March 20, 2008
Members Present: Altar, Alva, Arnold, Bedell, Bhattacharya, Bruschke, Buck, Carroll, Dabirian, Drezner, Fidalgo, Fromson, Gass, Grewal, Guerin, Hewitt, Hickok, Kanel, Kantardjieff, Klassen, Liverpool, McConnell, McMahan, Mead, Nyaggah, Oliver, Pasternack, Randall, Rumberger, Sage, Shapiro, Smith, Spitzer, Stein, Taylor, Walicki, Williams
Absent: Bullock, Burgtorf, Gordon, Green, Jarvis, Junn, Palmer, Rhoten, Spitzer, Stang
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Guerin called the meeting to order at 11:34 a.m.
II. URGENT BUSINESS
Senator McMahan distributed a flyer for and invited all to participate in the “Going for Gold 5K Run/1K Walk and Health Expo” to take place on Saturday April 12, 2008 as part of the 50th Anniversary Celebration. For more information or to register online, please visit www.Going4theGold.org.
Senator Hickok reported that the Men’s Basketball team will play in the championships for the first time in thirty years tonight at 6:30 p.m. (Eastern). The game will be shown on KDOC.
Chair Guerin reminded all that on Tuesday, from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., the All-University Budget Forum will take place. President Gordon and CFA President Nyaggah have sent announcements about this event.
Senator Nyaggah stated that Jack Bedell was elected chair of the Faculty Hearing Panel.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
4.1 M/S/P [Drezner/Bedell] to approve nominees to the following search committee as part of the Consent Calendar. [Approved unanimously as amended]
SEARCH COM: Associate Vice president – GRADUATE STUDIES & RESEARCH
Nominees: David Cherin (HHD); Jochen Burgtorf (SOC SCI); Sheryl Fontaine (HUM);
Maria Linder (CNSM);
Forthcoming Morteza Rahmatian (CBE)
V. TIMES CERTAIN
Subject: ASD 08-53 Statements of Opinion – Spring 2008
The Senate voted with electronic transmitters to include the proposed eight statements of opinions (see ASD 08-53) on the All-University ballot.
The following statement was also approved (as friendly amendments) for inclusion on the ballot:
Friendly amendment [Bedell]: Add question V.: “CSUF should be a smoke free environment.”
· Friendly amendment [Shapiro]: Change “smoke” to “smoking”
The following amendments were also made to ASD 08-53:
Friendly amendment [Mead]: Change question I.3 to read: “3. If student ratings are to qualify as evidence in support of faculty employment decisions, information concerning class size, time of day, whether the course is required, and the variability of scores must be considered.
Friendly amendment [Buck]: In Question II, delete “To increase student access and reduce student time to graduate (particularly when the state budget is tight)”. Keep “We should increase our course offerings during intersession.”
Subject: Continued Discussion - Second Language Graduation Requirement Report (See ASD 08-43)
Radha Bhattacharya and Bradley Starr, Co-Chairs, Ad Hoc Study Group on the Second Language Graduation Requirement
Co-Chairs Bhattacharya and Starr addressed questions from the body and the gallery about the process and their findings.
It was M/S [Alva/Fidalgo] to revise UPS 410.107 Second Language Graduation Requirement.
During discussion, the following questions were asked of the Co-Chairs:
Senator Drezner: One of the concerns that was expressed was that some “feel” that we will lose students to other campuses in the requirement is implemented. How much consideration was given to this concern when the study group crafted its recommendations?
Bhattacharya: It was one of the issues. We have given some numbers based on the data that we had. It was not the only issue, but it was one of them.
Senator Shapiro: From what I’ve gathered,
there was a considerable amount of concern given to the need for students to be
competitive on a global basis. Was there any consideration of the fact that we,
Starr: Yes. Everyone in the study group was supportive of second language proficiency. What was debated was the means of bringing it about. The problem was that we were not sure that the requirement in UPS 410.107 is the best means to pursue the goal of second language proficiency of because the many side consequences that would occur. We document the consequences pretty thoroughly in our report. We thought the global awareness idea would be a better approach because, first, it would allow everyone to be included without the difficult side effects for high unit majors. Secondly, we could take the description in UPS 410.107 of what second language proficiency is and [parallel] it to a global awareness requirement.
Bhattacharya: UPS 410.107 is now structured such that the requirement is required for the professions that actually need a second language. There are some disciplines that need a second language, but they are currently exempt from the requirement.
Senator Alva: On page 22, parts 3 and 4 [of the study group’s report], there are overall conclusions and recommendations. The second conclusion was that “the resources required for staffing course sections, processing student transcripts and certification and providing placement and proficiency tests are substantial.” Please comment on the table at the bottom of page 13. It appears that there would be 38 additional sections of language courses that would be needed to meet this requirement if it was implemented in fall 2007. One of the things we should recognize is that that number  is going to increase significantly in 2008, according to this model. We would have had a new incoming class of transfer students in spring 2008, which would have meant that we would have to offer another 38 sections, and there would be 492 students who would need the second and third semesters of the course work. Did the committee consider how we would pay for this and the impact on the Department of Modern Languages and Literature, in particular, in terms of the redistribution of resources?
