ACADEMIC SENATE of

THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY 401 Golden Shore, Room 139 Long Beach, California 90802-4210

562-951-4010

MINUTES Meeting of September 4-5, 2003

CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 4, 2003, by Chair Robert Cherny.

Present: Senators and alternates (*) attending the meeting were: (Bakersfield) Jacquelyn Kegley, John Tarjan; (Channel Islands) Lillian Vega Castaneda, Dennis Muraoka; (Chico) Samuel Edelman, Paul Persons; (Dominguez Hills) Rudolph Vanterpool, Lyle Smith; (Fresno) Jacinta Amaral, John Shields, Sherman Sowby; (Fullerton) Vincent Buck, Bill Meyer, Barry Pasternack; (Hayward) Calvin Caplan, Hank Reichman; (Humboldt) Robert Snyder, Marshelle Thobaben; (Long Beach) Luis Arroyo, David Hood, Craig Smith; (Los Angeles) J. Theodore Anagnoson, Marshall Cates, Nancy Hunt; (Maritime Academy) Greg Cho, James Wheeler; (Monterey Bay) bobbi bonace, J. Ken Nishita; (Northridge) Lynne Cook, Michael Reagan, Barbara Swerkes; (Pomona) Rochelle Kellner, Marvin Klein, Ann Morgan; (Sacramento) Cristy Jensen, Thomas Krabacher, Louise Timmer; (San Bernardino) Buckley Barrett, Tapie Rohm; (San Diego) Ray Boddy, Brent Rushall, Thomas Warschauer; (San Francisco) Eunice Aaron, Robert Cherny, Jan Gregory; (San José) Miriam Donoho*, David McNeil, Romey Sabalius; (San Luis Obispo) Manzar Foroohar, Myron Hood, Unny Menon; (San Marcos) Dick Montanari, Richard Serpe; (Sonoma) Philip McGough, Susan McKillop; (Stanislaus) Mark Thompson; (Retired Faculty) Len Mathy; (Chancellor's Office) David Spence.

INTRODUCTIONS During the course of the meeting the Chair introduced: Gary Hammerstrom, Associate Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs, CSU Ron Kroman, CSU Emeritus and Retired Faculty Association (non-voting delegate) Cordelia Ontiveros, Senior Director, Academic Human Resources Ann Peacock, Executive Director, Academic Senate CSU (beginning October 1, 2003) Manolo Platin, California State Student Association Liaison to Academic Senate Charles Reed, Chancellor, California State University Lorie Roth, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Academic Programs John Travis, President, California Faculty Association Beverly Young, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Teacher Education and Public School Programs Deborah Hennessy, Executive Director, Academic Senate CSU (on extended sick leave) Margaret Price, Assistant to Executive Director, Academic Senate CSU Shirley Sparkman, Staff Assistant–Budget, Academic Senate CSU Tracy Butler, Administrative Assistant, Academic Senate CSU

2

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS:

REPORT OF CHAIR ROBERT W. CHERNY

September 2003 Executive Committee: Though it has been summer break for most of the time since our last plenary meeting, the Academic Senate's executive committee has been busy. Our efficient secretary, David Hood, has provided you with the minutes of our July meeting, so I'll provide only the highlights of the executive committee's work. The executive committee and the standing committee chairs met on July 13-14, following the second meeting of the Integrated Teacher Preparation taskforce and preceding the July meeting of the Board of Trustees. We dealt with a wide range of matters--filling committee positions for the senate's standing committees and for the systemwide committees and taskforces, planning activities for the year, cutting the senate's budget, and reviewing the agenda for the July trustees' meeting.

I've already reported to you on the senate's projected budget for this coming year--we cut more than $130,000 from last year's expenditures, and there may be more belt-tightening as the year proceeds.

The executive committee has also done a good deal of business via e-mail over the course of the summer, including a discussion of proposed amendments to Senate Bill (SB) 81. That legislation has been much improved, and the most objectionable sections have been removed or--we've been promised--will soon be removed. David Spence and I have worked closely on this, and David has been both receptive to our concerns and helpful in getting them translated into amendments. Similarly, the executive committee has reviewed and suggested changes in language for legislation now under development on higher-education accountability. David Spence is the CSU representative on this planning group; he has been receptive to our concerns and has largely succeeded in translating them into the draft.

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing: On July 2, Lynne Cook and I attended a meeting of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) for public comment on a proposal for meeting some of the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act; I raised a number of questions that the proposal left unclear.

Board of Trustees: The Board of Trustees met on July 15-16, and the full executive committee (except David McNeil, who had to be in Italy) was in attendance. The BOT heard our recommendation for changes in Title 5 regarding integrated teacher preparation programs and will take final action in September. The most contentious matter on their agenda, by far, was the 30% increase in student fees. During the discussion, I presented the senate's position on both fees (from March 2003) and limiting enrollment (from May 2003).

Intersegmental Coordinating Committee: The ICC met in Oakland at the University of California (UC) Office of the President on July 18. The committee organized itself for the coming year, including transferring the chair to Allison Jones of the CSU. In addition, the committee heard reports from the key subcommittees: Intersegmental Applications of Information Technology, Intersegmental Budget, K-18 Curricular Issues, and Student Academic Preparation, Access, and Transfer. The senate has representatives on all these subcommittees, and they will report separately on their work.

3

Academic Council: The Academic Council (academic vice-presidents) met on June 26-27 at CSU San Marcos and on August 22 at LAX. They heard a report on an instructional technology initiative that they have been involved in developing through the Academic Technology Planning Committee, on which the senate was also well represented. A revised and renamed version of that committee will oversee the next phase of the initiative this coming year; the senate will also be represented on that committee.

Intersegmental Committee of Academic Senates: The ICAS meeting was the first of the new academic year, and part of the business of the day was to set the meeting dates for the remainder of the year. In addition, the committee heard reports from each segment on budget and enrollment issues. We discussed SB 81, our integrated teacher preparation taskforce, the accountability legislation now under development, the CCC search for a new chancellor, and our plans for meeting with legislative representatives during the coming year.

System Budget Advisory Committee: SBAC discussed a proposal for the 2004-05 budget. The above-the-line portion is based on the last partnership with the governor, which looked to 3-4% annual growth in enrollment and 4% annual growth in the CSU budget. This section asks for funding for a 3% increase in enrollment (including a 10% increase in fees, which is part of the partnership), a 4+% increase in employee compensation, and the restoration of several items including instructional equipment and libraries. Below the line (outside the partnership) are requests for more restoration plus funding for the first year of the Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR 73) report. There was general consensus that it was highly unlikely that there would be sufficient funds to do most--probably all--of these things. There was some discussion that it is nonetheless important to make the request as a way of educating the legislature to our needs. The committee also approved a 2004-05 budget for lottery funds that is virtually identical to that for 03-04. Finally, there was discussion of a long-term policy on student fees. The BOT is expected to receive a proposal for a fees policy in January for information and in March for action.

