ASCSU GE Task Force Report

The following report was adopted from an email sent by Catherine Nelson, ASCSU Chair on February 22, 2019.

Background: In 2017, the Academic Statewide Senate of the California State University (ASCSU) recommended the establishment of a task force to “…examine, offer suggestions and report on GE programs system-wide.” The General Education Task Force (GETF) Report was completed on February 8, 2019. The report includes a conceptual model and a series of recommendations to the ASCSU for the modification of CSU GE Breadth outlined in EO 1100(Rev).

Next Steps: ASCSU is planning a two-step process. The first step is for the report to go through the two-reading resolution process that formally receives the report and refers it to the ASCSU Academic Affairs (AA) and Academic Preparation and Educational Programs (APEP) Committees for review. The first reading of the resolution will occur in March; the second reading for amendments, debate, and a vote will occur in May. The second step of the process is for the AA and APEP committees to review feedback and make recommendations. Then, in accordance with ASCSU’s established process, the GETF Report, including recommendations, will be forwarded to the Chancellor for final approval.

Note About Process: ASCSU is committed to broad and inclusive system-wide consultation to get feedback about the GETF Report. ASCSU is working to provide ample time for full consideration and discussion of the report’s contents on the various campuses. ASCSU expects to collect feedback through October 2019, with the first reading of a resolution containing any recommendations AA and APEP make following at the earliest at the November 2019 plenary meeting. Chancellor White has assured ASCSU no new executive orders regarding GE will be issued before the ASCSU weighs in on the GETF Report. The only exception would be if there is a legal requirement to do so, such as a bill passed by the legislature and signed by the governor that requires some kind of change in GE.

Opportunity for Input:  ASCSU recognizes the importance of the report and encourages all stakeholders to provide feedback, through all available mechanisms. ASCSU is currently working to set up an online mechanism for direct feedback to ASCSU. CSUMB senators (Scott and Vanessa) will let you know as soon as the system is available. In addition, ASEC is exploring additional mechanisms for campus-wide feedback. You will be notified by the Academic Senate of any planned forums or other CSUMB-wide mechanisms.

If you have questions, feedback, or comments, please feel free to contact Vanessa or Scott.

 

 

 

 

 

ASCSU report on January 2019 Plenary

 

Preliminary results following EO1110 changes

The Chancellor’s Office has been analyzing the result of the new EO 1110 courses (especially those in Mathematics/Quantitative Reasoning). They are still waiting on further data from one or two campuses, but the preliminary results are positive (higher rates of passage for math courses).

Governor Newsoms’ proposed budget

Governor Newsom proposed an increase 6x higher that former Gov. Brown’s recommended increase: $300 million increase for the general fund, and $262 million in one-time funds. This represents a 6% augmentation for CSUs (vs. 4% for UCs). The Governor’s expectation is that tuition will remain flat and that CSU will grow in student headcount. At the same time, the Governor’s proposed increase was less than what the CSU Board of Trustees requested. For more details, see Governor’s Budget Summary link.

Chancellor plans to introduce bond

Chancellor White intends to place an $8 billion general obligation bond on the ballot for 2020, largely  for facilities. The funds would be shared between UC and CSU. The Chancellor did qualify these plans by noting there was much work that will need to be done both politically and strategically to make this happen. In describing the need for these funds, the Chancellor pointed out that 60% of the buildings in the CSU were 30 years or older, and there is a need to update classroom design for 21st century.

Tenets of System Level Shared Governance in the CSU approved

The resolution to adopt the Tenets of System Level Shared Governance in the California State University passed. However, it is worth noting that the resolution included a clause a guiding principle that states:  “The Chancellor shall not unilaterally decide what form the expedited consultation process should take or when it should be used.” Relatedly, the Encouraging Responsible Curriculum Development and Modification under HEERA resolution also passed. That resolution included the stipulation “that ASCSU reassert our objection to the severely time constrained and flawed shared governance process and consultation surrounding Executive Order 1100 (revised) and Executive Order (EO) 1110 and insist that the practice of joint decision making mandated in HEERA be respected and adhered to.” The next step will be for the Chancellor to approve the Tenets document, which he is expected to do.

