Attachment A

Faculty Senate Agenda

February 25, 2010

 

 
February 14, 2010

 

TO:                  Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate

                                    And the Faculty Senate

 

FROM:            Professor Sylvia Navari

 

RE:                  Information Item/Rubric presented by Provost Sheley at the Feb. 11 Senate meeting

 

I was very saddened to hear the information presented by Provost Sheley regarding the process for managing enrollment, specifically targeting graduate and post baccalaureate programs.  The sadness comes from the fact that the information presented and the operational definitions and point system applied to the document entitled “Criteria for Reduction or Suspension of Master’s Programs,” make no academic sense.

 

Were this not my very last semester at CSUS, I would be very angry because the rubric, which is a decision making instrument, was developed outside and apart from the faculty.  Yes, the Faculty Senate approved the criteria and variables; but it only suggested examples of measurements and it did not suggest that one criterion ought to be weighted more than another or that some variables ought to be used.  The faculty, through the Faculty Senate, is responsible for the academic program offerings of and admissions to the University, not the Provost, Graduate Dean, or any other administrator.  As far as I am aware, the February 11, 2010 Senate meeting was the first time the faculty were made aware of the rubric.   Academic decision-making processes must come from the faculty—a “bottom up” rather than a “top down” approach.  The Faculty Senate is itself partially responsible for this situation as it did not exercise its full responsibility in carrying out this particular duty.  Nonetheless, consultation (open discussion, not discussion behind closed doors or with select faculty) throughout the process of academic decision-making is the hallmark of a university.  Throughout this current process, consultation was sorely lacking. 

 

Enrollment Management, from an academic perspective (and as defined by this campus’ policy on Instructional Program Priorities (1991)) must necessarily be grounded in the balance and mix of all programs (General Education, Undergraduate, and Graduate/Post Bac.).  Determining the balance and mix of programs requires a faculty to look within and across the main programs (i.e. making changes in graduate programs can affect undergraduate programs and vice versa).  CSUS is not 3 universities, it is one.  I was also appalled to hear Provost Sheley say that “size” of programs would be an overriding factor in reducing enrollments.  “Size” is not an academically based decision criterion.  I certainly understand that it is a convenient, easy way to reduce enrollment and preserve faculty positions.  And, if the faculty wish to continue down this path, so be it, but do not call it enrollment management—call it “reductions in enrollment based on preserving jobs.”

 

With regard to the rubric, I take issue with the operational definitions given to the criteria and what appears to be a weighted point system.  From a research perspective, it appears that what was done in developing the rubric, was to take a research instrument (instructional program priorities document) that was applied previously on this campus and attempt to replicate that research by using only some of the variables/criteria.  In addition, the validity and reliability of the operational definitions given to each of the criteria is questionable.  For example, what does student demand, set apart from the labor market or the needs of society, have to do with “need”—if the student demand for Science and Technology is low or the application to acceptance rate is high, does this mean we do not need this program?  Or, in another example, does teaching effectiveness have nothing to do with the quality of program; and does the success of a program’s graduates have nothing to do with quality?   I would like to think that our faculty have more sense than this rubric suggests.

 

With regard to the point system, on the basis of what research (which must necessarily include factor analysis) was this point system developed?  Why is acceptance rate (under program quality), given a weight 5 times greater than faculty involvement?  From a research perspective, this rubric holds no water.  So again, I say to the faculty, if you want to go down this path, so be it, but do so knowing that there is little, if any, academic integrity in this process and the consequences of its application to the balance and mix within and across programs (G.E, Undergraduate, and Grad./Post Bac.) will be dire.

 

Lastly, giving academic integrity to an Enrollment Management process requires that the University consider itself one--that such decisions must be made in the context of the whole—General Education, Undergraduate, and Graduate programs.  To target one side of the house without considering the other sides (again within and across houses) will surely cause a collapse of the whole. 

 

What needs to be done is not easy.  I know that my own faculty set about developing its priorities for graduate, undergraduate, and general education (in the course of a couple of faculty meetings) and what it thought its enrollment for each should be in light of quality. There is no reason that each department faculty cannot do the same and provide this information to Vice President Mills who could put all the information into the hopper and come out with a set of recommendations for reductions in enrollments (by program) that make academic sense and are consistent with the University’s mission.    

 

Sincerely and Respectfully,