California State Student Association: On July 12, David Spence, Sandy Sutphen (CSU Fullerton), and I took part in a panel on governance as part of the transitional meeting of the CSSA. On August 23, I served as the Senate's liaison to the regular monthly meeting of the CSSA board of directors, and reported to them on the Senate's work over the summer.

CSU Fullerton Faculty Retreat: On August 19, the CSU Fullerton faculty held a retreat to discuss a range of issues facing them during this coming year. I spoke following lunch, focusing on some of the major challenges facing the CSU Academic Senate: legislative intrusion into the curriculum, articulation, and the budget.

CSU Budget: As the summer has progressed, I and other members of the executive committee, especially David Hood, who chairs his campus budget committee, have tried to keep you up to date on the system budget. My letter to you and campus senate chairs of July 29 was an attempt to provide you with prompt information, and I hope that you either have, or will, circulate it among your colleagues on campus.

Faculty Trustee: As you all know by now, Governor Davis appointed Kathleen Kaiser of CSU Chico as faculty trustee. Kathy and I have sent a message to campus senate chairs, offering to visit campuses as our calendars permit us to do so.

4

Other Activities: I also gave a paper at a conference entitled La Californie: laboratoire ou périphérie?, sponsored by Société d'Etudes Nord Américaines (SENA) and Université Paul Valéry Montpellier III, Montpellier, on 5-7 June 2003. My paper, based in part on the 21st-century report, was entitled "The California State University System and the State's Fiscal Crisis of the Early 1990s." In keeping with the conference theme of California as laboratory, I suggested that two of the state's most prominent "experiments"--the Master Plan (which promised access, at little or no cost, to high-quality higher education for all able and willing to take part) and direct democracy, especially voter initiatives--had come into collision, as illustrated by the experience of the CSU in the early 1990s. Following that conference, I spent two and a half weeks in Moscow, doing research at the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History, looking for material on the Communist Party in California, Washington, and Oregon in the 1920s; I also renewed my acquaintance with my colleagues at Moscow State University, where I was a Fulbright lecturer in 1996. On August 11-12, I went to Washington, D.C., to take part in the evaluation of proposals for funding under the Teaching of Traditional American History program of the Department of Education, and then stayed for a two more days to read microfilm at the Library of Congress.

This has been a busy summer, and I'm sure the year to come will be even busier. I look forward to working with you in meeting its many challenges. COMMENTS BY LIAISONS AND VISITORS TO THE SENATE: Board of Trustees Chair Debra Farar Board of Trustees Debra Farar addressed the Senate on the subject of shared governance. She conveyed the Board’s appreciation of the Senate’s role in shared governance and she expressed a hope that, in times of fiscal crisis, we could continue to work together for the good of the CSU. She invited the Senate to contact the Board with its concerns about higher education in California and she expressed hope that the State of California would live up to the promises the Master Plan made four decades ago. With that hope in mind, Chair Farar said that the Board would develop a long-term fee policy.

Her goal as chair is to focus on the mission of the California State University. A necessary part of the university’s ideal is shared governance, and the key to shared governance is communication. She stressed that we are here for the students, that no group has all the answers, but that everyone should work toward the University’s goal--service to students.

Chair Farar concluded by quoting Robert Frost: “Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence.”

Chancellor Reed and Executive Vice Chancellor West

At the entrance

to the Kremlin

5

Chancellor Reed stressed that California had been undergoing difficult financial times for 18-24 months and that the State would have to endure another 18-24 months before the fiscal crisis was over. The immediate problem for the University was how to get through the next fiscal year. The State is facing an $8-12 billion structural deficit, their borrowing capacity is exhausted, and all of the short-term shifts and solutions have been used up. In response to this fiscal crisis, the Department of Finance has been instructed by the legislature not to propose salary increases or enrollment growth.

The Chancellor reviewed for the Senate the development of the budget, starting with the Governor’s Budget, moving through the May Revise, and detailing the additional loss of $84 million as the summer progressed. The Board of Trustees’ responses to the legislative budget reductions were to increase student fees in July and to curtail enrollment growth to 4.3%.

The Chancellor discussed educational quality, stressing that the Board of Trustees had decided to protect the quality of the education we offer at the expense of unbridled growth. In response, the Chancellor has instructed campus presidents to manage enrollment to meet, but not to exceed, their targets.

The Chancellor said that the legislature understood the relationship between funding and enrollment because the budget trailer bill told the CSU not to expect increases in either compensation or enrollment for 2004-2005. This shifts our focus from enrollment growth to maintaining the quality of instruction. The Chancellor praised the presidents for keeping within their enrollment targets. The Chancellor concluded by praising the faculty for their hard work and their willingness to accept more students in their classes.

The Chancellor cautioned the Senate that next year would be worse because we had no carry forward funds to blunt the impact of further budgetary reductions. On that note, he asked Executive Vice Chancellor Richard West to discuss the budget itself as well as plans for the Trustees’ Budget for 2004/2005.

Executive Vice Chancellor West discussed the budget for 2003-2004 with the Senate using a PowerPoint presentation. Executive Vice Chancellor West then discussed a planning draft for the Trustees’ Support Budget proposal for 2004-2005.

Executive Vice Chancellor Spence Accountability. Executive Vice Chancellor Spence discussed the issue of accountability, stressing that he wanted it to be routine and transparent, and not to impose unreasonable burdens on the campuses. Indeed, the state uses the CSU accountability process as a model for other agencies. The report the Board of Trustees will receive in November 2004 will cover the year 2002-2003. The process begins with campus submissions this Fall; these submissions will be sorted and formatted and returned to the campuses in May 2004 for their interpretation and comments. Campus comments received in October will be given to the Board of Trustees in November 2004.

Associate Vice Chancellor Vice Chancellor Spence expressed his great appreciation to Associate Vice Chancellor Hammerstrom for his many qualities, his ability to work with both policy and people, and his devotion to the CSU. It is the only Associate Vice Chancellor position and, although there will be a hiatus before it is filled again, the position will not be abandoned. There will be, first, a search for a Senior Director for Academic Technology who will report to the Executive Vice

6

Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Following that appointment, Academic Affairs will seek to fill the Associate Vice Chancellor position on a permanent basis.

Graduation Initiatives A number of campus reports will come to Academic Affairs: facilitating graduation, accommodating transfer students, instituting integrated teacher preparation programs (SB 81) and inaugurating early assessment via the California Standards examinations in every California high school.

CFA President John Travis California Faculty Association (CFA) President Travis discussed two items currently being discussed in bargaining, raising the salaries of 12-month department chairs and providing a subsidy to CSU faculty in rural areas who are not served by HMOs.

President Travis discussed CFA’s interest in ensuring that campuses adhere to the intent of the Supplemental Report Language agreed to by both CFA and the CSU.

President Travis announced that CFA is strongly opposed to Proposition 54.

President Travis announced that the CFA opposes the recall.

President Travis discussed two pieces of legislation, SB 971 (Burton) which would institute reporting requirements on outside employment for faculty, and SB 41 (Bowen) which would reduce some of the reporting requirements in SB 1467.

President Travis reported on the status of pre-tax parking.