Bhattacharya: My understanding is that our committee was not asked to consider any resource implications. But, if I may speak for myself as a Senator and economist, I feel that this is a budget constraint. There are so many sections that are going to be offered. MLL may not be the only department affected, there may be some courses offered through other departments. Resource implications are tremendous.
Starr: The data that we received show one place where sacrifices would be made and that would be other Humanities departments. This is why the double-counting issue became an important one, as well.
Alva: Page 16 shows an impact on the Humanities discipline, has someone thought about what the impact would mean when you also place on top of them at 10% [budget] cut? Does that begin to have an impact on staffing, faculty, and resources to those departments?
Starr: We did not look at specific impacts on departments, but it would seem that there would be a real impact.
Senator Bedell: I did not find the section on
going to two years as objectionable as the report found it. If my memory is
correct, in the mid 1980’s, then Chancellor Reynolds, began putting together
workgroups on requirements for incoming CSU students (first time freshmen)
would come in with two years of high school foreign language. For at least 20
years, students in the
Bhattacharya: Upon admission freshmen have already met the two year requirement, so transfer students should also be required to meet it. But, we were not charged with trying to establish some kind of equity between transfer and freshman students. We did mention in the report that some of the resource implications would be reduced with a 2-2 requirement as opposed to a 3-3 requirement. The problem with transfer students is that they are more heavily centered in one college and do not have free units to take the required language classes, so that is the angle we looked at.
Senator Taylor: I have some very strong misgivings about the process. As I read the charge of the study group, hear their answers to questions, and look at their recommendations, I see a huge disconnect. They were told to study four areas of concern, which they did and reported back on. But their recommendations seem to not be a part of their charge. They weren’t charged to tell us whether or not they think we should have a second language graduation requirement. They were charged with reporting on the four areas of concern. Why did they put these conclusions in? Why these recommendations? I’m curious about whether you had biases going in as you were appointed to this group. I’m also curious about the nature of those appointments. I find this all very troubling. If we do not want a second language graduation requirement, I’m not sure the way we should get rid of it is by appointing a study group that makes recommendations that it was not charged in making.
Starr: We didn’t mean to disturb, we just meant to do our job the best that we could. [In response to the last question], we did not appoint who was on the committee. In May, Jack Bedell called the meeting and those present became the committee. Whether there were biases or not was not a matter of our making. Secondly, I don’t think that there were biases. I can assure you that there was no consensus at the beginning. I know that there were at least four people who were very prominently for UPS 410.107. Others on the committee had single issues. It was a very diverse group of people. I did not know how the committee would end up with something coherent. There was no consensus until the end, and it took a long time to get there.
With respect to the process, these issues are all interconnected; it was very difficult to come up with four discreet recommendations. When we started to receive very good information and data, we began to realize that there were really significant issues that we felt a duty to bring to the Senate about the requirement as a whole. We would have been fulfilling our duty just to make four discreet recommendations. The implications to the program as a whole were very significant. We undertook to do the best we could to inform the Senate completely, not just about each of the four discreet things, but they’re all interconnected and called for, we thought, a recommendation that we made.
The global awareness idea actually surfaced very early. We had vote early on (that was unanimous), because we were very concerned about what we were going to recommend.
We agree that foreign language proficiency is the future. The question was just simply, is this the best way? We felt a valid to say that we don’t think it’s the best way and that there might be a better way. If the Senate doesn’t agree, that’s fine, but given what we found out over a two-year period, it seemed like our duty to bring this material to the Senate and make the recommendation that we did.
Bhattacharya: ASD 06-67 says “report shall be received with recommendations, if any”, so we don’t think we overstepped our bounds. We were not eager to do more work than we were already assigned. The recommendations came as a logical outcome before the four charges that were assigned to us. We did not want to overstep our bounds.
Bhattacharya: The issue of resources, we thought, would follow as a logical charge of ours, but we were told that it was not our charge, so we let that go. We were specifically told not to consider that. We considered whatever came up logically, but when we were told not to consider certain areas, we did not.
Senator Kanel: It appears that the globalization competence is based more on the ideological since everyone’s talking about practical issues. I do notice here that it says “the wisdom of having”, so that, to me, implies that there probably were some ideological discussions about that. Everybody keeps using the words “second language proficiency”, as if two, even three years, makes somebody proficient. It’s scary to think that this University feels that the purpose of this is that people are going to be proficient after two or three years, as if that’s the reason you take it in high school. Isn’t it due to creating an intellectual climate that prepares students for the University? Did the study group talk about whether this really creates second language proficiency? In other countries, they start learning other languages in first grade. I wonder if you have ideological discussions about that.
