12 Previously Approved Capital Projects. CSU’s 2017‑18 capital outlay request includes 27 projects totaling $1.6 billion. Of these 27 projects, 17 were previously approved by the state (virtually all of them as part of the 2016‑17 budget process) but have not yet been funded by CSU. The other ten requests are new submissions. At its November 2016 meeting, the Board of Trustees approved a multi‑year plan for CSU to finance up to $1 billion of the $1.6 billion in submitted capital projects using university revenue bonds. Using this bond authority, the Chancellor’s Office would fund 12 of the previously approved capital projects. The associated annual debt service is estimated to be about $50 million.

CSU Proposes Using Existing Funds for Projects. CSU indicates it would support this associated debt service using existing core funds. This is possible because a like amount of monies were “freed up” from expiring debt from former projects as well as restructuring of outstanding State Public Works Board debt. (Under recent changes in state law, CSU is permitted to pledge its General Fund main appropriation—excluding the amounts necessary to repay existing debt service—to issue its own debt for capital outlay projects involving academic facilities.) The CSU estimates that the first $200 million in CSU revenue bond proceeds would provide $35 million for new facility space at CSU Monterey Bay as well as $165 million for building replacements and renovations to facilities and infrastructure at most campuses in the system.

CSU Indicates It Would Not Be Able to Fund Several Other Priorities Under Governor’s Budget. Due to the size of the employee contract costs that CSU is committed to funding in 2017‑18, CSU indicates that the augmentation provided in the Governor’s budget is insufficient to address other budget priorities. These priorities include enrollment growth, additional targeted funding for the segment’s Graduation Initiative, and a compensation pool for represented employee groups that have open contracts in 2017‑18 (as well as nonrepresented employees, such as administrative managers).

CSU Considering a Tuition Hike to Boost Funding Primarily for Graduation Initiative. Given that CSU believes the funding included in the Governor’s Budget is insufficient to address all of its budget priorities, CSU is considering a tuition increase. Under the proposal discussed by the Board of Trustees at its January meeting, tuition for resident undergraduates would increase by 4.9 percent. Tuition for nonresidents and resident graduate students would increase by about 6.5 percent. The proposed increase would generate $78 million in additional net revenue, which CSU officials have indicated would be used primarily to augment funding for the Graduation Initiative. The Board of Trustees likely will vote on the tuition proposal at its March 2017 meeting.

Assessment

CSU’s Spending Plan Raises Several Issues for the Legislature. We think the Governor’s funding plan and CSU’s spending plan is a mixed bag, with some components more warranted than other components. Below, we provide our assessment of several key budget components—compensation, enrollment growth, and the Graduation Initiative. In the final part of this section, we consider the trade‑offs between additional state funding increases and student tuition increases.

Compensation

Compensation Is the Largest Component of CSU’s Core Budget. Like other departments and agencies, salaries and benefits make up a significant share of CSU’s core budget (more than 80 percent). As noted earlier, compensation also accounts for the largest augmentation in CSU’s spending plan, with almost all unrestricted state General Fund allocated for compensation increases. The Legislature has several compensation‑related issues to consider.

Board of Trustees, Not the Legislature, Approves CSU Collective Bargaining Agreements. For most departments and agencies in the state, the California Department of Human Resources represents the Governor in labor negotiations between the state and its employees. The resulting agreements must be ratified by the Legislature before going into effect and the state directly funds the associated costs of the agreements. In the case of CSU, state law gives the Board of Trustees authority to negotiate collective bargaining agreements. The Chancellor’s Office represents the Trustees during these negotiations and the resulting agreements must be ratified by the Trustees before going into effect. The Trustees are expected to manage these agreements within CSU’s overall budget.

Trustees Recently Approved Sizeable Collective Bargaining Agreements. The CSU system has 13 represented employee groups. The largest group is the California Faculty Association (CFA), which represents more than 25,000 CSU faculty, librarians, counselors, and coaches. After extensive negotiations with CFA (and a near‑strike by union members), in spring 2016 the Trustees ratified a multiyear contract. Under the agreement, all faculty unit employees receive a cumulative 10.8 percent general salary increase effectively over a two‑year period and eligible faculty unit employees receive an additional 2.7 percent increase in 2017‑18. Ratification of the CFA contract triggered revised agreements with several other CSU bargaining units, which resulted in general salary increases for those members. Altogether, the Chancellor’s Office estimates these new contracts will cost CSU an additional $139 million in 2017‑18.