In light of California’s fiscal crisis, President Travis discussed the possibility that there would be a one-year contract extension.

CSSA Liaison Manolo Platin Manolo Platin presented information on the current activities of California State Student Association.

* * * * * Standing Committee Reports:

Brief reports were made by standing committee chairs. Other reports in written form were shared with the Senate and may be found in the appendix following the action items of the minutes.

7

ACTION

APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The September 4-5, 2003, agenda was approved. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The May 8-9, 2003, minutes were approved. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: AS-2620-03/EX COMMENDATION FOR AND APPRECIATION OF GARY HAMMERSTROM

WHEREAS, Gary Hammerstrom has been associated with the California State University since 1964, first as a student, and then as a staff member, faculty member, and administrator; and

WHEREAS, Gary Hammerstrom received a B.S. in History from Iowa State University in 1963, an M.A. in Social Science with a concentration in International Relations in 1972 from what was then San Francisco State College, a Ph.D. in Public Policy from Syracuse University in 1978, and an M.B.A. with a concentration in Management Information Systems from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1983; and

WHEREAS, Gary Hammerstrom joined the faculty of San Francisco State University in 1978 and earned tenure as a professor of computer information systems; and

WHEREAS, Professor Hammerstrom was a member of the Academic Senate California State University (CSU) from 1991 to 1998, serving as chair of the Academic Senate of San Francisco State University, chair of the Academic Affairs Committee of the Academic Senate CSU, member-at-large of the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate CSU, faculty co-chair of the CSU Institute for Teaching and Learning, member of the editing and drafting committee for the Academic Senate CSU's study of the baccalaureate, and member of the Cornerstones Task Force, to mention only the most prominent of his many Senate responsibilities; and

WHEREAS, In consequence of the many meetings he attended in Long Beach, Senator Hammerstrom became so enamored of the scenic splendors and gastronomic delectations of Long Beach that, in 1998-99, he took a one-year leave from his Senate position to accept appointment as Acting Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs; and

WHEREAS, The Academic Affairs office of the CSU, recognizing ability when they find it, wisely asked Senator Hammerstrom to continue as Assistant and then as Associate Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs; and

WHEREAS, As Assistant and later Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Dr. Hammerstrom distinguished himself by his diligence, wise counsel, and good humor; and

WHEREAS, Associate Vice Chancellor Hammerstrom has decided to retire from the CSU effective October 1, 2003; therefore be it

8

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU commend Gary Hammerstrom for his many services to the students, faculty, staff, and administration of the CSU; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU express its appreciation for the many services of Gary Hammerstrom to the Academic Senate CSU; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU extend its very best wishes to Gary and Jan for their retirement, and extend an open invitation to visit the Senate at any time.

AS-2620-03/EX motion approved by acclamation. AS-2621-03/AA/ OPPOSITION TO PROPOSITION 54: CLASSIFICATION FA/FGA BY RACE, ETHNICITY, COLOR, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University (CSU) strongly oppose Proposition 54: Classification by Race, Ethnicity, Color, or National Origin a proposed amendment to Section 32 of the California Constitution; and be it further,

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU transmit copies of this resolution to the CSU campus senate chairs, to the Chancellor of the CSU, to the Chair of CSU Board of Trustees, to the Governor, and to the Legislature.

RATIONALE: Since the 1960s, energized in part by the Master Plan for Higher Education, the California State University has been deeply committed to the principle of making higher education available to historically underrepresented students, many of them from ethnic or cultural minorities, and to the goal of expanding the cultural and gender diversity of its faculty. If passed, Proposition 54 would significantly inhibit the CSU’s progress toward realizing these goals.

Proposition 54 would inhibit the ability of agencies such as the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) to carry out their work, thereby reducing the ability of the CSU to make informed decisions or reach reasoned judgments about matters of policy. Lacking data collected by the state, CPEC would have no factual basis on which to determine success of publicly-funded colleges and universities in providing access to all ethnic/racial groups, or to ascertain whether some lack equal opportunity in the high schools to complete the admissions requirements for the CSU and University of California (UC).

By prohibiting the State from collecting data on ethnicity, Proposition 54 would restrict the ability of faculty and students to analyze such data to the benefit of the State and its citizens. It would deprive faculty and students of data compiled by the State, data used for scholarly research, for analysis of trends in California society, economy, and politics, and for policy planning. The Academic Senate CSU shares the concerns of the Academic Senate of the UC about the potentially deleterious effects of Proposition 54 on this primary function of the academy (its statement is online at http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports/crecnoresp.pdf).

9

Proposition 54 would significantly inhibit the ability of the CSU to realize its goals of making higher education available to historically underrepresented students, many of them from ethnic or cultural minorities, and the goal of expanding the cultural and gender diversity of its faculty. By prohibiting all agencies of the State of California from collecting or maintaining data on race or ethnicity of employees and other individuals (e.g., students and staff), Proposition 54 would prevent the CSU from measuring the extent to which it is succeeding in providing access to all ethnic and racial groups and in diversifying its faculty and staff positions. If the state of California were unable to collect data on the race and ethnicity of high school graduates, there would be no basis on which to identify which racial or ethnic groups are underrepresented.

Proposition 54 would similarly obstruct the CSU’s efforts to gauge the success of efforts to recruit and retain a diverse faculty. The ways that the University addresses its goals of opportunity and diversity will change as the racial and ethnic composition of California changes--a group that is underrepresented today may not be in 10 or 20 years. But it is, and will be, possible to know who is underrepresented only if data are available. Proposition 54, if passed, would deprive CSU of these data. Proposition 54 would therefore weaken efforts to expand educational opportunity for prospective students from under-represented groups and to increase diversity of the faculty and staff.

AS-2621-03/AA/FA/FGA motion approved. AS-2622-03/AA/TEKR FRAMEWORK FOR INTEGRATED TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS LEADING TO A RECOMMENDATION FOR A

BACCALAUREATE DEGREE & A LEVEL 1 MULTIPLE SUBJECT TEACHING CREDENTIAL

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University (CSU) endorse the framework for multiple-subject integrated teacher preparation programs described on pages eight and nine of the Interim Report of the Task Force on Integrated Teacher Preparation Programs: A Joint Task Force of the CSU Chancellor and the CSU Academic Senate.

1. The CSU, in collaboration with the California Community Colleges (CCC), shall identify a common core of 30 lower-division semester units that all CSU integrated multiple subject programs will accept as a transfer pattern. Upon successful completion of the common core, a student transferring into a CSU integrated multiple subject program will require no more than 105 additional semester units to complete the program. (The overall program unit limits for quarter campuses are 180-203.)

2. On a regional basis, a CSU campus or campuses, in collaboration with the community colleges that transfer significant numbers of students to their teacher preparation programs, shall identify beyond this common core between 15 and 30 additional lower-division semester units common to all

10

integrated multiple subject teacher preparation programs in that region. Upon successful completion of these units, a student transferring into a CSU integrated multiple subject program will require no more than 75 to 90 additional semester units, for a maximum of 135 semester units, to complete the program.