For a more detailed report on the January ASCSU plenary session, see the detailed report.  If you have questions, feedback, or comments on the resolution, please be in contact with Vanessa or Scott.

November ASCSU Plenary Report

CSU Basic Needs Initiative

The deadlines for the CSU Basic Needs Initiative mini- grants are fast approaching: Due 20/21 December, depending on grant. The Basic Needs Initiative is a CSU effort to study and address the problem of food and housing insecurity in higher education. The following grants are available:

  1. Faculty (-student) research, up to $15K
  2. Campus Community Garden enhancement ($3K)
  3. Student Research, $1,000 and $2,500

Addressing Bias in the CSU

The ASCSU membership participated in a truncated Unconscious Bias training in an effort to move towards more equitable membership and processes as a body.

Tenets of Shared Governance Resolution Update

Resolution to adopt the Tenets of Shared Governance was discussed as a first read. Concerns about adopting the Tenets primarily revolved around the perception that the Chancellor’s Office has more authority regarding“expedited consultation” that faculty were satisfied with. However, there was also discussion about how adopting the Tenets does not close the process of discussion of consultation; additional action can always take place.

20th Anniversary of the CSU Center for Community Engagement

ASCSU passed the Observing the 20th Anniversary of the CSU Center for Community Engagement, and Student Success in Service Learning and Community Engagement resolution. Copies of this and other resolutions can be found at http://www.calstate.edu/AcadSen/Records/Resolutions/.

More Details

A more detailed review of Plenary business can be found here.

Tenets of System Level Governance in the CSU

On January 17th, the ASCSU will be taking action on a resolution to adopt the Tenets of System Level Governance in the CSU. Several campuses have already provided their Sense of the Senate responses when the Tenets came up for a first read in November. Your Statewide Senators would benefit from both individual feedback as well as a CSUMB Senate statement regarding the position of the campus faculty.

The Tenets represent an agreement between the ASCSU and the Chancellor’s Office that reaffirms guidelines for shared governance. It captures the outcome of six two-hour meetings between the CO’s representatives (including the Chancellor, himself, at two meetings) and the ASCSU Executive Committee. These meetings were initiated by ASCSU in response to the egregious disregard for consultation on EO1100 and EO1110. As a result, the Tenets represent an effort to remind the CO that the faculty play a primary and invaluable role in establishing curriculum in the CSU.

One of the points in favor of adopting the Tenets is that they embody a good faith effort between the ASCSU Executive Committee and the Chancellor’s Office to affirm a sense of shared governance. Further, the Tenets can stand as a first step, not a final step, in holding the CO accountable for its actions. Adopting them also affirms the actions of the Executive Committee and conveys a sense of solidarity and follow-through on behalf of CSU faculty to the CO.

On the other hand, the Tenets do not expand the rights of the faculty in any formal way; they are a negotiated understanding on the order of an MOU. And they include elements that some faculty have concerns about. Specifically, the following is raising concerns (italics added by blog author):

The formal consultation process will therefore make provision to allow for an explicit agreement between the ASCSU and the chancellor to engage in a mutually agreed-upon process of expedited consultation in such cases, while still recognizing the formal role of the academic senates as the faculty voice on the matters under consideration. In the unlikely event that agreement cannot be reached, the chancellor will decide. Because an expedited process is not the most optimal form of consultation and shortchanges a robust shared governance process, its use should be limited to those rare circumstances that justify departing from the more comprehensive process intended by this document.

The CO position is that there will be rare instances when action cannot wait for the processes of ASCSU to produce a representative response. The ASCSU pushed back and stated that even in those circumstances, the CO would work with the ASCSU to define an expedited process. Regardless, some faculty are still concerned about the possible implications of this paragraph (i.e., its concessions to the CO).