Virtually All Other CSU Bargaining Units Have Open Contracts in 2017‑18. With a few exceptions, CSU’s contracts with its other represented employee groups expire at the end of 2016‑17. The Chancellor’s Office has expressed a desire to provide funds for 2017‑18 to support a compensation pool for these represented groups, as well as nonrepresented employees. The Chancellor’s Office calculates that every 1 percent increase for such a compensation pool would cost $18 million. Were the Legislature to want compensation to keep pace with inflation year over year, it might consider increases between 1 percent and 3 percent. (In 2017‑18, the state and local government price index is expected to increase 1.1 percent, whereas the California Consumer Price Index is expected to increase by 3 percent.) Were CSU to increase tuition levels in 2017‑18, some or all of the resulting revenue could be dedicated to the desired level of compensation increases.

Enrollment Growth

CSU on Track to Meet Enrollment Target for 2016‑17. The 2016‑17 Budget Act sets an expectation for CSU to increase resident enrollment by 1.4 percent (an additional 5,194 FTE students) over 2015‑16. Based on preliminary enrollment data provided by CSU, campuses appear to be on track to meeting this target, with fall 2016 FTE student enrollment about 1.3 percent higher than the previous fall.

Several Factors for Legislature to Consider in Deciding Whether to Grow Transfer Enrollment in 2017‑18. The past several years CSU has reported denying admission to some eligible transfer students. Given this development, together with statute that requires CSU campuses to prioritize eligible transfer applicants over freshman applicants, the Legislature may want to consider targeting enrollment growth funding for transfer students in 2017‑18. Every 1 percent growth in transfer enrollment would result in about 3,600 more FTE students—for a total cost of $38 million ($20 million state General Fund and $18 million in tuition revenue generated by the additional students).

Could Withhold Decision on Freshman Enrollment Growth Until May. Existing data suggests CSU is drawing from beyond its freshman eligibility pool. Given that a freshman eligibility study is currently underway and that CSU must report by March 2017 on recommended budget or policy changes to produce more bachelor’s degrees, the Legislature may wish to wait until the May Revision before deciding on enrollment growth funding for freshmen. Regarding potential changes to its policy on the size of CSU’s freshman eligibility pool, we encourage the Legislature to take time to explore the potential consequences of any specific proposal. Any change to this pool would have significant fiscal and programmatic implications moving forward not only for CSU but also CCC, UC, and the state.

Graduation Initiative

CSU Has Set Ambitious Performance Targets. As noted earlier, the state and CSU currently are funding a Graduation Initiative. The goals of this initiative, which was originally launched by the Chancellor’s Office in 2009, are to boost graduation rates for freshmen and transfer students as well as eliminate achievement gaps for low‑income and other traditionally underrepresented students. For example, CSU seeks to more than double its four‑year graduation rate (for all entering freshmen) between now and 2025, moving from its current rate of 19 percent to 40 percent.

CSU Implementing Various Improvement Strategies as Part of Graduation Initiative. These strategies include hiring more faculty and increasing the faculty‑to‑student ratio, encouraging faculty to adopt new instructional methods, and providing enhanced student support services such as tutoring and advising. CSU reports spending $48 million in base funds on these Graduation Initiative strategies. CSU maintains it will need additional resources to carry out campus plans and achieve the segment’s performance goals. CSU has not undertaken a systematic evaluation to assess the impact each of these strategies is having on its graduation rates.

CSU Has Much More Work to Do on Rethinking Assessment and Placement Policies. Though the above strategies may be helping more students graduate and graduate on time, we believe CSU could be doing more to promote better student outcomes. Specifically, we think CSU could improve its assessment and placement policies. Currently, CSU primarily uses placement tests to assess college readiness. Based on these test results, CSU deems more than 40 percent of its admitted freshmen as unprepared for college‑level math, English, or both. Students who do not demonstrate college‑level skills are required to enroll in remedial coursework. National research has shown that relying solely on placement tests routinely results in college‑ready students being misplaced into remedial courses, which, in turn, increases education costs for them and the state while also reducing their chances of graduating on time. (Data from the Community College Research Center and CCC system reinforce these findings, with their data indicating about 30 percent of incoming community college students are put into remedial courses based on placement test results when they could have succeeded in college‑level coursework.) A growing amount of research is finding that a better way to assess college readiness is to use multiple measures (including data from students’ high school records) to place students.

