Executive orders materials roundup (now with notes on the Senate agenda)

Here’s the agenda for the Senate meeting: senateagenda102617

Here’s an explanatory note of what’s going to happen: Senate agenda explanation

Here’s a companion flowchart:  Flowchart of agenda

In advance of the upcoming Senate meeting, here are many of the relevant documents in one place:

Abbreviations

CO = Chancellor’s Office

BOT = Board of Trustees

Executive orders, coded memos, and letters

EO1100R

EO1110

LJB to Presidents – Presidents EO 1100R EO 1110 Implementation

The CO has decided to allow limited delays in implementation of EO1100R, but not EO1110. As anticipated, campuses need to submit implementation plans and timelines to receive extensions.

The Placement of Students Based on Their Academic Preparation

This describes the first steps for how the multiple-measures based placement will work.

Clarifying Law and Consultation

This is an email from the EVC to Chair Miller in which he defends the CO’s right to impose GE policy. It was issued largely response to my question to him at the plenary about what to tell my Faculty about the consequences of refusing to comply. Professor Hellenbrand responds to the EVC’s memo in Rights of the senate under CA law: an opinion

CSUN actions

Approved EPC charge to EO1100R task force

Non-participation resolution (from September Senate meeting)

Associated Students resolution

Ethnic studies (et al) letter

‘Consultation’ on draft executive orders and responses

LJB to Pres Request for EO 1100 Feedback

CSU Math council response to ASA-2017-14

2017-06-15 Letter to EVCAA Concerning proposed changes to developmental education SIGNED

Memo on consultation over EOs from EVC

There was some consultation on the EOs. Most faculty believe that it was grossly inadequate consultation. The above memo summarizes some of what occurred. (It may make more sense against the background of Chair Miller’s reports).

 

Ethnic Studies Task Force

This is the final report of the task force convened by Chancellor White to review issues surrounding ethnic studies programs in the CSU

Ethnic Studies Task Force report

Quantitative Reasoning Task Force

The CSU convened a task force to make recommendations on quantitative reasoning education. The report has been cited by the CO to support some of the changes in the Executive Orders.

QRTF report

Blanchard to Miller QR in EO 1100 (1)

This is a letter from EVC Blanchard explaining how the report informed the EOs.

QRTF co-chairs response

This is a response by the co-chairs of the quantitative reasoning task force to the EVC’s letter. They charge that the QRTF report is being misused.

Other CSU campus senate responses

It is clear that EO1100R affects CSUN disproportionately (2 campus have a different problem in that their GE was built around 4 unit courses which the EO requires to be 3 units). Other Senates are upset about the egregious violations of process. No other campus is considering non-compliance. Here are the resolutions which have passed so far:

Campus resolutions

Professor (nee Provost) Hellenbrand’s comments

Rights of the senate under CA law: an opinion

To Hell in a Handbasket: GE and other fiascos

Courses and pathways in the new ge: issues and questions

Statewide Senate and CO responses

ASCSU resolution

CSUCO Responses to ASCSU September 2017

Chair Miller’s presentation to Board of Trustees

Systemwide reports

Faculty Trustee reports

ASCSU Chair reports

Miscellany

The Transfer Maze, The High Cost to Students and the State of California

The Campaign for College Opportunity has presented this report to the BOT. The report identifies a number of issues complicating the transfer process of students from California Community Colleges.

Senator Schutte’s note on ASCSU EO1100 resolution

[The following is some background Senator Schutte promised to send to the Senate after last Thursday’s meeting. He’s given me his permission to share it here]

The Back Story on the ASCSU Resolution Regarding EO 1100 and EO 1110 and its Ramification for the CSUN Review of its Resolution.

In our last Senate meeting, the “question was called” to vote on the then current motion to disregard implementation of EO 1100 and EO1110 (herein known as the “Orders”). This occurred before I had the opportunity to provide information on how the Statewide Resolution concerning these Orders was negotiated and passed. In light of that missed opportunity, I suggested I would distribute a written statement as to why the Statewide Senate did not pass the resolution for rescission and instead opted to pass a resolution to delay and analyze. The result can be gleaned from reading the Statewide Resolution (see statewide minutes, Adam’s Presidents blog or this URL). However, as your statewide senate representative, from whose committee (Fiscal and Governmental Affairs) the resolution was initiated and for which, as a member, I provided the outline for same, I would like to give you the rationale for why this resolution prevailed and the motion, similar to our CSUN senate’s motion to ignore, did not.

The premise on which FGA did not support the rescission resolution was two-fold. First, we felt that faculty needed a seat at the table in dialoguing about the Orders. Simply asking for a rescission and the resulting non-compliance, would have precluded that input. Second we, at FGA, who are charged with following communications between the CSU and Sacramento, understand that the CSU in general and the local campuses, in particular, are often looked at as obstreperous, causing (in particular) the Department of Finance to “tune out” when legitimate requests are forwarded (that is an actual quote from the higher education group at the DOF). Simply ignoring these Orders would have only provided further support for their position. That said, FGA did take exception with many issues presented in the Orders and debated them for several hours. Let me articulate why, as a result, I suggested my reactions to them be incorporated and how that translated into the resolves contained in our resolution.

First, we universally took issue with the timing and lack of consultation for these Orders. The stated rationale was 1) the Chancellor’s Office perception that there was a time constraint issued by the Legislature, and 2) as a result, it required the distribution of these Orders during the summer when faculty were gone. The former was rationalized by the CO in quoting the 2017 Budget Act (AB 97, section 6610.001, 1.4), passed by the Legislature and articulating the need for policy changes by May 2018. The latter was rationalized by the CO’s premise that HEERA (Higher Education Employee-Employer Relations Act) obviates the requirement to consult with faculty on curriculum issues, although they may still voluntarily consult.

Ignoring these two issues by simply saying “no” to their Order’s implementation would prevent us from taking a stand on the underlying CO perceptions. For example, while AB97 does ask for “changes in policy” by May 2018, it does not ask for curriculum changes to be in place by the next academic year. Therefore, it is perfectly logical and reasonable to spend the next year formulating the policy between faculty and the CO, in time to meet the demands of AB97, while not implementing those agreed upon changes until the fall, 2019, which would then give departments time to process any agreed-upon changes. Moreover, while it is the case that the “scope of representation” found in HEERA, section 3562 (2.r.1.C) excludes a meet and confer obligation if the content involves “…the conduct of courses, curricula, and research programs”, it is also true that the Government Code Title I Division 4, Chapter 10, Myers-Milias-Brown Act, Section 3504 (governing public employees) defines the scope of representation to include “…all matters relating to employment conditions and employer-employee relations”. Moreover, the Constitution of the Academic Senate of the CSU (ratified by the Chancellor) calls for the Academic Senate “…..to be the formal policy-recommending body on systemwide academic…..matters”. Clearly, the debate on this issue needs to be vetted. These Orders are the time and venue in which to do so. Simply dismissing them out of hand precludes this opportunity.

Second, is the issue of costs and resource allocation. While the CO advocates the necessary to “standardize” G.E. requirements, units, coded categories, and pre-requisites, so that seamless transfers between campuses may occur, it is nevertheless the case that each campus has different necessities and requirements. Moreover, far less than 1% of students actually transfer once admitted. That said, and truth be known, it was the Legislative Analyst’s Office when testifying at the Senate and Assembly Higher Education Committee hearings in April, who told them (I am paraphrasing here) “The CSU does not need $75 million for G.I. 2025. Their greatest impediment to increasing graduating rates is their emphasis on remediation courses and the number of freshmen that are being placed in them. The ELM and EPT do not predict academic success in subsequent coursework and using them to place students is suppressing graduation rates. Therefore, we recommend the CSU abandon them, substituting multiple measures as predictors and place students directly into credit enabling courses”. Given that resounding vote of no confidence for GI 2025, by the LAO, it is nothing short of a miracle that the Legislature increased Gov. Browns allocation to the CSU by some $37 million. You may see the exact language the LAO used by simply reading the text in AB97, Section 6610.001 1.4. It was taken almost verbatim from the hearings. That said, to defend against being railroaded, this is the time and these are the Orders that deserve data-driven evaluation, not executive proclamation. I suggest that in exchange for critical dialogue about us supporting their implementation, we can effect their support for an evaluation of these Orders, such that it will not only serve us in vetting this implementation but set the rules for doing so whenever future EO’s are forwarded.

Third, and related to any evaluation is the issue of “unintended consequences”. So often public policy is passed with the best of intentions but with no understanding of the latent dysfunctions or consequences. For example, Proposition 47, in releasing non-violent prisoners in California, intended to reduce the prison population and increase the participation in drug rehabilitation, yet in the two years since its implementation, it has achieved the opposite. It turns out,releasing drug-related convicts does not ensure they will participate in “voluntary” drug rehabilitation.