CSUMB faculty are encouraged to read through the Tenets document, as well as the response from sister campuses (given below) and provide feedback to Vanessa and Scott both as individuals and as members of the Academic Assembly. Please feel free to contact Vanessa, Scott or the Senate Chair, Michael, if you have questions.

Tenets of System Level Governance in the CSU

Responses from other campuses:

CSUS Resolution (In Support)

CSUDH Resolution (Opposed)

1985 Trustees Statement

2001 Document

Stanislaus Resolution (Opposed)

Curricular Planning Update, October 24, 2018

Curricular Deadlines

Monday, 11:59 pm Oct 29:  Dean’s deadline for Course Consent approval  (Dean will establish deadline for college curriculum committee to submit to dean)  

Wednesday, Oct 31: College Curriculum Committee deadline to forward approved program revision proposals to Dean’s office.

Wednesday, Nov. 7: Deadline for deans to transmit revisions to degree programs and minors to the Provost.  In extenuating circumstances, the college curriculum chair may request an extension through Wednesday, November 14th.  Only requests submitted by college curriculum chair, dean, or associate dean will be considered. Requests for extensions should be transmitted to the Provost’s Office no later than October 31st, via the Program Revisions Extension Request Google Form. The Provost’s Office will take evidence of a good-faith effort to meet the original deadline as the primary criterion for granting one-week extensions.

Friday, Nov 30: Deadline for URCC and GECC to transmit courses to SCCC.

Wed Dec 5th: Deadline for SCCC review of courses and transmittal to Provost’s office.  

Wed Dec 16th:  Deadline for SCCC to review all revisions to degree programs.

Existing GE Courses with Prerequisites Submitted to Course Consent and No Changes to Prerequisites

Existing GE courses with existing prerequisites, but propose no changes to course prerequisites in the course consent cycle for the fall 2019 catalog, (e.g. GE course that has a prerequisite but there is no change in prerequisite; course is in consent for another reason such as edits to the course description) do NOT need to submit additional documentation this year, because they will go through full recertification in the future. At the time of recertification, adherence to the CSUMB guidance on GE prerequisites will be required of all courses under review for recertification.

Existing GE Courses Submitted to Course Consent Changing or Adding Prerequisites or Greater than 3 Units

Existing GE courses that are in course consent to change or add prerequisites, or that are greater than 3 units should justify the exception in the “‘Describe your proposal.” section in accordance with the Senate guidelines on GE courses exceeding 3 units  or the guidelines on prerequisites  Upper-division courses that require a specific A1, A2, A3, B4 course, would need to provide justification for why only a specific course is acceptable as a prerequisite.

Courses requesting new GE certification that are greater than 3 units or that have prerequisites other than those allowed in the Senate guidelines on prerequisites and credits

Courses requesting new GE certification that are greater than 3 units or that have prerequisites other than those allowed in the Senate guidelines on prerequisites and units must provide justification for these exceptions in the “‘Describe your proposal” section.  This includes upper-division GE courses that require a specific A1, A2, A3, B4 course. Justifications should comply with the Senate guidelines on GE courses exceeding 3 units  or the guidelines on prerequisites.

Anticipating the November ASCSU Plenary

8 October 2018 report

Celebrating CSU Community Engagement & Service Learning Centers

At the upcoming November Plenary, The Senate is scheduled to take action on the Resolution Observing the 20th Anniversary of the CSU Centers for Community Engagement and Student Success in Service Learning and Community Engagement. This is a quite brief resolutions and the key elements are that the ASCSU encourages both the Chancellor, Board of Trustees, every campus Senate and campus President to “plan for and carry out an appropriate observation of the 20th anniversary of the CSU Center for Community Engagement.” (Also mentioned in the 10 September Report on the Senate blog).

If you have questions, feedback, or comments on the resolution, please be in contact with Vanessa or Scott.

 

ASCSU Action on Shared Governance

Also at the November Plenary, the Senate is scheduled to take action on the Tenets of System Level Governance in the California State University. This document is the outcome of intensive discussions  between the ASCSU Executive team and the Chancellor’s Office and it outlines baseline tenets regarding how shared governance between the ASCSU and the Chancellor’s Offices should occur. These discussions and the resulting Tenets document represent ASCSU’s effort to call the Chancellor’s Office to account for breakdown in appropriate consultation around implementation of EO1100/1110. (Also mentioned in the 10 September Report on the Senate blog).

