2010-2011
FACULTY SENATE
California State University, Sacramento
AGENDA
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Foothill Suite, Union
3:20 - 5:00 p.m.
OPEN FORUM
CONSENT ACTION
|
FS 11-33/Ex. |
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT – UNIVERSITY |
Search Committee, Associate Vice
President, Facilities Services
Kevan Shafizadeh, faculty representative
REGULAR AGENDA
|
FS 11-31/Flr. |
MINUTES OF MARCH 10, 2011 |
FIRST READING
|
FS 11-27/GSPC/Ex. |
DOCTORATE IN PHYSICAL THERAPY |
The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the Doctorate in Physical Therapy, as described below:
Executive Summary
Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) Proposal
The Department of Physical Therapy in the College of Health and Human Services at Sacramento State proposes offering the Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) on the Sacramento campus beginning in fall 2012.
Rationale:
The
program is developed in response to changes in entry-level professional
education requirements by the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy
Education (CAPTE). It is the intent of
this proposal that the new DPT curriculum will replace the MPT curriculum. MPT degrees will soon (2015) no longer meet
accreditation standards, and therefore licensing requirements. This new
DPT program will establish a pathway for CSUS students to become
graduates of an accredited program of professional physical therapist
education, and to continue to be eligible for licensure. This will advance
Program
Description:
The program is a professional doctoral
program, similar to MD and DDS programs, designed to prepare generalist
practitioners grounded in evidence-based practice in physical therapy. It consists of a combination of lecture,
laboratory, and clinical experiences over 3 years that fully integrates
evidence-based practice into these experiences through the use of case-method teaching. A complete description of the program as well
as the design of courses by semester and summer term are included in the full
proposal in section 2 with year by year charts of the course structure
beginning on page 12. A copy of all
syllabi with assignments and sample exams accompany the Form As.
Governance
Structure:
The overall governing group of the program is the Department Council composed of members of the core and associated physical therapy faculty where all curricular and policy decisions are decided by a vote of all members. The Department is an equal and representative member of the College of Health and Human Services Committees, is represented in the Faculty Senate, and faculty serve on a variety of committees across the campus. Department faculty are fully engaged in and contributing to the activities of the campus.
Faculty:
Faculty teaching in the doctoral program and serving on doctoral committees meet all of the expectations consistent with university and CAPTE expectations. Policies and procedures are outlined in the Department’s updated Appointment, Retention, Tenure, and Promotion policies, and meet the expectations of the Chancellor’s Office governing documents.
Students:
Admissions
requirements for students entering the program will continue to require
evidence of the ability to do graduate work through careful review of
applications according to high standards.
All department requirements are iterated in the full proposal for review
in section 5 beginning on page 24. In
keeping with the
Research Capacity:
The proposed program expectation is that core doctoral faculty will have 3 units of release time each semester to devote to their scholarship. In addition they will have the responsibility of mentoring student doctoral projects/culminating experiences. Students are expected to become critical consumers of research literature and to be proficient with deriving evidence for clinical decision-making. This expectation is reinforced throughout the curriculum and with doctoral projects/culminating experiences. The department currently has space that is adequate to accommodate the research needs of faculty and students.
Internal Funding and Resources:
Internal funding resources arise from the usual sources: marginal cost funding from the state and student fees. The chart below identifies the 5 year projected budget with resultant gains expected. More complete information about this is addressed in the full proposal beginning on page 37.