A similar fallacy is true in these Orders. Causing a student to “bypass” a remediation course does not, despite added funds for tutoring, mean the grad rates will rise. Quite the contrary, it may be the case that DFUs will increase dramatically, causing more repeated classes or dropouts and thereby decrease grad rates. Moreover, to the extent Cultural Studies coursework is systematically uncoupled (from section F) and scattered throughout the G.E. categories, while potentially increasing FTES for these courses, may have the unintended consequence of dismantling the identify fostered through the Cultural Studies Departments who evolved these courses. It is not the FTES or unit completion that matters but the identity of clustering those units that is the issue. We are trying to foster grad rates. One of the biggest correlates of student success in graduating is the sense of community and identification with the campus. Having run the campus climate survey for the past three years, it is evident that underrepresented minorities feel less connected to campus. Therefore, is it any wonder they have lower overall graduation rates? How is the declustering of courses that represent a student’s identity going to function to promote a sense of community and, therefore, increase grad rates? That said, by having a voice at the table, examining resources and costs, while collecting data, and reminding them of the history of our section F, we will have the opportunity to demonstrate the insanity of dismantling student identity with Cultural Studies defined courses.

These are among the reasons Academic Affairs, the committee that had penned the Resolution calling for rescission, deferred to FGA and supported our resolution which was ultimately passed unanimously, but for one abstention. I think we would do well (to use a legal metaphor) to consider the merits of arguing our case rather than to not show up for the hearing. I have had some degree of success in swaying AVCs Blanchard and CFO Relyea on other issues and believe much progress on all manner of generic fronts could be made in negotiating with them, using these Orders as the stimulus context. I hope you agree and modify your vote at the next Senate hearing.

Respectfully,
Jerry Schutte, Professor
CSUN Statewide Academic Senator

The motion to reconsider

I reported that the motion passed by CSUN’s Senate concerning the recent executive orders had been “frozen” by a procedural motion. Understandably, I’ve received a lot of requests for information about how that worked and what will happen at the next Senate meeting.

In this note, I’m just going to explain how reconsideration works. I’ve cut out all the explanations of why it works this way. That has, at least temporarily, saved you from digressions into the justifications of quirks which seem bizarre or unfair on first glance.

The motion that was used at the end of the Senate meeting was a special version of the motion to reconsider. Let’s start with the general case.

All motions have two stages: they are made (introduced, seconded, and stated) and then considered (debated, amended, voted upon). For almost every motion, making it automatically initiates consideration. If the motion is debatable, debate begins as soon as it has been seconded and stated by the Chair. When an undebatable motion is seconded, the Chair states the motion and immediately calls for the vote.

The motion to reconsider is an exception. When the motion to reconsider is made, a timer starts. If the motion is called up before the time limit expires, it gets considered (debated, voted upon). If it does not get called up in time, nothing happens apart from the unfreezing of any implementation of the original motion which had been frozen by the motion.

The special version of the motion to reconsider used at our Senate meeting was only special in that it cannot be called up on the same day that it is made, and it has a shorter time limit (the end of the next meeting). I had recommended it to the Senator who introduced it because those features make it transparent and definitive about when the motion will be called up.

When the motion to reconsider is called up, debate begins on whether to reopen the original motion. Calling up the motion does not require a second; it was already seconded when it was made.

The debate on whether to reconsider can legitimately go into the merits of the original motion. But it can also go beyond them. Anything relevant to the question of whether to reopen the original motion is in order. When debate concludes, the Senate votes on whether to reconsider the original motion.

If a majority votes in favor, the original motion is opened for consideration. There are no special rules at this point. It gets debated, amended, et cetera, and finally voted upon just like any other main motion. If the final vote fails, the outcome is the same as if there had been a motion to rescind: the Senate has no position on the matter the original motion concerned.

If a majority votes against reconsideration, the Senate goes on to its next business item. Any implementation of the original motion which had been frozen, unfreezes.

The vote on reconsider cannot be reconsidered. That way lies madness.

CSUN faculty take a stand

[Here is the note I sent to the campus and other stakeholders announcing and contextualizing the Senate’s decision.]

Colleagues,

CSUN has led the CSU with an innovative GE program that makes cross-cultural competence an essential area of study for all students, exactly on a par with the natural sciences, arts, humanities, and social sciences. Our program was approved, with praise, by the Chancellor’s Office in 2005. We have similarly taught thousands of FTES in upper-division Lifelong-Learning (GE area E), with nary a peep from the Chancellor’s Office.

In two extraordinary moves this summer, the Chancellor upended the curriculum at every CSU on an impossible timeline given campus curricular processes and the multiple responsibilities of every faculty member. With our innovative curriculum, CSUN has been hit particularly hard.

As a Chancellor’s Office staff member admitted on the floor of the ASCSU plenary, there is no pedagogical justification for the changes in EO1100 (revised). The demand for homogeneity between every CSU GE program from Humboldt to San Diego is based in the belief that it is unfair to require a transferring student to learn anything extra when they arrive from a different part of the state.

It is against this background of extraordinary behavior by the Chancellor’s Office that I report the Faculty of CSUN have chosen an extraordinary response.

At its September 28th meeting, the CSUN Faculty Senate, which is the only official voice of the Faculty at CSUN, passed the following motion:

The Faculty Senate of CSU Northridge and its Standing Committees will not participate in the implementation of Executive Order 1100 (revised) and Executive Order 1110.

Any changes to curriculum, including GE, must be approved by the Senate. Proposals to alter the curriculum must come to the Senate from the Standing Committees (including any task forces created under Bylaws V.1.2). Therefore, this decision prevents any action by the Faculty in implementing these Executive Orders.

However, a procedural motion was introduced which effectively freezes the implementation of this decision until the next Senate meeting (on October 26th). At the next meeting, the above motion will be reconsidered as a regular agenda item. If it passes then, the decision is locked in —it cannot be reconsidered during this academic year.

Sincerely,

Adam

To Hell in a Handbasket: GE and Other Fiascos

[The following is a commentary by Professor (nee Provost) Harry Hellenbrand]

To Hell in a Handbasket: GE and Other Fiascos

IS THERE A THERE, THERE?

Since the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) published its first “declaration of principles” in 1915, it has been generally understood that, in a university as opposed to a proprietary school, faculty have primacy over academic matters because of their expertise.1 This primacy, of course, is not exclusive. Legislators, trustees, and the administration share in the governance of academic matters. But if faculty consistently lose the last word on major academic matters, the university forfeits its ethical, if not technical, status as a university.2

The California State University (CSU) is far down the road to such forfeiture. (This argument applies to many public universities.)3 Faculty on term-limited appointments far outnumber the tenured and tenure-track faculty.4 By and large, contingent faculty are managed in ways that the tenured and tenure-track are not. They are hired to teach specific courses in specific ways. Often, they have little say in designing the curriculum. Their academic freedom is limited.

But then, how much self-determination do the tenured and tenure-track have as a faculty? Many of the courses that they teach must conform to the transfer templates for general education (GE) and for the major. These templates prescribe 50% of the courses for a baccalaureate degree. Pre- professional accreditations prescribe many of the other courses that tenured and tenure-track faculty teach. Perhaps no more than 25% of all courses express local faculty’s creation of a body of knowledge. Standardization has become the norm, as the CSU system has become more like a chain of franchises. It packages uniform skills for markets that determine those skills. In turn, the tenured and tenure-track faculty become more like the contingent faculty whom they help to manage.

COMPLIANCE SHERIFF

As faculty authority withers, campus self-rule in a system decreases. Central management moves in. In public comprehensive systems, central management tends to govern by enforcing compliance with a standard. Think, for instance, about the brouhaha that mods to PeopleSoft raised. Why is this so? Uniform practices eliminate the need to negotiate differences. Think of conversion from quarters to semesters. They provide administrators with a common denominator for decision-making.

Executive Order 1071 on tracks, emphases, and concentrations is an example of compliance thinking.5 It is a small beachhead in the current invasion into faculty and campus rights and responsibilities. Now, a specialization in a major cannot exceed 50% of the total credits in that major. There was no such rule previously. If its size persists, it must be presented as an entirely new program. The language that explains this change is revealing. A campus/president must get a “Chancellor’s certificate of compliance” with the new 50% rule before acting on specializations, tracks, and etc. This rule is necessary to meet “CSU policy and applicable law.” Without the rule, CSU will not conform to “reporting” standards in the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), the federal collection of higher education data.

These claims are mistaken. CSU policy (excepting this policy!) does not require such a rule. No federal or state law requires the campus rule. IPEDS warns that users should not view its data as “regulatory.” IPEDS leaves the definitions of emphasis, concentration, specialization, and etc., to the campuses.6

I am sure that CSU did not set out to misuse IPEDS. But it has. Now, I am not arguing against the sense of the rule; I am arguing against the way in which the rule was established. If the consultation with campuses claimed that law and reporting required this change, then the discussion was flawed. The thinking behind the rule also misunderstands how data should be used. Reporting requirements are more important than academic practices, the Executive Order implies. That implication does not bode well for relations between faculty and staff on the campuses and administrators in the Chancellor’s Office (CO).

MISSION

Frequently, rule-makers in central offices in higher education ignore the “loosely coupled” structure of university systems.7 In the CSU, campus mission statements respond mainly to region. That is why California State University, Northridge (CSUN) developed and the CSU approved (2005) area F (cross-cultural studies) in its GE program. The CO recently struck that category, however. It allegedly impedes student transfer from and to other campuses, especially within the CSU.