3. In cases where the statewide and regional agreements constitute fewer than 60 lower-division semester units but more than 45, individual campuses, in consultation with the community colleges that transfer significant numbers of students to their teacher preparation programs, should identify all additional lower-division semester units that can transfer into its integrated multiple subject programs. Upon completion of these 60 lower-division semester units, a student transferring into the CSU integrated multiple subject program will require no more than 75 additional units to complete the program.

4. In cases where an individual CSU campus cannot identify 60 lower-division semester units in its integrated multiple subject teacher preparation program or a CCC cannot offer the courses in that program, the campus must identify ways to allow students to make progress in the integrated multiple subject program through such options as: a. Working with community colleges to identify and develop courses at

the lower-division level that satisfy the content standards of courses required in the program at the upper-division level.

b. Allowing early transfer of students as upper-division transfer into the CSU integrated multiple subject program according to the provisions of section 40805 of Title 5.

c. Encouraging such practices as cross enrollment, dual admission or offering upper-division courses on the community college campus.

5. Thirty lower-division semester units form the common core of the integrated multiple subject teacher preparation programs systemwide. For units beyond those, students must commit first to a region and then a specific campus to guarantee that the units are fully transferable to the requirements of a specific integrated multiple subject teacher preparation program.

RATIONALE: The Academic Senate CSU supports and has provided leadership in efforts to facilitate the timely preparation of qualified teachers. The Academic Senate CSU has passed multiple resolutions; sponsored system initiatives to encourage collaboration among arts, sciences, and education faculty in meeting SB 2042; and co-sponsored statewide conferences to promote collaboration with community colleges in recruiting and preparing highly qualified teachers. The proposed framework for integrated multiple subject teacher preparation programs responds to legislative concerns, provides an expedited path to teaching for students who commit early to a program, and preserves a reasonable degree of campus determination in program design.

11

Background: An Integrated multiple subject preparation program: a curriculum (a) that incorporates general education, a major, subject matter preparation for teaching in schools, professional preparation for teaching in schools, and any other graduation requirements, and (b) in which students make progress concurrently toward a baccalaureate degree and a recommendation for a preliminary basic teaching credential, given satisfactory completion of the requirements for each. The components of an integrated teacher preparation program (i.e., general education, a major, subject matter preparation for teaching in schools, professional preparation for teaching in schools, and any other graduation requirements) need not be mutually exclusive. An individual course within an integrated teacher preparation program may contribute to completion of more than one of these components.

In March 2003 the Academic Senate CSU Task Force on Teacher Preparation at the Undergraduate Level examined the need for and value of teacher preparation at the undergraduate level, examined legislative proposals regarding undergraduate teacher preparation, recommended legislative positions for the Academic Senate CSU, and recommended policies and strategies to encourage campuses to design and implement effective and collaborative programs for teacher preparation. In reviewing the current designs for undergraduate preparation of teachers in the CSU, the group considered the range of programs and unit requirements on the CSU campuses, national data on undergraduate program requirements in other states, and the intent of SB 81.

SB 81, Teacher Training: Integrated Programs, calls for collaboration among the CSU campuses and CCC to develop programs that allow students to have concurrent progress on the requirements for a baccalaureate and a Level 1 teaching credential (this applies to multiple subject and single subject programs). In response to the intent of SB 81 and the report of the Academic Senate CSU Task Force on Teacher Preparation at the Undergraduate Level, the Academic Affairs and the Teacher Education & K-12 Relations committees of the Academic Senate CSU developed AS-2611-03/AA/TEKR, which called for, among other things, changes to Title 5, the formation of a joint task force representing the Chancellor’s Office and the Academic Senate CSU, and collaborative articulation work by CSU campuses with the CCC’s campuses that provide significant numbers of students. The changes to Title 5 will require the implementation of integrated teacher preparation programs with limits of 120 to 135 semester units or 180 to 203 quarter units unless exceptions are justified.

The task force, created in response to AS-2611-03, has included representation from the Chancellor’s Office, CSU deans, Elementary Subject Matter Program directors, CSU faculty, the Academic Senate CSU, and the CCC. Members of the task force also attended the most recent CCC curriculum chairs meeting.

AS-2622-03/AA/TEKR motion approved. cATTACHMENT TO AS-2622-03/AA/TEKR Interim Report of the Task Force on Integrated Teacher Preparation Programs

A Joint Task Force of the CSU Chancellor and the CSU Academic Senate August 14, 2003

12

Members of the Task Force

Toni Campbell Chair, Child and Adolescent Development San Jose State University

Marshall Cates Math Faculty and Chair, CSU Academic Senate Teacher Education and K-12 Relations Committee CSU, Los Angeles

Lynne Cook Special Education Faculty and CSU Academic Senate Executive Committee CSU, Northridge

Helen Goldsmith Interim Associate Dean Undergraduate Studies San Francisco State University

Harold Hellenbrand Dean, Liberal Arts Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo

Vandana Kohli Chair, Liberal Studies CSU, Los Angeles

Michael Lewis (Co-Chair) Interim Dean, Education CSU, Sacramento

Dan O’Connor Coordinator, Liberal Studies CSU, Long Beach

Marion O’Leary Dean, Natural Sciences and Mathematics CSU, Sacramento

Claire Palmerino Director, Center for Careers in Teaching CSU, Fullerton

Bob Snyder (Co-Chair) Philosophy Faculty and CSU Academic Senate Executive Committee Humboldt State University

Mark Thompson

English Faculty and Chair, CSU Academic Senate Academic Affairs Committee CSU, Stanislaus

Beverly Young Assistant Vice Chancellor, Teacher Education and Public School Programs CSU Office of the Chancellor

Ex-Officio Members Robert Cherny History Faculty and Chair, CSU Academic Senate

David Spence Chief Academic Officer and Executive Vice Chancellor CSU Office of the Chancellor Staff to the Task Force Bob Cichowski Associate Director, Teacher Education and Public School Programs CSU Office of the Chancellor

Betsy Kean Associate Director, Teacher Education and Public School Programs CSU Office of the Chancellor

Jo Service Dean, Academic Program Planning CSU Office of the Chancellor

Background Over the last decade there has been an increasing realization that California has a significant shortage of fully qualified K-12 teachers. The typical pathway for teacher preparation required that candidates for a teaching credential obtain a bachelor’s degree in a subject area prior to beginning a teacher preparation program. Thus, typical candidates for certification could expect to spend a minimum of five years on their undergraduate and credential work.

In 1998, S.B. 2042 passed calling for multiple routes into teaching, including the creation of “blended programs” of subject matter and teacher preparation at the undergraduate level, with the expectation that the time to certification could be decreased.

Since this legislation, the CSU Office of the Chancellor and the Academic Senate of the California State University (ASCSU) have provided leadership to advance the commitment and ability of CSU campus faculty to prepare highly qualified teachers in a timely fashion.

In 2002, S.B. 1646 (Alpert) was introduced; this bill called for the establishment of an undergraduate elementary education major within the CSU. While S.B. 1646 did not become law, it did raise awareness throughout the CSU of the issue of timely completion of undergraduate, subject matter, and teacher preparation requirements for candidates who make early decisions to pursue careers in teaching.