|
|
2012-2013 |
2013-2014 |
2014-2015 |
2015-2016 |
2016-2017 |
|
Cohort
Enrollment # |
32 |
64 |
96 |
96 |
96 |
|
Personnel
Costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Program
Coordinator |
$10,350 |
$10,350 |
$10,350 |
$10,350 |
$10,350 |
|
Research
Associate |
|
$10,500 |
$10,500 |
$10,500 |
$10,500 |
|
Adm Support @ $34000 |
51,000 |
51,000 |
68,000 |
68,000 |
68,000 |
|
ISAs/GA |
|
10,000 |
10,000 |
10,000 |
10,000 |
|
|
$61,350 |
$81,850 |
$98,850 |
$98,850 |
$98,850 |
|
Benefits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prog Coordinator |
4,140 |
4,140 |
4,140 |
4,140 |
4,140 |
|
Doctoral
Project Coordinator |
|
4,140 |
4,140 |
4,140 |
4,140 |
|
Adm Support |
20,400 |
20,400 |
27,200 |
27,200 |
27,200 |
|
ISAs/GA |
4000 |
4000 |
4000 |
4000 |
|
|
|
$28,540 |
$32,680 |
$39,480 |
$39,480 |
$39,480 |
|
Instructional
Costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Salaries |
776,921 |
854,921 |
1,010,921 |
1,010,921 |
1,010,921 |
|
Benefits |
310,768 |
341,968 |
404,368 |
404,368 |
404,368 |
|
|
$1,087,689 |
$1,196,889 |
$1,415,289 |
$1,415,289 |
$1,415,289 |
|
Library |
$35,000 |
$35,000 |
$35,000 |
$35,000 |
$35,000 |
|
Computers/Tech |
$2,500 |
$2,500 |
$5,000 |
$5,000 |
$5,000 |
|
Supplies
& Services |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplies
|
10,000 |
10,000 |
15,000 |
15,000 |
15,000 |
|
Photocopying
& Printing |
4,000 |
4,000 |
6,000 |
6,000 |
6,000 |
|
Postage |
2,000 |
2,000 |
3,000 |
4,000 |
4,000 |
|
Instructional
Travel |
2,000 |
2,000 |
3,000 |
3,000 |
4,000 |
|
|
$18,000 |
$18,000 |
$27,000 |
$28,000 |
$29,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
costs |
$1,233,079 |
$1,366,919 |
$1,620,619 |
$1,621,619 |
$1,622,619 |
|
Student
fees |
1,032,394 |
1,307,993 |
2,695,296 |
2,695,296 |
2,695,296 |
|
(33% set aside for
financial aid) |
(340,690) |
(431,637) |
(889,447) |
(889,447) |
(889,447) |
|
Marginal
funding |
768,042 |
863,643 |
1,088,144 |
1,088,144 |
1,088,144 |
|
Total
Revenue |
$1,459,746 |
$1,739,998 |
$2,893,992 |
$2,893,992 |
$2,893,992 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Projected
gains |
$226,667 |
$373,079 |
$1,273,373 |
$1,272,373 |
$1,271,373 |
External Funding:
Faculty research and student internships have been supported in a variety of ways in the current graduate program. These are addressed at length in the full document.
Internal Evaluation:
The program approval process is consistent with the usual campus requirements.
External Evaluation:
The proposal has
been submitted and reviewed by an external consultant, Lisa L. Dorsey, PT, PhD,
MBA, Associate Dean of the Doisy College of Health Sciences from
The proposal’s Table
of Contents can be found at Attachment
A; the full proposal can be found at Attachment
A-1; catalog copy can be found at Attachment A-2.
If you would like a
copy of the course syllabi, please contact Cheryl Johnson at cjohnson@csus.edu, and she will attempt to
forward these in a zip file to you.
|
FS 11-22/Ex. |
ELECTRONIC COURSE EVALUATIONS |
Proposed changes to
UARTP policy in order to accommodate possible conversion to electronic course
evaluation.
Proposed Change in UARTP 4.08A.4:
4.08 Personnel Action File
A. The Personnel Action File shall contain the following material submitted by the custodian of the file:
1. Record of location of other files
2. Access log
3. Appointment letter and other relevant appointment
information
4. Results of standardized student evaluations standardized in terms of subject
and format of questions (e.g., numbers and types of rating items, scales, and
response categories.
Proposed Change in UARTP 5.05E.3:
E. Competent Teaching Performance
…
3) The department is responsible for the development and administration
of evaluation questionnaires, and for ensuring that administration of the questionnaires occurs in
line with established regulations and that the distribution and
collection of questionnaires maintain student anonymity. The results of
the student evaluations shall be given to the instructor and department chair
after grades have been assigned.