However, few students transfers from and to other CSUs.8 If there is a record of such complaints at CSUN, faculty were not told. Also, there is no obvious history of such complaints for transfers from the community colleges. The CSU Academic Senate does report that a student complained to a legislator about differing CSU requirements in GE.9 Shortly after that, Coded Memorandum 2016-19 asked that the campuses report requirements in GE that were in addition to A-E.10 That probably was when F was targeted. Sensitiveness to legislators’ complaints ignited this call for compliance in the CO. Complaints by a legislator often trump campus governance.

CONSULTATION

The CO could have consulted with CSUN before killing the category. Even if only a few students were affected, the few matter. No such communication occurred. This is unfortunate. There are many solutions that can preserve campus GE and mission, if indeed there is a problem. They all turn on the same strategy: put the student first. If a student transfers in with area F incomplete, evaluate that student by applying the GE scheme (CSU GE Breadth, IGETC, CSUN, or host/target campus) that is most favorable to the student.

The solution should be proportional to the problem. If 500 students are inconvenienced each term, then data justify a reconfiguration of CSUN GE. If 50 out of 4,000 transfers each term are affected (@1%), remedy but not reconfiguration is called for.

THE THRILLS AND SPILLS OF BASIC SKILLS

Inadequate consultation already has caused big problems in revamping CSU entry requirements and courses in basic composition and math in GE (Executive Order 1100). The Academic Senate is trying to stop the train, due to inadequate consultation.11 Consultation between the CO, the CSU Academic, the Senate’s GE Task Force (GETF), and the General Education Advisory Committee (GEAC) was adequate until spring, 2017. Then, GEAC asked the CO to extend the time for feedback on the emerging executive orders.12 Instead, the presidents were asked for their opinions on May 16, just as faculty were de-camping. The Executive Order was issued on August 23, just before faculty returned.13 But The GE committees had not yet made a recommendation to the Senate. The Senate had not yet consulted widely. It had not yet voted. It looks like the CO was avoiding having to make a data-based argument and conduct a campaign to win faculty’s hearts and minds.

That is too bad. There is research to justify the change.14 CSU must have supportive data, although the CSU Outcomes Report in 2016 did not make this recommendation.15 Nor did the “Quantitative Reasoning Task Force.”16 And you cannot get “there” from any of the reports on Early Start.17 The CO has not shown that its solution is proportional to the problem.

What is the alleged problem?

The problem with the current approach to remediation seems to be that it does not eliminate “equity gaps.”18 It delays the graduation and, in many cases, discourages the continuation of the very students that the graduation rate project is supposed to help. It is not entirely clear, however, that this is the case.19 But let’s assume it is. We then must ask whether the CSU is equipped to assume accountability for ending gaps that have been caused by the preceding twelve years of education, as well as by ongoing social inequity? Can the CSU reasonably be expected to make up for gaps in a multi-leveled educational system that funds the education of a graduate student in the University of California (UC) at many times the rate that it funds a K-12 pupil in Southwest LA? Are we confident that by retailoring remediation in the extreme, we are not opening other gaps inadvertently? We do not need a full answer now. But we do need a testable theory, methodology, and evidence plan to build confidence in the proposed changes.

The CO implies that there will be committees to develop something like this (Executive Order 1110).20 But how will that be done before fall, 2018? In fact, the entire timeline is too compressed. The C0 says that “implementation” begins in 2018, with the introduction of new or modified courses.21 That ignores all the background changes that must be implemented beforehand. By my clock, we already are two years behind. If programs require something like the “Chancellor’s certificate of compliance” in 1071, the time can be much longer.

How are faculty to configure new courses before the CSU develops and publicizes new placement standards? These changes will take . . . how long? And how will these standards tie into Common Core in the schools?22 Is the California Department of Education (CDoE) on board, so that our multiple measures correspond with theirs? Do we plan to continue co- programming with K-12 in the junior and senior years? Will all this be worked out before fall, 2018? How long will these considerations take?

I am concerned particularly about the fate of the lecturers, who work so diligently in remediation/ developmental courses. When we dissolve developmental courses and attach pieces of them to credit-bearing courses that fulfill GE, we affect employment. Unless we are thoughtful (and consult with CFA, too), we might craft courses—and thereby job descriptions— that freeze out many of the lecturers inadvertently. Will entitlements be wiped out or carried over? This transition must be done carefully; it cannot be done hastily. And it must be down after we know what the curriculum changes are and, of course, sufficiently before we advertise for, (re)hire, and (re)train faculty.

How will budgets be accounted for? CSU spends over $60,000,000 on remediation.23 Do we project these funds staying in basic skills? Planners need to know before they craft a different curriculum. Are campuses prepared for the Klondike onslaught of new claim-diggers in math?

WHAT IS TO BE DONE WITH GE?
  1. The CSU should approach the revamping of GE as a massive change project.24
  2. The CO and the Academic Senate should appoint several “eminence grise” (previousfaculty trustees, retired presidents) who can serve as advisors on process.
  3. The parties should agree on a route through governance for reviewing related proposals.
  4. The CO should prepare a data-based argument; it ought to request other groups, like the Quantitative Reasoning Task Force, to present their data and reasoning.
  5. The CO should make public any outcomes projections and methodologies.
  6. The CO should explain the ties to Common Core, Smarter Balance, and the junior and senior years.
  7. The CO should consider a phase-in that begins, say, with treatments of students, as cohorts, in the junior year in high school.
  8. The CO should begin to identify labor issues and solutions.
  9. The parties must agree on a reasonable time.
  10. The CO, GEAC, and GETF must identify a logical sequence for setting entry qualifications, course perquisites and content, outcomes, and assessment as a feedback loop.
  11. At the appropriate time, before submitting proposals for review, the CO and campuses will account for existing costs and projected costs.
    Notes

1 The Redbook, https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/RedBook%20Contents.pdf.
2 In particular, see the AAUP resolution in support of faculty control of the curriculum under similar circumstances in 2013, https://www.aaup.org/resolution-support-faculty-control-curriculum-city-university-new-york.
3 See for detail How the University Works: Higher Education and the Low-Wage Nation.
4 See Human Resources for 2015 in Statistical Tables in IPEDS, https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/Statistics.aspx.
5 See Executive Orders in CSU, https://www.calstate.edu/eo/EO-1071-rev-1-20-17.html.
6 Introduction to the Classification of Educational Programs, https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cipcode/Files/Introduction_CIP2010.pdf.
7 Weick, Karl, “Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21 (1976), 1-9.
8 See Table 28.13 on transfers in Academic Reports, Analytic Studies, CSU, http://www.calstate.edu/as/stat_reports/2016-2017/rfnse28.htm.
9 See for December, 2016, http://www.calstate.edu/acadsen/Newsletter/December_2016/resolution_summaries.shtml.
10 https://www.calstate.edu/AcadAff/codedMemos/ASA-2016-19.pdf an

11 See https://www.calstate.edu/eo/EO-1100-rev-8-23-17.html; and the Academic Senate’s resolution at http://www.calstate.edu/acadsen/Records/Resolutions/2017-2018/Documents/3304.shtml.
12 GEAC minutes, http://www.calstate.edu/app/geac/documents/2017/GEAC-March-2017-Minutes.pdf.
13 See the Coded Memorandum for May 16, 2017, http://www.calstate.edu/AcadAff/codedMemos/ASA-2017- 14.pdf. And see the Executive Order, https://www.calstate.edu/eo/EO-1100-rev-8-23-17.html.

14 For instance, see The Campaign for College Opportunity at http://collegecampaign.org/remedial-education- redesign/ ; and Carnegie Math Pathways, https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/in-action/carnegie-math- pathways/. See, too, Gleason, Barbara, “Remediation Phase-Out at CUNY: The ‘Equity versus Excellence’ Controversy,” College Composition and Communication, Vol. 51, #3 (February, 2000), 488-91.

15 See, for example, the regressions in CSU Outcomes Report (2016), 28ff, http://asd.calstate.edu/doc/CSU- Undergraduate-Outcomes-Report_FINAL.pdf.
16 http://www.calstate.edu/acadsen/Records/Resolutions/2016-2017/documents/3265.shtml.
17 http://www.calstate.edu/acadaff/earlystart/index.shtml.

18 See the Coded Memorandum, May 16, http://asd.calstate.edu/doc/CSU-Undergraduate-Outcomes- Report_FINAL.pdf.
19 The CSU Outcome Report, 11-13, shows similar graduation rates for black and white students who enter CSUN, needing remediation.
20 https://www.calstate.edu/eo/EO-1110.html.
21 See previous reference to Executive Order 1110.
22 http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/.
23 Derived from “Overview of Remediation at the States’ Higher Education Segments,” (Sacramento, CA: Legislative Analyst’s Office, March 1, 2017), 6, http://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/education/2017/Overview-Remedial- Education-State-Public-Higher-Education-Segments-030117.pdf.
24 See, for instance, Kotter, John P., Leading Change (Cambridge: Harvard Business School, 2002).

More articles on developmental ed/ remediation

 

For a slight change of pace, these concern some of the issues surrounding EO1110:

Improving the Quality of Education
Derek Bok (Inside Higher Ed)
By concentrating so heavily on graduation rates and attainment levels, policy makers are ignoring danger signs that the amount that students learn in college may have declined over the past few decades and could well continue to do so in the years to come.

