Senate Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
December 10th, 2014
In attendance: Jerry Moore, Caroline Coward, Jamie Dote-Kwan, Kate Esposito
Pat Kalayjian, Thomas Norman
Absent: Charles Thomas
Minutes: Susanne Walker
Guest: Provost Junn
Provost Junn Report:
WSCUC
Campuses going through the updated version of WSCUC will now have to demonstrate competency in five core areas Groups – four of which are our GE areas. You now have to document evidence that you have passed this at a sufficient level. Provost Junn questioned when looking back at a students’ cumulative knowledge to demonstrate competency would a student still be able to access/retain what they’ve learned if it occurred as a freshman or sophomore? Junn said WSCUC has been quiet on what measurements they will use to demonstrate competency. Dote-Kwan said that when WSCUC does a review of an area, say oral and written communication – what they do is at the 100, 200, 300 and 400 level. What they’re looking to see is the learning progression of learning across a program.
Junn said the timeframe is fall 2017 so we only have a couple of years to document our outcomes and GE is one of them. Additionally, as part of the periodic program review, we currently have on the calendar that we’re supposed to be doing an evaluation of assessment of GE for the whole campus. Are students really mastering what we’re stating are the learning outcomes? Junn said the curriculum is the purview of the faculty and she would really like to support the campus faculty in designing or assessing or documenting GE as we move forward in the next couple of years.
Academic Success Student Model
President Hagan has drafted a letter to the Cabinet, Deans, Administrative Council and Senate Exec regarding the implementation of the CSUDH student success organizational framework. It summarizes a graph previously created by the President depicting the “students’ pathways” to success. The idea is if you want to comprehensively support students, you’ve got to think about them as they progress developmentally starting in pre-matriculation, as they go through freshman year, sophomore, post baccalaureate, and transfers. What support do we put in during the different milestone years that students move through to help them retain, come back and graduate? In order to do that what kind of committees and taskforces do we need? The framework would be:
President’s Cabinet at the top, the Student Success Steering Committee, followed by three task forces: Enrollment Management, Graduation Rate Excellent and Assessment, Faculty/Staff Engagement Task Force and then Research, Assessment and Data Team, and Fundraising and Grants. Junn said that there are students on each of these. Both Enrollment Management and Graduation Rate Excellence are co-chaired. She also stated that Research & Assessment has to be front and center on all of this. She said that Advancement can help us to find grants and fund raising.
Moore wondered about the absence of faculty on the Graduation Rate Excellence and Assessment Task Force (GREAT). Moore said instead of having two Academic Senate Exec reps on the Faculty/Staff Engagement Task Force (FSTEF), have one Senate Exec member.
Junn said she could add more than one. Moore suggested having 1 Senate Exec member on the FSTEF and 1 Senate Exec member on the GREAT team was sufficient. Norman said he thought adding two faculty on the GREAT team made sense.
Junn said the Steering Committee is currently comprised of the Cabinet, the Vice Provost, AVP for Student Success and the AVP for Institutional Effectiveness. Whatever happens at the Task Force gets communicated up to the Cabinet.
Esposito offered that on the Faculty Staff Engagement Task Force (FSTEF) there is faculty representation from both Undergraduate and Graduate. Junn asked if 4 from Undergraduate and 3 from Graduate could be a good mix. Pinto said that currently the Dean of Undergraduate Studies is already listed, why not add the Dean of Graduate Studies? Junn said that could also be addressed by including in language about the FSTEF team on the Student Academic Success model draft “5 faculty, 1 from each college that have graduate or credential experience.”
It was agreed to add and change where it currently says Senate Chair to add Senate Chair or designee. Also adding Senate Chair as a member of the GREAT taskforce as well. Dote-Kwan noted that currently on the FSETF there is not an AVP for Student Advising on the committee. Junn will add Dean of Students to that team.
Junn said that ASI (President and Vice President) are currently on two of the committees. Does Senate Exec think there should be more students? Pinto offered that it might make sense to have them on the Student Success Steering Committee. Dote-Kwan said perhaps in SSSC you could have the ASI President and in the VP in EMTF. Norman said he believes that the ASI President and the ASI Vice President can get stretched too thin and involving other students helps with that as well as it looks good on their resumes.
Junn had to leave the meeting but asked that Senate Exec review the names listed on the draft of Working Groups for the WSCUC Core Task Forces and make recommendation as the President would like to send a formal invitation to those that are recommended.