[Insert here the Senate’s preference: a, b, or c]
Senate choice for insertion at end of UARTP 5.05E.3
a) Individual faculty members may choose to administer their department’s approved course evaluation instrument in written form or in (departmentally approved) electronic form.
b) Departments may offer individual faculty members the option of administering the department’s approved course evaluation instrument in written form or in (departmentally approved) electronic form.
c) Departments may choose to mandate administration of the department’s approved course evaluation instrument by the entire faculty in either written form or in (departmentally approved) electronic form.
d)
Departments
shall decide whether and under what circumstances electronic forms may be used.
Background/explanation
of option d): For example, departments may choose to mandate administration of
the department's approved course evaluation instrument by the entire faculty in
either hard copy form or in (departmentally approved) electronic form, may
identify circumstances (e.g., types of courses) in which hard copy or
electronic forms must be used, or may offer individual faculty the option of
administering the department's approved questionnaire in either hard copy or
electronic form.
|
FS 10-32/Ex. |
CONVOCATION ON FOSTERING A COMMUNITY AT SACRAMENTO STATE, RESOLUTION ON |
The
Faculty Senate thanks the members of the planning committee, administration and
participants for the Convocation on Fostering a Community at Sacramento State.
The event was well organized and valuable to all who attended as students,
staff, faculty and administration had the opportunity to talk about personal
experiences and to frame hopeful ideas of what they envision our campus will
become. In keeping with the spirit of the convocation, we resolve that all
persons who are involved with California State University Sacramento regardless
of position, rank, gender, race, sexual orientation or disability will be
treated with dignity and respect by all members of our college community.
The
Faculty Senate thanks and acknowledges from the activities office, advancement
staff volunteers on event day: Scott Adams, Melisa Addison, Karen Booth, Pat
Burke-Kumpf, Ryan Chin, Shari Gonzales, Kevin
Gonzalez, Laurie Hall, Georgina Hansen-Stevenson, Shante
Johnson, John Koch, Hannah Kook, Kevin Mackey, Jackie Morris-Henderson, Maurya Perazzo, Craig Perez, Mimi
Phothichack, John Power, Stella Premo, Vince Sales,
Linda Kay Soriano, and Terry Veiga.
The
Faculty Senate also thanks and acknowledges the following planning committee
members, breakout assistants, and volunteers: Kimo Ah Yun, J.P. Bayard,
Margarita Berta-Avila, Rose Borunda, Jessica
Castellon, Sarah Couch, Julie Figueroa, Tim Fong, Janet Hecsh, Patricia Holmes,
Marlyn Jones, Mary Maguire, Steve Perez, Sarkis Piloyan, Debbie Santiago, Alysson Satterlund, Vanessa
Sheared, Mark Stoner, Don Taylor, Adrienne Thompson, and Ernest Uwazie.
Furthermore,
the Faculty Senate also thanks and acknowledges Carole Hayashino, Vice
President for University Advancement and Alexander Gonzalez, President of
California State University Sacramento.
SECOND READING
|
FS 10-71/Ex. |
POLICY ON INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM PRIORITIES: ACADEMIC PLANNING, RESOURCE ALLOCATION AND ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT, AMENDMENT OF |
Supercedes UMI 07100; INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM PRIORITIES; GUIDELINES FOR
ACADEMIC PLANNING, RESOURCE ALLOCATION, AND ENROLLMENT MANAGMENT .
The following policy proposal was initially prepared by the Task Force on Possible Revisions to University Policy on Instructional Priorities and Resource Allocation. The Task Force was created by President Gonzalez after a recommendation from the Faculty Senate (FS 09-86/Flr), and the charge of the Task Force was endorsed by the Senate on 2/25/10 (FS 10-17/Ex). After the Task Force concluded its work, the Faculty Senate took action to receive the proposal FS 10-71/Ex.) and distributed it to its standing policy committees and to the Senate for review and comment. The Faculty Senate Executive Committee then reviewed the feedback and amended the original Task Force proposal.