Starr: It was brought to our attention that there is a lot of variation in various university testing and course descriptions defining what proficiency is. For competence, for example, some universities would require a certain number of semesters. To be honest, we did not really pursue that. Our recommendation was that the Board come up with consistent use of that language to be used.
The idea behind global competency was that there are other forms of international awareness that might be more relevant to students or programs, along side our second language proficiency. We searched for a way that would take UPS 410.107, and pull it in with flexible options. With global competency, all students could be included and not exclude 40%, but some flexibility would be necessary. Either a student can meet the requirements for second language proficiency, which is stipulated in UPS 410.107, or complete other approved coursework in international awareness, or some other method that could be made a part of the curriculum. This flexibility would promote second language and reward those that have that proficiency. A student who does have second language proficiency could get a certificate for participating in that. This idea is just a way to create a 100% umbrella that has the flexibility, but still pursues the goal of increased second language proficiency.
Kanel: That’s the ideological aspect. It’s that global competency is just as good as second language proficiency.
I don’t believe that second language proficiency exists after two years, but if you’re saying that global awareness is as good a goal as taking two years of foreign language, you think those are equal in terms of being beneficial to the students. That was my ideological question.
Starr: With some programs, that might be the case, but for others it might not. It’s very complicated. There is low intermediate, mid intermediate, high intermediate; proficiency itself can mean a wide range of things. So, I think the term is meaningful if you understand that there is a wide range of measures.
Senator Pasternack: I want to follow up on Senator Bedell’s comments. He makes a good point about the requirement for transfer students and freshman students. Our system-wide general education budget committee is in fact going to consider the issue of whether or not there should be a two-year requirement in foreign language for transfer students. I will point out, however, that there are inconsistencies throughout our curriculum. I don’t know if the GE Advisory committee will recommend any kind of changes in the Executive Order, but I think it we were going to move to have consistency, we would probably want to do it at the system-wide basis, not at the campus level.
Last week, the statewide Academic Senate passed a resolution in support of international experience and global perspectives in CSU education.
Dr. Jan Eyring (Chair, Dept. of MLL): I sent an email message to the Senators last night with comments. On page 9, lines 348-357 (of report), there is discussion of the impact of community college classes if this requirement is passed and also concerns that counselors aren’t going to be able to keep the policies straight, which will be confusing. We know that any new innovation that there will be some changes and effects; was there any discussion about looking at the effects as a temporary issue? Maybe the report could have mentioned that once the requirement was implemented and word got out to community colleges and high school, this issue would take care of itself. Why didn’t this appear in the report?
Starr: With regard to community colleges, the overwhelming response of counselors was that students would go elsewhere. That does not mean that at no transfer students would come if the requirement was implemented, but that there would be losses. They were pretty adamant about that. The vast overwhelming majority was very clear in their responses to the survey. That data is in the appendices of our report. Likewise, community college administrators in the Humanities were unanimously negative about it, indicating that enrollments would suffer. So, getting the word out was not the problem. The word was out there and these were the responses that we received.
Regarding the community colleges being confused about our requirement, I think you must be referring to one passage in the report that said when the students get the message that the requirement exists, but that there are exemptions, that there will be a tendency for students not to make that fine distinction. That was something that we were told, so we reported it.
Eyring: Regarding your statement that not many would come to Fullerton, I think on page 8, the report talked about CSUF losing 4% of enrollment, but this figure is vague because it includes the ones that “may or may not” come to CSUF. I heard from Dolores Vura that there were a number of positive comments about the requirement submitted by students who took the survey. I don’t know if those details were included in the report, which felt like it had a negative spin on the requirement.
Starr: With respect to the data you are referring to, 936 completed the questionnaire. The question was “What impact would this [requirement] have on your decision to come to CSUF?” 16% said that they would consider going elsewhere, 4% said that they would definitely have not come here, and an additional 13% said that they were not sure what they would have done. That is a third of the students. Again, no one thought that on opening day, we would have no students. The question is how many are you willing to risk? This self-reported material suggests that are 33% of students whose decision would be in play. We reported specific numbers in our report.
With respect to your other comment, it was exhilarating to read the comments of the students that are involved in second languages. There were over 20 pages of comments, roughly 50% of the surveyed students. But there were a lot of students that were on the other side, and those that were in the middle; they thought it was a great idea, but had drawbacks. That is where we stood.
