SFSU Academic Senate Meeting
Minutes of November 17, 1998
The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Mark Phillips at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
Bartscher, Patricia; Bernstein, Marian; Cancino, Herlinda; Chen, Yu-Charn;
Cherny, Robert; Consoli, Andres; Contreras, Rey; Corrigan, Robert; Craig, JoAnn;
Cullers, Susan; Duke, Jerry; Elia, John; Ferretti, Charlotte; Fielden, Ned;
Flowers, Will; Ganji, Vijay; Goldsmith, Helen; Graham, Michael; Graham, Minnie;
Harnly, Caroline; Hom, Marlon; Hu, Sung; Jenkins, Lee; Jerris, Scott; Johnson,
Dane; Kelley, James; La Belle, Thomas; Montenegro, Ricardo; OÃ±ate, Abdiel;
Phillips, Mark; Raggio, Marcia; Shapiro, Jerald; Simeon, Roblyn; Smith, Miriam;
Tarakji, Ghassan; Terrell, Dawn; Turitz, Mitch; Valledaros, Juan; Vega, Sandra;
Vaughn, Pamela; Warren, Mary Anne; Warren, Penelope; Wong, Alfred; Zieff, Susan;
Senate Members Absent: Shrivastava, Vinay; Swanson, Deborah(exc.);
Fehrman, Ken(exc.); Wade, Patricia(exc.); Moss, Joanna; Strong, Rob; Choo, Freddie;
Hammett, Jennifer; Gonzales, Angela; Verhey, Marilyn(exc.); Barnes, Paul(exc.);
Eisman, Gerald; Aaron, Eunice(exc.); Scoble, Don(exc.); Collier, James.
Senate Interns Present: Happy Dayleg, Marvin Dumon
Guests: J. Middlebrook, M. Rogus, M. Kasdan, D. Curtis, K. Waldron,
E. McQuown, D. Schafer, S. Taylor, G. Whitaker, J. Kassiola, P. Shaw, A. Hallum,
V. Lane, J. Volkert, D. Zingale, C. Fong, V. Sheared, B. Avery, B. Hubler, B.
Announcements and Report
- David Spence, CSU Vice-President for Academic Affairs, will visit on
Dec. 9-10, meeting with both the Senate Executive Committee and the Cornerstones
Task Force. His meetings will focus on the draft plan for Cornerstones
- The Search Committee for the new Dean of Faculty Affairs and Professional
Development will be forming soon. Elections will be held within Colleges
for faculty representation.
- Susan Taylor, Dean of Undergraduate Studies, introduced and solicited
comment on the draft of a multi-campus effort to develop learning objectives
in the areas of Quantitative Reasoning and Written Expression.
- Pat Shaw, Associate Secretary for the American Association of University
Professors, introduced issues with regard to shared governance at universities.
Agenda Item l# - Approval of Agenda for November 17, 1998
The agenda was approved as written.
Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes for November 3, 1998
The minutes were approved as amended to reflect Ned Fielden's absence.
Agenda Item #3 - Report from Statewide Senators
Bob Cherny reported on the Statewide Academic Senate meeting on November
4-6, 1998. There were four resolutions on the agenda. A resolution in support
of the speedy conclusion to collective bargaining and a fair collective bargaining
agreement was passed without dissent. The other three are all on first reading.
One resolution responds to the Cornerstones Implementation, which is available
on e-mail. The other resolution is a response to the report from the task force
on CSU globalization, which really means international education and the expansion
thereof by CSU.
Jan Gregory reported on "Teacher's Net," the British Open University
model established to deal with 30,000 uncredentialed teachers now teaching in
California schools. This complicated program will not necessarily use campus-based,
program-based instruction toward the credential. There will be a curriculum
devised by faculty working from and through the Chancellor's office, a standard
curriculum that must be adopted whole hog by any campus that decides to use
it. It relies heavily on the school site as a learning environment. The expectation
is that in the first year of operation, this program will deal with only 525
Cherny added that there will be a committee established at the statewide level
to pass on the teacher net curriculum. They also are reviewing the process of
nominating the CSU faculty trustee.
