This petition is to protest both the substance and the process behind the Provost’s recent announcement regarding the suspension of the general education breadth requirement for transfer students beginning in Fall 2017. The details of this policy and the process through which it was “approved” with the “consent of the Senate Executive Committee” raise a number of serious concerns:
- These proposed policy changes—even if temporary—put Cal State LA out of compliance with the Executive Order 1100 (https://www.calstate.edu/eo/EO-1100.html) and California state law (Title 5, Section 40405.1, which can be found here: https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I306405C07D8511E29091E6B951DDF6CE?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&bhcp=1). This lack of compliance is no mere legal technicality, for Title 5 of the California Education Code and EO 1100 articulate a core belief of higher education, that a university degree is more than professional and vocational training, that breadth requirements “will assure that graduates from the several campuses in the system have made noteworthy progress toward becoming truly educated persons. Particularly, the purpose of the breadth requirements is to provide means whereby graduates: (a) will have achieved the ability to think clearly and logically, to find and critically examine information, to communicate orally and in writing, and to perform quantitative functions; (b) will have acquired appreciable knowledge about their own bodies and minds, about how human society has developed and how it now functions, about the physical world in which they live, about the other forms of life with which they share that world, and about the cultural endeavors and legacies of their civilizations; (c) will have come to an understanding and appreciation of the principles, methodologies, value systems, and thought processes employed in human inquiries” (Title 5, 40405). We have been told that “Temporarily deferring the breadth requirements for transfer students was not an easy decision, but, in the end, many agreed that Civic Learning, Race & Ethnicity, and Diversity are what make Cal State LA’s common requirements distinctive, set our graduates apart from others, and reflect the values clearly articulated in our Strategic Plan.” We agree that this is not an easy decision and, in fact, insist that such a difficult decision deserves a properly reflective and consultative process and not be decided contrary to consultation for purposes of expediency.
- EO 1100 and Title 5 exist to ensure the quality of our students’ education. The changes proposed by the Provost compromise the quality of this education, which is definitely not in our students’ best interest.
- These changes to UDGE policy were rejected by both the General Education Subcommittee (GES) and the Educational Policy Committee (EPC). The Academic Senate Executive Committee, however, agreed to this change, ignoring the recommendations of its curricular review committees. This is a terrible precedent to set in regard to such important policy.
- As stated in our Faculty Handbook, responsibility for the development of the curriculum rests with faculty. In addition, faculty through their service on standing committees of the Academic Senate are solely responsible for the review of curriculum and educational policies related to curriculum. Given the professed difficulty of this decision, the ready availability of data on course offerings and upcoming enrollment, it is unclear why this very important matter was not raised earlier in the academic year when it could have been studied, debated, and resolved through the normal faculty governance processes. Urgency and expediency are inadequate explanations when all of the facts have been known for some time. To many, the fact that this was done at the very end of the academic year when most faculty are preparing to leave for the Summer is highly irregular, and some see such moves as part of a larger pattern of attempting controversial changes with minimal faculty input so as to blunt faculty attempts to organize any substantial dissent. Regardless of the veracity of this perception, these kinds of top-down, last-minute policy making are seen by some as an insult to the concept of shared governance, and send the message to faculty that collaboration is neither necessary nor desired.
- These changes to policy will create uncertainty for a number of departments and faculty. Fall 2017 schedules were created and approved months ago with the current policy in mind. As such, the changes proposed by the Provost would lead to widespread cancellation of classes and widespread reassignments for tenure-track faculty, in addition to the potential for widespread loss of work for lecturers. This would severely damage departments in a number of ways (e.g., FTES, SFR, budgets, and the many other ways departments are measured). It will lead to the loss of quality lecturers, and it will erode the quality of instruction by forcing tenure-track faculty to be reassigned to courses they have never taught and in some cases, that lie beyond their specific areas of expertise. It will also have a lasting negative impact on faculty morale. None of this is in the best interest of our students.