Cal State is doing students no favors by getting rid of remedial math and English
Reader letters (L.A. Times)
Being placed in a remedial class should not be seen as a delay to graduation but rather an opportunity to learn and grow. Why the rush to graduate?

Here’s an interview with Senior Strategist James T. Minor: https://evolllution.com/attracting-students/accessibility/moving-away-from-non-credit-developmental-education-to-support-student-retention-and-success/

ASCSU Chair Miller at the BOT

 

Here’s the video of ASCSU Chair Miller’s presentation to the Board of Trustees this week. She does a great job of communicating the ASCSU’s views on EO1100 and EO1110.

[I’m having trouble getting the video to start at the right spot. Her report is at 01:06]

 

 

Here is a slightly modified version (to fit without the visuals) of her remarks: ASCSU Chair’s Report to Board September 2017

EO1100 resolutions media coverage

Here’s an article in the LA Times discussing the Statewide Academic Senate resolution (AS-3304) which calls for EO1100 (revised) and EO 1110 to be put in abeyance and the implementation deadline be extended to Fall 2019:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-cal-state-trustees-meeting-20170919-story.html

Here’s another article in EdSource:

https://edsource.org/2017/csu-faculty-rebel-against-changes-in-remedial-and-math-education-calls-for-delay/587650

I’m glad that the LA Times article picked up on this part

That fact that administrators were moving so fast, the resolution said, suggested that they are “more attuned to the pressures of outside forces than to the needs of its students and continuing faculty efforts to meet those needs.”

That’s the real issue with all this. Well-meaning state officials pressure the Chancellor’s Office. They could politely respond

We trust our campus faculty to design curricula which meet the needs of local employers and reflect the campus and community’s values and needs. California is a big state; artificial uniformity is superficially attractive but risks lasting harm to the state and its workforce.

But instead they make broad and sweeping changes to the entire system in order to demonstrate good faith progress on these officials’ well-meaning, but naive priorities.

That’s the calculus we must find a way to change.

Trustee Stepanek’s request to the BOT re EO1100 and EO1110

At the beginning of a Board of Trustees (BOT) standing committee session Faculty Trustee Stepanek (and CSUN Professor) made the following statement:

Faculty and campuses have been expressing concerns about the impact of EO 1110 and revised EO 1100 on their academic programs and courses. If you are not aware, EO 1110 pertains to changes in developmental programs for math and English, and the revised EO 1100 was intended to provide clarification of the parameters of General Education but has resulted in the need for significant changes to general education on some campuses without sufficient time for appropriate academic review. Both of these executive orders are closely tied to Graduation Initiative 2025 and also have connections to language in the 2017-2018 State Budget Act requiring the CSU Board to adopt several specific academic policy changes by May 1st, 2018.

I am requesting that an informational discussion be agenda-ized for the November 2017 meeting of the Committee on Educational Policy regarding the intent and impact of these executive orders and other activities being considered that relate to the policy changes the Board must approve by state statute by May 1st.

In the packet you received as part of Wednesday’s ASCSU report is an ASCSU resolution passed last week summarizing the concerns of CSU faculty and campuses regarding EO 1110 and the revised 1100. I highly recommend you read through this resolution.

As a bit of context, the BOT cannot discuss issues which weren’t on the publicly announced agenda. His statement should ensure that the discussion occurs at the November BOT meeting.

Statewide Academic Senate resolution on EO1100 and EO11100

At last week’s plenary, the ASCSU passed the following resolution.

On the Development and Implementation of Executive Orders 1100 (Revised) and 1110

AS-3304-17/FGA/AA/APEP


RESOLVED
: That the Academic Senate of the California State University (ASCSU) object to the severely time-constrained and flawed shared governance process and consultation surrounding Executive Order 1100 (revised) and Executive Order (EO) 1110 and insist that the practice of joint decision-making mandated in HEERA be respected and adhered to; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the ASCSU urge Chancellor White to immediately put EO 1100 (Revised) and EO 1110 into abeyance and defer their implementation date to, at earliest, Fall 2019; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the ASCSU request that, before any future implementation, the Chancellor’s Office engage in data-driven and genuine consultation with faculty, with the goals of refining both EO 1100 (revised) and EO 1110 and then implementing them on a mutually agreed upon timeline; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the ASCSU request that the Chancellor’s Office work with the campuses to develop an analysis of the costs of wholesale modification of the General Education (GE) and academic preparation portions of the curriculum and share that analysis widely; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the requested analysis specifically focus on resource allocation mechanisms on the campuses and the potential deleterious effects on student success and programs, such as ethnic and cultural diversity studies, resulting from implementation of EO 1100 (revised) and EO 1110; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the ASCSU requests that the Chancellor’s Office ensure that the multiple measures approach called for by EO 1110 assess foundational quantitative reasoning proficiency (as outlined in the Quantitative Reasoning Task Force Report, page 17, Recommendation IIC); and be it further

RESOLVED: That the ASCSU urge Chancellor White to reinstate the recently lifted moratorium on changes in Ethnic Studies programs and departments1 until at least Fall 2019 to ensure that Ethnic Studies programs, departments, and faculty are integral to the fair and regular academic planning process of each campus; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the ASCSU request that the Chancellor’s Office collaborate with the ASCSU in developing a plan for monitoring the efficacy of the changes in General Education and academic preparation curricula, and that the details of this  plan be communicated to campus stakeholders early enough to be considered in campus curriculum planning; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the ASCSU distribute this resolution to the CSU Board of Trustees, CSU Chancellor, CSU campus Presidents, CSU campus Senate Chairs, CSU Provosts/Vice Presidents of Academic Affairs, CSU campus articulation officers, California Faculty Association (CFA), California State Student Association (CSSA), CSU Emeritus and Retired Faculty Association (ERFA), California Community College Chancellor, California Community College Academic Senate, CSU Ethnic Studies Council and Chairs, CSU Math Council, CSU English Council, and CSU World Language Council


RATIONALE
: CSU faculty and campus constituents have expressed serious concerns about the adequacy of the consultation, the content, and the timeline of revised Executive Order 1100 and newly released Executive Order 1110. The two require vast curricular changes, which bring into question the need for the hasty release of these Executive Orders during the summer break, a time when only a handful of ASCSU faculty representatives were available. The insistence by the Chancellor’s Office that the CSU needed to move forward at such a pace suggests
that the administration is more attuned to the pressures of outside forces than to
the needs of its students and continuing faculty efforts to meet those needs.

When an Executive Order (EO) is issued, time is needed to understand and interpret the changes and engage in clarifying conversations. Campuses also need time to discuss changes and develop appropriate curricular and pedagogic responses. CSU faculty are experts and researchers in their fields who must be relied upon when the system contemplates major changes in curriculum design. We contend that the revision to EO 1100 and the newly released EO 1110 did not arise from the fulsome shared governance process needed to reflect faculty expertise, and therefore the Senate and the faculty it represents are compelled to reject changes in curricula that do not originate through such a fulsome process.

Changes to basic curriculum policy need thoughtful consideration informed by a nuanced understanding of the rationale and impacts of proposed changes on the quality of education that CSU campuses provide and that our students deserve. In the case of EO 1100 (revised), those impacts include the consequences of acceptance of all online courses, reciprocity of all upper division GE courses, and the implications of allowing all GE courses to be double counted (EO 1100 Section 2.2.6.1).

Further, some of the unintended consequences of a rushed and poorly designed implementation can be illustrated with Ethnic Studies courses which affect students who benefit from exposure to the diverse perspectives that these courses provide. Campuses need time and resources to determine how best to proceed without damaging these courses, the programs that offer them, and the students who benefit from exposure to the diverse perspectives that these courses provide. If these courses are overlaid on GE requirements, switching the overlay may require a new course and/or new learning outcomes and also assumes the needed expertise to teach a cultural competency course. Other content areas also need thoughtful campus attention.

Therefore, implementation of the two Executive Orders must be put into abeyance until at least Fall 2019, and a data-driven, collaborative analysis of the impacts of these Executive Orders must be undertaken in concert with ASCSU and campus senates. Such analysis should focus specifically on cost, resource allocation, and the impact on departments and programs. Moreover, specific attention should be paid to defining foundational proficiency in the use of multiple measures for assessing quantitative reasoning, and to reinstating the moratorium on changes to Ethnic Studies departments and programs. The Chancellor’s Office should partner with ASCSU to develop a plan to monitor the efficacy of changes to General Education and to academic preparation.

Approved – September 14-15, 2017

1Excerpt from letter from Chancellor White to CSU Community (https://www.calstate.edu/AcadAff/ethnicstudiesreport.pdf): “The second set of recommendations (Recommendations 10.1-10.3) focus on maintaining the moratorium that has been in place for the past 2-1/2 years with respect to changes in ethnic studies programs and departments, particularly faculty reductions. I accept the task force recommendations to maintain the moratorium during AY 2016- 17 for review, discussion and response to the report, and lift the moratorium effective July 2017. I also expect that any campus decisions regarding the status and administrative design of ethnic studies departments and programs will take the report’s contents into consideration. But the ethnic studies report should not constrain the regular academic planning process of each campus, rather it should be one factor that informs the planning.”

