Tag Archives: Leaders behaving badly

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/

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

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.

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

The Chancellor’s Office view on compliance with executive orders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teach-in on EO1100

Passing this along for those who are interested :

EXECUTIVE ORDER TEACH IN

September 19th, 2017

Aronstam Library (MZ 240) 6pm-8pm

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

Here’s the flyer: EO FLYER 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement on the Revised Executive Order 1100

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Original Co-Authors:

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

The Co-Signers:

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

Supporters:

  • The College of Humanities Academic Council

Here it is in pdf form: ES&GWS StatementSept16

Chicana/o Studies statement on EO1100 and petition

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

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

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

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

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

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

EO1100: A perspective from Gender and Women’s Studies

 

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

EO 1100 and the Downfall of CSUN Faculty

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

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

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

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

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

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

EO1100: Justifying a rushed timeline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update from the Provost on EO1100

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

Dear Faculty and Extended Cabinet,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yi Li

Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs

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

EO1100: Alternatives

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

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

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

 

Executive Order 1100: Not just us

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

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

CSU Monterrey Bay

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

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

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

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

Fresno

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

Basically everyone else

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

San Bernadino Miscellany

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

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

Editorial (from a CSUSB philosopher):

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

CSU San Bernadino Senate smeared in advance of no confidence vote

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

Here’s the resolution they eventually passed:

CSUSB No confidence

Shortly afterwards, Chancellor White responded:

Open Letter to the CSUSB Community – Timothy P. White

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

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

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

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

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

Time to expose academic senate for who they are

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

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

May 9, 2017

To My Senate Colleagues at CSU San Bernardino:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

Dr. Christine M. Miller

Chair, Academic Senate of the California State University

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

So Much for Confidential Searches!

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