Eyring: I question the number of sections that would be needed at CSUF. Page 13, lines 491-509 of the report indicate that 100 would be needed. When we interviewed the Chair of Foreign Languages at
Sacramento State University, it was true that many Spanish classes were open, but a large number of students took classes that were half full (uncommonly taught languages like Chinese or German). So, they just filled up what already existed and that reduced the numbers also. American Sign Language was mentioned in this document. That is also an option that was chosen my many of those students. I think those numbers (number of sections needed) are exaggerated and that will have implications for the budget; it won’t be as expensive as the report seems to indicate.
Bhattacharya: We did take into account ASL transcripts on line 452 on page 12. I do agree that the title for that table should have been “Summary of Section for MLL/ASL Classes” because students can take ASL to meet the language requirement. But, I think ASL is a very small percentage.
About the numbers being grossly exaggerated, if you follow the calculations on page 12, everything possible that we get information on has been reviewed (i.e. study abroad, ASL, AP scores, etc.). This is self-reported information. Some students reported that they would pass the speaking and reading exams. The numbers were taken as is and doesn’t reflect the amount of students that might not pass the exams. These are the minimum number of sections, not a grossly exaggerated number.
Dr. Lee Gilbert: It seems to me that the analysis of the number of sections needed is flawed for the following reasons: The numbers of students were taken from surveys of the 2006 and 2007 cohorts as to how much foreign language they had studied while they were in community college. And based upon those numbers, you projected how many classes we needed to serve the students. The problem with that analysis is that the students in those two cohorts had absolutely no motivation, other than self interest, to take foreign language at the community college because they subject to the SLR. It doesn’t tell us anything about how much foreign language they would have studied, had they been subject to the SLR. And to use that data then to project the number of sections that we need seems to be rather flawed. It is simply a faulty analysis of the numbers because they had no reason, while they were at the community college, other than self interest, to take foreign languages. Most certainly, if they had known they were going to be subject to the second language requirement, I am quite sure that a very large number would have taken foreign language at the community college.
Professor Cheryl Zimmerman (Dept. of MLL): My concern about this document has to do with various objectivity issues. I would like to call your attention to the Social Science research that was investigated. I know that it was your mandate to investigate the value of a second language requirement or knowing a second language, but in fact, there are references here and there that don’t show this issue well. I will refer you to page 8, to the reference of the Wake Forest University business study. As it says in the ad hoc document, it was a study of alumni, deans, and recruiters. The conclusion was that the least desirable factor was to know a second language. In fact, the way the study reads has separate studies for the deans, alumni, and recruiters. The only group that was asked about the second language was the recruiters. There were 100 recruiters that were surveyed online and there was no follow-up interview. These 100 recruiters were given 20 factors to rank, and they ranked facility of a foreign language as last. There was not much information about who the recruiters were. Number 19 was “strong international perspective”, which wouldn’t go for with our global awareness position. Number 18 was “broad foundation in liberal arts”. At number 11 was the “ability to work in a culturally diverse environment”. This group rated “fit with the corporate culture” and “ability to drive results” at the top. I suggest that you look at this document carefully to see how recruiters, people who hire our students, would view second language proficiency.
The meeting adjourned with an unexhausted speaker’s list on this topic.
VI. STATEWIDE ACADEMIC SENATE REPORT
No report was given.
VII. CHAIR’S REPORT
Chair Guerin reported the following:
· The transmittal for UPS 210.000 was approved by the President on March 12, 2008.
· Per the recommendation of Vice President Smith, Revised UPS 450.300 Summer Session and Revised UPS 411.104 Policy on Online Instruction were removed from the Academic Senate agenda as items of New Business.
· Continued discussion of ASD 08-08 Consolidated International Education Policy will take place at the Senate meeting on April 17, 2008.
· Vice President Hagan will give this Fiscal State of the University report at next Senate meeting (March 27, 2008). Budget-related questions can be sent to him or Chair Guerin prior to the meeting.
· Faculty members are encouraged to complete the online committee interest form at https://netcert.fullerton.edu/ASCommitteeService/Logon.aspx .
· 39 new faculty members have been hired.
VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Item 8.1 was not discussed due to lack of time.
8.1 ASD 07-183 Revised UPS 103.004 Computing Facilities Use Policy [ITC]
IX. NEW BUSINESS
Items 9.1, 9.2, and 9.5 were not discussed due to lack of time.
9.1 ASD 08-44 Revised UPS 106.100 The President’s Medallion [Senate Executive Committee]
9.2 ASD 08-45 Revised UPS 410.103 Curriculum Guidelines and Procedures: Programs [UCC]
.3 ASD 08-57 Revised UPS 450.300 Summer Session Policy [EEC] (Removed from agenda; See Chair’s Report) 9.4 ASD 08-55 Revised UPS 411.104 Policy on Online Instruction [ASC] (Removed from agenda; See Chair’s Report)
9.5 ASD 08-56 Revised UPS 240.200 Policy on Amorous Relationships Between Faculty, Staff, & Students [FAC]
The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 p.m.