Intersegmental Cooperation between SF State and Community College Programs
POLICY ON INTERSEGMENTAL COOPERATION BETWEEN
SFSU AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE PROGRAMS
Academic Senate Policy F91-172
At its meeting of November 26, 1991, the Academic Senate approved the following
Background: During the Fall 1990 semester, due to financial cuts
which resulted in the elimination of almost 200 sections of courses from the
normal course offerings on this campus, and due to a unique opportunity presented
to SFSU from Skyline Community College, this campus was able to offer 23 sections
of Segment courses to our students on our campus through inviting Skyline Community
College to staff and fund those courses. At the conclusion of the Fall 1990
semester the Vice President for Academic Affairs convened the Ad Hoc Committee
on Skyline College Courses to evaluate the program and make recommendations
to the Academic Senate concerning future intersegmental cooperation. Their report
was submitted to the Academic Senate at the end of the Spring 1991 semester.
The Academic Senate voted to refer the Committee report to the Academic Policy
Committee and directed the APC to make a report and submit policy recommendations
back to the Academic Senate before the conclusion of the Fall 1991 semester.
Any continuation of similar programs with any other Community College program
was also directed to be delayed until after final action by the Academic Senate
based on the investigation and report of the Academic Policy Committee.
Procedures of the APC: The Academic Policy Committee took up
the Ad Hoc Committee on Skyline College Courses report as its first order of
business in the Fall 1991 semester. Several meetings were held with a variety
of interested parties throughout the campus. Erwin Seibel, Dean of Undergraduate
Studies, Al Willard, Director of Academic Services and Gary Hammerstrom, Vice
Chair of the Academic Senate, all members of the Ad Hoc Committee conferred
with APC. Additionally, APC conferred with Nancy McDermid, Dean, School of Humanities,
Jim Kelley, Dean, School of Science, Phil McGee, Dean, School of Ethnic Studies,
Steve Arkin, Chair, Department of English, Susan Shimanoff, Chair, Department
of Philosophy, Catherine Lucas, University Composition Coordinator, and Rosemary
Patton, Associate University Compositions Coordinator.
Observations: Dean Erwin Seibel reported to the Committee that
an informal telephone survey of other CSU campuses revealed a variety of similar
cooperative programs with local community colleges at five other campuses. All
five reported that the emphasis was on remedial programs in Math (CSU Chico,
Dominguez Hills, San Jose State), all through informal arrangements from Department
to Department with the blessing and cooperation of the Administration at each
campus. CSU Pomona had tried such a program, had discontinued it and was now
reconsidering such an arrangement. The fifth campus contacted was U.C. San Diego
which also reported a remedial Math program with a local community college.
Dr. Shimanoff also reported to the committee that the Speech Department at CSU
Chico had attempted a similar program with Oral Communication courses, however
the department had abandoned the program in favor of more resources given to
the department for Chico faculty to offer more sections.
The Ad Hoc Committee on Skyline College Courses issued seven "Conclusions/Issues/Recommendations
for Future Intersegmental Cooperation." The APC Committee finds the first four
to be factual conclusions reached through a survey of students enrolled in the
Skyline courses during the Fall 1990 semester. The final three items were of
particular interest to APC and bear repeating here:
"Opposition to the offering of these courses on the SFSU
Campus was raised by the School of Humanities. Their points regarding
the lack of adequate consultation, the potential impact upon the mix of
lower division, upper division and graduate students at SFSU, and the
impact of such decisions upon collateral programs (such as graduate training
in basic subjects) are valid and require more serious evaluation and discussion
than can be provided by this ad hoc committee. Some members of the School
of Humanities Council urged that such an arrangement not be agreed to
APC Addendum: Representatives from the School of Humanities remain
unanimous in concerns about the repetition of intersegmental cooperation between
SFSU and local community colleges. In addition to the issues addressed above,
concerns were also expressed about the impact of such a program on the University's
philosophy toward the commitment made to students accepted for admission to
the University. The Master Plan mandates that CSU provides "comprehensive education"
for all students and that we fail in that mission if students accepted to our
campus are then redirected into Community College courses. Representatives form
both the School of Humanities and form the School of Ethnic Studies also expressed
apprehensions about the commitment of SFSU to remedial students and remedial
programs and expressed fears that a shift in resources to incorporate community
college courses would also signal a shift in priority away from lower division
and remedial students.
"If such cooperative arrangements are considered in the
future, they should be undertaken only with broad consultation between
the administration, the Schools and departments, and the Academic Senates
of the segments involved. Adequate time should be provided to allow careful
consideration of the issues raised in item 5 above. In addition, consultation
should also take place with all the unions involved, both at SFSU and
the Community College, other CSU campus, UC campus, or private university
involved regarding the alignment of salaries and benefits, work assignment
and other issues that may require negotiation. CFA regards intersegmental
cooperation as positive so long as it is accompanied by an adequate consultation
APC Addendum: We cannot stress strong enough the need for the
consultations called for in the above statement among all parties involved in
such arrangements. Additionally, it was believed that academic departments must
also be consulted and have the strongest voice possible in dealing with logistical
problems such as classroom space, office space, copying services, textbook orders,
access to computer laboratories, etc.
"The academic planning process at SFSU should take cognizance
of the consultation requirements articulated in item 6 above. While recognizing
that the decision to offer the Skyline courses during the Fall 1990 semester
was made under the press of time and unusual circumstances by reasonable
and attentive people, who were genuinely concerned about assisting students,
it is our belief that future decisions on intersegmental cooperation need
to garner as wide a support of the SFSU faculty as possible."
APC Addendum: We, again, strongly agree with that statement.
In order to achieve adequate consultation and wide support of faculty for such
arrangements, it is the belief of this committee that any such intersegmental
agreements must be initiated and controlled by each interested academic department.
Any intersegmental cooperation between academic units at SFSU and local
community colleges to offer courses on this campus must be initiated at
the SFSU Department/Program level. Academic departments/programs also
hold sole responsibility for the evaluation of such programs and for recommending
continuation or discontinuation of such arrangements.
Academic departments/programs will present their proposal to their school
dean, who is then responsible for working with the Vice President of Academic
Affairs (or designee) to facilitate institutional arrangements, consultation
and cooperation between affected unions representing each respective faculty
unit, and other related issues as articulated in items 5 and 6 of the
School deans are also responsible to work with the VPAA (or designee)
to 1) identify other schools, departments or programs which would be affected
by such an intersegmental cooperation, as well as appropriate all-university
committees and the Dean of Undergraduate Studies, and to 2) involve such
affected parties in a process of broad consultation and cooperation.
Upon completion of the consultative process, the VPAA (or designee) will
be responsible for drafting a final proposal which must be approved by
the initiating academic department/program prior to its implementation.
**APPROVED BY PRESIDENT CORRIGAN ON FEBRUARY 13, 1992**