Category Archives: Board of Trustees

Trustee Emeritus Stepanek!

At the November Plenary of the Board of Trustees, our own Steven Stepanek (Professor of Computer Science) was awarded the title of Faculty Trustee Emeritus.

Congratulations, Steven!

He was also honored by the ASCSU at our last meeting, here’s the commendation (link):

Commendation for Faculty Trustee Steven Stepanek

AS-3313-17/EX

WHEREAS: Faculty Trustee Steven Stepanek has served as Professor of Computer Science at CSU Northridge (CSUN) for 41 years, rising through the ranks from lecturer to full professor; and

WHEREAS: While at CSUN Trustee Stepanek has built an extensive record of service in campus shared governance, including long term service as Chair of the Computer Science Department and on the CSUN Academic Senate and Academic Senate Executive Committee, and two terms as Faculty President and Chair of the Faculty Senate; and

WHEREAS: Trustee Stepanek has an equally distinguished record of service in CSU systemwide shared governance, including CSUN Statewide Academic Senator, member of the Academic Senate CSU (ASCSU) Academic Affairs and Academic Preparation and Educational Policies Committees, Chair of the Academic Preparation and Educational Policies Committee, Co-Chair of the Admissions Advisory Council and Chair of the CSU Computer Science/Information Systems Discipline Council; and

WHEREAS: In 2013 California Governor Jerry Brown appointed Trustee Stepanek to the position of Faculty Trustee on the CSU Board of Trustees, and reappointed him for a second term in 2015; and

WHEREAS: Trustee Stepanek graciously agreed to continue his service as Faculty Trustee past the end of his second term until Governor Brown appointed a new Faculty Trustee in September 2017; and

WHEREAS: While on the Board of Trustees, Trustee Stepanek served with distinction on several presidential search committees, the Sustainable Financial Model Taskforce and the General Education Task Force; and in recognition of the respect of his Board colleagues, as Chair of the Standing Committee on Institutional Advancement and Vice Chair of the Board Committee on Organization and Rules; and

WHEREAS: While on the Board, Trustee Stepanek also traveled throughout the state more than a few times to attend numerable graduation ceremonies and visit every campus to listen to feedback from students, faculty, staff, and administration; and

WHEREAS: Trustee Stepanek has furthered the mission of the CSU by organizing well-attended and well-received conferences and symposia addressing major issues facing higher education, including CSU: The Next 50 Years Conference and Funding the Future of the CSU symposia; and

WHEREAS: Trustee Stepanek demonstrated his commitment to students by finishing out his teaching responsibilities through the end of the semester after being appointed to the Board in Fall 2013, and continuing to provide advice to students while serving on the Board; and

WHEREAS: Throughout his tenure in the CSU, Trustee Stepanek has become recognized for his expertise and contributions in the areas of academic technology, course transfer, curriculum and admissions; and

WHEREAS: Even before he was faculty, Trustee Stepanek was called upon by the Chancellor’s Office to use his expertise to solve some of their most perplexing technical problems; and

WHEREAS: Trustee Stepanek, as a student, student employee, a classified technical employee, faculty member, Faculty Chair, ASCSU representative for his campus and finally Faculty Trustee, is the embodiment of the phrase “made in the CSU;” and

WHEREAS: Trustee Stepanek’s unique background of experience and education in the CSU provided him with the ability to see issues from a variety of perspectives, particularly that of staff employees who play a critical role in delivering the mission of the CSU, a perspective most others only see from the outside; and

WHEREAS: Trustee Stepanek is the epitome of what the CSU, as “The people’s University,” can accomplish when providing a high quality, accessible and affordable higher education that contributes to the rising economic and technological expertise of the citizenry of California; and

WHEREAS: Trustee Stepanek’s passions run the gamut from designing fast cars to Walt Disney to the history of trains; and

WHEREAS: Trustee Stepanek is a quiet, highly principled individual who many are proud to call friend and colleague; and

WHEREAS: Trustee Stepanek has many interests; but nothing has had a greater impact on his life than his continuing commitment to the CSU; therefore be it

RESOLVED: That the ASCSU express its deep appreciation and respect for Trustee Stepanek and his over four decades of outstanding service to the CSU; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the ASCSU wish Trustee Stepanek all the best for the future as he drives his Porsche into the sunset to pursue special projects, plan his next road trip and reflect on his many contributions to the CSU.

Approved by Acclamation – November 2-3, 2017

Executive Orders 1100 (revised) and 1110: What’s happened and where things stand

I just noticed that I haven’t posted anything since the October Senate meeting. My apologies for the silence. Things were moving quickly and a lot was happening behind the scenes. Thus let me provide a brief recap of what’s happened concerning Executive Orders 1100 (revised) and 1110. I’ll start with where we are now. For those who are interested, I’ll then rewind back to the October Senate and November Board of Trustees meetings.