Instead of the radical and potentially damaging changes that would result from abandoning our commitment to the value of breadth and diversity, changes that were only approved by one segment of the Academic Senate Executive Committee, we propose the alternative temporary changes in UDGE policy listed below. These policies will minimize the damage to departments and to our faculty while relieving some of the perceived bottleneck for students caused by current UDGE requirements:
- Reduce the Writing Intensive (wi) requirement for all transfer students to one class that can be satisfied by the existing writing intensive courses in their majors (disciplinary writing requirement) until a revised General Education policy can be created through normal curricular review procedures.
- Suspend the Civic Learning (cl) requirement for all transfer students until a revised General Education policy can be created through normal curricular review procedures.
In addition, we propose the following be considered through normal curricular and governance procedures beginning in Fall 2017:
- A policy change for the (cl) requirement that would allow for it to be fulfilled by major-specific courses in the same manner as the (wi) requirement for both transfer and “native” freshmen students.
- Course modifications for existing UDGE courses that are revised in such a way that they can legitimately meet the (cl), (wi), (d), and/or (re) requirements.
- Course modifications for existing major-specific courses that are revised in such a way that they can meet the (cl) and/or (wi) requirements.
Updates
May 23, 2017
Reaching this point has been an exhausting uphill climb but seeing the response gives me enough fuel to keep fighting. Bureaucracy is meant to wear us down until we stop asking questions but this shows they cannot ignore us forever.
8 Comments
This is unacceptable. Administrators often look for ways they can simply increase graduation numbers. They do this without any consideration of our students' true educational needs. Every instructor on our campus realizes these needs are tremendous, even alarming. How could a decision that will negatively impact our students (including the transfer students who are being rhetorically used) as well as faculty be made so casually?
Since when does the admin get to just bypass the faculty senate like this? Its a really bad look and honestly ruins all the work we put into the curriculum design. Put students first and stop the shortcuts.
The policy is a huge move too far in the direction of treating Cal State LA mostly as a technical training institute, rather than a university. We are no longer aimed at producing graduates who are well-rounded critical thinkers, well suited for being active and responsible citizens.
The importance of communicating orally and in written form is paramount in becoming a productive individual in society. The community as a whole does not move forward if students come out of CALSTATELA handicapped in any of these areas. The breadth requirements insure that society constantly keeps marching forward and graduates become the foundation using their diversified qualities of race and ethnicity to propel humanity to even greater heights.
Having taught two sections of a writing intensive course this Spring, I am keenly aware of our students' needs in this area. The continual push towards larger class sizes means that students have ever less frequent opportunities to get detailed feedback to help them improve their written communication skills. Eliminating the requirement of a second (wi) course, even temporarily, will deprive those students of an important and necessary piece of their education. I am signing the petition not because I necessarily agree with the solution suggested, but because I agree that such an important decision should be debated far more fully, and because I am extremely disturbed at the removal of curricular development from the faculty's hands.
The announcement from Dr. Sandan about the removal of the WPE or equivalent from the degree expectations for Cal State LA students came as quite a shock to me. I realize, having read WPE exams in the past, that the bar was already set rather low. But at least it was a bar. In my own major, we have only one wi core course that requires significant writing - and many students put off taking that class until their final year (and often their final semester). This means that we send them off grotesquely unprepared into a world in which they will be expected to be able to think and communicate effectively. How does this serve them? As one of only two faculty in my department with a 4/4 load under semesters, I understand the seductive pull of reducing writing requirements - the challenges of providing thoughtful and timely feedback on written assignments are massive, particularly when juggling four classes and upwards of 160 students. But we commit fraud if we elect to send our graduates out into the world with less, rather than more, written communication skill.
