November 2019 ASCSU Plenary Report

Screen Shot 2019-11-29 at 4.51.46 PM

The following report is intended to update you on some the important happenings in the statewide academic senate.

ASCSU Chair’s Report November 2019

ASCSU Resolutions

The ASCSU passed two resolutions during the November 2019 plenary. Copies of these and other resolutions can be found at http://www.calstate.edu/AcadSen/Records/Resolutions/.

    1. Increasing Access and Success Through Additional Preparation in Quantitative Reasoning. This resolution supports an amended proposal that again will be before the Board next week as an information item, designed to increase the quantitative reasoning preparation of incoming freshmen. The resolution urges both support for teacher preparation in this area and flexibility in implementing the requirement for students attending high schools, which are unable to support the requirement with appropriate course offerings. Passed.
    2. Land Acknowledgment and Statement. (Introduced by Senator Lopez-Littleton, CSUMB, Faculty Affairs Committee). This resolution acknowledges that many CSU facilities are located on traditional Native American lands and encourages the CSU to incorporate acknowledgment of this fact in their formal senate meetings. Passed with dissent.
  1. We introduced the following resolutions that will be considered for adoption at our January plenary. Copies of these resolutions should be available shortly for campus review.
    1. Creation of an Ad Hoc Committee to Advance Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Within the Academic Senate CSU urges the creation of such a committee to examine many of our practices for potential adverse impacts on equity, diversity and inclusion with the expectation that there will be annual reports to the Executive Committee of their findings. (This effort was headed by CSUMB Senators Scott Waltz and Vanessa Lopez-Littleton.)
    2. Creating a Holistic and Humane Educational Environment in the California State University (CSU) is a request to the system to focus on creating such an environment to support student learning.
    3. Recommended Implementation of an Ethnic Studies System Requirement recommends the adoption of related system-wide learning outcomes and curricular guidelines. (These outcomes and guidelines are found at the end of this report.)

Feedback on​​​​ ASCSU​ Resolution: Recommended Implementation of an Ethnic Studies System Requirement

The Academic Affairs (AA) Committee introduced in first reading AS-3403-19/AA Recommended Implementation of an Ethnic Studies System Requirement.  The resolution lays out learning outcomes and an implementation framework for a systemwide ethnic studies graduation requirement.

The resolution is posted here.  ​​Any suggested change to the resolution must be made to the Academic Affairs Committee prior to January 15, 2020 for consideration for the Second Reading at the January 23-24, 2020 Plenary. The feedback with “read only” access is posted here. Campus senate feedback on our initial request in AS-3397-19/AA is archived in a separate Dropbox folder here.

Recommended Implementation of an Ethnic Studies System Requirement recommends the adoption of related system-wide learning outcomes and curricular guidelines as noted below.

Ethnic Studies Requirement: Student Learning Outcomes

Upon completing their ethnic studies requirement, students will be able to:

  1. analyze and articulate core concepts of ethnic studies, including but not limited to race and ethnicity, racialization, equity, ethno-centrism, Eurocentrism, and white supremacy;
  2. apply theory to describe critical events in the histories, cultures, and intellectual traditions of communities of color with a particular emphasis on agency and self-affirmation;
  3. describe the intersection of race and ethnicity with other forms of difference affected by hierarchy and oppression, such as class, gender, sexuality, ability, and/or age;
  4. describe how resistance, social justice, and liberation as experienced by communities of color are relevant to current issues (communal, national, and international); and
  5. act to engage with issues of race and ethnicity to build diverse, just, and equitable communities beyond the classroom.

Ethnic Studies Requirement: Implementation

  1. The primary ethnic studies requirement will be implemented as an overlay as part of lower division GE (ethnic studies outcomes 1-5 as a requirement of lower division GE)
  2. The secondary (additional scaffolded) requirement is for a reflective element (reinforcing any two of ethnic studies outcomes 2-5) overlaying upper division GE.
  3. Either (1) or (2) above may be met by not-otherwise-GE courses with campus approval (provided such courses meet the ethnic studies outcomes; i.e.,  the ethnic studies requirement could be met or partially met with existing campus requirements and/or courses that were developed to meet local requirements)
  4. Campuses may determine additional requirements (outcomes or implementation) beyond the minimal list provided.