During 2002-03, the Teacher Education and K-12 Relations Committee (TEKR) of ASCSU studied and developed faculty support for increased emphasis on undergraduate level teacher preparation. In March 2003, an Academic Senate Task Force was convened to recommend teacher preparation policy positions to the ASCSU. A bill that would limit the number of units in CSU integrated teacher preparation programs (refer to definition, below) and ensure articulation of appropriate community college courses with CSU programs, S.B. 81, had been introduced in January 2003. This bill addresses the issue of timely completion of undergraduate and teacher preparation requirements by that group of candidates referred to as “early deciders,” those who understand very early in their postsecondary education that they wish to become teachers. Hearings and amendments began in April and are continuing at present. (See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov). The ASCSU objected to legislatively mandated limits on credit units in particular programs and passed at its May 2003 plenary meeting a resolution (AS-2611-03, Support for Integrated Teacher Preparation Programs in the CSU, found in Attachment A), proposing that the CSU Board of Trustees adopt changes to Title 5 language that would call for integrated teacher preparation programs to justify units beyond 135 semester (or 203.5 quarter) units.

The resolution defined integrated teacher preparation programs as “teacher preparation programs that enable candidates for teaching credentials to engage in subject matter, general education, and professional preparation concurrently thereby completing all requirements for both a preliminary teaching credential and a baccalaureate degree simultaneously”.

It is important to understand that teacher preparation programs can be integrated in a variety of ways. For example, the blended programs authorized under S.B. 2042 and designed in relation to standards developed by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) are one type of integrated teacher preparation program in which individual courses may combine professional preparation with subject matter content. Other integrated programs may offer related subject matter and professional preparation in separate courses during the same semester. The

14

important point is that integrated programs allow students to pursue both the baccalaureate and the requirements for a preliminary teaching credential at the same time.

The Board of Trustees received at its July meeting a proposed addition to Title 5 that recognizes and defines these integrated teacher preparation programs, specifies a 120-135 semester unit range, and allows for the Chancellor to grant exceptions to the upper limit of 135 units upon adequate justification by the campus. Procedures for considering these exceptions will be developed by the Chancellor, in consultation with ASCSU. The Board of Trustees is expected to adopt this amendment at its September meeting. If successfully adopted, then the corresponding language would be deleted from S.B. 81.

A significant element in the May 2003 ASCSU resolution, calls for the creation of a task force to recommend a general framework for curriculum in these programs. That element reads as follows:

RESOLVED That the Academic Senate CSU and the Chancellor create a task force to recommend a general framework, by the September 2003 plenary meeting, for integrated teacher preparation curricula, which will provide guidelines for the identification and integration of lower-division and upper-division subject matter, general education, and professional preparation components within an overall program leading to both a baccalaureate degree and a preliminary teaching credential. The task force will collaborate with campus faculty and academic administrative leaders from education and from arts and science areas with approved subject matter preparation programs.

This Task Force was indeed established jointly by the ASCSU and the Chancellor. The Task Force met in June and July to develop a draft framework for discussion with CSU faculty and administrators as well as with community college partners. That consultation is well underway with community college Senate leadership and representatives from more than 60 community college campuses; this work will continue. The timeline for development and consultation has been extremely short. With the goal of providing a framework to campuses in the fall so that they have adequate time for possible course development, program modifications and preparation for implementation, the Task Force intends that its recommendations and related resolutions are forwarded to the CSU Chancellor and to the ASCSU in advance of its September 2003 plenary meeting.

Introduction to the Framework In order to make sense of the proposed framework, it is important to identify the set of common understandings and agreements shared by the members of the Task Force. These agreements inform the detail of the framework and point the way to implementation, should the framework be adopted within the CSU.

• The initial focus should be on integrated programs leading to the Multiple Subject Credential. The Task Force is charged with looking at both multiple subject and single subject integrated programs. Currently, there are 20 approved blended multiple subject programs across the CSU, but only five approved blended single subject programs. Given the time constraints on the initial work of the Task Force, it was agreed to make recommendations first in relation to those integrated programs leading to the Multiple Subject Credential. Consultation and the development of recommendations related to single subject integrated programs will follow. The Task Force intends to share this report with single subject program coordinators and discipline faculty in order to gain a

15

deeper understanding of how these recommendations may need to be amended to fit the realities of single subject programs, including their subject matter standards as issued by CCTC.

• CSU campuses can create high-quality, integrated multiple subject teacher preparation programs within a 135 semester-unit limit. The Task Force finds the limit reasonable for elementary subject matter and a multiple subject credential. Careful curriculum design should allow programs to meet G.E., major, subject matter and teacher preparation requirements within this limit. The proposed Title 5 language allows the Chancellor to make individual exceptions to this limit through procedures established in consultation with the ASCSU.

• The framework should incorporate state, regional and local transfer patterns for integrated multiple subject teacher preparation programs. The goal of this framework is to provide transfer students with: a. 30 lower-division semester units that count toward the total unit requirements in

any integrated multiple subject teacher preparation program in the CSU; b. at least 15 additional lower-division semester units that count toward the total unit

requirements of any integrated multiple subject teacher preparation program within a region; and

c. a total of 60 semester units that count toward the total unit requirements of an integrated multiple subject teacher preparation program at a designated CSU.

• It is important to identify a 30-unit block of lower-division units that will be portable across the entire CSU for integrated multiple subject teacher preparation program candidates and that will reduce, unit for unit, the number of units remaining for program completion at each campus. This principle allows eligible early deciders to begin at the community college of choice and bring those units into any CSU integrated program with a guarantee that the units completed “count” toward the unit total of the individual integrated program. This helps ensure that those transfer students who are preparing for careers as teachers and who have not identified during their first year/30 units of study the CSU campus to which they will transfer, will not have to take a greater number of units than native CSU students completing requirements in an integrated teacher preparation program.

• The framework should constitute a partnership—a mutual commitment—between students and CSU campuses in a region.1 If implemented, the framework will make explicit how early deciders may begin at the CCC, eventually transfer into the CSU and complete all requirements for the degree and the teaching credential within a cap of 135 units. To achieve this compact with transfer students, the students must make a

1 The Task Force has not yet decided on the definition of “region”. At the August meeting of the Task Force, the Chancellor’s Office will present a list of proposed regions along with the data underlying the proposal. The data will reflect historical transfer patterns from a community college to a CSU campus into teacher preparation programs and possibly all majors. If a significant number of students transfer from a community college to more than one CSU campus, then those receiving CSU campuses and that community college will be identified as belonging to a region. Once the Task Force has recommended a draft proposed regional structure, that structure along with the data prepared by the Chancellor’s Office will be widely distributed with the framework—to all CSU campuses, the Academic Senates, community colleges, and other appropriate faculty members for their feedback.

16

commitment by the second year first to a region and then in some cases to a particular CSU campus. The maximum portability of transfer units (up to 60 units) can be achieved if candidates make informed decisions about committing to a CSU region and, in time, to a specific CSU integrated teacher preparation program.

