Senate Meeting December 4, 2001
The Academic Senate
was called to order by Chair Vaughn at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
Aaron, Eunice Avila, Guadalupe Bartscher, Patricia Bishop, Anna Blomberg, Judith Boyle, Andrea Cherny, Robert Collier, James Concolino, Christopher Consoli, Andres Corrigan, Robert A. Daniels, Robert |
Duke, Jerry Edwards, James Fung, Robert Ganji, Vijay Garcia, Oswaldo Garcia, Velia Gerson, Deborah Gregory, Jan Harnly, Caroline Henry, Margaret Higgins, Susan Hom, Marlon Houlberg, Rick |
Hubler, Barbara Jerris, Scott Kassiola, Joel La Belle, Thomas Langbort, Carol Levine, Josh Luft, Sandra McKeon, Midori Nichols, Amy Oñate, Abdiel Raggio, Marcia Sayeed, Lutfus |
Shrivastava, Vinay Smith, Miriam Steier, Saul Strong, Rob Su, Yuli Turitz, Mitch Vaughn, Pamela Warren, Mary Anne Warren, Penelope Yip, Yewmun |
Senate Members Absent: Colvin, Caran (exc) Scoble, Don(exc) Gillotte, Helen(exc) Wolfe, Bruce(exc) Terrell, Dawn(exc) Alvarez, Alvin (exc) Moallem, Minoo(exc) Pong, Wen Shen(exc) AdisaThomas, Karima(abs), Friedman, Marv (abs), Newt-Scott, Ronda (abs) |
Guests: Jackie Kegley, Patricia Taylor, Hafez Modirzadeh, Jo Ann Aviel Barbara Henderson, Daniel Meier, David Hemphill, Nicholas Certo, Gail Whitaker, Daniel Meiers, Keith Monteiro, Paul Barnes, Jerry Combs, David Hemphill, Hafez Modirzadeh, Wan-Lee Cheng, |
Announcements and Report
- Chair’s Report
Senators,
I
wanted to report briefly on the CSU Academic Conference held last week in
San Diego. Since we have a guest today, Academic Senate CSU chair Jackie
Kegley, I decided to send my report electronically, saving time for her on
our agenda.
The
theme of the conference was Quality Education Through Diversity, and our campus
presentation was handled by Professor Frank Bayliss of the Biology Department.
Professor Bayliss delivered a wonderful session entitled "From Intervention
to Honors: Realistic Funding Opportunities to Develop Quality Programs"
and focused on how significant funding is available to support students of
color and low-income students in the behavioral and basic sciences. These
funds, in turn, support quality programs for all students, aid in recruiting
under-represented students and faculty and support faculty teacher/scholars
and mentoring programs. In brief: there is major funding available in these
areas precisely because we are a diverse campus. We are indebted to Professor
Bayliss for his work on this campus and for his generosity in guiding others,
both on this campus and elsewhere, in this process.
We
also had a very good Q and A session with state senator Alpert, faculty trustee
Goldwhite and the chancellor. It was the general opinion of the faculty in
attendance that the contributions by Senator Alpert were the most significant
and constructive in dealing with budget issues, CSU funding, and the like.
There
is, as you will imagine, general despair over the lack of progress in bargaining
-- that, of course, affects us all.
In
terms of the state of shared governance on individual campuses, I must report
that SFSU fares much better than many of our sister campuses in terms of communication
between administration and senate. Shared governance is a process that requires
our continued energy and vigilance, precisely because it represents the best
of what the university does -- creating an opportunity for open examination
and critical discussion of the principles that shape and guide us; for that
to be successful it cannot be static, and it must include all voices.
For
the same reasons, full participation in strategic planning is crucial -- I
hope you are considering nominating yourself for CUSP II.
I
look forward to seeing you all at our final meeting of 2001. I wish us all
a safe, prosperous and productive 2002.
M/S/P (Cherny, Mary
Ann Warren) to approve the agenda
Agenda Item #2: Approval of Minutes for Meeting of November 20, 2001
M/S/P (Duke, Langbort)
to approve the minutes
Agenda Item #3: Report from Jackie Kegley, Chair, CSU Academic Senate
On behalf of the statewide
CSU Academic Senate Chair Jackie Kegley acknowledged the terrific job
that the SFSU representatives, Bob Cherny, Jan Gregory, and Eunice Aaron are
doing as CSU Academic Senators. Kegley outlined ideas on shared governance
that were the result of work completed by the CSU Academic Senate ad hoc committee.
