DRAFT

October 30, 1997
Response to THE CORNERSTONES REPORT (8/97 Draft)
by
California State University, Sacramento

This response is based upon input from a wide range of individuals, both faculty and administrators, at California State University, Sacramento (CSUS). Comments were collected throughout much of 1997 as part of the campus's on-going discussion of the Cornerstones process. The report itself was prepared by a campus working group organized by the Faculty Senate Chair. A draft version of the document was then presented to the campus community for further comment and revision before being submitted in its final form.

Although we were asked by CSU Academic Chair Jim Highsmith and others to direct our response specifically to the August 1997 draft of The Comerstones Report, campus discussion inevitably included broader consideration of the year-long Cornerstones process. These comments are also included.

This report is divided into three parts. Section 1, Context, presents campus reactions to the broader Cornerstones process and the relation of the August '97 report to that process. Section 11, The Cornerstones Report, deals specifically with the August, 1997 Cornerstones report. Section III, Cornerstones Implications for CSUS, discusses the relevance of Cornerstones to the CSUS campus.

At CSUS, much of the discussion of the August 1997 draft Cornerstones report focused on its relation to previous versions of the Cornerstones document. The brevity of this version has raised considerable question about its relationship to the more detailed and controversial ideas in the earlier drafts. It is unclear to many of us to what extent the idease contained in the previous drafts are operative. Concern, therefore, exists that while many of these more specific and controversial elements were eliminated in the current documen, they nonetheless continue to inform the thinking of policy makers and administrators who will be responsible for implementing any Cornerstones-based initiatives. Associated with this is the fear that our campus's endorsement of the August, 1997 draft will be taken as agreement with many of the related, but unacceptable elements in the earlier Cornerstones documents.

Our principal concerns with the earlier (green- and blue-cover) versions of the Cornerstones Report include:

• the assumption that "something is structurally bad within the current system" and that it is primarily the faculty's responsibility to correct it;
• the emphasis on a market-oriented approach to addressing California's educational needs;
• what appears to be an emphasis on technical training, not traditional liberal education;
• the emphasis on introducing changes primarily for their cost-saving benefits with little consideration of their pedagogical desirability (e.g., increased reliance on part-time faculty; the emphasis on technology as a money-saver);
• the heavy use of vague, poorly-defined terminology ("demonstrating our effectiveness", "engaged scholarships, etc.);
• an uncritical emphasis on outcomes assessment while downplaying the role of traditional assessment;
• the failure to acknowledge the central importance of the major.

We strongly recommend that, at some point, the Cornerstones Task Force explicitly address the issue of the status of the previous Cornerstones drafts and their relationship to the current The Cornerstones Report.

Although members of the CSUS community have questions about specific elements of the August, 1997 draft, the document as a whole was generally viewed favorably. The Ten Principles, which we see as the core of the document, were, for the most part, non-controversial and written on a sufficiently general level to allow for individual campus flexibility in their implementation. Questions or objections were raised, however, regarding the specific recommendations offered in support of the principles. These are included in our comments below.

• Outcomes assessment is a good idea as long as it doesn't supplant traditional evaluation.
• The twelve educational objectives are very admirable; it is, however, important that the continuing integrity of the majors be reaffirmed. While this might be implicit in the first objective, it should nonetheless be stated explicitly.
• Although it is not specifically included, is the uncoupling of Seat-time and credit (an element of earlier drafts) still considered part of this?

• While the ultimate responsibility for program and curriculum development should remain under faculty control, the idea of increased student involvement in developing their academic plans is desirable and appropriate.
• The possibilities of alternative scheduling and alternative delivery systems are worth considering.

• The idea of active student involvement in developing individualized academic plans is desirable, as long as it doesn't mean that students have autonomy to dictate what they learn (see comments on Principle 2 above).
• The ideas of self-paced and self-directed study is definitely worth consideration.
• The proposal to require a community service learning experience is attractive, but is it practical given the growing number of part-time students and the increasing external demands on student time? Such a requirement could make a degree less accessible for many.

• The Principle sounds good on a general level but with a few exceptions (e.g., closing the salary gap, strengthening shared governance) the recommendations are fuzzy on details. Many of the statements are vague. (See 4-a and 4-b)
• It is unclear what a "system wide policy" means with regard to control of resources; will individual campuses be required to surrender control over replacement resources/decisions to the central administration in Long Beach?
• It should be clearly stated that retiring faculty need to be replaced at appropriate levels. (Replacement of full professors with faculty at assistant or associate professor rank is acceptable.) As a general rule, the replacement of full-time faculty with part-time faculty is unacceptable.
• Drop Recommendation 4-c (working with graduate schools/UC to provide adequately trained faculty for CSU). It suggests that a principal goal of UC should be to provide faculty for the CSU (it isn't) and that the CSU hires primarily from the UC (it doesn't). CSU faculty come from too wide a gange of institutions to make such linkages practical. Moreover, it implies (perhaps insultingly) that the CSU currently is unable to find sufficient gualified faculty to fill available positions.