Academic Program Priorities
POLICY PROVISIONS
I. UNIVERSITY-WIDE PLANNING AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION
It is the responsibility of the University to establish University-wide priorities among its academic programs in order to guide the allocation of resources across the University. These priorities shall be established using the criteria described in this policy. The decisions regarding priorities shall be made in an open and transparent way utilizing data provided by the programs being prioritized as well as data provided by other sources. These decisions shall be made under the principles of shared governance, after prior consultation with the Colleges, programs, and the Faculty Senate. Each academic department shall be responsible for describing how its programs contribute to the Mission of the University, as well as to the desired balance and mix of programs offered by the University. The prioritization process shall examine programs holistically, using both qualitative and quantitative data. While any prioritization process must necessarily be driven by the qualitative and quantitative data, data are not to be a substitute for exercising sound judgment.
Any implementation of program prioritization shall be carried out under the following guiding principles:
Transparency: All decisions shall be made in an open and transparent fashion, based upon evidence.
Comprehensiveness: All aspects of a program will be examined during the prioritization process.
Consistency: The same criteria will be used to evaluate each program for prioritization.
Inclusiveness: All programs within Academic Affairs shall be evaluated and all faculty and staff shall have the opportunity to participate in the analysis of their programs.
Demand: The demand (by students, employers and internal constituents) shall be determined for all programs.
Utilization of Data: Prioritization of programs will be based on examination of both quantitative and qualitative data provided by the programs and other sources.
II. DESIRED BALANCE AND MIX OF PRIORITY PROGRAM CATEGORIES
For the purposes of this policy, a program is defined to be; a unit within Academic Affairs that uses resources from Academic Affairs and which either: offers majors, minors, or certificates; or provides resources to students. Under this definition, departments and divisions within Academic Affairs are not programs; however majors, minors and certificates are programs. Non-degree granting academic units such as the University Library, Learning Skills, and other special academic Centers are also considered programs.
General Education (GE) is mandated by Title V and cannot be prioritized as an independent program, but components of the GE program housed within departments will be recognized/evaluated.
Graduate programs are an essential part of the mission of the California State University (CSU System Mission Statement) and of the mission of California State University, Sacramento (California State University, Sacramento Mission Statement). As such, a high priority is placed on maintaining a viable graduate program with a mix of graduate programs that is appropriate to a comprehensive, metropolitan university. To assure continued viability of graduate education at California State University, Sacramento, the University shall maintain a minimum degree-seeking graduate enrollment of 10% of the FTE of the University. In addition, the University shall maintain a minimum of 5% of the FTE of the University in postbaccalaureate credential and certificate programs, if consistent with and justified by regional need and agency data (e.g., the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing). Consistent with Section III below, second baccalaureate students shall be counted in undergraduate FTEs. The proportion of graduate and postbaccalaureate enrollment may be increased above these levels, but enrollment shall not exceed the maximum level permitted by CSU system mandates.
III. PRIORITIES WITHIN UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION ACROSS THE UNIVERSITY
The University is committed to offering undergraduate programs leading to a baccalaureate degree in selected disciplines. This includes first and subsequent baccalaureate degrees. Nine criteria are specified for the purpose of comparing undergraduate programs across the University. The criteria are broad in nature and are selected to capture as much information as possible about programs, in order to take into account the size, scope and nature of each program. In this way, decisions made regarding priorities are to be made in a way that is both informed, and transparent to the programs being prioritized. These criteria have been adapted from Dickeson (2010). For each criterion some examples of information/data are given, to illustrate how programs may choose to respond to the criterion. Not all of these examples will be relevant to every program on the campus and in such cases those examples should be ignored by such programs when responding to the criterion. When prioritizing programs within undergraduate education across the University, the following criteria shall be used to compare undergraduate programs:
What
is the context of the program, to inform the subsequent criteria. Is the program young and still building to
meet expectations or is it a fully mature program and capable of adapting to
changing demands? Has the program
considered what lies in its future?
In
what ways does the program fulfill the University’s mission? Is the program unique in our region? Does the program add to the distinctiveness
of our campus? Does the program serve a
unique demographic or societal function?
How
does the program support community engagement with the campus? What is the
demand for the program’s resources and expertise? What are the local trends in enrollment? What is the demand from employers, or from
graduate schools?
