Tag Archives: General Education

National AAUP calls for the suspension of EO 1100R and EO1110 (Updated: 24 April)

From the AAUP website (https://www.aaup.org/news/aaup-urges-csu-chancellor-suspend-executive-orders):

The national American Association of University Professors joins its California state conference in urging the suspension of two executive orders, EO 1100 (revised) and EO 1110, that make extensive changes to the general education requirements, placement testing, and remedial education policies applying to all of the California State University (CSU) campuses. The policies mandate significant changes to the graduation requirements, curricula, and course offerings at CSU.

The widespread concern stems from apparent violations of academic governance norms. According to the Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities, “The faculty has the primary responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status, and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process.”

The CSU system Academic Senate (ASCSU), the California conference of the AAUP, and the California Faculty Association (CFA) contend that the process that led to the adoption of the executive orders did not provide for adequate faculty consultation.

The ASCSU adopted a resolution at its September 14-15 meeting objecting to the flawed governance process and consultation, stating, “CSU faculty are experts and researchers in their fields who must be relied on 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.”

The AAUP joins the ASCSU resolution urging Chancellor White to place the executive orders “into abeyance and defer their implementation date to, at earliest, Fall 2019,” to engage in “genuine consultation with faculty.”

###

Contact: Laura Markwardt – lmarkwardt@aaup.org / 202-594-3635

Here’s the full letter: https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/CSU_letter.pdf

This comes on the heels of a resolution by the California chapter of AAUP last week. Here’s the CA chapter resolution: http://www.caaaup.org/blog/ca-aaup-resolution-re-csu-executive-orders

These actions have caused some consternation in the CSU Academic Senate. Their executive committee has responded to the AAUP’s action: ASCSU AAUP Response.

This certainly complicates the discussions of shared governance between ASCSU and the CO. From what I hear, they had made some progress toward building a mutual understanding and regaining trust. I was nonetheless gratified last week by the resolution pushed by our colleagues from other systems at the CA-AAUP meeting. I am now glad that the national organization has formally taken our side. There can be no real healing until the egregiousness of the breach embodied in the EO’s is fully recognized. That said, I’m not exactly neutral on this: I was the one who proposed calling for a formal AAUP investigation during the ASCSU debate in the fall. So, caveat lector.

Update (24 April 2018):

Here’s the AAUP response to the ASCSU letter: AAUP letter to ASCSU chair

Here’s the Chancellor’s Office response: CO AAUP Response_with Attachments

Finally, here’s this, from ASCSU Chair Miller’s April report

With the concurrence of the Executive Committee, I also had a meeting in Washington, D.C. with Dr. Hans-Joerg Tiede of the American Association of University Professors. We discussed shared governance matters in the CSU, including but not limited to the correspondences between the California Conference of AAUP, ASCSU, AAUP and the Chancellor’s Office. This meeting occurred in conjunction with my participation in CSU’s Hill Day advocacy. After I met alone for about half an hour with Dr. Tiede, Chancellor White joined us. This joint meeting reinforced the fact that the Academic Senate and the Chancellor’s Office are actively engaged in mutually improving the circumstances which led to widespread faculty critique of shared governance in the CSU last Fall. As Senate Chair, I found it valuable to have Chancellor White join the meeting, because I was able to hear his commitment to shared governance conveyed to a third party, and I was gratified to hear him acknowledge the faculty’s primacy in curricular matters. All in all, I found the meeting very valuable, affirming, and supportive of the CSU’s efforts to improve shared governance in the system.

The pdf of her report is not yet posted (as of 24 April). When it is, it will be here: https://www.calstate.edu/AcadSen/Records/Chairs_Reports/

Statement from the ad hoc GE task force

[At the request of the co-chairs, I’m sharing the following statement]

Task Force Statement

Purpose: Recognizing our students’ needs, challenges and goals, the Task Force will make recommendations concerning our GE program that advance student success through quality education while maintaining our cross-cultural competency requirements (Section F of current GE Plan) and aligning with the California Education Code.

Task Force Members: Initially, members were identified and invited by President Harrison. Additional members were identified and invited by the co-chairs in consultation with faculty, staff and students. The goal is to provide balanced representation across stakeholders on campus.

Process and Procedures: The Task Force will engage in transparent, consultative and inclusive processes to develop recommendations. The Task Force honors and respects the Faculty Senate vote to not implement EO 1100 – Revised and EO 1110. Thus, the Task Force is not intended to bypass or sidestep the Faculty Senate vote. The intention of the Task Force is to work creatively and collaborative to find solutions concerning our GE program that address our students’ academic success.

Recommendations from the Task Force will be shared with the CSUN campus community, Faculty Senate, and CSUN administrators.