The recommendations in support of this principle all seem sound and worthy of consideration.

• The continued recognition of the importance of graduate and continuing education is desirable. Concern arises, however, when the document states that G&CE will be supported by a reduction in programs in other areas. What areas do they mean--undergraduate liberal education? The commitment to undergraduate education must be achnowledged as primary and not subordinate to G&CE.
• The issue of differential fees is worth considering.
• We recognize the role the CSU plays in preparing our students to be informed, productive members of society, but programmatic and curricular decisions should not be made on the basis of short-term marketplace criteria.

The recommendations supporting this principle were generally well received. Recognition of need to work aggressively with the legislature to ensure adequate funding for the CSU (Compact II) is arguably the most important issue addressed in the Cornerstones document. (See below.)

The options listed under this Principle are acceptable provided:
• They don't become a justification for replacing full-time faculty with part-time faculty;
• The resources freed up by replacing higher-paid senior faculty with junior faculty are reinvested in the faculty, not shifted elsewhere;
• The issues of technology and distance learning are treated carefully when used in connection with "productivity"; they should be used for pedagogically sound reasons, not just as a cost-saving strategy.

There is a recognition that some sort of ongoing internal assessment and public accountability is appropriate, but recommendation 9-c, which seems to link student achievement and community/employer satisfaction creates some concern. A distinction needs to be made between those outcomes desirable in producing a well-educated student and those outcomes necessary to produce individuals trained to meet the particular employment needs of a business or community. The two are not necessarily identical, since that "education" is not the same as "training." We believe the more broadly-based liberal education the CSU currently offers its baccalaureate students is in fact the best preparation we can offer our students for life and careers in the California of the 21st century.

Increased campus autonomy is generally supported as a principle, but we have the following reservations:
• We are concerned about the potential destructive effects on the system of increased competition among campuses for resources that may result from this increased autonomy.
• We are concerned about the destructive effects at the campus level of pressures on individual campus to emphasize only selected programs ("centers of excellence") at the expense of a wider range of offerings.

In addition to the Principles discussed above, there are other aspects of the report, particularly ideas contained in the Conclusion and Appendix, that merit additional comment here.

The first of these is the future financial stability of the CSU and higher education in California, as a whole. An underlying premise of Cornerstones is that the CSU will be facing a serious resource crisis in the near future since public financial support will fall far short of what will be needed to meet the demands placed upon it. As a result, much of Cornerstones debate has been devoted to coming up with ways of "closing the resource gap" by doing more with less. It must be recognized, however, that all of the suggestions that have emerged from the discussion --flexible schedules, decoupling course credit and "seat-time," alternate modes of delivery, increased external support, and public-private partnerships-- cannot replace public support for the CSU. Public funding is and will remain essential to maintaining the California State University System. It is imperative that Cornerstones not be viewed by the legislature or general public as a rational for decreasing the public financial support.

It is also important to point out that the issue of financing the CSU is not primarily a faculty problem and faculty should not be expected to solve the financial gap. Faculty are responsible for developing and implementing curricula in ways that are flexible and accessible to students while maintaining quality. It is up to the Chancellor and CSU administrators to obtain the necessary financial support.

The second area of concern involves the heavy use of corporate and market-oriented terminology when discussing higher education and the CSU. We have even greater concern over what appears to be the heavy emphasis on market-driven decision-making that appears in many of the recommendations in this document. While we recognize that higher education exists to fill certain needs in society, these needs are not ones that are best met through the types of short-term responses that characterize the economic marketplace. Use of this terminology suggests that the university is moving in the direction of "corporatizing" high education, a prospect that most faculty find distasteful and feel is detrimental to the long-term health of the CSU. The use of this terminology should be eliminated.

The CSUS community firmly believes that the goal of baccalaureate education is to produce a liberally educated person who is able to meet the challenges of society over time. This person has to be able to think critically, possess a sense of ethics, and have a sense of history and his/her place in time and society. Such an education best prepares students for a career and for life in general. This is increasingly recognized by members of the legislature, the business community, and the general public as numerous statements in recent months show.1

In general, we find that the August 1997 draft of The Cornerstones Report is consistent with this goal. While we have questions about some of the specific points contained in the document, and major concerns about the relationship of this draft to the earlier Cornerstones reports, the document is, for the most part, non-controversial. The basic Principles it sets forth are generally acceptable and many of the specific recommendations are worthy of consideration. Moreover, many of the elements contained within the document correspond to initiatives already underway on our campus. These included:

• consideration of a proposal for an alternate 3-yr baccalaureate degree;
• promotion of closer coordination between graduate and continuing education;
• expansion of course offerings through distance learning;
• the introduction of School-based alternative scheduling initiatives;
• development of specific policies for increasing assessment and accountability.

• revision of the existing General Education program;
• an increased emphasis on departmental advising and the development of individual student academic plans.

Upon receipt of a final version of The Cornerstones Report, it will be submitted to the CSUS Council for Uiversity Planning (CUP) where its principles and recommendations will be considered in conjunction with our campus's already existing Strategic and Academic Plans.

___________________