I was astonished, and then incensed to see the emails that detailed the major curricular shifts that took place with little to no discussion, consensus building or even systematic solicitation of opinion. Even when two critical curricular committees (GES and EPC) are NOT supporting these changes, and they are made anyhow - it really does set a tone that faculty consultation is not valued, even consultation submitted from elected committees It appears that the senate exec is now doing the bidding of a larger system of "get 'em in and get 'em out" educational. models at the level of adminstration that has turned CSULA into nothing more than assembly line education - and ultimately this move by the institution raises nothing less than a social justice issue. CSULA is a low cost broad access institution, and as such quality controls require redoubling of efforts related to benchmarks, assessment, and best practices in higher education. Our students lack fundamental skills in reading, writing, critical thinking, and quantitative analysis, and it is dropping significantly year over year. While the WPE was by no means perfect and was lacking in many ways, it was at least a standardized benchmark and one that allowed for some uniformity systemwide. The students' decrement in writing skills will have deleterious consequences for them in all walks of life. At this point, anyone who actually teaches at CSULA would recognize that any (wi) classes within a major are typically saved until the last semester, which effectively implies that there would not be ONE SINGLE WRITING BENCHMARK for an undergraduate student until their final semester. Once again the bar has been lowered - and our students are simply and blindly being shuffled through with little critical thought about how these curricular decisions impact the students readiness for careers, graduate training, or simply life. Giving diverse students a low quality and poorly thought out education that lacks input f
Sign Petition
We never post to your account. Social sign-in is used only to verify your signature.
Add a comment?
Your signature will be added via . Tell others why you're signing — it's optional.
By signing, you accept iPetitions Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Share Petition
Don't stop at signing, share the petition link with friends to multiply our impact
Copy link or share directly
This petition is to protest both the substance and the process behind the Provost’s recent announcement regarding the suspension of the general education breadth requirement for transfer students beginning in Fall 2017. The details of this policy and the process through which it was “approved” with the “consent of the Senate Executive Committee” raise a number of serious concerns:
- These proposed policy changes—even if temporary—put Cal State LA out of compliance with the Executive Order 1100 (https://www.calstate.edu/eo/EO-1100.html) and California state law (Title 5, Section 40405.1, which can be found here: https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I306405C07D8511E29091E6B951DDF6CE?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&bhcp=1). This lack of compliance is no mere legal technicality, for Title 5 of the California Education Code and EO 1100 articulate a core belief of higher education, that a university degree is more than professional and vocational training, that breadth requirements “will assure that graduates from the several campuses in the system have made noteworthy progress toward becoming truly educated persons. Particularly, the purpose of the breadth requirements is to provide means whereby graduates: (a) will have achieved the ability to think clearly and logically, to find and critically examine information, to communicate orally and in writing, and to perform quantitative functions; (b) will have acquired appreciable knowledge about their own bodies and minds, about how human society has developed and how it now functions, about the physical world in which they live, about the other forms of life with which they share that world, and about the cultural endeavors and legacies of their civilizations; (c) will have come to an understanding and appreciation of the principles, methodologies, value systems, and thought processes employed in human inquiries” (Title 5, 40405). We have been told that “Temporarily deferring the breadth requirements for transfer students was not an easy decision, but, in the end, many agreed that Civic Learning, Race & Ethnicity, and Diversity are what make Cal State LA’s common requirements distinctive, set our graduates apart from others, and reflect the values clearly articulated in our Strategic Plan.” We agree that this is not an easy decision and, in fact, insist that such a difficult decision deserves a properly reflective and consultative process and not be decided contrary to consultation for purposes of expediency.
- EO 1100 and Title 5 exist to ensure the quality of our students’ education. The changes proposed by the Provost compromise the quality of this education, which is definitely not in our students’ best interest.
- These changes to UDGE policy were rejected by both the General Education Subcommittee (GES) and the Educational Policy Committee (EPC). The Academic Senate Executive Committee, however, agreed to this change, ignoring the recommendations of its curricular review committees. This is a terrible precedent to set in regard to such important policy.