Agenda Item #4 - Proposed Revision to the M.S. Degree in Nursing: Family
Nurse Practitioner Emphasis
CRAC Chair Alfred Wong introduced the proposed revision to the M.S.
degree in Nursing, a consent item from CRAC, that would change the existing
Family Nurse Practitioner "emphasis" to a "concentration," which would ensure
that the Family Nurse Practitioner title appears on students' official transcripts
M/S/P (Vaughn, Duke) to move to second reading.
Laurie Zoloth-Dorfman applauded the idea, suggesting that it will help
make SFSU's program nationally recognized.
M/S/P (Duke, M.A. Warren) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the item passed unanimously.
Agenda Item #5 - Proposed Revision to the M.A. degree in Education: Concentration
in Adult Education.
CRAC Chair Alfred Wong introduced the proposed revision to the M.A.
degree in Education, concentration in Adult Education. The proposed revision
changes the culminating experience options, eliminating the requirement of an
additional 3-unit graduate course in education.
James Collier asked why the additional course was there in the first
Vanessa Sheared explained that it was added initially to offer students
an additional option for the culminating experience for the master's degree,
but it turned out not to be the option that we thought it was.
Ned Fielden asked about the breakdown in students between the various
options and also commented that three units seems awfully small for the master's
Sheared answered that the majority are currently using field study to
complete the degree; she added that a methods course begins the thesis process,
so it is not just the three units.
M/S/P (Kelley, Vaughn) to second reading.
Sandra Vega commented that as a graduate student in education she finds
that the currently required three unit course limits options.
M/S/P (Duke, Vaughn) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the item passed unanimously.
Agenda Item #6 - Proposed Revision to the M.A. Degree in Education: Concentration
in Special Interest.
CRAC Chair Alfred Wong introduced the proposed revision to the M.A.
degree in Education, concentration in Special Interest, a consent item from
CRAC. The proposed revision changes the culminating experience options, eliminating
the requirement of an additional 3-unit graduate course in education.
M/S/P (Duke, Vaughn) to second reading.
M/S/P (Vaughn, P. Warren) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the item passed unanimously.
Agenda Item #7 - Proposed Policy and Guidelines for Offering Existing SFSU
Degrees Via College of Extended Learning.
Academic Policies Committee (APC) Chair Helen Goldsmith introduced the
proposed policy and guidelines for offering existing SFSU degree, credential
and certificate programs through the College of Extended Learning, a consent
item from APC. APC consulted with CEL representatives, faculty in departments
wishing to take advantage of such an option, and department chairs. Addressing
program quality, the policy requires that students meet the same admissions
criteria as general fund students and that programs go through the academic
program review process. The department offering the program would be in control
of what gets offered and who teaches in the program. The policy attempts to
address the following additional concerns: hidden costs/impact on current resources;
"shifting" of degree programs from general fund to CEL; that these programs
might become a priority of the university. Several chairs indicated their support
for such an option in order to respond to potential students without displacing
current "on-campus" degree programs. The major concern was to ensure that program
quality remained high and that this would not be a way of student or programs
circumventing the system. This policy applies only to existing programs. New
programs would have to go through the current review process. If programs are
to be discontinued from the general fund, they would have to go through the
current discontinuance process. There are no similar policies on other campuses,
although campuses are offering degrees through CEL. AT SFSU, we have the opportunity
to institute safeguards with a policy that addresses the concerns that have
Chair Phillips commented that work on this policy has been the best
collaborative process in all his years on the Senate. He added that we are essentially
operating without a policy and that this could be a model for other campuses
wrestling with the same issues. The Executive Committee has spent extensive
time on this as well, and it comes as a de facto consent item.
Jan Gregory raised two broad concerns: the ultimate cost to students,
with the possibility that already expensive CEL classes will become more expensive;
and a consultation process that appeared to overlook CFA, especially on issues
of excessive workload and salary implications. She encouraged the Senate to
return this policy to committee.
Goldsmith responded that APC did not specifically consult with CFA but there
are active CFA members on the committee. On fees, they will not necessarily
be higher, and there are financial aid possibilities.
Bruce Wolf, College of Health and Human Services representative for the
Associated Students, commented that this action would allow CEL students
to circumvent mandatory student fees that regular students are required to pay,
but they would have access to all student services. We cannot support this.