 

Here’s the link to the resolution itself: https://www.calstate.edu/acadsen/Records/Resolutions/2017-2018/Documents/3304.shtml

GEAC letter to Chancellor White regarding EO1100 and EO1110

The following is a letter from the Chancellor’s General Education Advisory Committee (composed of faculty and administrators from CSU and community college [CCC] campuses) to the Chancellor

Dr. Timothy P. White, Chancellor

The California State University, Office of the Chancellor
401 Golden Shore, Long Beach, CA 90802

Dear Chancellor White:

The General Education Advisory Committee (GEAC) is charged with offering you advice regarding the General Education Breadth requirements of the CSU. I write as Chair of that committee to request that implementation of Executive Orders 1100 and 1110 be delayed for at least one academic year.  This request has the unanimous support of the voting members of the committee.

At its meeting on Tuesday, September 12, 2017, the committee heard from numerous members that the time-line for implementation of these Executive Orders (EOs) is simply too short.  EO 1110 was issued on August 2 and EO 1100 was released on August 23.  That leaves only a short time for faculty to modify existing courses and programs or create new programs if implementation remains as fall, 2018.

While the specific concerns raised by GEAC members is too long to recount here, please allow me to identify some of the major issues discussed.

First, all EOs create some confusion.  Language that appears clear to those who spend their time in GE policy discussions can be confusing to campus committees and faculty.  This was evident at the GEAC meeting where many questions were raised.  Dr. Alison Wrynn, State University Associate Dean, Academic Programs, worked diligently to clarify September 18, 2017 the EOs, but the sheer number questions illustrate the difficulty of interpreting policy changes without sufficient guidance.

Second, the EOs call for the elimination of remedial mathematics.  This may be a laudable goal, but the California Community College (CCC) members of GEAC made clear that they not only had questions, but serious concerns about the ability of mathematics departments in their system to make the changes necessary to implement these new requirements by fall, 2018.  The CCC faculty first want to see what the CSU campuses choose to do, then will use that information as guidance for their own actions.  In addition, one CSU Articulation Officer stated that over half of the CSU’s Articulation Officers believe that there is not enough time to make these changes successfully on CSU campuses.  The Mathematics faculty at some CSU campuses have made the same arguments.  The was a “Mathematics Summit” last spring, and another is planned for later this fall, but the curriculum changes are due to campus committees prior to the second summit.  Finally, it is planned that CSU mathematics courses for first-time freshmen will build upon what is achieved in Early Start, but changes to Early Start will not be implemented until summer of 2019.  CSU Mathematics faculty claim it would be better to implement these simultaneously.

Third, EO 1100 specified that campuses cannot require more than 48-units (or 49 if there is a lab).  In addition, all upper division GE units must occur in Blocks B (Scientific Inquiry and Quantitative Reasoning), C (Arts & Humanities), and D (Social Sciences). Currently, many (well over half) of CSU campuses exceed the newly permissible number of units and many also have upper division units outside of Blocks B, C, and D.  Forcing CSU campuses to modify their General Education Programs to meet these two requirements has created great confusion and concern on CSU campuses.  Many of the courses currently outside of the B, C, and D blocks are offered by Ethnic and other Cultural Studies Departments. Campus faculty fear that moving these courses will endanger the programs, the faculty they employ, and most importantly, the students they serve.  Perhaps, given time, changes can be made without adversely impacting these programs, the faculty and the students, but such campus conversations require time.  The current implementation date does not permit such conversion.

I apologize for the length of this correspondence, but wish to make one final point.  GEAC did NOT call for the rescinding of the Executive Orders.  It requested that you delay their implementation.  Given time, the orders can be implemented as they are or modified through additional conversation within the shared governance processes.  No members of GEAC disputed the desirability of ensuring that GE requirements are clear and equitable to both first-year and transfer students.  Nor did the members challenge the idea that changes can facilitate graduation and help to close or eliminate the achievement gap.  Our values coincide.  We just do not want to rush these changes and make mistakes.  We want to get it right the first time.  Providing CSU and CCC faculty with at least an additional year for implementation will enable us to more successfully pursue this goal.

We believe that the Executive Orders have made it clear to internal and external audiences that the CSU is committed to changing its placement and GE requirements.  Delaying implementation will make it clear to CSU and CCC faculty that you have heard their reasoned voices.  We hope that you agree.

Respectfully submitted,

Kevin Baaske, Chair
General Education Advisory Committee
Member, Academic Senate California State University
Faculty, California State University Los Angeles

September BOT

As if there wasn’t enough going on, the Board of Trustees is meeting September 19-20.

A link to livestream the meeting will appear here: https://www2.calstate.edu/csu-system/board-of-trustees

The ASCSU Chair will present the resolutions on recent executive orders during her address. I will update this post if I get advance notice of the time (the BOT schedule is pretty fluid so it’s hard to guess in advance).

The Chancellor’s Office view on compliance with executive orders

At the last ASCSU plenary, I asked Executive Vice Chancellor Blanchard* what would happen if a campus refused to comply with an executive order so that I could respond accurately if am asked during Senate deliberations.

Here is the email he sent to the ASCSU in response. Obviously, caveat lector:

Decisions regarding curricula and required general education courses are specifically excluded from the scope of representation under HEERA, so implementing a change to general education requirements does not give CFA standing to claim a violation of the collective bargaining agreement. The Board of Trustees maintains the power to establish curricula, and may authorize a campus to establish curricula (Ed. Code 40100). The Board has delegated to the Chancellor the authority to establish and oversee all academic programs and issue degrees (BOT Standing Orders). Although we frequently consult with the Academic Senate CSU and the campuses on curriculum issues, there is no requirement to obtain the approval of the Senate prior to implementing changes to general education requirements. Nevertheless, in this case, ASCSU and Academic Affairs Division agreed to the consultation process that was carried out for EO 1100.

Loren J. Blanchard, Ph.D.
Executive Vice Chancellor
Academic and Student Affairs
CSU

For context, a correspondent from the CO sets out their thinking a bit more:

Title 5 gives the Chancellor the authority to establish policy requirements, and faculty create curricula within policy framework. This is a very separate issue from our governance practices, which do involve regular consultation with the senate on ongoing issues and especially in curricular policy development. A strong relationship between Dr. Blanchard and the senate resulted in an agreed-upon consultation process this past March, which you can see in the enclosed memo [ 17-03-15 LJB to C. Miller re EO1100 Memo-1] and in the Chair’s report

In fairness to EVC Blanchard, it is true that they did engage in consultation with members of the ASCSU during the summer prior to issuing the executive orders. Here’s Chair Miller’s report which discusses this: http://www.calstate.edu/AcadSen/Records/Chairs_Reports/documents/ASCSU_Chair-Summer_2017_Report.pdf

Thus it is not fair to say that there was no consultation; the appropriate charge is that it was insufficient. Indeed, during the Plenary EVC Blanchard himself said something to the effect that the exigencies of the situation necessitated moving forward with less consultation than he would’ve liked.**

* His position is analogous to the Provost of the CSU system.

** I won’t speculate on what these perceived exigencies were since I don’t have any direct evidence to proffer.

Teach-in on EO1100

Passing this along for those who are interested :

EXECUTIVE ORDER TEACH IN

September 19th, 2017

Aronstam Library (MZ 240) 6pm-8pm

Our goal is to discuss the Executive Order 1100/1110 and their implications for CSUN Students, Faculty, and CSUs. To commit to a strategy for the September 28th Faculty Senate meeting and how to further mobilize this issue.

Here’s the flyer: EO FLYER 2017

(Just so it’s clear: the Senate isn’t formally involved with this event. I’m going to try my best to attend; I encourage anyone who is interested to do the same. )

A statement on the moral status of GE Category F and the demand to discard it

The following is a statement by Dr. Brian Burkhart, Director of CSUN’s American Indian Studies program

Why is Category F so important and why is comprising with a G.E. structure sans Category F a comprising of CSUN’s values and integrity?

To understand Category F, we must understand the history and structural reality of Ethnic Studies, Gender and Women’s Studies, and Queer Studies. First, these areas of study exist because the structure of the U.S. academy is white-centric, settler colonial, patriarchal, and heteronormative. The very existence of Ethnic Studies, Gender and Women’s Studies, and Queer Studies is a daily reminder to all so-called “traditional” departments and to the institution itself of this fact, a reminder of the fact of its inadequacy to some or the fact of its properness even being called into question in the first place to others. There is a structural reality within the academy and individual institutions regardless of individual intent and understanding that wants to rid itself of these special “diversity” subjects. The push is always either toward a supposedly diverse enough future where the so-called “traditional” departments will once again be enough or a push toward a past before the academy was forced to consider the realities of white supremacy, settler coloniality, patriarchy, and heteronormativity as flaws in its structure. This reality creates a certain kind of continual struggle against the academy and even the individual institution of higher learner for every Ethnic Studies, Gender and Women’s Studies, and Queer Studies department, a struggle that has no end except in the eradication of this departments all together.