Secondary Assessments Are Exacerbating Inefficiencies. Additionally, a number of CSU campuses currently have policies requiring even students who are deemed college ready in math to take a second diagnostic (department) test in order to enroll in many lower‑division math courses (such as calculus and college‑level algebra). Students who fail to obtain a specified cut score on these department exams may be required to enroll in precollegiate‑level courses (such as intermediate algebra), thereby delaying their progress toward a degree. These secondary diagnostic tests also are at odds with national research on effective ways to identify students who are capable of success in college‑level coursework.

CSU Also Continues to Have Problem With Students Taking Excess Units. CSU continues to have a problem with excess unit‑taking by both freshman entrants and transfer students. Students who accrue more units that their degree requires generally take longer to graduate, generate higher costs for the state and themselves, and crowd out other students. Based on the experience of other institutions, a number of causes may be contributing to CSU’s high rate of excess units, including unclear degree pathways for students and uneven articulation of lower‑division transfer courses between community colleges and CSU. Were CSU to reduce excess course‑taking, it could increase the availability of required courses within existing resources.

Recommend CSU Implement Other Strategies Before Augmenting Funding for Graduation Initiative. To date, CSU has made progress on improving student outcomes. We believe CSU would make even more progress were it to modify its assessment methods and placement policies as well as address the issue of excess units. To this end, we recommend the Legislature direct CSU to study these issues in more depth and, based on its findings, implement new policies using existing Graduation Initiative monies and other system resources. So that the Legislature is kept apprised of CSU’s activities, we recommend the Legislature require the segment to report by January 1, 2018 on (1) its plans to put in place research‑based methods for assessment and placement, as well as (2) opportunities for campuses to make available more course slots by reducing the number of excess units that students earn. Given these opportunities for further reform and given the many other competing cost pressures facing CSU in the budget year, the Legislature may wish to place a lower priority on providing additional funding for the Graduation Initiative in 2017‑18.

Weighing State Funding Increases With Tuition Increases

Legislature Has Key Choices to Make on CSU’s Budget. Each year, the Legislature fundamentally decides: (1) which costs to fund and (2) how these costs should be shared between students (and their families) and the state. In some years, the Legislature has decided to cover all CSU spending increases using state General Fund, holding student tuition levels flat. Other years, both General Fund support and tuition levels have increased to cover cost increases. (In still other years, state support has declined, with tuition levels rising to cover costs.)

CSU Facing Four Notable Cost Pressures. Most notably, CSU faces the pressure to fund the collective bargaining agreements already ratified by the Board of Trustees last spring. It also faces pressure to cover basic cost increases (for example, health care and pension cost increases). Given that CSU continues to report denying admission to eligible transfer students, another notable cost pressure is funding enrollment growth for transfer students. Given recent compensation increases for faculty, pressure also exists to provide some compensation increases for other employee groups with open contracts in 2017‑18.

Various Ways to Share Costs Between General Fund and Students. Were the Legislature to approve the General Fund level proposed by the Governor, CSU asserts that it would be able to cover the costs of the previously ratified collective bargaining agreements and basic cost increases (such as higher health care premiums). A tuition increase could provide funds for its other priorities. While CSU resident tuition charges have been flat for the past six years, a 5 percent increase might be considered high for one year. In addition, a 5 percent increase in 2017‑18 would be notably higher than anticipated inflation. If the Legislature were to consider tuition increases, we suggest it signal to CSU that a more modest rate increase would be acceptable. Based on our calculations, a 2.5 percent increase in tuition charges would generate net revenue of roughly $38 million. These funds, in turn, would be sufficient to support (1) 1 percent enrollment growth for eligible transfer students and (2) a 1 percent compensation pool for bargaining groups with expiring contracts in 2016‑17. If the Legislature wished to support even higher levels of enrollment growth or employee compensation (that is, more than 1 percent increases), the Legislature could increase General Fund appropriations for CSU above the Governor’s proposed level or permit CSU to raise tuition along the lines of what the Chancellor’s Office is proposing.