Since the Tenets documents itself represents an agreed-upon commitment by both the ASCSU Executive team and the Chancellor’s Office, it is unlikely the Tenets document itself will be modified. However, it is likely that the Tenets will be accompanied by a resolution, which can provide further commentary on behalf of the Senate.

If you have questions, feedback, or comments on the resolution, please be in contact with Vanessa or Scott.

 

CSU Faculty needed for Five-Year Review of Transfer Courses

The C-ID (Course Identification System) group is looking for CSU faculty to participate in the Five-Year Review process.  This review process both approves courses and ensures proper descriptors for system-wide Community College courses that transfer to the CSU. There is often a shortage of CSU faculty participating in the review process, even though their expertise is greatly needed.

Currently, C-ID initiated the 5-Year Review of the TMC and descriptors for Biology, Chemistry, and Agriculture in fall 2017 and remains in need of additional CSU faculty feedback for the following disciplines:

Agriculture Animal Science, Agriculture Business, Agriculture Plant Science, Agriculture Descriptors

Further, C-ID is initiating the 5-year review of the descriptors and transfer model curriculum (TMC) for six disciplines during the fall 2018 term, and is now seeking input to determine whether or not changes are warranted and, if so, what those changes should be. The information gathered from the surveys will be reviewed by the FDRG for each discipline and used to guide the 5-year review process.

Links to the 5-year surveys are accessible below. The deadline for feedback is October 25, 2018:

Accounting (descriptors only)

Communications Studies

Economics

Film, Television, and Electronic Media

Nutrition and Dietetics

Psychology

If you are interested in participating or would like more information regarding these roles, please send an email to support@c-id.net.

Curricular Planning Update, September 29, 2018

There were a number of issues and situations addressed in by curricular committees on Friday, September 28, 2018.

Minor Changes for UR Courses in the Administrative Update Master Course List

Courses that meet a UR requirement through the administrative update do not have to submit additional documentation if they are changing up to 2 units, and/or changing corequisites or prerequisites. These courses still must be submitted through Course Consent.

This means if a department or school would like to make a minor change to a UR course listed in the Administrative Update Master Course List, they would:

  1. Submit the course in Course Consent.
  2. Indicate the changes, which are
    • up to 2 units and/or
    • corequisites or prerequisites.
  3. No other documentation is required, e.g., a course syllabus or proposal form.

GE courses Exceeding 3 Units

In exceptional cases when a GE course also fulfills an MLO, requests can be made for an exemption from the 3-unit criterion with a written rationale based on the following:

  1. Academic necessity in relation to the MLO as demonstrated by common practice at other institutions
  2. Degree completion efficiency
  3. For Lower Division GE courses, document the consistency with the CA Community College system

Prerequisites for GE Courses

Based on EO 1100 and recommendations by the GECC, the Provost’s office has approved  prerequisites for GE courses in the following cases:

Lower-Division

Prerequisites for lower-division GE courses are assumed to be met by high school a-g coursework and admission to the CSU except for sequenced Area B courses, language courses, and placement tests. For sequenced courses, the first course in a sequence should not have additional prerequisites. Petitions for exceptions may be considered by the GE Curriculum Committee.

Upper-Division

Prerequisites for upper-division GE courses are the Golden Four (A1, A2, A3, and B4). Other prerequisites must be reflective of the skills and abilities beyond the Golden Four necessary for the course.  In such cases, a prerequisite for an upper division GE course is assumed to be to be a GE-certified course.

As a reminder, Monday October 1, 11:59 pm is the department deadline for Course Consent entry. Courses should be forwarded from department to college curriculum committee by this date, although edits can be made by colleges after this date (or items can be returned to submitter for corrections), no additional courses can be added to the queue after October 1.

Thanks,
Michael