Please bring:
Attachment C from May 2 Faculty Senate Agenda
Attachment E from May 2 Faculty Senate Agenda

2001-2002 FACULTY SENATE
California State University, Sacramento

AGENDA
May 9, 2002
Foothill Suite, Union
3:30 - 5:00 p.m.

FOLLOWING THE ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING OF THE 2002-03 SENATE
REFRESHMENTS WILL BE SERVED!

OPEN FORUM

CONSENT ITEMS

Faculty Policies Committee
Ahmed Salem, E&CS, At-large, 2005

REGULAR AGENDA

Approval of the Minutes of May 2 (#26), 2002.

SECOND READING
[Action may be taken.]

[William Dillon]

Background:  Currently, the University ARTP document does not specifically reference activities associated with service learning, the development of public policy and assessment of programs and the results of student efforts to learn.  As described in Professor William Dillon's (Presiding Member, University ARTP Committee) April 16, 2002 memo to the Faculty Senate, the proposed changes would legitimize and allow units to include such activities in their evaluation process.  The March 25, 2002 memo from Charlotte Cook, Coordinator, Office of Community Collaboration, to the University ARTP Committee provides further background and rationale.

The Faculty Senate recommends amending Section 5.05 of the University ARTP document as shown in Faculty Senate Agenda May 2, 2002 Attachment C.  

[William Dillon]

The Faculty Senate recommends amending Section 6.06.D of the University ARTP document as shown in Attachment D (updated May 6).

 

[Dick Kornweibel]

The Faculty Senate recommends the University 1) create the position of Director of General Education, which, in keeping with the importance of the GE program, shall be a 12-month, full-time MPP position reporting through the office of Academic Affairs and 2) adopt the position description for the Director of GE, which was developed by the GE Impact Study Workgroup (Faculty Senate Agenda May 2, 2002 Attachment E).

Background (From the 2000-2001 General Education Program Review Report):

RECOMMENDATION 2. We recommend the university create the position of Director of GE, which, in keeping with the importance of the GE program, shall be a full-time MPP position with retreat rights reporting through the office of Academic Affairs. The GE director would have responsibility for coordinating and providing direction to the GE program, including assessment activities, learning communities, and the freshmen seminars, in accordance with policy determined by the GE Policy Committee and the university. While FTES shall remain with departments offering coursework, the Director in conjunction with the GE Policy Committee would have ultimate authority over the program's (1) course offerings and scheduling and (2) over whether courses and instructors meet GE objectives, area learning outcomes, and course standards as provided for in whatever new course approval and review process results from this report. As a reflection of the importance of GE on this campus, the Director should be included (ex officio) in meetings of the College Deans, and other significant policymaking bodies when appropriate. The General Education Impact Study Workgroup (see Recommendation No. 9) will be responsible for developing and recommending a budget appropriate for the effective operation of the GE office.

Discussion and Rationale: At least since the report of GERT-89 a serious argument has been advanced to centralize general education authority on this campus. A dean's position was created and filled from 1990 to 1995. Most recently, the program has had a coordinator with six units released time.

Generally speaking, despite often heroic efforts, since 1995 the GE coordinator has been reduced by circumstances to a weakened, part-time caretaker whose diminished authority has left the program pretty much at the mercy of far narrower vested interests, whether faculty or administrative. Without ultimate authority over course approval or review of program offerings, lacking a budget to respond to unforeseen scheduling challenges or initiate truly interdisciplinary offerings, absent even symbolic equivalency to other important academic administrators, the GE coordinator is expected to preside over a program consisting of more than 400 courses with neither the power nor the resources usually associated with a chair in the smallest of academic departments. The name of the coordinator does not even appear on the Directory in Sacramento Hall. Given present circumstances, the GE Coordinator, at best, can provide only superficial oversight, minimal accountability, and virtually no vision. Such an arrangement has no hope of guiding GE toward the kind of coherence, relevance, and excellence the campus says it wishes for a program, which is ritually proclaimed as "the heart of the university."

In addition to giving the GE leadership position the kind of prominence and authority it merits and without which the program will continue to languish, our recommendation would consolidate several key GE tasks that General Education Review Team Final Report are now sub-contracted out, specifically GE assessment and coordination of the learning communities.

We should point out that our recommendation is in complete accord with the thinking of GERT-89, the recommendation of this Team's external consultants, and the most recent self-study of the GE Committee.

Although it is not part of the formal recommendation, the Review Team strongly urges that should agreement be reached on this recommendation in the near term, the present coordinator assume the duties of Interim Director, perhaps with the beginning of spring semester 2002, while a search is conducted for a permanent director.

[Tom Krabacher]

Background:  The policy is proposed out of concern about the difficulty faced by many students on academic probation in regaining academic good standing.  This challenge is often made more difficult when students on probation enroll for heavier than recommended course loads, academic advising to the contrary.  If implemented, this policy would automatically block students from enrolling for more than 14 units when not in good standing.

The Faculty Senate recommends adoption of the following policy:

Students who are on academic probation for two consecutive terms (including winter and summer terms) will be limited to a maximum course load of fourteen (14) units a semester until they achieve academic good standing.

FIRST READING

[10 minute time limited discussion-unless extended by majority vote; no action]

INFORMATION:

1. Senate Home Page:  http:/www.csus.edu/acse or, from the CSUS home page, click on Administration and Policy, then Administration, then Faculty Senate.

2. For Senators continuing through 2002-03, the Senate Retreat is Wednesday, August 28.  Save the date!

Have a nice summer!