- As stated in our Faculty Handbook, responsibility for the development of the curriculum rests with faculty. In addition, faculty through their service on standing committees of the Academic Senate are solely responsible for the review of curriculum and educational policies related to curriculum. Given the professed difficulty of this decision, the ready availability of data on course offerings and upcoming enrollment, it is unclear why this very important matter was not raised earlier in the academic year when it could have been studied, debated, and resolved through the normal faculty governance processes. Urgency and expediency are inadequate explanations when all of the facts have been known for some time. To many, the fact that this was done at the very end of the academic year when most faculty are preparing to leave for the Summer is highly irregular, and some see such moves as part of a larger pattern of attempting controversial changes with minimal faculty input so as to blunt faculty attempts to organize any substantial dissent. Regardless of the veracity of this perception, these kinds of top-down, last-minute policy making are seen by some as an insult to the concept of shared governance, and send the message to faculty that collaboration is neither necessary nor desired.
- These changes to policy will create uncertainty for a number of departments and faculty. Fall 2017 schedules were created and approved months ago with the current policy in mind. As such, the changes proposed by the Provost would lead to widespread cancellation of classes and widespread reassignments for tenure-track faculty, in addition to the potential for widespread loss of work for lecturers. This would severely damage departments in a number of ways (e.g., FTES, SFR, budgets, and the many other ways departments are measured). It will lead to the loss of quality lecturers, and it will erode the quality of instruction by forcing tenure-track faculty to be reassigned to courses they have never taught and in some cases, that lie beyond their specific areas of expertise. It will also have a lasting negative impact on faculty morale. None of this is in the best interest of our students.
Instead of the radical and potentially damaging changes that would result from abandoning our commitment to the value of breadth and diversity, changes that were only approved by one segment of the Academic Senate Executive Committee, we propose the alternative temporary changes in UDGE policy listed below. These policies will minimize the damage to departments and to our faculty while relieving some of the perceived bottleneck for students caused by current UDGE requirements:
- Reduce the Writing Intensive (wi) requirement for all transfer students to one class that can be satisfied by the existing writing intensive courses in their majors (disciplinary writing requirement) until a revised General Education policy can be created through normal curricular review procedures.
- Suspend the Civic Learning (cl) requirement for all transfer students until a revised General Education policy can be created through normal curricular review procedures.
In addition, we propose the following be considered through normal curricular and governance procedures beginning in Fall 2017:
- A policy change for the (cl) requirement that would allow for it to be fulfilled by major-specific courses in the same manner as the (wi) requirement for both transfer and “native” freshmen students.
- Course modifications for existing UDGE courses that are revised in such a way that they can legitimately meet the (cl), (wi), (d), and/or (re) requirements.
- Course modifications for existing major-specific courses that are revised in such a way that they can meet the (cl) and/or (wi) requirements.
Updates
May 23, 2017
Reaching this point has been an exhausting uphill climb but seeing the response gives me enough fuel to keep fighting. Bureaucracy is meant to wear us down until we stop asking questions but this shows they cannot ignore us forever.
8 Comments
It is inappropriate for Senate Executive Committee to make a decision that negates the findings of the two critical curricular committees (GES and EPC) This is a precedent that signals the re-framing of the role of Senate Executive Committee from its responsibility to faculty and positions it as some free floating, unaccountable entity. The democracy of the committees are the governance process, the role of executive committee is to promote the findings of these important committees, not undermine them.
This is unacceptable. Administrators often look for ways they can simply increase graduation numbers. They do this without any consideration of our students' true educational needs. Every instructor on our campus realizes these needs are tremendous, even alarming. How could a decision that will negatively impact our students (including the transfer students who are being rhetorically used) as well as faculty be made so casually?
Since when does the admin get to just bypass the faculty senate like this? Its a really bad look and honestly ruins all the work we put into the curriculum design. Put students first and stop the shortcuts.
The policy is a huge move too far in the direction of treating Cal State LA mostly as a technical training institute, rather than a university. We are no longer aimed at producing graduates who are well-rounded critical thinkers, well suited for being active and responsible citizens.