 

President Harrison’s Op-Ed: On sexual assault prevention, a message to Devos from universities

Kudos to President Harrison for this LA Daily News editorial pressing Secretary DeVos on campus sexual assault policy:

With the confirmation of new Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, who has not yet stated her support for the 2011 Title IX language about the role of colleges and universities to prevent sexual assaults, it is more important than ever for all institutions of higher education to send a clear signal to Washington, D.C., that we will not and cannot retreat from the progress made in combating sexual violence on our campuses.

In recent years, universities and colleges across the country have adopted new measures to tackle the issue of sexual assault. At California State University, Northridge, we have taken a comprehensive and holistic approach to address campus sexual assault to be responsive to the needs of our diverse community. This is not something from which we or any campus should retreat, no matter what the U.S. Department of Education under the new administration may propose.

I am pleased with the legislative support and spotlight placed on the rights and protections for victims of sexual assault in recent years. Even with these gains, sexual assault remains grossly underreported on a national scale. Those who have been the target of sexual assault or sexual misconduct deserve support…..

Read the whole thing: http://www.dailynews.com/opinion/20170216/on-sexual-assault-prevention-a-message-to-devos-from-universities-guest-commentary

 

AAUP resources

For those interested, this is from a recent AAUP email which was forwarded to me from several sources

Here’s what the AAUP is doing to protect academic freedom and tenure across the country:

  • We’ll be holding a webinar on February 28 entitled Academic Freedom in the Age of Trump. It will provide an overview of the concept of academic freedom, describe recent attacks on it, and tell you how to defend it. RSVP here (you’ll need to login with your member credentials).

  • We’ve released a statement on the targeted online harassment of faculty, addressing increasing concerns about efforts to intimidate and harass faculty. Read that here.

  • We’ve also created an FAQ with the American Federation of Teachers addressing frequently asked questions about discussing the 2016 election in the classroom, responding to intimidation and threats, and other issues. Here is the FAQ.

Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities Annual Conference CFP

CSUN is a member of this organization.

Submit your proposal for the 2017 CUMU Annual Conference: The Urban Advantage, in Denver, Colorado. We invite presentations that encourage in-depth, meaningful conversations around the challenges and opportunities facing our collective communities. The submission deadline is April 21, 2017.

This year, new formats—a blend of short presentations and deep-dive discussions—have been added to allow attendees to ‘dig in’ and connect on common themes.

  • Best Practices Presentation: Presenters will showcase their work and/or methodologies; highlight what worked; and present positive outcomes in our traditional presentation format.
  • Lightning Sessions: In five minutes, presenters will inspire attendees to learn more about a topic in a quick, engaging, inspirational, and most importantly, fun way.
  • Panel Presentation: A group of panelists with diverse view points and perspectives will create a question and answer dialogue around a topic.
  • Mini Workshop: In these how-to-sessions, presenters will create a focused, interactive session that engages attendees on new processes, infrastructure, or policy approaches.
  • Think Tank Sessions: One presenter will lead a discussion around a hot topic and issues facing our campuses and communities. These are not about defining solutions, but rather problems, ideas, or practices that keep you up at night.
  • Poster Sessions: This is a great opportunity to gain significant attention for your work in a more social atmosphere.
Learn more about the new formats and submit your proposal.

 

LAO report: Debt free college

The Legislative Analyst’s Office has issued the following report:

Creating a Debt Free College Program
The Supplemental Report of the 2016-17 Budget Act directs our office to estimate the cost of a new state financial aid program intended to eliminate the need for students to take on college debt. The reporting language envisions a program under which the state covers all remaining college costs (tuition and living expenses) after taking into account available federal grants, an expected parent contribution, and an expected student contribution from work earnings.

We estimate such a program for resident undergraduate students attending public colleges in California would cost $3.3 billion annually. Of this amount, $2.2 billion is for California Community College (CCC) students, $800 million is for California State University students, and $300 million is for University of California students. These amounts are on top of all existing gift aid. The cost varies by segment primarily due to differences in the number of students they serve, as well as some variation in current levels of gift aid per student. Adding certain eligibility requirements to the program could reduce these costs notably. For instance, excluding part-time students or assuming a higher work expectation from such students could decrease CCC program costs by $1.6 billion.