• The framework will depend on a partnership with community colleges, in the identification and offering of coursework that meets state standards for the subject matter and pedagogical preparation of teacher candidates. In order to achieve the maximum number of transfer units, willing community college faculty and CSU faculty need to work together, using standards developed by CCTC, to review, revise and/or develop courses that meet the standards and can fit the transfer pattern. This is extremely important in light of recent public policy that will require all candidates to pass a test of subject matter competency prior to employment as a teacher of multiple subjects. This is an opportunity to enhance partnerships with our colleagues in the community colleges.

• The success of the framework will depend on close advising. The Task Force recognizes that the goal of preparing teachers within 135 semester units of community college and CSU course work will, in practice, be achieved only with strong and careful advising—advising that is both accurate and accessible. Care will need to be taken to identify early deciders at entry to ensure that the proper transfer pattern is followed.

• It will be important to provide assistance to campuses in meeting the 135 semester unit limit as well as the transfer pattern recommended within the framework: Should the framework be adopted in the CSU, it is the intent of the Task Force to collect and make available to campuses examples of practices that might assist in implementing the framework.

A Proposed Framework: A Transfer Pattern for Multiple Subject Integrated Teacher Preparation Programs

• The CSU, in collaboration with the CCC, shall identify a common core of 30 lower-division semester units that all CSU integrated multiple subject programs will accept as a transfer pattern. Upon completion of the common core, a student transferring into a CSU integrated multiple subject program will require no more than 105 additional semester units to complete the program. The CSU Elementary Subject Matter Coordinators have been working to accomplish this task for one to two years. A summary of the current status of this work appears in Attachment B.

• On a regional basis, a CSU campus or campuses, in collaboration with the community colleges that transfer significant numbers of students to their teacher preparation programs, shall identify between 15 and 30 additional lower-division semester units common to all integrated multiple subject teacher preparation programs in that region. Upon completion of these units, a student transferring into a CSU integrated multiple subject program will require no more than 75 to 90 additional semester units, for a maximum of 135 semester units, to complete the program.

17

• In cases where the statewide and regional agreements constitute fewer than 60 lower-division semester units but more than 45, individual campuses, in consultation with the community colleges that transfer significant numbers of students to their teacher preparation programs, should identify all additional lower-division semester units that can transfer into its integrated multiple subject program.2 Upon completion of these 60 lower-division semester units, a student transferring into the CSU integrated multiple subject program will require no more than 75 additional units to complete the program.

• In cases where an individual CSU campus cannot identify 60 lower-division semester units in its integrated multiple subject teacher preparation program or a CCC cannot offer the courses in that program, the campus must identify ways to allow students to make progress in the integrated multiple subject program through such options as: • Working with community colleges to identify and develop courses at the lower-

division level that satisfy the content standards of courses required in the program at the upper-division level.

• Allowing early transfer of students as upper-division transfer into the CSU integrated multiple subject program according to the provisions of section 40805 of Title 5.

• Encouraging such practices as cross enrollment, dual admission or offering upper-division courses on the community college campus.

• 30 lower-division semester units form the common core of the integrated multiple subject teacher preparation programs systemwide. For units beyond those, students must commit first to a region and then a specific campus to guarantee that the units are fully transferable to the requirements of a specific integrated multiple subject teacher preparation program.

Definitions Integrated multiple subject preparation program: a curriculum (a) that incorporates general education, a major, subject matter preparation for teaching in schools, professional preparation for teaching in schools, and any other graduation requirements, and (b) in which students make progress concurrently toward a baccalaureate degree and a recommendation for a preliminary basic teaching credential, given satisfactory completion of the requirements for each. The components of an integrated teacher preparation program (i.e., general education, a major, subject matter preparation for teaching in schools, professional preparation for teaching in schools, and any other graduation requirements) need not be mutually exclusive. An individual course within an integrated teacher preparation program may contribute to completion of more than one of these components.

For completion of an integrated multiple subject teacher preparation program, at least 120 semester units but no more than 135 semester units shall be required. The Chancellor may grant exceptions to the upper limit of 135 units on requirements for completion of an integrated multiple subject teacher preparation program, if the campus that will offer the program requests the exception and provides an adequate justification.

2 These additional units may be specific to different majors within the multiple subject program.

18

Blended program of teacher preparation: Blended programs are approved programs of subject matter preparation and teacher preparation that have identified to the Committee on Accreditation (COA) via a separate set of program standards those places where subject matter preparation and teacher preparation are linked. COA accredited blended programs have greater flexibility than traditional fifth-year teacher preparation programs in integrating subject matter and teacher preparation at the undergraduate level. Blended programs are one type of integrated multiple subject preparation program.

^^^^^^^^

Attachment A AS-2611-03/AA/TEKR May 8-9, 2003

Support for Integrated Teacher Preparation Programs in the California State University

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University (CSU) request the CSU Board of Trustees to formulate and adopt policy that would incorporate the following provisions into Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations to take effect for students entering during the Academic Year 2005-2006: • Implementation of integrated teacher preparation programs, that is, teacher

preparation programs that enable candidates for teaching credentials to engage in subject matter, general education, and professional preparation concurrently thereby completing all requirements for both a preliminary teaching credential and a baccalaureate degree simultaneously;

• Integrated teacher preparation programs offered by CSU campuses may not be comprised of less than 120 semester (180 quarter) units; and

• Integrated teacher preparation programs requiring more than 135 semester (203 quarter) units must justify units beyond the 135 semester (203 quarter) units; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU and the Chancellor create a task force to recommend a general framework, by the September 2003 plenary meeting, for integrated teacher preparation curricula, which will provide guidelines for the identification and integration of lower-division and upper-division subject matter, general education, and professional preparation components within an overall program leading to both a baccalaureate degree and a preliminary teaching credential. The task force will collaborate with campus faculty and academic administrative leaders from education and from arts and science areas with approved subject matter preparation programs; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU recommend that the CSU work with the California Community Colleges to ensure that students transferring from a community college into a CSU integrated teacher preparation program are able to identify the articulated coursework which, if completed, would guarantee the student had preparation equivalent to that of a native student. In cases where articulated course work in an integrated teacher preparation program is

19

not available at the community college, students should be allowed to transfer to a CSU campus early according to the provisions of section 40805 of Title 5; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU recommend that each campus of the CSU enter into articulation agreements for the lower-division components of its integrated teacher preparation programs with those community colleges from which the campus receives a significant number of transfer students in relevant majors; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU recommend that in cases where community colleges supply significant numbers of transfer students to more than one CSU, the CSU campuses involved in articulation agreements should work on a common agreement with the community colleges; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU request the Chancellor to seek an extension of the authority for campuses to admit students to currently approved integrated teacher preparation programs to January 2005 in order to comply with SB 2042 standards; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Chancellor and the Academic Senate CSU work with both the legislature and the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) to ensure greater flexibility on the part of the CCTC in interpreting SB 2042 requirements and related accreditation standards thereby enabling the CSU to realize the 120-135 semester (180-203 quarter) unit goal.