A few of these ideas are: orientation for trustees, Faculty, administrator,
and staff on the principles of shared governance; sharing of communications
across the university and the CSU; and accountability in shared governance
with clear expectations and clear rewards. Kegley asserted that shared
governance is a core concept for the CSU and embodies the values of the university.
Shared governance is essential to academic freedom. Shared governance reiterates
faculty responsibility for curriculum and the academic portion of the university.
That more importantly shared governance embodies the values that we try to
tech our students. These values are: reasoned judgment, research judgment,
debate, tolerance of different points of view, and the willingness to hear.
Kegley asserted that academic freedom requires faculty expertise as
a determining factor in institutional decisions. She outlined the importance
for strategic planning and drew the senate’s attention to the information
embodied in the document titled California State University Beginning of the
21st Century. (Available on the CSU web site at "The California
State University at the Beginning of the 21st Century - Meeting the Needs
of the People of California, The Academic Senate of the California State University"
Kegley concluded by outlining the activities of several CSU Academic
Senate task forces on: role and responsibilities of department and program
chairs; post doctorate and graduate education; faculty hiring and retention;
faculty workload; faculty view of their own responsibilities; new standards
for CSU teacher preparation; and intellectual property rights.
Robert Daniels
raised the issue of better communication between trustees, faculty, and the
chancellor. Kegley outlined that part of the problem is that the trustees
want to do the best they can, but do not get an orientation about their job.
The chancellor and his staff for the most part lead the trustees and the trustees
are told what to do. Recently some trustees are changing the situation and
coming out to campuses and requesting communication with students, faculty,
and staff. Some of the new trustees are raising questions, being a little
more independent. There is also a lack of follow through on part of the chancellor’s
staff. They send out a memo to campuses but do not follow up. The CSU needs
to increase the flow of communication both up and down. Susan Higgins,
asked if Kegley could summarize from the report The California State University
at the Beginning of the 21st Century - Meeting the Needs of the People of
California, the top three agendas that we should be lobbying the California
state legislature. Kegley, one of the key items get across to our
legislators is that the CSU is a valuable asset to the state of California.
The CSU educates the workers, the professionals and the leaders of the state
of California If the legislators don’t want to loose this valuable asset the
you better invest in the CSU. This is the general message that needs to be
carried to California legislators. We are asking for parity that the CSU have
adequate and stable funding and not been seen as the step down in the educational
scheme but equal with the UC. The legislators need to change their view of
seeing the UC at the top, CSU in the middle and Community Colleges on the
bottom of an education pyramid. Need to change graduate student differential
fees so that a full-time graduate students is funded at 12 units rather than
15. We need more than marginal cost funding. Need to have a reasonable student
faculty ratio and the master plan must be changed so that CSU faculty can
do research and be recognized as doing research. Bob Cherny, indicated
his agreement with her list of important items, however, we need to put what
we want into current context. There will be very little or nothing additional
this year or next year. We have to agree on some long-term goals that can
extend out over 5 or 10 years. We will need to restore funds to those areas
that will be cut this year and next. For the long run, we need to change the
marginal funding formulas that were written in the 1990, to reflect the real
world today. Student-faculty ratios (sfr) and the average salary of the entry
faculty need to reflect 2002 realities. We need to redefine the graduate students
as one who does not carry 15 but 12 semester units. In addition we need to
persuade the legislature to bring down the sfr to where it was in the 1990
before the last budget crises. We need to reduce the teaching load from 12
to 9. Lastly, we need to restore the libraries from the cuts made in the
1990s. Midori McKeon requested that the statewide CSU develop and disseminate
information on how we can adjust our curriculum to reflect the new requirements
of for the multi- subject and single subject teaching credentials. Pamela
Vaughn indicated that a SFSU team that has been working for months on
the implications of the new multiple subjects would be attending a statewide
meeting in Long Beach on December 6th and 7th. That
team will report back to the SFSU community with an open meeting for all faculty.
Lutfus Sayeed, the CSU’s requirement for bachelor’s degrees to be 120
units have resulted in many degrees on this campus to be pressured to bring
bachelor degree programs to 120 credits. Kegley did go through extensive
discussion at statewide level and needs to be repeated again. The 120 units
are not a ceiling it is the bottom. Programs that need to have more than 120
units can. Pamela Vaughn, the provost and others have reinforced that
department’s that are required to have more than 120 units have no reason
to cut their programs down to 120.
Agenda Item #4: Proposed Revisions to the Bachelor of Music in Music-Jazz
Emphasis
Revision of Bachelor of Music
to include a Jazz Emphasis
Before you for review
is the proposal for the revision of bachelor of music to include a jazz emphasis.