Upcoming Topics

In the upcoming months, the ASCSU will be discussing a variety of topics relevant to the CSU. If you are interested or would like to chat about any of these topics, please feel free to reach out to your CSUMB statewide senators (Scott or Vanessa). The next plenary is scheduled for January 22-24.

More Details

A more detailed review of Plenary business can be found here: Campus Report November 19

ASCSU September 2019 Update

Greetings,

The following report is intended to update you on some the conversations happening in the statewide academic senate.

ASCSU Chair’s Report September2019

BoT Report July 2019

Qualitative Reasoning Requirement Update

The September Board of Trustees has proposed adding a 4th year of quantitative reasoning to CSU admissions requirements.  Many, including representatives from CFA and California Teachers Association (CTA), are concerned with the disparate impact this policy may have students of color (Latinx, African American) and students who attend school in underserved communities. Click here to access the CSU Board of Trustee’s Committee on Educational Policy video (September 24-25, 2019)

AB 1460

The ASCSU passed Towards Implementation of an Ethnic Studies System Requirement. This resolution is the first step in fulfilling the ASCSU promise made during our advocacy against AB 1460 (Weber) to take up the Ethnic Studies Task Force Report recommendation for a systemwide ethnic studies graduation requirement. That promise was made in response to legislative pressure to take up the issue, intense legislative support for some version of such a requirement and as a strategy to stave off legislative intrusion into the curriculum. AB1460 did not make it out of the Senate Appropriations Committee, but it was designated as a “two year bill,” which means that the author has an opportunity to bring the bill back to try and get it through the legislature a second time. The campuses are in the process of responding to requests from the Chancellor’s office on the ethnic studies requirements at CSUMB. If you have questions or comments, please connect with one of your campus senators.

Anti-bias Training for the CSU and UC campuses

As you may recall, the 2018 California Budget Act included an appropriation of $1,200,000 on a one-time basis to “contract for a two-year pilot program to provide anti-bias training for administrators, faculty, staff, and student leaders at campuses of the University of California and the California State University.”

The UC/CSU anti-bias training pilot program has four key learning outcomes:

1) Raising Awareness: This includes learning about personal biases and
understanding how biases may influence behavior and decision making at the
University.

2) Application to Organizational-Level Change: Participants will be able to draw a
connection between social group biases (positive and negative) and the impact
they have on university policies, procedures and population-specific outcomes.

3) Tools and Strategies for Disrupting Bias: The training will introduce participants to
tools and strategies for mitigating harmful bias in their functional area. They will
learn how to change or disrupt attitudinal and procedural patterns that perpetuate
multiple forms of biases.

4) Practice: Participants will receive ample opportunities to practice the tools and
strategies for disrupting multiple forms of biases.

More Information

For more information on the actions of the ASCSU, a detailed report is provided here.

Resolutions passed during the September plenary may be found here. (Sort by date.)

If you have questions, require more detailed information, or would like to have an issue taken to statewide senate, please reach out to one or both of your statewide senators (Scott Waltz and Vanessa Lopez-Littleton).

Have a wonderful semester!

Vanessa Lopez-Littleton & Scott Waltz

ASCSU Report on May 2019 Plenary

ASCSU Chair’s Report May 2019

 The ASCSU passed the following resolutions:

Fostering a Welcoming and Safe Campus Climate for African American Students requests that all mission statements and strategic planning documents espouse the importance of recruiting, retaining and graduating students of African descent, that CSU campuses continue to report racist incidents directed towards persons of African descent, and recommends that campus presidents, provosts, others adopt a list of specific actions to address related concerns. This was deemed urgent due to recent incidents on CSU campuses.

Appreciation for the S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation’s Partnership with The California State University to Improve the Preparation of K-12 Teachers Across the State of California is self-explanatory and echoes previous resolutions of appreciation. The foundation is closing its doors soon and will be recognized at the BOT meeting next week. 

In Support of Ethnic Studies Programs in the CSU affirms a commitment to Ethnic Studies as beneficial curricula, shares the concerns that led to AB 1460 and  recommends that campus senates revisit the Ethnic Studies Task Force Report to implement recommendations for Ethnic Studies curricula through faculty-driven processes of shared governance. This was deemed urgent given the aforementioned bill currently being considered in the legislature. 