Where we are now

EO1100 The Chancellor relented on the elimination of CSUN’s Section F. Here is the letter from EVC Blanchard to President Harrison setting out the terms of the extension:  17-11-21 LJB to Harrison EO 1100 Response v3 . Basically, we have to make some administrative changes to how Section F courses are coded for transfers to other campuses and formalize what we were already doing to ensure we do not violate state law by requiring transfer students to take more units than students who enter as freshmen.

The Chancellor’s Office still expects CSUN to comply with the rest of the revisions to EO1100. The two major issues are requiring students to take 3 units of upper division B (natural sciences) and the loss of upper division section E (lifelong learning). Both sets of changes involve a lot of enrollment (IIRC, there are ~1,500 / year FTES in upper division E; many more will need classes which do not yet exist in upper division B). While the requirements are supposed to be in place by Fall 18, the changes in enrollment patterns will phase in over a few years since they only concern upper-division GE. The Senate decided not to reconsider the decision not to participate in the implementation of the Executive Orders. Thus any of these required changes to our GE program could not be carried out through the normal curricular review process. President Harrison has created a task force of faculty, staff, and students to make recommendations to her on the necessary policy changes.

EO1110 The Chancellor’s Office still expects CSUN to implement the changes mandated by EO1110 (to developmental math and writing) on the original timeline. While that recklessly hasty timeline is likely to cause significant problems on other campuses, CSUN’s faculty had already been undertaking improvements to these programs before the order was issued. The fact that they now coincide with mandated changes in the EO cannot be a reason for preventing these faculty-originated curricular improvements from proceeding through the regular curricular processes. Thus it is likely that we will be compliant with EO1110 on the requisite timeline without ever formally taking action to implement the executive order.

That’s where we are now. Here’s some of what’s happened since my last blog post.

October Senate meeting

The Faculty Senate meeting on 26th October was attended by several hundred students and faculty who passionately demonstrated in support of Section F and urged the Senate not to reconsider its decision not to participate in implementation. If you’re wondering how that many people fit in the usual library basement room, they didn’t: After conversations with the police chief the night before about the unprecedented size of the student protests in the week leading up to the meeting, I decided to move the meeting from the library to the Northridge Center —the largest available venue on campus. I don’t know of any official estimate of the attendance, but the main room was full and the balcony was ~50% occupied. We were also joined by Chris Miller, Chair of the ASCSU.

At the beginning of the meeting, President Harrison announced that Chancellor White had, at the last minute, agreed to allow CSUN to keep section F. After a long and impassioned session of public comment, the Senate voted not to reconsider its decision to not participate in implementation. The Senate then passed this resolution which sets out our grounds for this refusal.

Board of Trustees meeting

Several CSUN faculty members along with several dedicated students traveled to Long Beach for the November Board of Trustees meeting. While they were allowed only a few minutes during the public comment sessions, they were nonetheless forceful advocates for CSUN’s students and values. We should all be proud to have them as colleagues and students.

Here are some of the relevant portions of the meetings:

During the public comment section at the beginning of the Committee on Educational Policy, here are Rosa RiVera-Furumoto (Chicana/o Studies) and Gina Masequesmay (Asian American Studies), Kate Stevenson (Developmental math), and Jennifer Eagan (CFA President and CSUEB Philosophy Professor).

This video also includes a report on the Graduation Initiative which includes a small section on the Executive Orders (designed to technically fulfill the request for discussion of the EOs introduced by now Trustee Emeritus Stepanek at the last meeting)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KOKTdz5EZs&t=2h07m53s . The questions by the BOT begin at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KOKTdz5EZs&t=2h31m40s and include the Chancellor’s Office’s response to CSUN’s Senate actions.

At the plenary session on the second day of the BOT meeting, here are comments by former ASCSU Chair Steven Filing (Accounting at CSU Stanislaus) and our own Brian Burkhart (American Indian Studies) followed by several CSUN students interspersed among other speakers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8uoGne2XtU&t=7m0s .

Finally, here is ASCSU Chair Miller’s report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8uoGne2XtU&t=59m08s. Without taking anything away from any of our faculty, administrators, and students’ efforts, I believe her report was crucial in getting the Trustees to take our concerns seriously and put pressure on the CO rather than reflexively defending its actions. (Rhetorical strategy connoisseur’s tasting note:  The smackdown she delivers is crisp, refined, and absolutely delicious.)

 

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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).

http://www.pe.com/2017/05/09/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.

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.

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