RATIONALE: California is one of the states with the greatest shortages of appropriately credentialed teachers. It is also one of only 13 states that do not offer an undergraduate degree in education. The “blended program,” as described by California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) and encouraged under SB 2042 in 1998, was designed to provide concurrent undergraduate subject matter and pedagogical teacher preparation. A 2003 report of the CSU Subject Matter Studies indicates that the blended programs offered by 20 CSU campuses currently range from 124-167 semester units. Those with the higher unit requirements are not viewed by the legislature or by the public as meeting the intent of promoting undergraduate teacher preparation.

Highly qualified teachers have solid content knowledge, pedagogical skills and pedagogical content knowledge. National standards have long recognized that effective teachers are strong in both subject matter knowledge and pedagogical skills. Recent research and practice reveal that pedagogical content knowledge is equally critical. National standards now call for programs to ensure that candidates learn to present the content to students in challenging, clear, and compelling ways. Curriculum is needed that facilitates candidates’ ability to connect the pedagogy and subject matter knowledge in order to produce teachers with content, pedagogy and pedagogical content knowledge.

CSU faculty have developed many effective integrated teacher preparation programs, and faculty on several campuses have revised programs to meet new standards for blended programs of undergraduate teacher preparation adopted in September 2001.

20

Many of the newly revised multiple-subject programs can be completed within 135 or fewer semester units. The Academic Senate of the California State University has repeatedly recognized that curriculum development is properly the responsibility of faculty and of the academic senates on campus. The noteworthy reduction in size of major degree programs over the past few years has been accomplished by faculty members in degree programs and through campus-level program review processes. The CSU is committed to working on articulation and transfer issues with the California Community Colleges (CCC), and the Academic Senate CSU has repeatedly demonstrated that commitment by its support for the intersegmental general education transfer curriculum, lower-division core projects for a number of majors, systemwide standards for admission into programs of teacher education, and in other ways. However, the Senate has also recognized that the expediting of student transfers from CCC to CSU involves complex and multi-layered issues, and many of those issues link directly to faculty responsibilities for curriculum, academic advising, and assessment of student performance in both systems. Therefore faculty leadership and cooperation will be required for the success of any effort to facilitate transfer and articulation.

The need for collaboration and articulation between the CSU and community colleges within the context of teacher recruitment and preparation is clear, urgent, and compelling. There is widespread national recognition of the need to encourage promising students to pursue careers in teaching during their secondary school and community college experiences. The development of critical partnerships between community colleges and the CSU, the two institutions that prepare more than 60 percent of California's teachers, are essential in any effort to increase the availability of highly qualified teachers in our state. The vast majority of community college students who are interested in teaching will complete their program of study in the CSU.

SB 2042 was omnibus legislation that called for a complete overhaul of the credentialing system. To implement these changes the CCTC facilitated the development of Standards for Program Quality and Effectiveness that were adopted in 2001-2002. Teacher preparation programs were afforded approximately two years to transition to new standards. A significant majority of the CSU programs that would be affected by the proposed frameworks and articulation guidelines have not yet been reviewed and most are still under development. It is critical that the Chancellor and Senate seek an extension of deadlines for submission of new program proposals to January 2005. Such an extension will permit campuses to develop programs that comply both with SB 2042 and the guidelines to be developed rather than expecting them to comply first with one and then immediately to make changes to comply with the other.

APPROVED – May 8-9, 2003

21

Attachment B

Regional Articulation Efforts for Elementary Subject Matter Programs

And Associated Blended/Integrated Elementary Teacher Preparation Programs

Background: The CSU system shoulders the primary responsibility for the preparation of teachers in California. Undergraduate preparation for prospective elementary teachers has undergone (and continues to undergo) substantial changes. One of the requirements for a multiple subject (elementary) teaching credential is demonstration of knowledge and competence in the subject areas relevant to the elementary classroom. Currently, individuals have two means by which they can document subject matter competency: 1) Pass the state-approved subject matter examination, or 2) Complete a state-approved Elementary Subject Matter (ESM) Program. Senate Bill 2042, passed in 1998, required the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) to establish new standards for the examination and for the programs of study so as to align each with the California Student Academic Content Standards and State Curriculum Frameworks. The CCTC approved the new standards for ESM programs in fall 2001.

During this time of transition from old to new standards, ESM program directors in the southern California region recognized that this was a golden opportunity to attempt to align the lower-division requirements for their programs. ESM program directors from approximately ten CSUs met throughout the 2001-02 academic year to discuss curricular requirements in light of the SB 2042 standards and work toward a common interpretation of them. A small grant from the Institute for Teaching and Learning allowed the work in southern California to continue and for similar work to be accomplished in the central and northern regions of the state. The meetings in academic year 2002-03 focused on reaching tentative CSU to CSU regional agreements about common transfer courses. The agreements established were always labeled as “draft” as the ESM program directors acknowledged that they were subject to confirmation by the individual campuses.

After meeting in geographical regions (north, central and south) throughout academic year 2002-03, ESM Directors gathered for a statewide meeting in June. Twenty-three representatives of ESM programs from 18 CSU campuses attended. During this meeting, members of the Task Force on Integrated Teacher Preparation (ITP) introduced the preliminary draft of the guidelines for integrated programs, including the proposed 30-unit statewide agreement. By the end of the meeting, the ESM program directors had developed a list of “nominated” courses to be considered for this package. The ITP Task Force members indicated that it was not imperative to identify the specific 30 units at this meeting; rather, the ESM program directors undertook the exercise as a measure of the feasibility of this plan.

The group generated a list of 12 nominated courses. Of these 12 courses, the group identified 6 courses (18 units) that could be agreed upon with almost 100% agreement. Only one or two campus representatives reported that their ESM programs would have to be adjusted to incorporate these classes. The group identified another 4 classes (12 units) that a substantial majority of campuses already accept; however, campus representatives from 3-6 campuses reported that they would have to adjust their ESM programs to include these courses in their

22

integrated programs. Finally, the group identified an additional 6 units that could potentially be part of the 30-unit statewide agreement. It will take further discussion and additional consultation with individual campus program stakeholders to identify the final package of courses that will constitute the 30-unit statewide agreement. The following courses were nominated by the ESM Program directors with almost 100% agreement: (3) Any A.1 Oral Communication course (3) Any A.2 Written Communication course (3) Any A.3 Critical Thinking course (3) Survey of U.S. History course that meets American History objectives in EO 405 or CAN

HIST 8 (must cover the colonial period through reconstruction) (3) CAN GOV 2 or equivalent that meets Government US Constitution and state and local

government objectives of EO 405 (3) CAN HIST 14 or equivalent (History of World Civilizations, part I)

The following courses were nominated by the ESM Program directors with approximately 85% agreement: (3) World/Global Geography (3) Human Development* (3) CAN MATH 4 or equivalent (3) Introduction to biology *We discussed developing criteria for eligible classes.