The importance of communicating orally and in written form is paramount in becoming a productive individual in society. The community as a whole does not move forward if students come out of CALSTATELA handicapped in any of these areas. The breadth requirements insure that society constantly keeps marching forward and graduates become the foundation using their diversified qualities of race and ethnicity to propel humanity to even greater heights.
Having taught two sections of a writing intensive course this Spring, I am keenly aware of our students' needs in this area. The continual push towards larger class sizes means that students have ever less frequent opportunities to get detailed feedback to help them improve their written communication skills. Eliminating the requirement of a second (wi) course, even temporarily, will deprive those students of an important and necessary piece of their education. I am signing the petition not because I necessarily agree with the solution suggested, but because I agree that such an important decision should be debated far more fully, and because I am extremely disturbed at the removal of curricular development from the faculty's hands.
The announcement from Dr. Sandan about the removal of the WPE or equivalent from the degree expectations for Cal State LA students came as quite a shock to me. I realize, having read WPE exams in the past, that the bar was already set rather low. But at least it was a bar. In my own major, we have only one wi core course that requires significant writing - and many students put off taking that class until their final year (and often their final semester). This means that we send them off grotesquely unprepared into a world in which they will be expected to be able to think and communicate effectively. How does this serve them? As one of only two faculty in my department with a 4/4 load under semesters, I understand the seductive pull of reducing writing requirements - the challenges of providing thoughtful and timely feedback on written assignments are massive, particularly when juggling four classes and upwards of 160 students. But we commit fraud if we elect to send our graduates out into the world with less, rather than more, written communication skill.
I was astonished, and then incensed to see the emails that detailed the major curricular shifts that took place with little to no discussion, consensus building or even systematic solicitation of opinion. Even when two critical curricular committees (GES and EPC) are NOT supporting these changes, and they are made anyhow - it really does set a tone that faculty consultation is not valued, even consultation submitted from elected committees It appears that the senate exec is now doing the bidding of a larger system of "get 'em in and get 'em out" educational. models at the level of adminstration that has turned CSULA into nothing more than assembly line education - and ultimately this move by the institution raises nothing less than a social justice issue. CSULA is a low cost broad access institution, and as such quality controls require redoubling of efforts related to benchmarks, assessment, and best practices in higher education. Our students lack fundamental skills in reading, writing, critical thinking, and quantitative analysis, and it is dropping significantly year over year. While the WPE was by no means perfect and was lacking in many ways, it was at least a standardized benchmark and one that allowed for some uniformity systemwide. The students' decrement in writing skills will have deleterious consequences for them in all walks of life. At this point, anyone who actually teaches at CSULA would recognize that any (wi) classes within a major are typically saved until the last semester, which effectively implies that there would not be ONE SINGLE WRITING BENCHMARK for an undergraduate student until their final semester. Once again the bar has been lowered - and our students are simply and blindly being shuffled through with little critical thought about how these curricular decisions impact the students readiness for careers, graduate training, or simply life. Giving diverse students a low quality and poorly thought out education that lacks input f
Help this petition grow
Share it with friends to help reach 100 signatures.
Sign Petition
We never post to your account. Social sign-in is used only to verify your signature.
Add a comment?
Your signature will be added via .
Tell others why you're signing — it's optional.
Signing with Google or Facebook verifies your signature instantly — no email needed.
By signing, you accept iPetitions Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Share Petition
Don't stop at signing, share the petition link with friends to multiply our impact
Petitions like this
Other petitions you might want to support
Scan to share
Anyone who scans this can sign the petition.
It is inappropriate for Senate Executive Committee to make a decision that negates the findings of the two critical curricular committees (GES and EPC) This is a precedent that signals the re-framing of the role of Senate Executive Committee from its responsibility to faculty and positions it as some free floating, unaccountable entity. The democracy of the committees are the governance process, the role of executive committee is to promote the findings of these important committees, not undermine them.