SFSU Academic Senate
Minutes of February 9, 1999
The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Mark Phillips at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
Aaron, Eunice; Alvarez, Alvin; Barnes, Paul; Bernstein, Marian; Bhat, Subodh;
Cancino, Herlinda; Chen, Yu-Charn; Cherny, Robert; Consoli, Andres; Contreras,
Rey; Corrigan, Robert; Craig, JoAnn; Cullers, Susan; Duke, Jerry; Eisman, Gerald;
Elia, John; Ferretti, Charlotte; Flowers, Will; Fox-Wolfgramm, Susan; Goldsmith,
Helen; Graham, Michael; Graham, Minnie; Gregory, Jan; Harnly, Caroline; Haw,
Mary Ann; Hom, Marlon; Hu, Sung; Jerris, Scott; Johnson, Dane; La Belle, Thomas;
Oñate, Abdiel; Phillips, Mark; Raggio, Marcia; Scoble, Don; Shrivastava,
Vinay; Simeon, Roblyn; Smith, Miriam; Strong, Rob; Swanson, Deborah; Terrell,
Dawn; Valledares, Juan; Vaughn, Pamela; Verhey, Marilyn; Wade, Patricia; Warren,
Mary Anne; Warren, Penelope; Wong, Alfred; Yee, Darlene.
Senate Members Absent: Fehrman, Ken(exc.); Moss, Joanna; Choo,
Freddie; Gonzales, Angela; Shapiro, Jerald(exc.); Jenkins, Lee(exc.); Tarakji,
Ghassan; Turitz, Mitch; Bartscher, Patricia; Kelley, James(exc.); Collier, James;
Montenegro, Ricardo; Vega, Sandra.
Senate Interns Present:
Guests: G. Whitaker, A. Hallum, K. Bartlett, T. Rutter, J. Bebee,
D. Schafer, P. Fonteyn, S. Taylor, J. Kassiola, S. Wang.
Announcements and Report
Chairs Report
- Phillips welcomed new Senators Alvin Alvarez and Subodh Bhat as well
as returning Senators Paul Barnes, Susan Fox-Wolfgramm, Mary Ann Haw, and
Darlene Yee.
- If the Collective Bargaining Agreement passes, we will have a very short
turnaround to put a new merit pay policy in place. Hopefully, Long Beach will
lay out a skeletal outline of what is and is not required across the CSU,
so that we can focus on areas where we have latitude.
- Work on the Graduate Student Award and Leaves with Pay are on the horizon
for the Senate this semester.
- The Chair of the Statewide Academic Senate, Gene Dinielli, and the
CSU Faculty Trustee, Harold Goldwhite, will be meeting with the Academic
Senate Executive Committee and participating in the Senate meeting on Feb.
23. There will be a reception after the meeting.
Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for February 9, 1999
The agenda was approved as written.
Agenda Item #2 -- Approval of Minutes for December 1, 1998
The minutes were approved as printed.
Agenda Item #3 - Report from Vice President La Belle
Provost La Belle reported on remediation, explaining the CSU policy,
summarizing SFSU remediation activities for 1998-99, and raising questions about
the future of remediation.
La Belle outlined the current CSU policy: all new students to CSU who have
not passed the four required courses--math, English, critical thinking, and
speech/communication--or who have not tested out must take the EPT and ELM.
Based on scores, students may be placed in remedial classes, and, according
to Executive Order 665, a student must be remediated in one year. If the student
is not remediated in one year, there is a threat of being dis-enrolled.
The problem now is that, systemwide, 30% in remedial programs are not being
remediated in one year. This would mean dis-enrolling 9,500-10,000 students,
many of whom would be students of color. This situation raises many philosophical
and policy questions, about the test itself, the nature of CSU and our purpose,
access and opportunity, K-12, and why we cannot remediate in one year. The math
portion is especially problematic.
At SFSU, we implemented a number of programs to encourage students to take
the EPT and ELM before entering SFSU, to enroll in the remedial courses if needed,
to support students through learning assistance programs to facilitate their
success, investing $500,000 in new money for remedial courses this year. We
continue to work in the following areas: determining which programs are most
effective, revising the math curriculum, improving the student tracking system,
working with community colleges, and increasing our outreach to high schools.