This proposal was reviewed by CRAC two times prior to being placed on the
Senate Agenda. The Department of Music currently offers 5 emphases within
the Bachelor of Music Degree. They would like to add a Jazz emphasis to serve
the students who have serious career goals in jazz. Up until now, faculty
have been assisting students in informally meeting their jazz emphasis goals
due to the expertise of the faculty in Jazz. Many of the courses within the
proposed emphasis already exist in the Music Department and are being grouped
to create an emphasis. The emphasis requires no new faculty. 1 new 2-unit
course Music 432 Jazz Improvisation II will be added. Current Jazz courses
will be revised are Music 431, Music 440 and Music. Patricia Taylor and Hafez
Modirzadeh are faculty representing the proposal and also here to answer any
questions.
Gail Whitaker underscored that this is not
a proposal for a new program but an emphasis, which represents a list of courses
to be used as an advising tool.
M/S/P (Steier, Houlberg)
to second reading
M/S/P (Steier, Mary
Ann Warren) to close debate
Passed
Agenda Item #5:Proposed Revisions to the Curricular Requirements
for the major and minor in International Relations
The department of international
relations has two proposals today. One for revisions to the curricular requirements
for the major and minor in international relations and the second a proposal
for revisions in the Master’s of Arts Program in International Relations.
Both of the proposals come to senate from CRAC as consent items. First we
will review the proposal for the revisions to the curricular requirements
for the major and minor in International Relations. Revisions of the major
include: Changing IR 300 International Careers to IR 200 International Careers
to implement a second year level course, creating a first core course. Requiring
an upper division survey of the field of international relations, IR 308 as
a required core course. Combining IR 301 and IR 303 to create a course IR
309 International Relations Analysis and Application. Renumbering IR 302 International
Political Economy would be renumbered to IR 312. Sequential renumbering and
the combining of 2 courses into 1 are essentially the changes to this major.
Revisions of the minor:
Eliminating IR
550 which is a culminating course for IR majors and only requiring IR 308,
IR 310 and IR312 and increasing the students choice of electives from 4 to
8. Faculty here representing the proposal are Jo Ann Aviel and Dean Kassiola
to answer any questions.
Jerry
Duke, as
chair of the Senate Program Review Committee, asked if it were appropriate
to undergo curricula changes prior to completion of program review. Joel
Kassiola, pointed out that the changes are minor revisions and would not
be part of program review process. Joan Ann Aviel asserted that these
changes are the result of our process or completing programs review, which
will be completed this spring. Saul Steier, asked if the present program
review reflect the old curriculum or a new one with these revisions? Kassiola,
if this is approved the reviewers will be looking at the revised curriculum.
Robert Daniels asserted that the changes seem reasonable. Pamela
Vaughn, request to know the status of the program review? Duke,
a self-study has not been turned in. Joel Kassiola, the self-study
from a department’s point of view has been completed and the only thing left
was the assignment of the external reviewers, which has been pushed to the
spring semester. Duke, the self-study is sent to Gail Whitaker’s office
for the assignment of the reviewers. Gail Whitaker, our office has
not received a draft of the self-study and it is eighteen months overdue.
Rick Houlberg, the external review may recommend curriculum changes
so these changes might be premature to the completion of that process. Susan
Higgins asserted that she believes that faculty have the right to change curriculum
at any time and do not have to wait for a particular time. Robert Cherny
commented that he could not recall that program review limits curriculum changes
to that process. It is his understanding that faculty can change our curriculum
when we feel it is appropriate. Joel Kassiola clarified the colleges
approach to program review completion and asserted that department’s are not
overdue in submission of the self-study. He outlined that the cycle was extended
to allow for departments to complete their self-studies without inflecting
an additional burden on faculty workload.
M/S/P
(Steier, Mary Ann Warren) to second reading
Miriam
Smith sees
a problem in a department changes it curriculum while under program review.
Kassiola, this program was last reviewed in 1992 and it is clear that
the circumstance have changed so much.
M/SP
(Gregory, Mary Ann Warren) to close debate
Voting
- passed
Agenda Item #6: Proposed Revisions to the Master of Arts Degree in International
Relations
Revisions to the program
include: Requiring
IR 728 International Political Economy for all students. Changes in the academic
emphasis: two options for data analysis courses instead of just one chosen
with advisor consultation, and reducing the number of elective units required
to accommodate the required core course IR 728. Changes in the professional
emphasis:
Reducing the number
of elective units to accommodate the required IR 728 and rewording of the
explanation of the emphasis for clarity.
Faculty here representing
the proposal are Jo
Ann Aviel and Dean
Kassiola
to answer any questions.
