Presidential Summit

Present: Sylvia Alva (CSUF); Voiza Arnold (Rio Hondo); Donald Averill (San Bernardino Community College District); Betty Benzor (UCR); Debra Brun (Cal Poly Pomona); Susan Cash (CSULA); Don Castro (CSUF); Susan Clifford (Fullerton); Margaret Fieweger (CSUN): Richard Geise (Mt. San Jacinto); Milt Gordon (CSUF); John Grindel (Cerritos); Andy Howard (Rio Hondo); Brenda Johnson Benson (Santa Monica); Rose Marie Joyce (Rio Hondo); Ray Maghoori (Riverside); Elizabeth McCormick (LA Pierce); Richard Moyer (ELAC); Linda Pomerantz (CSUDH); Jerry Pritchard (CSUSB); Santana Ruiz (UCI); Jack Smart (CSULA); Kathy Street (Cal Poly Pomona); Lisa Sugimoto (Pasadena); Sylvia Thomas (Riverside); Kathleen Walton (CSUDH).

Welcome and Introductions: President Rose Marie Joyce welcomed members to the meeting. She outlined plans for improving the campus infrastructure and facilities to be funded by a district bond proposal as well as Proposition 55.

Approval of Summary Notes, October 28, 2004: The Summary Notes for October 28, 2004, were approved as distributed with a spelling correction in Rebecca Tillberg’s (LACC) name.

CSU Fullerton and Secretariat: Castro noted that the secretariat for the Summit, effective February 1, is located at CSU Fullerton. Meetings will henceforward be scheduled through his office.

The Transfer Process in a Period of Fiscal Crisis: Smart summarized the findings of a working committee appointed at the previous meeting. The committee report was distributed with agenda materials.

Referring to students who cannot be accommodated at a CSU campus due to impaction at the freshman level, Moyer suggested that their names be given to feeder community colleges. They could be identified by ZIP code to avoid overlap. Joyce emphasized that local, district students should be served first by community colleges. Alva pointed out that CSU Fullerton is impacted by level and is especially limited in its capacity to accept new freshman students.

Concerning the issue of providing remedial work for disenrolled CSU students. Alva recalled that until recently the CSUF English department did not articulate any community college remedial course work in English. Completion of a developmental English course at a community college, therefore, would not be sufficient to permit entrance into the college-level composition course at CSUF. She continued that the situation has changed after citing to the department CSU Long Beach’s articulation of these courses. Pomerantz said that this issue is more likely to occur in respect to English departments as compared to mathematics. It was pointed out that some of the problem arises due to the use of a variety of basic skills assessments and varying cut scores used by community colleges to determine readiness to pursue college-level work. Smart noted that this is a concern not identified by the committee in its report.

Maghoori reflected that community colleges structurally are not necessarily well organized structurally to offer remediation. Short courses and workshops may be more effective than semester programs. Grindel said that there continues to be a gap between high school standards and college expectations. Colleges have not been involved sufficiently in establishing high school competencies. Moyer observed that the CSU tests now being administered in high schools should be an eye-opener. Arnold noted that students’ basic skills can be improved and that at the end of the day these students are very successful.

CSU Fullerton Milton Gordon arrived and reported on highlights a recent meeting of the CSU Admissions Advisory Council which he chairs. He observed that transfer issues were discussed including a proposed transfer curricula of 39 semester units of GE, 6 units in the student’s transfer major area and 15 units that would be associated with the specific CSU to which the student plans to transfer. Students following this pattern would have priority within CSU when transferring. The proposal will be reviewed by the CSU Statewide Academic Senate. He viewed this as a most significant step in improving transfer.

Castro proposed that this discussion topic be continued at the next meeting. He suggested information regarding the articulation of remedial courses be collected and that there be a discussion of high school preparation and placement tests.

CAL Pass: Andy Howard, Dean of Planning and Development, Rio Hondo College, summarized the CAL Pass data sharing project in the San Diego region and outlined plans to establish a similar regional effort in Orange County and southern Los Angeles County. Handouts were provided. Convener for the project is Ken Meehan, Fullerton College.

Averill reported that another consortium based in San Bernardino county has been organized with the San Bernardino County Schools Superintendent as the facilitator.

Following a short discussion, it was agreed that the topic of regional, data-sharing consortia should be discussed at the next meeting. Averill agreed to provide information regarding the San Bernardino consortium together with sample data summaries.

Report on Grants Workshops: Smart reported that a workshop directed to community college grants persons was sponsored by the Summit and facilitated by CSU Fullerton was held on November 14, 2003. The workshop focused on collaboration in grant request development in science, mathematics, engineering and technology. Twelve community colleges sent representatives. The workshop has led to at least two partnerships in proposal development.

Smart continued that representatives from five community colleges and five universities met on December 17, 2003, to consider resuming the effort to pursue an NSF Partnership for Innovation grant. The discussion was positive in reflecting considerable interest in working together. However, the draft proposal prepared a year ago, in the group’s opinion, was not as closely aligned to the NSF program as it should be. It was agreed to seek further information and to await receipt of the 2004 RFP. (The RFP has recently been issued.)

It was agreed that the development group be reconvened to discuss and craft a new partnership proposal.

Review of Summit Vision Statement: Castro stated that it is a good time to look back at the vision statement which was developed in 1998 at the outset of the Summit’s more formal activities.

Arnold pointed out that the statement does not reflect the concern regarding remedial course work. It would be incorporated in no. 5.

Joyce stressed the importance of commitment from the Presidents including their attendance at the periodic meetings of the Summit. Averill suggested that there be some recognition of the structural needs of the Summit. There was a discussion of the need for fiscal support for the Summit. Castro and Smart pointed out that the expenses were modest as Summit and committee meetings were hosted by member campuses. There is, however, a requirement for some staff time to facilitate the organization and its agenda. Alva suggested that there be a statement of goals for a year ahead and the strategies to meet those goals.

Castro asked that ideas and suggestions be directed to him and that the vision statement and new goals and objectives be discussed at the next meeting.

Next Meeting: The next meeting for the Presidential Summit will be at Cal Poly Pomona in late June or early July.