Endorsement of Criteria for Engineering Model Curricula (MC) for Transfer to Receive the Same Admission Advantage as for Transfer Model Curricula (TMC) urges campuses to grant students completing associate degrees aligned with one of the four Engineering Model Curricula (MC) for Transfer the same admission eligibility advantage as for students who have completed a Transfer Model Curriculum (TMC) yielding an Associate Degree for Transfer (ADT) so long as no more than three lower-division GE courses be postponed to post-transfer as per prior ASCSU resolution. This was deemed urgent due to a desire to give encouragement to engineering faculty to continue doing work on this proposal in order to benefit transfer students as soon as is feasible.

In Support of “The Strategic Advantage of the Distinctiveness of the Twenty-three Campuses of the California State University System” (Board of Trustees, Nov., 2008) reminds system leaders of this principle enunciated by the Board which has seemingly been violated by recent administrative actions and in responses to ASCSU resolutions. The urgency stems from recent developments including a response to an ASCSU request that variations in campus Early Start programs be allowed.

On the Academic Senate CCC Resolution 5.02 S19 “Support for the CSU United States History, Constitution and American Ideals Commonly known as the American Institutions Requirement” thanks the Academic Senate of the California Community Colleges (ASCCC) for its interest in exploring the inclusion of a requirement similar to the existing CSU United States History, Constitution, and American Ideals (“American Institutions”) requirement into the CCC associate’s degree. This is urgent because these considerations are ongoing.

Call for the Establishment of a Working Group on the Impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Higher Education accepts a white paper on the impact of AI on employment, education, and life-long learning; it calls for the creation of a working group to study the implications of the themes from this white paper and to develop possible recommendations to address them.

Request That the ASCSU Schedule an Interrupting Racism Training Session in September 2019 recognizes the compelling need to recognize many forms of bias and requests that the training that ASCSU began this academic year be completed next year.

Endorsement of the Student Success White Paper Process—Student Perspectives encourages consultation with students during the completion of this white paper which recognizes that student success is multi-faceted and involves many constituents.

Preference for Consulting Assignments for CSU Faculty, Librarians, Coaches, and Counselors encourages the publication of consulting opportunities internally and the utilization of internal CSU expertise in these assignments.

Special Rule of Order Governing Debate on Substantive Motions: 3 For/3 Against formalizes this rule which has been followed by ASCSU without apparent documentation of its adoption.

Resolution in Support of Faculty Publication Rights with a Green Open Access Policy for the California State University urges central administration to review policies at the University of California and Harvard and to develop a similar policy for campuses to consider which supports open access.

Recommending a Fourth-Year Quantitative Reasoning Requirement for Admission to the California State University: Towards a Responsible and Responsive Policy commends the policy development process and urges that steps be taken to ensure that any policies developed to reform the a-g standards with respect to this requirement mitigate any adverse impact on underserved students.(Note: there appears to be more support across the state for a fourth year of quantitative reasoning overall rather than a senior year requirement. This requirement will likely not increase the number of required a-g courses. It likely will require that the elective course have a quantitative reasoning component. The proposed policy is still being refined.) The Board will take up this issue in July.

For a more detailed report on the May 2019 ASCSU plenary session, see the Campus Report May 16-17, 2019. If you have questions, feedback, or comments, please contact Vanessa or Scott.

ASCSU Report on March 2019 Plenary

CSU Faculty Innovation & Leadership Awards (FILA)

Nominations for the CSU Faculty Innovation & Leadership Awards (FILA) are being accepted to recognize faculty who demonstrate leadership or advance student success programs to improve degree completion or eliminate equity gaps. 23 awardees across the CSU will be honored and presented with $5,000 cash awards and $10,000 will be allocated to their academic departments to support awardee activities.

Deadline for nominations: May 3, 2019.

General Education (GE) Task Force Report Feedback

In May, ASCSU will consider two second reading resolutions, each of which provides different advice to the 2019-20 ASCSU Executive Committee. One acknowledges receipt of the report and refers it to our Academic Affairs (AA) and Academic Preparation and Education Programs (APEP) committees for their review.  The other recommends that the ASCSU create a new standing subcommittee on General Education Program Review for the CSU system and refer the report to that committee for completion. The ASCSU will decide which path to recommend. Any recommendations the full ASCSU approves will be forwarded to the Chancellor for final approval and inclusion in system-wide GE policy.

ASCSU developed a feedback page for comments on the GETF Report. Required information includes your name and role in the university (faculty, student, administrator, etc). Responses to the survey over 4500 words should be emailed as a single PDF to ascsuoffice@gmail.com Please include your name and status (faculty, student, administrator, community member, etc.) at the beginning of the document.