EPC Report – Jamie Dote-Kwan/Kate Esposito
EPC Report from Jamie Dote-Kwan – Dote-Kwan provided a written report on what she had accomplished as EPC Chair since August and the disposition. Dote-Kwan and Esposito spoke and Esposito is up-to-date for a smooth transition. Moore asked for an overview of what the status is of the Upper Division GE packages – Moore wanted to know if anything got through UCC. Dote-Kwan said they went through all the Chicana/o Studies, they tabled their program. They did not get through Earth Science, and did not get through IDS. They went through Anthropology. Moore said what seems to have happened is the process has moved forward. Dote-Kwan said that is correct.
FPC Report – Pat Kalayjian
Re. the disruptive student behavior issue – faculty guidelines were reviewed from other campuses. They outline what disruptive student behavior is and ranks the seriousness into different levels:
1. Faculty deals with issue and it offers guidelines on how to do so.
2. A report to someone if the faculty member cannot solve the issue on his or her own. Faculty files some sort of report (i.e. behavior concerns checklist, behavior incident report, etc.).
3. Campus steps in with its CARE Team (different meanings for that acronym vary from campus to campus. CSUF is Conduct Assessment Response & Evaluation team. CSUDH is Campus Awareness Response and Education team). The CARE team does not have faculty representation on it. It does include someone whose title is the Judicial Affairs Officer. It does not seem as if we have one here at CSUDH. Here, the one who deals with students who get reported is Stephen Rice. Kalayjian wasn’t sure if there could be a conflict of interest with the current structure. Kalayjian said it was difficult to verify that it is in fact Rice’s role. Esposito inquired if there’s a mental health expert. Kalayjian said yes, on the committee called Threat Assessment Team which includes the Chief of Police, the Dean of Students, the Associate Dean of Students, Psych Services, Disabled Student Services, and one other.
Kalayjian has reached out to Sonja Daniels to provide a better understanding of what currently exists, like who is on the CARE Team and do we have a Judicial Affairs Officer, etc.
What the FPC committee believes ought to be five or so things we would want to “ask” for in terms of changes.
1. Have a set of guidelines (that would not require Senate action)
2. Adding a faculty member with extensive experience in the classroom on the CARE Team
3. Request for training
a. Who should be trained? Seems like everyone should have some level of training
b. Should everyone be trained? Staff and Faculty
c. Should Chairs only be trained?
Discussion ensued as to how would the training be done? On-line training? Kalayjian mentioned an organization called Kognito https://www.kognito.com/products/highered/ which provides simulated online training. Esposito inquired about the electronic or cyber component in terms of other ways students can be disruptive? Esposito asked if this would be addressed as well. She said that sometimes disruption can come in the form of multiple emails or inappropriate dialogue. Kalayjian said it was included in the guidelines offered at other universities but it was on the list at #14 and may need a little more prominence.
4. Ask for another addition to the syllabi where it would inform them if they don’t adhere to the student code of contact, they may be asked to leave.
Another point that Kalayjian felt needed to be addressed was that currently any faculty or staff who make an accusation against a student are NOT asked to testify in person about their experience. They’re never heard – they’re just asked to submit a form and everything is based on the form that was filled out. Kalayjian recommended that there should be something that gives faculty the right to testify (appear) before the disciplinary board and make their case if they wish to. Pinto offered that some faculty might not wish to testify in person and also would a panel judge against the faculty member if the faculty member chose not to testify. Norman offered that the Senate should recommend a faculty advocate so that if a faculty member was uncomfortable and chose not to testify in person, the faculty advocate could on their behalf. Senate Exec thought that was a great idea. Norman also thought it would be a good idea to have Sonja Daniels come to Senate Exec for further discussion. Also training is really important – perhaps one time a year there’s a training done in person and then second time of year could be done online. With regard to establishing a faculty advocate, Kalayjian recommended establishing a staff advocate as well.
Moore asked the FPC committee come up with a specific set of recommendations. Moore expressed he would like to see something on the Senate floor by the end of March or the beginning of April. Some of the things the ideas that came out of the Senate Exec discussion Moore asked that FPC make recommendations around:
1. Adding information to the syllabi
2. Faculty Advocate position
3. Adding additional faculty to the CARE team.
4. Improved reporting process
5. Training
Chair Moore’s Report
Next steps on GE: Moore said he’s looking at laying out a schedule and a procedure to move forward for looking at the GE package. Moore said the AdHoc committee’s report should be ready by December 19th with recommendations. He said what he would like to see is after Senate Exec reviews it – then it would be posted on the Senate Webpage. In addition, Moore would send an email to the Senate with a cover memo summarizing the points over the break. At the first Senate meeting of the spring semester, Moore intends to bring the report to the attention of the body and announce that the February 18th meeting will be a General Faculty meeting focused on General Education. Dote-Kwan said she would like to find a way to include students.