This is why these department were always born out of struggle. In the 1960s there were some Native scholars trying to make it in the academy. They spoke as loudly as they could in their Anthropology departments that Native people were human beings and should not be study as artifacts, as bones on a laboratory table. They spoke as loudly as they could in their History departments that Native people were human beings and should be able to tell their stories with their own voices. No one listened! And they had no real power in the structure of the academy that did not want its intentions and values questioned. Native people just like everyone else in Ethnic Studies, Gender and Women’s Studies, and Queer Studies had to take to the streets. They occupied Alcatraz, The Bureau of Indian Affairs, Wounded Knee. They put their lives on the line, where people bleed, died, and spent life in prison. What they were asking and American Indian Studies continues to ask is simple. We want to be treated as human beings. We no longer want to be treated as objects of study, as artifacts. We want our ancestors remains kept off the laboratory tables. We want to be able to tell our own story, to speak about our history and values with our own voice. American Indian Studies (just like every other Ethnic Studies, Gender and Women’s Studies, and Queer Studies) helps us to move this request forward. It pushes open a space where we have the freedom to create our own curriculum in relation to our communities, values, and histories.

Category F at CSUN was created with a clear understanding of this history. Ethnic Studies, Gender and Women’s Studies, and Queer Studies must be free to create their own curriculum within the G.E. in the relation to the so-called “traditional” disciplines. Ethnic Studies, Gender and Women’s Studies, and Queer Studies must have the power of being on an equal level with so-called “traditional” A-D departments in the G.E. Category F was created at CSUN with a clear understanding of the history and continual struggle of Ethnic Studies, Gender and Women’s Studies, and Queer Studies within an academy and institution that is structural antagonistic to those programs and their very purpose, which is to upset and even possibly change the narratives of the so-called “traditional” departments. Any capitulation to the removal of Category F from CSUN’s G.E. is a comprise of CSUN’s integrity. For CSUN to say that we will bring Ethnic Studies, Gender and Women’s Studies, and Queer Studies on to an equal line with so-called “traditional” A-D departments in the G.E. was an expression of moral courage. To say now that we are willing to comprise that decision and once again bring Ethnic Studies, Gender and Women’s Studies, and Queer Studies under the so-called “traditional” A-D departments at the request of the Chancellor will be an act of moral cowardice. We have to have the strength and courage to stand behind important and deeply moral decisions that we have made. I believe that the decision to create Category F was one of those absolutely important and deeply moral decisions that CSUN made with a clear understanding of what that decision meant. Now is not the time to lose our courage and conviction. Please stand against any compromise of the value of Category F in the light of how absolutely important it is a marker of what CSUN has been able to accomplish in creating real structural and intellectual change in General Education at a University

Brian Burkhart
Director/Associate Professor
American Indian Studies
California State University, Northridge

Statement on EO1100 by the Chairs and Coordinators in Africana Studies, American Indian Studies, Asian American Studies, Central American Studies, Chicana/o Studies, and Gender and Women’s Studies

Statement on the Revised Executive Order 1100

The Department Chairs and Coordinators of Africana Studies, American Indian Studies, Asian American Studies, Central American Studies, Chicano/a Studies, and Gender and Women’s Studies at California State University, Northridge (CSUN) emphatically reject the revision of the Executive Order 1100 (EO 1100), which was released by the California State University Chancellor’s Office (CO) Wednesday, August 23, 2017.

EO 1100 eviscerates CSUN’s unique and exemplary Section F “Comparative Cultural Studies/Gender, Race, Class, and Ethnicity Studies, and Foreign Languages,” denying CSUN students an education based on cultural competency and respect for diversity. It flagrantly undermines the autonomy of CSUN’s Faculty Governance and demonstrates disdain toward the democratic consultation processes, as well as contempt towards our Departments and Programs that are deeply affected by EO 1100. The rationale provided by the CO was General Education (GE) consistency across the CSU system and CSU portability to respond to the alleged high transfer rates of students within the CSU system. No hard evidence was presented that such high rates of transfer exist making EO 1100 drastic and unjustifiable.

We collectively resist and reject this violation of Faculty Consultation and Governance. These proposed changes reinforce the already profound divisions that exist in our society. Whereas K- 12 education recognizes a need for “cultural competency” amongst its students and moves to implement “diversity requirements” (AB 2016 Ethnic Studies in 2016; FAIR Education Act in 2012), and whereas other CSU and UC campuses are also considering adopting similar requirements for taking critical race/ethnicity/gender/sexuality/deaf/disability studies courses, the CO moves us backward. EO 1100 also contradicts the findings of the CSU Task Force on the Advancement of Ethnic Studies (2016) that recommends to Chancellor White:

  • Establish a system wide GE requirement in Ethnic Studies (which includes Gender and Women Studies and Queer/LGBT Studies), to better prepare students as democratic global citizens.
  • “Aid in fostering and creating a climate conducive to reaffirming ethnic studies’ central role in diversity and equity initiatives as they relate to people of color.”
  • Build on and expand best practices by providing and supporting appropriate resources, policies and programmatic initiatives.
  • “Maintain the moratorium on any negative changes to ethnic studies departments and programs during the period of review, discussion and response to this report.”

More blatantly, EO 1100 thwarts the CSU 2025 graduation initiative. The graduation initiative’s data demonstrates that student graduation rates are higher when students feel a sense of belonging, and when the classes being offered reflect their own personal experiences and histories. EO 1100 undermines all the current efforts being implemented on our campus to achieve higher graduation rates. While the administration on the CSUN campus has negotiated with the CO, without the participation of faculty, a mechanism whereby we shift all the Section F requirements (138 courses) to Sections C or D, we are not persuaded by this concession because it still will have negative effects on our departments.

Given our current social and political climate and the demographics of California, we need to continue to resist attacks on historically excluded peoples on the basis of race, gender, sex, and sexuality, and to support departments and programs that protect and empower our communities.

We choose to fight to maintain Section F of the GE Requirements because CSUN’s Section F Requirement recognizes and makes visible and tangible the interdisciplinary character of our academic fields, as well as its indispensable contribution to a democratic and culturally diverse society. Section F makes CSUN a leader in diversity and social justice issues at a time when ethical and critical thinking is most desperately needed.

  • We demand the repeal of the revised EO 1100, dated August 23, 2017, to prevent unnecessary harm to our students, departments and programs.
  • We demand the implementation of recommendations made by the CSU Task Force on the Advancement of Ethnic Studies (Crucially, the GE diversity requirements that can be taken in ethnic studies, gender and women’s studies, LGBTQI+ studies, deaf studies, and disability studies), and the adherence, and continuation of the moratorium that protects us from harmful policies.
  • We demand that the cost/benefit analysis that was used to rationalize the revised EO 1100 be transparent and made public.
  • We demand that CSUN’s GE Requirements, Section F remain intact and become the model for the rest of the CSU System.
  • We demand that the College of Humanities and the College of Social Behavioral Sciences defend our departments and programs in our efforts to keep Section F intact.
  • We demand from the President and the Provost of CSUN to stand behind us and be consistent with the Mission, Values and Vision of CSUN, and to keep Section F intact.
  • We invite others to join us in the fight against this revised EO 1100.

The Original Co-Authors:

  • Africana Studies Department Chair Theresa White, Ph.D.
  • American Indian Studies Coordinator Brian Burkhart, Ph.D.
  • Asian American Studies Department Chair Gina Masequesmay, Ph.D.

The Co-Signers:

  • Central American Studies Department Chair Douglas Carranza, Ph.D.
  • Chicano Studies Department Chair Gabriel Gutierrez, Ph.D.
  • Gender and Women’s Studies Department Chair Breny Mendoza, Ph.D.
  • Kathryn Sorrells, Ph.D., Communications Studies Department Chair
  • Vicky Jensen, Ph.D., Criminology and Justice Studies Department Acting Chair
  • Flavia S. Fleischer, Ph.D., Deaf Studies Department Chair
  • Kent Baxter, Ph.D., English Department Chair
  • Susan Fitzpatrick Behrens, Ph.D., History Department Chair
  • Jane Bayes, Ph.D., Institute of Gender, Globalization and Democracy Director
  • Jody Myers, Ph.D., Jewish Studies Program Director
  • Ranita Chatterjee, Ph.D., Liberal Studies Director
  • Nayereh Tohidi, Ph.D., Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies Director
  • Tim Black, Ph.D., Philosophy Department Chair
  • Kenneth V. Luna, Ph.D., Linguistics/TESL Department Chair
  • Rick Talbott, Ph.D., Religious Studies Department Chair
  • Mary-Pat Stein, Ph.D., Queer Studies Program Coordinator
  • Eli Bartle, Ph.D., Social Work Department Chair
  • Karen Morgaine, Ph.D., Sociology Department Chair

Supporters:

  • The College of Humanities Academic Council

Here it is in pdf form: ES&GWS StatementSept16

Chicana/o Studies statement on EO1100 and petition

The following is from Dr. Gabriel Gutiérrez, Chair of Chicana/o studies

It has become evident that each CSU campus is affected in varied ways by the recent Executive Orders (EO 1100 and EO 1110) released by the CSU Chancellor’s Office over the summer.