What
is the demand for the program’s courses from other programs on campus? Does the program produce other services used
by different programs in the home department or in other departments? How do the program’s courses fulfill demand
for general education on campus?
How
does the program use its resources to carry out its mission? Are those
resources used efficiently and effectively?
Is the program curriculum appropriate to breadth, depth and level of the
discipline? How does the program use
technology?
Are
student learning outcomes achieved? How
well do students do after graduation (employment, graduate school, professional
licensing and/or certification)?
Number of majors, number of FTES. How
many degrees or certificates are awarded? Are the program’s resources and
faculty expertise appropriate to support and enhance the breadth and depth of
university curricululm?
What
sorts of revenues does the program generate, to be compared with costs. What are the other, non-monetary resources generated
(e.g. relationships with outside institutions)?
A criterion not to be examined independently
from the others, but to provide context. Consider both indirect and
direct costs. What steps has the program
taken to improve efficiency? What kind of investment is needed to improve the
program?
IV. PRIORITIES WITHIN GRADUATE EDUCATION ACROSS THE UNIVERSITY
The University is committed to offering graduate programs
leading to the master's, doctoral or terminal degree, or postbaccalaureate
credential in selected disciplines.
Nine criteria are specified for the purpose of comparing graduate programs across the University. The criteria are broad in nature and are selected to capture as much information as possible about programs, in order to take into account the size, scope and nature of each program. In this way, decisions made regarding priorities are to be made in a way that is both informed, and transparent to the programs being prioritized. These criteria have been adapted from Dickeson (2010). For each criterion some examples of information/data are given, to illustrate how programs may choose to respond to the criterion. Not all of these examples will be relevant to every program on the campus and in such cases those examples should be ignored by such programs when responding to the criterion. When prioritizing programs within graduate education across the University, the following criteria shall be used to compare graduate programs:
What
is the context of the program, to inform the subsequent criteria. Is the program young and still building to
meet expectations or is it a fully mature program and capable of adapting to
changing demands? Has the program
considered what lies in its future?
In
what ways does the program fulfill the University’s mission? Is the program unique in our region? Does the program add to the distinctiveness
of our campus? Does the program serve a
unique demographic or societal function?
How does the program support community engagement with the campus? What is the demand for the program’s resources and expertise? What are the local trends in enrollment? What is the demand from employers, or from graduate schools?
What
is the demand for the program’s courses from other programs on campus? Does the program produce other services used
by different programs in the home department or in other departments?
How
does the program use its resources to carry out its mission? Are those
resources used efficiently and effectively?
Does the program attract students who are ready to succeed in graduate
study? Is the program curriculum
appropriate to breadth, depth and level of the discipline? How does the program use technology?
Are
student learning outcomes achieved? How
well do students do after graduation (employment, graduate school, professional
licensing and/or certification).
Number of active graduate students, number
of FTES. How many degrees or certificates are awarded?
Are the program’s resources and faculty expertise appropriate to support and
enhance the breadth and depth of university curriculum? Is size of program faculty appropriate to
breadth and depth of curriculum?
What
sorts of revenues does the program generate, to be compared with costs. What are the other, non-monetary resources generated
(e.g. relationships with outside institutions)?
A criterion not to be examined independently
from the others, but to provide context. Consider both indirect and
direct costs. What steps has the program
taken to improve efficiency? What kind
of investment is needed to improve the program?
V. PRIORITIES WITHIN OTHER ACADEMIC PROGRAMS
Academic programs that exist to support students and faculty in successfully accomplishing the goals of undergraduate and graduate programs shall also be evaluated. To the degree possible for each program in question, the same criteria shall be applied as for undergraduate and graduate programs. For example, as the Library does not offer a major program, graduation rate is not an appropriate criterion, but other measures of student outcomes will be.
VI. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE POLICY
The
process of making recommendations for academic prioritization shall result in
undergraduate and graduate programs (separately) being grouped into quartiles
based upon the criteria. Such grouping will be done
by a Senate Select Committee which may solicit input from the Curriculum
Policies Committee and the Graduate Studies Policies Committee on the
implementation of the criteria prior to initial and/or final prioritization of
programs. Programs will produce reports using qualitative and quantitative data
that address the criteria in whatever manner they deem appropriate, and the
Senate Select Committee will consider the data in the reports holistically,
without assigning particular weights to given categories or criteria. The
Senate Select Committee shall recommend program prioritization across
university units.
