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; Oñate, 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;

Zoloth-Dorfman, Laurie.

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.

Wolf.

Announcements and Report

Chair’s 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

    implementation.

  • 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

uncredentialed teachers.

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

and diploma.

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

place.

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

thesis.

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

been raised.

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 Oñate 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

time period.

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.

Respectfully submitted,

Dane Johnson

Secretary to the Faculty