I am writing to ask that you 1) please share the CSUN Chicana/o Studies Department statement …with your students, staff, faculty and community members to help spread the word about the fight at CSU Northridge. The statement is also available at the following link: https://www.csun.edu/sites/default/files/CHS_EO100_Statement_Sept12-2017.pdf

I also ask that you 2) please sign and share the petition to Repeal EO 1100 as widely as possible. This petition was started by Gina Masequesmay, Chair of Asian American Studies at CSUN.

The petition to Repeal EO 1100 can be found at the following link: https://www.change.org/p/12243754/preview

Thank you once again for your solidarity. There will be more to come.

President Harrison’s statement on DACA (with resource links)

Here is President Harrison’s statement on the likely elimination of DACA. It contains several useful links to resources, FAQ’s, and policy.

To the Campus Community:

In my statement to the campus community last week, I advised that I would provide you with updates on DACA as appropriate. Today, we learned that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program will be eliminated within six months unless Congress acts to institute new legislation. I want you to know that I have joined leaders of colleges and universities across the nation in urging Congressional representatives to help forge a legislative solution that, at a minimum, sustains the existing provisions of DACA.

At CSUN, we are keenly aware and proud of the strength and resilience of our DACA and undocumented students who have found ways to achieve their educational goals in the face of unrelenting adversity. We understand that our institutional identity and vitality depend upon preserving a sense of belonging for all in our community. As I shared last week, CSUN is committed to educating, supporting and protecting all students regardless of immigration status. Today’s action does not diminish that support and commitment. Indeed, as is currently the case, qualified applicants who are undocumented will continue to be admitted to the CSU, and the provisions of AB 540 and the California Dream Act will continue to apply for all eligible students.

I want to once again share important resources. This California State University student website and Frequently Asked DACA-related Questions include vital information on financial aid, work eligibility and legal resources. CSUN has also compiled additional resources and information on this website.

Just last week we officially opened the CSUN Student Legal Support Clinic, which is located on the third floor of the Oviatt Library. In addition to other matters where students may need legal assistance, the free legal clinic is especially prepared to address the unique issues confronting undocumented students. I continue to be grateful for the powerful work being done at the CSUN Dream Center. The Center opened in 2016, and it continues to support the success of our undocumented students while providing resources that are particularly helpful during these challenging times.

I want to reiterate that we do not undertake efforts with federal immigration enforcement authorities to investigate, detain or arrest individuals for violations of federal immigration law. Please remember, any and all inquiries from federal, state or local officials received on campus regarding immigration status should be immediately referred to CSUN’s Department of Police Services (DPS) at (818) 677-2111. DPS will act as a liaison with the on-site officials and will coordinate with the CSU Office of General Counsel to provide guidance, references and resources as available. Please review the document FAQs for California State University Employees about Federal Immigration Enforcement Actions on University Property for further guidance.

Thank you to those of you who have written to me to express your support as we continue to reaffirm our unwavering commitment to maintaining an accessible, safe and welcoming institution for all. I am encouraged and inspired by the many ways you find to support all members of our Matador Family.

Sincerely,

Dianne F. Harrison, Ph.D.

President

EO1100: A perspective from Gender and Women’s Studies

 

Here’s a powerful piece from the Chair of our Department of Gender and Women’s Studies.

EO 1100 and the Downfall of CSUN Faculty

By Breny Mendoza, Ph.D., Chair of the Department of Gender & Women’s Studies

The stunning announcement of the Executive Order 1100 just two days before classes started which mutilated Comparative Cultural Studies GE requirements at CSUN with absolutely no faculty consultation revealed at least three sets of issues: 1) faculty governance is dead, faculty disenfranchisement has come full-circle and administrator rule is modeled after authoritarian forms of government 2) ethnic studies and gender & women’s studies departments can disappear with just a stroke of a pen at the whim of administrators with flawed conceptions of the humanities and are negotiable in exchange for a few concessions 3) faculty acquiescence and fatigue are part of the problem.

None of these revelations should come as a surprise. The US American university has been undergoing deep transformations since the late 70s which is when neoliberalism began its march through the institutions. By now dozens of books have been written about the privatization and corporatization of the university. Private and public universities all have come under the aegis of administrators and staffers that have no respect or understand the value of research and education. They serve only the interests of trustees, presidents, provosts, and deans. Most of us are aware that there is such a thing as administrator bloat in our universities. They by far outnumber and outearn the faculty now. A new report shows that the CSU system has hired administrators at twice the rate of faculty. Contingency faculty or so-called part-time faculty (an ironic name to call faculty who are teaching at least 5 courses a semester to stay afloat) now compose 75% of the faculty at US American universities. Many of them are on welfare. There should be no doubt in our minds that the profession has lost its power and prestige. It is at the verge of extinction and losing its last vestiges of dignity.

The degradation of the faculty at a so-called Hispanic-serving institution like CSUN and the evisceration of its ethnic studies and gender & women’s studies departments has its own particularities. Their students belong to the most marginalized sectors of US society and many of their faculty share their status. Disenfranchising faculty that are already socially disenfranchised because they belong to the wrong gender, race, ethnicity, national origin or perhaps are not even US citizens is a no-brainer. Dumbing down the mission of the Hispanic-serving university and the mission of these disciplines comes easy to administrators that have never understood the purpose of gender and women’s departments and ethnic studies nor have held high expectations of the students they serve nor the faculty they hire.

The purpose of EO 1100 was never to improve the undergraduate education of underserved students by enlarging the number and variety of courses that can address emerging fields and new concepts in the humanities that can make a difference in their lives. Curricular needs are largely unknown to administrators, boards of trustees and legislators. EO 1100 is a top-down intervention that with surgical precision removes the most important advances in the humanities and the social sciences from the curriculum. Portability of GE courses across campuses is a pretext of administrators to gain even more control of the curriculum. They are not interested in curriculum content (how can they?), they are only interested in bringing the numbers down, not of their salaries, but of the number of students that are unable to graduate because of the especially difficult circumstances in which they acquire a degree. The goal is a profound reorganization of the CSU that begins with the drastic reduction of the number of students, faculty and the debasement of academic life. Under the cover of student success, a complete reorganization of the GE requirements is now being imposed on the faculty that never had a say in it. An already embattled faculty with an excessive work load now have with lightning speed to comply with a GE reform that is against the interests of their departments and their students.

The combination of decades of erosion of faculty governance, the social fascism that neoliberalism has produced and the rise of an authoritarian regime based on an ideology of white male supremacy conspire against a revolt of the faculty. For too long faculty have been spectators of their own demise. Today we either dig in our heels or dig our own graves. What shall we choose? Wake up CSUN!

EO1100: Justifying a rushed timeline

If ‘favorite’ meant ‘most enraging’, I’d be torn, but probably vote for #2 in the FAQ’s distributed with EO1100 as my favorite frequently asked question.

Q: Can we delay implementation until fall 2019 to give us more time for the curricular changes we need to carry out?

A: It would be difficult to justify delaying the benefits afforded by these policy changes, which increase opportunities for student success and facilitate efficient degree completion. Student- supportive policy changes include:

  •  Intermediate Algebra is no longer required as the uniform prerequisite for all courses in CSU General Education Breadth Area B4 Mathematics/Quantitative Reasoning.
  • Approved GE Area B4 courses may now include non-algebra intensive courses such as game theory, statistics pathways, statistics for majors, computer science and personal finance, for example.
  • Major courses and campus-wide required courses that are approved for GE credit shall also fulfill (double count for) the GE requirement.
  • To facilitate efficient degree completion systemwide, 48 semester units1 is set as both the minimum and maximum for total GE units. Stand-alone one-unit GE laboratory courses may increase the maximum to 49 units. (See question #17);
  • To ensure efficient completion of lower-division certification and transfer from CCC campuses, coupled with efficient degree completion at the CSU, this policy clarifies that the nine units of upper-division GE courses are taught only in Areas B, C and D.

Maybe “it would be difficult to justify” just leaves some wiggle room for the Chancellor’s Office to magnanimously grant more time down the road after it’s clear that campuses have dropped all their current student success initiatives and other priorities to focus on curriculum.

But that wouldn’t be the, ahem, bold and audacious leadership we’ve come to expect. Thus I’m reading this literally: The folks behind EO1100 genuinely struggled but could not come up with a justification. Despite their best efforts, the benefits just…seemed…too….great.

Fortunately, I teach ethics and value theory. The structure of these kinds of justification is right up my alley. So, I’m happy to help:

To justify an action based on its consequences, one needs to look at both the expected harms* and expected benefits. It is indeed difficult to justify anything if one only tots up the expected benefits.

Oh, and remember, we are talking about the imposed timeline. In this instance, it is not the changes that you need to justify, it’s the speed with which they are made. Sloppy, rushed curricular processes can lead to patchy or incoherent curriculum. That’s bad in itself. It’s particularly bad when accredited programs depend on GE to cover certain content.

See how useful consultation is? If anyone at the CO would like to share the models and projections they used to make this decision, I can be even more helpful….

In fact, here’s a bonus pro-tip: efficiency is a property of systems. Individuals can benefit from efficient systems. But switching back and forth between the two sorts of values in justification is a recipe for moral travesty.**

* Note that in this value system, students are harmed by learning things that aren’t required by the curriculum.

** See Part IV of Derek Parfit’s Reasons and Persons, or at least some of the explainers on Repugnant Conclusion, the Mere Addition Paradox, and, IIRC, Hell III.