The new program likely would reduce but not eliminate student loan debt. This is because some students might prefer to borrow instead of working, some might borrow if they experience difficulty finding employment, and some might borrow if their parents fail to provide their full contribution. Additionally, the new program could create behavioral changes not factored into our estimate. For instance, students living at home might choose to live off campus due to the increased state support.

This report is available using the following link: http://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3540?utm_source=subscription

 

10 Ways to Support Students Facing Immigration Crises

This article from Inside Higher Ed looks helpful:

10 Ways to Support Students Facing Immigration Crises
Anita Casavantes Bradford, Laura E. Enriquez and Susan Bibler Coutin offer advice to faculty members and administrators.

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2017/01/31/how-faculty-members-and-administrators-can-help-immigrant-students-essay

IASP Global year against post-surgical pain

I’m really stretching the boundaries of the purpose of the blog with this one, so my apologies to those uninterested….

One of the professional organizations I belong to (the International Association for the Study of Pain) has been choosing a theme for each of the past several years. In conjunction with that theme, they release a whole bunch of free materials which often turn out to be useful and generally accessible to non-specialists. This year, the topic is post-surgical pain. I thought some of you might be interested in the current best practices and open issues. Here’s the main website: http://www.iasp-pain.org/globalyear

You can find materials from past year’s themes at the above site. Here are the fact sheets for this year:

Fact Sheets on Pain After Surgery

LAO report on volatility of CA personal income tax base

The Legislative Analyst’s Office has just issued the following report:

Volatility of the Personal Income Tax Base
From 1990 to 2014, personal income in California grew fairly consistently, with limited volatility. On the other hand, California’s personal income tax (PIT) base was much more volatile. This is because (1) some of the more stable pieces of personal income are not taxed under California’s PIT and (2) the PIT tax base includes capital gains, which are extremely volatile and are not counted as part of personal income in federal statistics. This brief examines the volatility of the PIT tax base, one important element of the PIT’s overall volatility in California. (This brief does not focus on other reasons for PIT volatility, such as California’s PIT rate structure, in which high-income Californians pay a bigger fraction of their income than lower- and middle-income Californians.)

This report is available using the following link: http://lao.ca.gov/publications/report/3548?utm_source=subscription

Remember that the CSU does not have guaranteed funding (ala K-12 et al under Prop 98). Thus volatility in the California budget means volatility in the CSU budget.

 

Systemwide webinar (14 Feb): Faculty Proposal Development

This webinar on writing grant proposals is officially intended for new faculty. But I am told it is open to all interested faculty. Apologies for the weird formatting and other copy-paste artifacts…..

To: New CSU Faculty
From: Research, Office of the Chancellor / Dr. Ganesh Raman RE: Faculty Proposal Development Webinar

“Faculty Proposal Development Webinar”

Tuesday, February 14, 2017
Presentation: 9 A.M. – 12:30 P.M.
(Lobby / Phone Line opens 10 minutes prior to live session)

Presented by Research, Dr. Ganesh Raman

Guest Speaker – Dr. Richard Ziegfeld

Two CSU Faculty Panels: Federal Grants Awarded and Selection Committees Served

TOPICS

  • Developing a Strategic Plan for Your Research
  • Proposal Process Best Practices
  • What Evaluators Want and Characteristics of Winning Proposals
  • CSU5 Campus Faculty Panels: Federal Grants Awarded and Selection Committees Served

WEBCAST LINK

No registration is needed. Join at this link: http://coconnect.calstate.edu/proposaldevelopment

AUDIO
Simply login and stream the audio via your computer speakers. Communicate with the host & presenters by typing into the on- screen Chat Pods.

TECHNICAL QUESTIONS?

Contact Jennifer Wicks, Executive Producer, Systemwide Professional Development at (562) 951-4525 or jwicks@calstate.edu. Feel free to contact Jennifer to pre-test, making sure your computer is webcast ready, 2 days prior to the live webcast.

Webcast Produced by Systemwide Professional Development http://SPD.calstate.edu

 

CFA Report: Equity Interrupted

 

In case you haven’t seen it yet, CFA has released a new report. Here’s where to find it:

As you may know,  the California Faculty Association is issuing a series of reports analyzing research and findings related to issues impacting the students, faculty, and staff of the California State University system. First in this series is “Equity, Interrupted: How California is Cheating Its Future.”