Survey results and documents will be posted weekly to a public Dropbox folder accessible here.​

Resolutions Passed

  1. Request for Action on Infringement of Faculty Intellectual Property responds to the actions of organizations such as Course Hero which publish class notes, etc. without permission of the faculty who create them. It requests that the Chancellor’s Office staff help to educate students about related law, provide faculty with means to stop the appropriation of their intellectual property, block web sites that violate the law, and pursue legal action when appropriate.
  2. Border Issues and Separation of Families: Impact on Students, Faculty and Staff in the CSU calls upon the CSU to continue to support immigrant students, faculty and staff and increase programs to support these communities.
  3. 2019 Legislative Advocacy Positions of the Academic Senate of the California State University (ASCSU) is self-explanatory and allows the Fiscal & Governmental Affairs and Executive Committees to represent formal positions as legislation moves forward in this legislative session. Positions of “support”, “oppose” or “no position” were discussed on bills of potential interest and impact for the ASCSU. Significant discussion was had about what to do when the body supports the intent of proposed legislation but opposes legislative intrusion into issues appropriately left to campuses and faculty.
  4. Support for AB 829 (Bloom) and the Occupational Therapy Doctorate (OTD) in the CSU supports granting authority for the CSU to offer this professional doctoral degree. It was felt that strong support early in the legislative process was important, hence the second reading waiver. This resolution amplifies the support position in the legislative advocacy resolution (see above). This bill is currently moving forward rapidly.
  5. Flexibility in the Implementation of Early Start calls for flexibility to meet the different needs of students attending the 22 campuses offering Early Start, including delaying some proposed curricular changes until they have been proven effective. It was deemed urgent because campuses are already well into the process of preparing for next summer’s Early Start programs.
  6. Support for a Higher Education Facilities Bond Act amplifies the support position in the legislative advocacy resolution (see above).The current budgetary practice of paying for CSU infrastructure using yearly budget allocations does not allow for the needs of the CSU to adequately be addressed. The general obligation bond being contemplated would address critical infrastructure needs and is a very high priority for the CSU.

The following topics may be included on the May plenary agenda:

  1. Resolution Rejecting the February 2019 General Education Task Force Report asks that no action be taken on the report and that it be referred to a new subcommittee, the GE Program Review Committee, for completion
  2. The Impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on Higher Education includes a white paper on the impact of AI on employment, education, etc. and calls for the creation of a task force to study the implications of the themes from this white paper and to develop possible recommendations to address them. (Referred by to committee).
  3. Request that the ASCSU Schedule an Unconscious Bias Training in September 2019 requests completion of the training that began this year.
  4. Endorsement of the Student Success White Paper 2.0 Process encourages consultation and data collection during the completion of this white paper.
  5. Preference for Consulting Assignments for CSU Faculty, Librarians, Coaches, and Counselors encourages the publication of consulting opportunities internally and the utilization of internal CSU expertise in these assignments.
  6. Receipt of the General Education Task Force Report expresses gratitude to the members of the task force and directs the Executive Committee to refer campus feedback to two standing committees for review. Concerns expressed by various discipline councils and campuses were acknowledged during the introduction and discussion of this resolution.
  7. Preference for Hiring Incumbent Contingent Faculty, Librarians, Coaches, and Counselors to Non-Contingent Positions requests that a database of these contingent faculty be developed and that hiring committees for non-contingent positions be urged to consult it.
  8. Special Rule of Order Governing Debate on Substantive Motions: 3 For/3 Against formalizes this rule which has been followed by ASCSU without apparent documentation of its adoption.
  9. Resolution in Support of an Open Access Policy for the California State University urges a policy which increases student access to scholarly articles written by CSU scholars while maintaining copyright protections.
  10. Recommending a Four-Year Mathematics/Quantitative Reasoning Requirement for Admission to the California State University: Towards a Responsible and Responsive Policy urges that steps be taken to ensure that any policies developed to reform the a-g standards with respect to this requirement mitigate any adverse impact on underserved students.(Note: there appears to be more support across the state for a fourth year of quantitative reasoning overall rather than a senior year requirement.)

For a more detailed report on the March ASCSU plenary session, see the Campus Report March 19. If you have questions, feedback, or comments, please contact Vanessa or Scott.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

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)

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.