John Elia commented that he agreed with some of the concerns that have
been raised but, as a representative of the faculty in Health Education, was
in favor of a program for offering existing SFSU degrees through CEL. Health
Education has an MS in Health Science to which they are not admitting any new
students because the department cannot carry another MS program. The faculty
would like to offer this through CEL, and there are over 60 potential applicants
who want to enroll themselves in the program.
Sung Hu responded that the committee discussed the issue of higher fees
for students. Since these programs are supposed to be self-supporting and not
part of general fund, there is no option but to have higher fees, but we are
not encouraging departments to discontinue their programs. On faculty workload,
the department must provide information on that in order to secure approval
of the program. With regard to the mandatory student fee, there are programs
where the students will not be on campus at all, so it's not necessary to charge
them a fee, but the policy states that CEL must come up with an appropriate
fee structure for programs using campus facilities and services.
Bob Cherny strongly recommended that this policy not be moved to second
reading. He agreed that we should have such a policy, but he disagreed that
the role of faculty should not be a part of the policy. The policy needs to
make clear that faculty members are not required to teach courses in CEL as
part of being in the department. Cherny added that the policy should address
workload issues. With our high 12 unit teaching load, additional courses may
affect the quality of teaching, so the policy needs to say in effect that if
faculty decide to teach in CEL, they must reduce their teaching load in their
department and CEL would buy out that course. Additional degree programs and
more lecturers also mean more committee work for tenure line faculty.
Abdiel OÃ±ate responded that the committee appreciates these comments
because issues like quality control, access for students, and other problems
like workload were at the center of committee discussion. But this is a policy
that we need to implement; the university cannot afford to not expand their
offerings in the direction of extended learning and other forms of instruction.
Jim Kelley spoke in support of the proposed policy. Even for traditional
students, the fees may or may not be more in extended learning. He added that
it is not the case that there are no employers out there who are looking for
programs like this and that this policy could be a mechanism for increasing
resources, reducing faculty teaching load if done properly. It can be managed
in a way to provide curriculum in a much more user-friendly way for students
who are working.
Goldsmith added that this is intended for programs that feel this would be
beneficial. It would largely be for groups of students who would not otherwise
be taking advantage of a degree from us in the traditional way.
Ghassan Tarakji wanted to know more about the motivation for this policy
and why we are not trying to meet the demand through existing programs.
Jo Volkert, Associate Dean of CEL, responded that these are things that
are coming to us from the departments with the motivation coming from particular
clientele that are out there.
Donald Zingale, Dean of the College of Health & Human Services,
commented that this policy is a "win" for everybody. He addressed fears that
programs offered through CEL are lesser: this policy is about offering the normal
degree with all of the normal policies, procedures, and requirements. Everything
is normal with the exception that when a student goes to enroll, they walk through
a different door, and the choice is walk through this other door or that of
another institution. In the College of HHS, they turn away hundreds of qualified
students because general fund resources for graduate majors are severely limited,
so students go to universities where the cost of that degree will be far more
than it would be through continuing education. Zingale suggested using faculty
in these new programs as part of their regular teaching assignment, but teaching
closer to their homes or in different time slots. Such programs would open up
slots in the general fund program for others who have been denied.
Jerry Duke asked about the seating priority for CEL students who are
sitting in courses that are already offered. Goldsmith explained that this policy
would cover existing programs but not the exact same courses.
Jonathan Middlebrook asked that the Senate follow Cherny's suggestion
to not move this policy to second reading. He added that this is a radical change
in university organization and faculty utilization and has within it seeds of
a healthy plant and some kind of a diseased mutation. The way to go for health
is to specify a fair number of really important matters in the policy, especially
the workload issue.
Marian Bernstein commented that the committee talked about all of the
things that have been brought up, so we need to pinpoint issues that need to
be addressed further. On workload, for example, there are two ways: you could
prescribe workload limits in the policy, which tells faculty what they can and
cannot do, which we decided not to do. Bernstein added that no department should
be pressured to offer a CEL course.