Read the report:
http://www.calfac.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/equity_interrupted_1.12.2017.pdf

News items on ‘Equity, Interrupted.’
http://www.calfac.org/pod/equity-interrupted-news

Related stories from across the nation.
http://www.calfac.org/pod/race-class-and-college-affordability

Board of Trustees Highlights

Prof. Catherine Nelson, the inimitable vice-chair of the statewide senate has compiled the following brief summary of the highlights of the Jan/Feb 2017 Board of Trustees for statewide senators. I’m thus happy to share this with you:

A few highlights of the Trustees meeting.  Underlying themes included the Graduation Initiative and integral to it hiring more faculty, hiring more advisors and providing more classes so students graduate in a timely manner; and student opposition to the “Tuition Adjustment Proposal” (as one student said, “call it what it is, an increase”). The full Trustees Agenda is available at:

https://www2.calstate.edu/csu-system/board-of-trustees/Pages/agenda.aspx
Tuesday, 1/31/17

Committee on Collective Bargaining

In the public comment section several union representatives spoke about compensation, the need to value duration of service for the institutional memory it provides, career advancement, and the need for a systemwide policy about the time, place and manner of expression that protects union activity and provides for an appeal process for administrative decisions made under the policy.  Successor CBAs with units 2, 5, 7 and 9 were approved (CSUEU, SEIU Local 2579).

Committee on Finance

There was extensive discussion of the CSU 2017-18 support budget request and the “tuition adjustment proposal.” The CSU Administration reported that the governor’s budget proposes a recurring augmentation of $157.2 m of state general fund monies.  That amount is $167.7 less than the trustees’ support budget request of $324.9m.  The governor also proposed phasing out the Middle Class Scholarship Program (http://www.csac.ca.gov/mcs.asp).  Given that the Department of Finance has not forecast an economic downturn, the Administration suggested it is reasonable to argue that the additional reserve funds Governor Brown wants can go to other purposes.  Board discussion included whether financial aid would cover the increase and for whom, the need to fund mandatory costs and the Graduation Initiative, the fact that even with the tuition increase funding for the CSU would still fall $90.2m short of the full support budget request, and the possibility that if the Trustees approve the increase in March, they could revise it during the summer if more funding is forthcoming from the state.

During the committee’s public comment period, students spoke movingly about the need for sanctuary campuses and talked about the direct, negative impact the tuition increase would have on them.  Themes included educational costs, working two or more jobs, student homelessness and food insecurity, and the state legislature’s responsibility to fund public higher education.  Jen Eagan, CFA President, introduced the CFA’s report “Equity, Interrupted:  How California is Cheating It’s Future” that documents the state’s disinvestment in higher education (report available at http://www.calfac.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/equity_interrupted_1.12.2017.pdf ). In particular the authors find that as the number of students of color has increased, public funding for the CSU has decreased. During Board discussion of the increase, Trustees Morales, White, Abrego and Norton expressed varying degrees of opposition, concern or ambivalence about the increase.

Wang Family Excellence Awards 2017

 https://www2.calstate.edu/csu-system/faculty-staff/wang-award/Pages/default.aspx

  1. Dr. Debra Y. Griffith, SJSU, Outstanding Administrator
  2. Dr. Mariappan Jawaharlal, Cal Poly Pomona, Outstanding Faculty, Natural Sciences, Mathematical and Computer Sciences and Engineering;
  3. Dr. Anita Silvers, SFSU, Outstanding Faculty, Visual and Performing Arts and Letters
  4. Dr. Keith A. Trujillo, CSUSM, Outstanding Faculty, Social and Behavioral Sciences and Public Services;
  5. Dr. Ruth H. Yopp-Edwards, CSU Fullerton, Outstanding Faculty, Education and Professional and Applied Sciences.

Wednesday, 2/1/17

ASCSU Chair Miller’s Report

Using the theme of a meme of a meme about celebrity deaths to frame her report, Chair Miller reported on AS 3282 Opposition to the Proposed Tuition Increase in the California State University (CSU); AS 3281 Advice to the CSU Tenure Density Task Force.AS 3276 Academic Freedom Policy; AS 3274 Support for the CSU Institute for Teaching and Learning (ITL) Summer Institute; AS 3279 Support for the Letter to President Trump from the Leaders of California’s Systems of Higher Education ant the Continuance of DACA; AS 3280 Opposition to the Appointment of Betsy DeVos as US Secretary of Education; and AS 3277 Lactation Resource Policy and Practices in the California State University.  Chair Miller summarized issues addressed by resolutions in first reading including job security for contingent workers, tax reform and funding the Master Plan, and support for DACA students. She discussed progress on establishing the GE Task Force and expressed concern that the Chancellor’s Office was not open to ASCSU recommendations on how best to implement the Quantitative Reasoning Task Force’s recommendations.  She also reminded everyone about the Academic Conference on February 9-10.