La Belle reiterated that this is a major policy issue here and across the nation,
and he encouraged comments and suggestions.
Jan Gregory commented that many bilingual, and even non-U.S. born, students
are in non-ESL classes, which speaks to their motivation and the persistence
of the instructors.
Agenda Item #4 - Report from Statewide Senators
Robert Cherny summarized reports and resolutions from the Statewide
Academic Senate meeting in January.
There was a report on the governor's budget, which everyone found very disappointing.
CSU received an increase almost 2% lower than higher education in general with
many significant reductions at the Trustees' request, especially in technology,
faculty compensation, teacher recruitment, and state recognized deficiencies.
The governor's May revision of the budget may increase some items.
The Statewide Senate received the current draft of Cornerstones implementation
proposal; the consensus was that Vice-Chancellor Spence had responded very well
to faculty concerns.
The Statewide Senate passed several resolutions: endorsed Harold Goldwhite
for appointment for full term as Faculty Trustee; a resolution in response to
the task force for CSU globalization and recommendations for future international
education; a resolution in response to Senate bill 1472, which dealt with the
inter-segmental General Education transfer curriculum.
There will be a special plenary session of the Statewide Senate this week to
discuss the proposed agreement between CFA and CSU.
Eunice Aaron summarized the plans of the Fiscal and Government Affairs
committee for their legislative trips.
Agenda Item #5 - Proposed Revisions to the Professional Development Council
Statement of Responsibilities
Phillips introduced this consent item from the Executive Committee,
which comes out of consultation with Paul Fonteyn, Associate Vice President
for Research and Sponsored Programs. The proposal consolidate two existing
committees, the Professional Development Council and the Research and Professional
Development Allocation Committee. There was some confusion in terms of responsibilities
as well as some changes in relevant offices, and it was felt that one committee
would provide greater effectiveness and efficiency. This revises one policy
and eliminates another.
Darlene Yee spoke in favor of the proposed new policy but asked that
we consider adding the following members to the committee: one faculty representative
chosen from a list of active principal investigators or project directors as
well as one faculty representative from the steering committee of the Community
Service Learning Council.
Cherny spoke in favor of the policy, suggesting that it gives all of
these functions and responsibilities the appropriate attention.
Paul Barnes moved Yee's friendly amendment to add the two additional
faculty representatives. It was accepted as a friendly amendment.
M/S/P (Vaughn, Duke) to second reading.
Cherny suggested that we need to clarify the language on who will be doing
the choosing for these two additional representatives.
Marlon Hom asked to hear the justifications for the additions.
Yee suggested the following language: "one faculty representative chosen from
a list of principal investigators or project directors by the Office of Research
and Sponsored programs to serve a renewable one-year term; one faculty representative
chosen by the Community Service Learning Steering Committee to serve a renewable
one year term." She added that these areas are important for relating professional
development to the RTP process.
Hom added that he is worried that these additions might tip the scale on the
committee for mini-grants toward a voice emphasizing research programs.
Cherny moved a friendly amendment that was accepted, which changed who chooses
the additional representative above from the Office of Research and Sponsored
Programs to the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate.
Gregory moved a friendly amendment that was accepted, which made the
position of faculty representatives open to part-time lecturers.
M/S/P (Vaughn, Goldsmith) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the item passed unanimously as amended. (To view
this policy, click here.)
Agenda Item #6 - Introduction of Trustee Stanley T. Wang
Phillips introduced Trustee Stanley T. Wang, who joined the Senate as
part of his visit to SFSU.
Wang thanked the Senate for the invitation and stated that he came here for
two reasons: to understand and learn from the Senate, and to share some information
abut how we make decisions at the board level.
Agenda Item #7 - Report from the Disability Resource Center
Kimberly Bartlett, Director of the Disability Resource Center, summarized
the available services and activities of the Center. The Center works with between
800-900 students per year, over half of whom have learning rather than physical
disabilities (faculty and staff with disabilities are served through another
office). All of us share the responsibility for accommodating students with
disabilities and making sure that we comply with Section 504 of the Rehab Act
of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Students are obligated
to initiate the process by contacting the Center.