It is the charge of a Faculty Senate Select Committee (formed for these purposes) to examine the data and make recommendations, as both are described in this policy. The first such Select Committee shall be formed following both the passage of this policy and the collection of data. The data shall be collected, from Departments, by the Office of Academic Affairs.
Upon approval of this policy, an initial call for data as described in this policy will go to Departments from the Office of Academic Affairs. A separate process for the ongoing and periodic gathering of such data, including review by programs and the archiving of data, will be developed by the Office of Academic Affairs, in consultation with the Faculty Senate.
Subsequent to the completion of the work of the first such Select Committee, the question of whether or not to form a new Select Committee for these same purposes shall be brought to the Faculty Senate on a periodic basis. Normally, this question shall be considered no later than five years after the last such committee completed its work and was disbanded, or five years after the question was most recently considered by the Faculty Senate, whichever comes later.
Interested parties may petition the Faculty Senate, via its Executive Committee, to consider the question of forming a Select Committee for the purposes outlined in this policy prior to the described five year period elapsing.
Producing the recommendations for prioritization shall be a two stage process, specifically designed to allow programs to respond to the recommendations before any final decisions are made. Final Senate Select Committee recommendations will then be forwarded to the Faculty Senate for receipt of its report and to the President for disposition.
After the final recommendation is made, the results shall be made available in an open and transparent manner to the University community, with enough information being made available so that the assignments of programs to quartiles are known, and programs can understand how the assignments were achieved.
RESOURCES USED
Dickeson, Robert C.; Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services; 2010; Jossey-Bass
California State University Mission Statement: www.calstate.edu/PA/info/mission.shtml
California State University, Sacramento Mission Statement: www.csus.edu/webpages/mission.stm
California State University Policy Manual, Policy UMI07100 “Instructional Programs Priorities; Academic Planning Resource Allocation and Enrollment Management”: www.csus.edu/umanual/UMI07100.htm
University of Southern Mississippi, University Priorities Committee Plan: www.usm.edu/upc/upc_charge.pdf
Indiana State University, Program Prioritization: www.indstate.edu/academicaffairs/program_prioritization.htm
Humboldt State University, Program Elimination Criteria: www.humboldt.edu/~anstud/PEC2010.html
SIDE-BY-SIDE (FROM FS 10-71 VS. AS AMENDED)
|
FS 11-28/AITC/Ex. |
IMPLEMENTATION OF KBOX |
The Faculty Senate recommends an alternative approach to the monitoring and reporting needs associated with IRT’s KBox implementation plan be recommended to the President for consideration:
The alternative approach:
·
IRT
in consultation with College and Library Deans and the Academic IT Committee
identify and document the specific security and appropriate usage needs that
will be met through the remote monitoring and access capabilities provided by
IRT’s intended use of KBox as a System Management
Appliance.
·
Colleges
and the Library Deans be given the option of meeting
these needs locally or ceding that responsibility to IRT. Those that choose the local option will
assume the responsibility of providing IRT with the appropriate information
that ensures that the security and appropriate use of IT resources are being
maintained.
·
The
decision on which System Management Appliance to be purchased by those that
select the self-monitoring option be based on the specific security and
appropriate usage needs and that different alternatives be considered (Altiris Endpoint Management, Kaseya
IT Department Edition, KBox, LANDesk Management
Suite, Microsoft Systems Management Server, etc.).
FACULTY SENATE
SCHEDULE:
· March 24, 2011 – spring break
· March 31, 2011 – Cesar Chavez Day
· April 7, 2011 – 2011-12 organizational meeting, 3:00-3:30; 2010-11 Senate meets at 3:30
· April 12, 2011 – Outstanding Faculty Awards, 3:00-5:00, Ballroom I
· April 21, 2011 – Senate meets
· May 5, 2011 – Senate meets
· May 12, 2011 - tentative