The following classes were nominated by the ESM Program directors with approximately 75% agreement: (3) Survey of literature (3) Field Experience ATTACHMENT ENDd

AS-2623-03/AA/ ARTICULATION AGREEMENTS FOR MULTIPLE SUBJECT TEKR INTEGRATED TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS: PRINCIPLES FOR FORMATION OF REGIONS

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University (CSU) endorse the following principles for the formation of regions for articulation of coursework in Multiple Subject Integrated Teacher Preparation Programs with the California Community Colleges (CCC). 1. The Task Force on Integrated Teacher Preparation Programs will

recommend a regional structure. 2. Region is defined as one or more CSU campuses and the CCCs, which

provide significant numbers of transfer students to that campus or campuses.

3. The formation of regions will be data guided, based on three-year trends of CCC to CSU total transfers, including: (a) the number of transfers from each community college to each CSU, (b) the percentage of community

23

college transfers that this number represents, and (c) the percentage of each CSU campus’ transfers from a specific community college.

4. A proposed regional structure and the transfer trend data will be distributed to all CSU campuses, the Academic Senates, community colleges, and other appropriate faculty members for their response before the task force recommends a regional structure.

RATIONALE: The implementation of Integrated Teacher Preparation programs as recommended in AS-2611-03/AA/TEKR and mandated in recent changes to Title 5, will require substantial, collaborative work among the CSUs and CCCs to determine a maximum of 60 semester (90 quarter) transferable units with 30 semester (45 quarter) units transferable systemwide and at least 15 semester (23 quarter) units transferable within a region. Using regions as a mandatory part of the framework makes the determination of regional structure an important consideration. Regions may be determined in different ways: the system has used a “north/south” or “north/central/south” model for other initiatives, CPEC uses 14 regions based on educational and demographic data, and the CCC’s are divided into 10 regions. After deliberation, the Task Force on Integrated Teacher Preparation Programs felt that both the definition and structure of regions should derive from actual transfer data and that such a regional structure would be the most appropriate given the significant work that the identification of and agreement on transferable units will require. Additionally, the Task Force noted that some factors which might affect the appropriateness of a proposed region might only be known at a more local level; i.e., extensive consultation and attention to response is crucial to the best regional structure.

AS-2623-03/AA/TEKR will be a second reading item at the November 13-14, 2003, meeting. AS-2624-03/FA TENURE-TRACK HIRING IN THE CONTEXT OF REDUCED BUDGETS

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University (CSU) call upon the administration of the CSU to support, and individual campuses to undertake, a sufficient number of tenure-track faculty searches in 2003-04 and 2004-05 so that the number of fulltime-equivalent, tenure-track faculty will be no lower in September 2005 than it was in September 2003, systemwide.

RATIONALE: During the last state budget crisis in the early 1990s the CSU lost large numbers of tenure-track faculty who were not replaced. Initially this loss did not negatively impact the proportion of faculty who were on the tenure-track because many lecturers were not rehired or taught reduced loads as enrollments fell. But once the budget crisis passed, the proportion of tenure-track faculty plummeted dramatically and the CSU has yet to recover from this loss of permanent faculty. Further, the loss and non-replacement of tenure-track faculty in a number of cases did serious damage to the quality and viability of academic programs and the curriculum.

24

It is critical that this does not happen again as a consequence of the current budget crisis. The Academic Senate CSU, the CSU administration, and the California Faculty Association are all committed to increasing the proportion of teaching in the university performed by tenure-track/tenured-faculty. To meet this commitment the three parties have agreed to an eight-year plan that achieves the goals of ACR 73, which called upon the CSU to increase the proportion of fulltime-equivalent faculty who are on the tenure-track to 75%. It is both possible and desirable for the CSU and the individual campuses to, at a minimum, replace all departing tenure-track faculty with new tenure-track faculty so as to assure that the number of fulltime, equivalent, tenure-track faculty does not again decline.

AS-2624-03/FA motion approved. AS-2625-03/FA REOPENER BARGAINING

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University (CSU) call upon the CSU administration and the California Faculty Association (CFA) to resume “reopener” bargaining negotiations as soon as possible in order to reach a mutually acceptable and timely settlement; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU transmit copies of this resolution to the Chancellor of the CSU and the President of the CFA.

RATIONALE: The CSU administration and the CFA began “reopener” bargaining in spring 2003. After several months of bargaining both sides reported several areas of agreement and progress on a few areas of continuing disagreement. The last bargaining session was held on July 9, after which the two sides agreed to postpone further discussions pending passage of a state budget and the July 15-16 meeting of the CSU Board of Trustees. No sessions have been held since and none are scheduled. In the context of the state budget crisis and the daunting challenges facing the CSU, a mutually acceptable agreement between the two sides based on good faith bargaining and open communication would be a positive development for the faculty and students of the CSU.

AS-2625-03/FA motion approved unanimously.

25

APPENDIX: Reports

Commission for the Extended University -- Barry Pasternack A subcommittee of the Commission worked on a revision of the Framework for Action for Extended Education in the CSU. This is the first revision since the early 1990s. The report articulates the current state of Extended Education, discusses current challenges, lays out future priorities for Extended Education in the CSU, and makes policy recommendations regarding extended education.

Report on General Education -- John Tarjan The CSU General Education Advisory Committee (GEAC) was established by Executive Order 338 in 1980. It was charged with reviewing the existing GE program and recommending changes to the Chancellor and Board of Trustees. It was composed primarily of CSU faculty, supplemented with faculty liaisons from the CCC. In 1993, the current CSU GE-Breadth requirements were established by Executive Order 595. This order added the responsibility for the GEAC to review community college courses for inclusion in GE-Breadth (to be subsequently certified by CCC campuses as fulfilling CSU requirements) and overseeing the GE-Breadth transfer process. It also established a subcommittee to do course review. This committee is composed primarily of CSU faculty (5) but also includes CCC faculty (3). The committee simultaneously reviews courses for inclusion in the Intersegmental GE Transfer Curriculum (IGETC). Campus exemptions from system requirements are routinely referred to GEAC for comment and recommendations. The current GEAC is composed of nine CSU faculty, one CCC faculty member, a CCC Chancellor’s Office representative, a CCC articulation officer, and a CSU articulation officer.

Items that may be on the agenda this year include 1. the relationship between GE and integrated teacher preparation programs; 2. on-going IGETC and area breadth course reviews; and 3. a follow-up on the review of course patterns used to fulfill the American Institutions

requirement.

IMPAC -- Barry Pasternack The first Intersegmental Major Preparation Articulation Curriculum system (IMPAC) steering committee meeting will be held in Sacramento on Monday, September 15. Dates have been determined for the four IMPAC regional meetings as well as the statewide meeting. Meeting dates and locations can be found at the IMPAC website, http://cal-impac.org/Meetings/meetings.htm.

* * * * *

26

The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 11:35 a.m. on Friday, September 5, 2003.

* * * * * Approved (or corrected) Date:________________________ _______________________________ Robert W. Cherny, Chair _______________________________ David Hood, Secretary ________________________________ Margaret Price, Recording Secretary

* * * * *