EO1100: Update

It appears we have an agreement with the Chancellor’s Office (the CO) which averts the crisis facing the ethnic studies departments, gender and women’s studies, queer studies, and other departments with heavy enrollment in area F of GE.

It looks like we will be able to come into compliance with EO1100 by removing F without harming departments/programs with heavy enrollment in it. It looks like we can do this without diluting FTES in departments who teach in areas C (Arts and Humanities) and D (Social Science).

However, nothing is a done deal until it has been passed by the Senate and signed by President Harrison. It will take a great deal of effort to make sure this works. But I’m cautiously breathing a small sigh of relief over what would’ve been catastrophic implications of EO1100’s proscription of section F.

That relief cannot last for long. EO1100’s prescriptions in area E (lifelong learning) still look likely to do terrible, though probably not existential, damage to many departments across the university. HHD seems likely to be hardest hit.

The danger has not passed. A patchy or incoherent curriculum harms our students. I cannot believe that is what the Legislature intends for us to provide. Yet it is what EO1100 still threatens. I know we will rise to the challenge; if only because we must.

Before we jump into the next challenge, I want to acknowledge that the agreement over F is the result of an extraordinary effort by many people at CSUN and their allies.

To their credit as leaders, Chancellor Tim White and Executive Vice Chancellor Loren Blanchard were willing to change their minds and pursue a solution. They worked closely with President Dianne Harrison, Provost Yi Li, and AVP Elizabeth Adams to hash out an agreement based in part on an idea suggested by Sheena Mahotra (Gender & Women’s Studies) and Scott Andrews (American Indian Studies).

Until yesterday, there was no indication that we would receive any accommodation from the CO. When EO1100 was issued, the CO knew the effects on our programs. They calculated that the benefits of easily transferring between campuses outweighed the harms. Thus a great deal of the credit for changing their calculus must go to activism by faculty, administrators and staff, students, and allies.

This debacle has revealed a clear path for protecting ethnic studies, gender and women’s studies, queer studies, and similar programs across the entire CSU:

Convince legislators the Board of Trustees to include CSUN’s GE section F (Comparative Cultural Studies/Gender, Race, Class, and Ethnicity Studies, and Foreign Languages) in Title 5.

CSUN’s successful experience with redistributing units from other areas of GE shows that this can be done without increasing the total unit load. Let us be the laboratory of the State.

Here, for posterity, is how we’ve been doing it: General Education

====

Important update: In the original post I recommended convincing the legislature about changing Title 5. I’ve since learned that Title 5 is Trustees policy. It is thus administrative law, not the sort made by the legislature. Legislators can be our allies. But they are not the people who would have to be convinced. Sorry for the error.

Update from the Provost on EO1100

Here is an email from Provost Li which clearly and accurately sets out the situation EO1100 has put us in.

Dear Faculty and Extended Cabinet,

On August 23, the Chancellor’s Office issued Executive Order 1100 relating to the CSU General Education Breadth requirements.  This policy supersedes the E.O. issued in 2015 with the goal of clarifying requirements; ensuring equitable opportunity for student success; and to streamline graduation requirements.   In the most simple terms, this E.O. regulates the content (units and subject areas) across the system to ensure transferability of GE courses from one campus to another.  To accomplish this, the E.O. is quite prescriptive about what sections GE may include and how many units each section will contain.

These changes, however, put CSUN into a uniquely challenging position.  We’ve always had an additional section of G.E., Comparative Cross-Cultural Studies (or section “F”) that supports the campus commitment to inclusive and interdisciplinary approaches to knowledge.  Our ethnic studies, gender and women’s studies, and cultural studies departments and programs feature prominently in our offerings in this section.

Under the E.O. we cannot maintain a separate section “F” and be in compliance with this E.O. or Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations.  We need to create a new plan to maintain CSUN’s commitment to ethnic, gender, and cultural studies while also coming into alignment with the system requirements.  This will take all of us to accomplish.  One possibility is an “overlay” structure where current “F” courses are moved into the appropriate extant G.E. section (some might go in “D” social sciences; some might go in “C” arts and humanities).  CSUN could require students to take 6 units in courses certified as meeting a diversity requirement within the other sections of G.E.

We are working with our faculty senate and the chancellor’s office on potential solutions that will meet the E.O. and maintain CSUN’s commitment to serve our students and region with courses that develop the knowledge and competencies need by well-educated CSUN graduates who will live in and serve our communities.  We are working very hard to maintain our commitment to cultural competency in our curriculum and comply with the intent and the requirements of the E.O.

The new E.O. is not what anyone at CSUN wanted.  When President Harrison received a draft version of the E.O., she provided swift and immediate feedback indicating the challenge at CSUN.  I did the same thing when I received the draft.  President Harrison additionally advocated for CSUN’s model and values in person, and asked for more time to make the changes, should they become necessary.

Again, let me restate our unwavering commitment to educating our students in all the ways that are necessary for them to understand the current world.  We need to work together to do what’s required of us and best for our students in moving forward.  I ask for your help.

Yi Li

Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs

My days have been consumed by EO1100. Thus I can attest to the unwavering commitment and passion with which President Harrison and Provost Li have been fighting to protect CSUN’s programs.

EO1100: Alternatives

We will probably need to be able to offer alternatives to the revised EO1100.

Update: Our task in (2) will be helped if we can proffer potential compromises which promote the CO’s desire for uniformity. I will try to capture these here:

For example, the CSU Ethnic Studies Task Force acknowledged CSUN’s leadership in institutionalizing support for ethnic studies. Thus a plausible alternative would build CSUN’s model into the systemwide requirements.

 

Executive Order 1100: Not just us

I circulated the earlier post on Executive Order 1100 to my statewide colleagues. I’ll be cataloging some of the impacts they are feeling on their campuses here.

Please keep in mind that campuses are all getting our heads around the implications —today seems filled with emergency meetings with Provosts. I will update these as things change

CSU Monterrey Bay

At CSUMB, faculty are shocked and dismayed at the implications of the EO1100 revisions – most of our queer studies, women’s studies, cultural studies courses will be cut, since they are 4 unit classes.

Lecturers and dept chairs have asked me what this means for our curricula and for their workloads – and for our underrepresented students, most of all.

Just one example:
One lecturer, who teaches most of our queer studies classes, has informed me his 4-unit GE classes will now be downsized to 3 units, and he will lose nearly half his workload, since there are no other classes available to fulfill his 3-year entitlement.

Not only this, but he will be tasked with the unpaid work (no small task) of redesigning his curricula for the new 3-unit GE classes. In short: a significant loss of work (and salary) in tandem with a concomitant workload increase (unpaid) in course reconfiguration.

Fresno

Fresno State has the same problem. We required 3 additional upper level units on diversity and multiculturalism, and those have now been effectively abolished. Even our administration here did not seem to know this was coming. Wild.

Basically everyone else

The imposed timeline is highly problematic if not impossible. At several campuses, high priority curricular reforms, program development, and student success initiatives will take a backseat to complying with EO1100.

Executive Order 1100 undermines cultural competency education at CSUN

The Chancellors Office has ordered changes to general education which eviscerate ethnic studies, gender and women’s studies, queer studies, and others at CSUN.

In an attempt to standardize general education across the CSU and prevent students who transfer between campuses from having to take extra units, Loren Blanchard has mandated changes in how many units may be in each area of GE (and the distribution of units between upper and lower division). This will harm our students and have far reaching effects on our curriculum. One of the most egregious is that while CSUN has been unique in the CSU by requiring cultural studies as part of GE (part F) for ~12 years, that is no longer allowed.

I will use this space for further explanations and updates. There will likely be many. I expect that Executive Order 1100 will eat up all the time, energy, and goodwill that would’ve been devoted to the Graduation Initiative 2025.

For now, we have three tasks before us:

(1) Figuring out how to minimize the harm in implementing this travesty

(2) Fighting political battles to have the order reversed or revised.

(3) Ensuring that Chancellor Timothy White, Executive Vice Chancellor Loren Blanchard, and Strategist James T. Minor never escape the stain of the losses they have inflicted on the future students of CSUN, their communities, and their employers.

In service of (3), let me close by sharing the brief note I sent to Loren Blanchard last night.

To: Loren Blanchard, Executive Vice Chancellor
CC: Tim White, Chancellor

Dear Loren,

The revisions to EO 1100 eviscerate CSUN’s ethnic studies departments.

I leave it to my administrative colleagues to demonstrate this.

After working throughout the day to understand the implications and the options, I am embarrassed that I can contribute only what, through the shock, is, I suppose, a broken heart.

I will do my utmost to stanch the bleeding. But please know that my task is to find a way to preserve within an already crowded structure that which was won inch by inch.

Thank you,

Adam


Adam Swenson, Ph.D.
Faculty President

 

======

Update: I will try to keep track of what I hear from other campuses here: http://blogs.csun.edu/facultypresident/2017/08/25/executive-order-1100-not-just-us/

=======
Update [30 August]: It appears President Harrison and Provost Li have worked out an agreement with the Chancellor’s Office which remedies the horrible implications of EO1100 for the affected departments. http://blogs.csun.edu/facultypresident/2017/08/31/eo1100-update/

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.