Timeline: The Task Force intends to make recommendations by the end of spring semester 2018.

Co-signers,
Dianne Harrison, President, CSUN
Brian Burkhart, Director and Associate Professor, American Indian Studies, CSUN
Kathryn Sorrells, Chair and Professor, Department of Communication Studies, CSUN

Task Force on General Education Members:
Frankie Augustin, Environmental & Occupational Health
Brian Burkhart, American Indian Studies
Sandra Chong, Elementary Education
Nazaret Dermendjian, Civil Engineering & Construction Management
Susan Fitzpatrick-Behrens, History
Jimmy Ghandi, Manufacturing Systems Engineering & Management
Jonathan Goldenberg, Associated Students
Dave Gray, Biology
Barbara Gross, Marketing
Gabriel Gutierrez, Chicana/o Studies
Brittney Harvey, Student
Zahraa Khuraibet, Student
Terri Lisagor, Family Consumer Science
Nakaya Manning, Advisor
Gina Masequesmay, Asian American Studies
Christina Mayberry, University Library
Luiz Mendes, University Library
Elizabeth Reigos, Advisor
Rosa Rivera Furumoto, Chicana/o Studies
Lou Rubino, Health Sciences
Jerry Schutte, Sociology
Kathryn Sorrells, Communications
Jon Stahl, Cinema & Television Arts
Mary Pat Stein, Biology
Kate Stevenson, Mathematics
Jerry Stinner, Dean, College of Science & Mathematics
Adam Swenson, Philosophy
Stella Theodoulou, Vice Provost
Nate Thomas, Cinema & Television Arts
Kaya Tillery, Student
Janet Valenzuela, Student
William Watkins, VP for Student Affairs & Dean of Students
Theresa White, African Studies

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.)

 

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

Here’s the agenda for the Senate meeting: senateagenda102617

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

Here’s a companion flowchart:  Flowchart of agenda

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

Abbreviations

CO = Chancellor’s Office

BOT = Board of Trustees

Executive orders, coded memos, and letters

EO1100R

EO1110

LJB to Presidents – Presidents EO 1100R EO 1110 Implementation

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

The Placement of Students Based on Their Academic Preparation

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

Clarifying Law and Consultation

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

CSUN actions

Approved EPC charge to EO1100R task force

Non-participation resolution (from September Senate meeting)

Associated Students resolution

Ethnic studies (et al) letter

‘Consultation’ on draft executive orders and responses

LJB to Pres Request for EO 1100 Feedback

CSU Math council response to ASA-2017-14

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

Memo on consultation over EOs from EVC

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

 

Ethnic Studies Task Force

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

Ethnic Studies Task Force report

Quantitative Reasoning Task Force

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

QRTF report

Blanchard to Miller QR in EO 1100 (1)

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

QRTF co-chairs response

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

Other CSU campus senate responses

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

Campus resolutions

Professor (nee Provost) Hellenbrand’s comments

Rights of the senate under CA law: an opinion

To Hell in a Handbasket: GE and other fiascos

Courses and pathways in the new ge: issues and questions

Statewide Senate and CO responses

ASCSU resolution

CSUCO Responses to ASCSU September 2017

Chair Miller’s presentation to Board of Trustees

Systemwide reports

Faculty Trustee reports

ASCSU Chair reports

Miscellany

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

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

Senator Schutte’s note on ASCSU EO1100 resolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully,
Jerry Schutte, Professor
CSUN Statewide Academic Senator

The motion to reconsider

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CSUN faculty take a stand

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

Colleagues,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Adam

To Hell in a Handbasket: GE and Other Fiascos

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

To Hell in a Handbasket: GE and Other Fiascos

IS THERE A THERE, THERE?

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

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

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

COMPLIANCE SHERIFF

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

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

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

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

MISSION

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

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

CONSULTATION

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

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

THE THRILLS AND SPILLS OF BASIC SKILLS

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

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

What is the alleged problem?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More articles on developmental ed/ remediation

 

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

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

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

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

ASCSU Chair Miller at the BOT

 

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

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

 

 

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

EO1100 resolutions media coverage

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

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

Here’s another article in EdSource:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statewide Academic Senate resolution on EO1100 and EO11100

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

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

AS-3304-17/FGA/AA/APEP


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Approved – September 14-15, 2017

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

 

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

GEAC letter to Chancellor White regarding EO1100 and EO1110

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

Dr. Timothy P. White, Chancellor

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

Dear Chancellor White:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully submitted,

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

Executive Order 1100 undermines cultural competency education at CSUN

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

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

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

For now, we have three tasks before us:

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Loren,

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

I leave it to my administrative colleagues to demonstrate this.

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

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

Thank you,

Adam

—
Adam Swenson, Ph.D.
Faculty President

 

======

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

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