Moore said he’s looking at the possibility of doing a student survey on GE with 10-15 questions. Moore said he spoke with Gitanjali about doing this survey. Moore said he was hoping that the student survey would give them more information. Dote-Kwan said faculty could have students complete the survey in the classroom to help get a better response. Kalayjian wondered if other campuses have done a student survey. Moore said he could inquire among the Senate Chairs to see if this had been done. Kalayjian asked is the purpose of the survey to look at the likeability of GE by our students? Moore said that Junn related an incident where she asked advisors what do you tell students about the meaning of GE, and they seemed puzzled. Kalayjian said one of the things she’s heard over and over again is that we do not articulate to our students why GE is important, not across the CSU system nor on a campus level.
Moore suggested that at Senate Exec on January 28th, we should review the report from the ad hoc committee on lower division GE and convert their various recommendations into draft resolutions that we could begin to introduce on the floor of the senate beginning March 4th with second readings by the 18th of March. Esposito suggested after putting up the report – have an open comment section (or open dialogue) and then prior to going back to the Senate floor – summarize what those comments were.
High Touch/High Impact
Moore and Maki will be chairing a committee that would look to understand what we want this university to look like. Idea is to start with a small committee who are invited that we believe would engage with the topic. It would expand as needed. Senate Exec spoke about the different types that could make up the committee, such as Lyle E Gibson Award winners, emeriti faculty, new Assistant Professors, mid-career faculty, faculty with experience at other campuses, and
s faculty who really know CSUDH and what is possible. The idea is to have a full range of people who take the matter seriously and work well together.
Landing Pages
Moore addressed the concerns about the new proposed landing pages and the Bureau of Labor Statistics link (http://www.bls.gov/). He said a department need not include whatever information they decide not to and change what they wish. Coward expressed that her concern is while Chairs are given the ability to make changes to their department webpage when necessary, will they. Do they have the equipment, the training and the time to do so. She said that the email stated it would not take much time to make any changes. She said it is a bigger deal than it is being made out to be. Moore said what he understands the process to be is that Donna Cruz is in charge of the landing pages process and will be giving Chairs a one sheet document that depicts what would be on the department web page and that Cruz would be the one to go in and make any respective changes. Kalayjian referenced an article that Price had circulated with regard to campuses being at risk when indicating potential salaries of various career paths. Moore said linking students to the BLS webpage as information is not a guarantee of employment. That language could be included. Kalayjian said that linking in such an obvious way education to a hard and fast number is not an acknowledgement of the value of education. Esposito offered that what could be helpful is having links to “How do you go about choosing a major” and approach it from a different way. Coward said knowing how students process information, having salary numbers right on the landing page can be a really strong signal to students. It’s a tacit implication of here’s what you could earn. Kalayjian suggested that students would be better served emphasizing transferrable skills. Norman said sharing financial information is never a bad thing. Chairs should have a say on their design. He said his students are hungry for this information. Also including links to what careers generate the most satisfaction, looking at where people are happiest. Having information out there from many different perspectives would be good. Where are the jobs? Where are jobs locally? Where are there openings that their level. Coward said offering a link to a five year occupational handbook could be helpful. Norman said encouraging Chairs to really take a deeper look at what is the best information that should be up on the page. More discussion was held about the risks of a learning for the sake of earning, and the Corinthian lawsuit was mentioned whereby students were lured with the promise of a particular career. Pinto said that in looking at the proposed landing pages, informing students what they can do with a degree is helpful. Coward said with regard to “What You Can Earn”, students won’t click through to the BLS website and instead do a cursory look at those numbers and pick something else. Pinto said that her question is why do we need a landing page and who is landing there? She wonders if her students will come to the page and get frustrated that it is not the Sociology Department page they were looking for. Pinto asked who is the page intended for. It does say how to apply, it does say request information, academic colleges departments and programs, but will they click through? Moore requested Pinto email Moore laying out her concerns and Moore will forward it on to Provost Junn.