Jan Gregory, suggested changes in language
for clarity. Midori McKeon asked why a foreign language is not required
but simply recommended, since this is a degree in international relations.
Jo Ann Aviel, this is not a change there has not been a foreign language
requirement and we have not objection to adding the wording suggested. Vaughn
pointed out that the current bulletin language asserts that a foreign language
is suggested. Vijay Ganji asked if the GPA requirements for admission
were too high. Jo Ann Aviel outlined that the GPA requirement is not
a change from the past and has been practiced for some time.
M/S/P (Cherny, Steier)
to second reading
M/S/P (Duke, Mary
Ann Warren) to close debate
Voting. Passed
Agenda Item #7: Proposed Revisions
to Master of Arts Degree in Education: Early Childhood Concentration
Before you for review
are the proposal for changes to the program Master of Arts in Education:
concentration in Early Childhood Education. This program is outdated and
has needed substantial revision. Due to expertise and initiative of the co-coordinators
of this program, the revision was accomplished. This proposal comes to senate
as a consent item. Changes to the program in summary: Structural changes:
The program currently exists as a program with core courses and elective choices
and revisions change this to core, specialization, and elective courses.
In addition reorganizing courses from core to specialization/specialization
to core and elective to core category. This changes the number of open elective
units from 12 to 9. These are reflected on page 3 of the proposal. Changing
the bulletin to reflect newly approved course EED 806 (approved change). Changing
course title to reflect content: EED 708 First and Second Language Development
for Diverse Learners to EED 708 First and Second Language Development in ECE
(approved change). Changing the wording under “admission to the program” in
the bulletin to capture as many students into the program as possible.
Faculty here representing
the proposal are Barbara
Henderson, Daniel Meier, and David Hemphill.
Carol Langbort
asserted that these revisions are long overdue and are much needed. Langbort,
this revision is long overdue, these are very much needed.
M/S/P (Cherny, Steier)
to second reading
M/S/P (Jerris, Onate)
to close debate
Voting - passed
Agenda Item #8: Proposed Revisions
to Educational Therapy Certificate Program.
Before you for review
are the proposal for revision of the educational therapy Certificate Program.
This proposal comes to senate as a consent item from CRAC. In summary changes
are: Addition of 3 prerequisites SPED 702, 803 and 770. Deletion of prerequisite
SPED 715/716. Move SPED 778 to the core requirements. Addition of a 1 unit
course SPED 710 Interpreting Cognitive Assessments. Increasing number of
total units for the certificate from 27 to 31 units. This occurs because
of the addition of the SPED 710 course and the requirement of taking two internships
instead of one.
Faculty here representing
the proposal are Nicholas
Certo and David
Hemphill.
Saul Steier asked for clarification on the
removal of the three-unit computer course and the meaning of interpretation
cognitive session. Nicholas Certo, all of the people earn a credential
in special education and are receiving computer information prior to coming
into the program. Mitch Turitz asked for clarification on the internship
requirement. Certo, requirement is for two internships. The first is
hands on administration of running a business the second is learning how to
apply and conduct testing. Robert Cherny asked for clarification between
the certificate, degree program, and the credential program. Is this a separate
program from either the MA or the credential program? Certo, the course
requirements for the certificate are separate from the MA program and separate
from the credential program. Carol Langbort ask for clarification on
what appears to be confusing course numbers. Certo accepted the suggestion
and would clarify the numbering system. Andres Consoli asked how long
is the internship experience for the second internship listed. Certo,
the internship is a semester long experience with varying amount of activities.
M/S/P (Nichols,
Consoli) to second reading
M/SP (Steier, Shrivastava)
to close debate
Voting passed
Senate Chair Pamela
Vaughn reminded senators about the importance of faculty participation
in the second wave of strategic planning or CUSP II. This is the strategic
planning process that will shape the future of our university. It will set
academic priorities and to be effective it must include all. We will need
to enlist the participation of a wide range of faculty, staff, students and
administrators. Active participation in a process so critical to the future
of our campus should be are number one priority. All faculty are invited to
participate or to nominate someone else to participate in a process that will
help determine the future of San Francisco State University: the "second
wave" of strategic planning that we will, for now, call "CUSP II."
Our first step is to establish a steering committee that will begin to develop
a process and priorities for CUSP II. We have set Friday, December 14th,
as the deadline for nominations; submit them to the Academic Senate, ADM 551
campus mail or e-mail (senate@sfsu.edu).
Adjourned at 3:56 PM
Respectfully submitted,
James Edwards
Secretary to the Faculty