Phillips urged the Senate to move on this policy now, satirizing that we faculty
wouldn't fiddle while Rome burns, but amend and elegantly analyze. He added
that this is part of radical change, but the radical change is happening outside,
and the issue is how we respond to it. This policy is a moderate way to respond
in a response that has to take place. The committee has looked into these issues
and many of the comments are asking this policy to address things that we have
not figured out how to address in our funded programs. This policy is not going
to solve all of the problems with regard to cost, but there are all sorts of
inequities already in place. We can revise the policy but things are passing
us by because of our own inability to move on things.
Wolf urged that we not move this to second reading because it is a document
with lots of holes.
Provost Tom La Belle spoke in favor of the policy, which is driven by
faculty and departments. The real change for students is that the degree can
be taken through CEL, so students only have to matriculate once, but courses
are sanctioned by the department. On the workload issue, La Belle commented
that this policy does not change current policy, as faculty are teaching full
time and teaching in CEL now, and this policy will allow them to continue to
do so. He concluded that nothing can go through CEL that is not determined by
the faculty in the department.
Yu-Charn Chen spoke in favor of this policy but wanted to know its impact
on international students. Goldsmith responded that this would probably be an
issue with international programs. It's cheaper for international students to
take courses through CEL, but the issue would be whether or not the people who
issue visas would see a CEL degree as something they could take. Volkert added
that the answer to that is in the notion of cohort, with the issue driven by
the specificity of the programs.
Margo Kasdan suggested that a CFA representative specifically schooled
in contract issues be part of the discussion if the committee reconsiders these
issues because part of the current contract dispute is the CSU proposal to remove
all restrictions on excessive workload.
Vera Lane, Associate Dean from the College of Education, provided perspective
from their credential programs offered through CEL at various sites. They have
been able to work with financial aid, the programs have been developed by faculty,
and the people coming in go through the same procedures as if they were coming
in to the regular program. Lane added that while doing these credential programs,
some students were interested in adding a master's degree, but could not due
to the 12 unit limit, which is to the detriment of these students. In the College
of Education, no one is being told that they must teach in these programs; people
are doing reduced loads, people are doing overloads, and the programs are not
weaker. We are not closing up options for students, but coming up with better
ways to help people become teachers.
Cherny commented that it is his sense that faculty overload now is isolated
but if we have entire degree programs offered by regular departments through
CEL what may be an isolated incident is likely to become a regular incidence.
Cherny added that overloads have to be justified and need to be approved by
the Dean, and he would like to see that procedure continue and be in the policy.
He would also like to see some more specific mention in the policy of the needs
of students who are distance learners.
JoAnn Craig raised several questions for the committee to consider, while suggesting
that we do need a policy: 1) would a CEL degree be equivalent in all ways? 2)
could students do part CEL and part regular? 3) overall costs of program?, and
4) how much less would CEL teachers get paid?
Goldsmith responded that the committee decided to be general rather than specific
on most issues because different departments have different needs, but they
tried to build in safeguards. She added that this is not a CEL degree; it is
a SFSU degree with CEL as a mechanism for taking courses. Most students are
in cohorts and would not be taking a traditional degree on campus.
Duke asked the committee to clarify whether this policy addressed an existing
degree or a duplicate degree and also suggested that the university needs to
guarantee a student some assurance of getting through the program.
M/S/P (Kelley, Vaughn) to move to second reading.
The vote was taken and the item was moved to second reading.
Middlebrook commented that CEL is a good idea, but we need to work on it to
make it an idea that works with the work-load issue at the heart of it.
Penny Warren spoke in favor of the policy - it is a department-centered
policy; it is a permission giving policy; it gives departments flexibility;
and it puts into place some controls and sets some standards that we badly need.
She added that we can always amend the policy if we discover some way to address
the problems we have raised.
Laurie Zoloth-Dorfman raised concerns about the fabric of the community
that we try to build on this campus and the implications of this policy for
that community. She asked if the policy could be reappraised after a certain
Phillips stated that the policy will be coming back in second reading at the
next meeting. He concluded that we ought not idealize what we have. Many of
the comments are on target but comments directed at this policy could be just
as well directed to our regular programs.
The Senate was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Secretary to the Faculty