Bartlett also summarized the opportunities they have developed through a FIPSE
grant: the START program, which takes incoming students with disabilities and
helps them deal with nonacademic issues that impede the transition to university.
Agenda Item #8 - Proposed Guidelines for the Fifth Cycle of Academic Program
Review
Academic Program Review Committee Chair Jerry Duke introduced the proposed
guidelines for the Fifth Cycle of Academic Program Review. The fifth cycle of
program review begins Fall 1999. Duke summarized the items APRC considered in
updating the guidelines: 1) CUSP results and the Cornerstones initiative; 2)
time to adequately evaluate materials; and 3) time a department or program accredited
by an outside agency can give toward additional on-campus review. These guidelines
will guide APRC in reviewing the more explicit instructions of the academic
program review handbook.
Duke also outlined the most significant change, which addresses time constraints
of the committee and accredited programs by allowing the accreditation review
to substitute for academic program review with a few exceptions, while still
ensuring that every program has a Memorandum of Understanding on public record.
Joel Kassiola, Dean of the College of BSS, pointed out that the proposed
guidelines emphasize interdisciplinary issues. He asked about how they address
disciplinary strength.
Gail Whitaker, Associate Vice President for Academic Program Development,
responded that, first, this policy builds on the previous policy with this section
adding things to the handbook that were not covered fully in the fourth cycle.
The handbook for the fourth cycle is very focused on building the disciplinary
program.
Scott Jerris asked about the goal of the program review, wondering if
programs that have been recently reaccredited will have to defend their existence.
Duke responded that the goal of the MOU is to help plan programs, not defend
them.
Gregory made several specific suggestions. She proposed returning to
the word "nominated" from "chosen" in section 2. She suggested adding "where
such alternatives exist" to the 3.c. bullet on community advisory boards. She
asked APRC to make more specific suggestions to faculty who may not feel qualified
to make the assessment of student basic skills, to help programs prepare for
gathering the new information on graduate programs, and to be certain that language
on multicultural aspects of the curriculum remain in place and remain a dominant
concern.
Whitaker addressed "nominated" versus "chosen," suggesting that the idea was
to acknowledge the way the process actually works and the way that external
reviewers make themselves available. On graduate programs, she stated that this
is a place keeper for a subject that will have much more specification for the
handbook and that there might be different kinds of questions asked for graduate
programs.
Hom moved a friendly amendment, which was accepted, to amend bullets
under (c) with "faculty" replaced by "academic programs." Vaughn asked
that APRC be consistent with regard to the use of "faculty" versus "academic
programs" throughout the handbook.
Abdiel Oñate asked if the committee was considering increasing
the number of the committee. Duke answered that he does not recommend increasing
the committee members if the extraction of the accredited programs is done as
per this policy.
Yee asked if the handbook would be available on line and would various
constituent groups be able to give feedback before the policy is implemented.
Whitaker answered that this is the intent, and the handbook will be put on line.
Cherny asked if it was the intention of the committee that we take action
on this today? Duke responded that there is not anything to revise at this point.
Cherny revisited the question of "chosen" versus "nominated," wondering if
the longer procedures described by Gail Whitaker were in the handbook. Whitaker
responded that it is in the handbook.
Paul Fonteyn suggested adding faculty to "student research/scholarship"
and changing "completion rate of the culminating experience" to "graduation
rate" under 3.c.(bullet 5).
M/S/P (P. Warren, Barnes) to second reading.
Gregory moved that this document be returned to committee to consider the friendliness
of the following amendments: "chosen" versus "nominate," "where such bodies
exist," and did the committee consider whether it wants to discuss assessment
of basic skills. Cherny added that we have several serious issues here and he
did not want to write amendments on the floor.
Vaughn commented on Gregory's point, stating that it is not reviewers who will
be chosen, it is the names of potential reviewers which will be submitted.
Duke commented that the language under the bullets was taken directly from
CUSP policy.
M/S/P (Gregory, Cherny) to return to committee.
The Senate was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dane Johnson
Secretary to the Faculty