CSSA

CSSA President David Lopez (CSU East Bay) highlighted CSSA opposition to the tuition increase and their advocacy plan to oppose it.  Two major themes were the need for the state to understand that the CSU is a public institution and should be funded by the state and the need for a sustainable funding model that doesn’t include a tuition increase but relies on state funding.

Chancellor White’s State of the CSU Address

As of this writing the video of the address or print were not available on the CSU website.  When it is posted, it should be available at: https://www2.calstate.edu/csu-system/chancellor/the-chancellors-communications/Pages/chancellors-communications.aspx

 

Black History Month Celebration

I tried sending this to everyone the other day, but the attachment caused it to bounce from some of the subsidiary listserves.

Here’s the Event schedule (the link is to a file in a public Box folder, fingers crossed it works.)

Here’s the email announcement from Chair Theresa White:

Greetings,

Please join us as we celebrate Black History Month. See attached calendar. Our theme this year is: Africana Studies 360º – Black Synergy.

Please consider offering extra credit to your students to incentivize attendance. Help us spread the word!

I look forward to seeing you!

Warm regards,

Dr. Theresa White

I hope to see you at many of these events.

BOT meeting

If you want to watch the forces which shape the CSU in action, I bring you the Board of Trustees Jan 31-Feb 1 meeting livestream: https://www2.calstate.edu/csu-system/board-of-trustees/Pages/livestream.aspx

If you are not used to this level of excitement, I recommend titrating up by starting with having it on in the background while you work. To deal with the random moments of terror that come with realizing how little our trustees understand about the CSU and its students, just think of it as a slowly plotted horror film.

Here’s the full agenda in pdf: https://www2.calstate.edu/csu-system/board-of-trustees/past-meetings/2017/Documents/january-31-2017-full-agenda.pdf

Pro tip: Don’t try reading the agenda unless you have insomnia. Use your pdf reader’s find function to search for terms of interest. I usually start with CSUN related stuff (e.g., ‘CSUN’, ‘Northridge’, ‘Harrison’) and then check in on things like GE, fees, and other more parochial matters.

I’d also recommend glancing at the items where the BOT approves settlements of lawsuits. It fosters a sense of empathy for our colleagues in risk management and provides insight into the landscape our administrators see themselves as navigating.

About this blog

As Faculty President, it feels like I am on virtually every campus committee. I also spend a good amount of time at the Chancellor’s Office.

I consequently come across a lot of, well, stuff that many CSUN faculty members will be interested in. But I can’t justify sending the vast majority of it via the all faculty email list. This blog will fill the gap.

I will use it to post, inter alia:

  • Campus and system-wide news and announcements.
  • Written reports and presentations received by the Senate on behalf of the Faculty.
  • Notices of events, grants, and other things which happen on particular future dates (beware: philosopher)

More speculatively, I might also post:

  • My own explanations of weird but important CSUN minutia (e.g., The Dysfunctional Relationship of the Faculty Bylaws to Department Handbooks or the Mystery of What’s in Sections 100-500). I’ve spent a lot of time figuring some of this stuff out. I figure I might as well share it…..
  • My own interpretations of state-level events, trends, strategies, or issues.
  • My own views on system or university matters. (I do not intend to do much of this)

When I am doing more than just reporting, I will try to clearly demarcate when I am speculating and when I am opining. Obviously, those are blurry lines, so, as in all things, caveat lector.

Finally, the title of the blog reflects the role of its author. That said, everything I write and post here is in my capacity as an individual faculty member. I speak only for myself and not for any of the bodies I am affiliated with or serve in.

Resolutions of the Senate or Faculty are the only official voice of the Faculty. Nothing else herein should be taken as the position or as reflecting the views of the Faculty, CSUN, the ASCSU, or the CSU.