Flexible Scheduling and CSU Sacramento:An Associated Students Proposal

2001-10-33/Pimentel

Passed 11-7-01

Authored by:

Associated Students Inc.

Chief of Staff & Task Force Chair

Kevin M. Greene

And

President Artemio Pimentel

In collaboration with:

the Associated Students Scheduling Task Force

With endorsement by the Associated Students Inc. Board of Directors and Student Community

November 7, 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction

II. Research and Development

III. Survey Results and Analysis

IV. Recommendation 1

V. Recommendation 2

VI. Recommendation 3

VII. Conclusion

I. Introduction

This project is a compilation of many hours of work and a multitude of efforts on many students? behalf. I would like to begin by thanking all of those students who contributed so much to this project.

Tidal Wave II has made it difficult to continue the current scheduling policies and logistically manage the influx of students enrolling in college in the State of California. It is expected that demand will increase before it will decrease. Flexible scheduling has benefits and problems. It allows flexibility in work hours and provides an opportunity for students who wouldn?t otherwise be able have the ability to get a postsecondary degree. However, difficulties arise from population growth and an electorate who is demanding greater accountability and access from its public institutions.

Attached are the report and recommendations from the Associated Students Inc. Task Force on Flexible Scheduling. The Task Force met for the first time on Sunday October 14th and has convened frequently throughout the process. Our primary objective was not necessarily to prevent the implementation of the Dr. Gerth?s decision, but rather it desired to inform the campus community on the specific components of the policy, as well as measure the impact this change would have on the students of CSUS. If at this time we discovered the impact was too great, or there were alternative options to be considered, we would press forward with these options. The Task Force was broken up into several subcommittees to work on individual and specific tasks, which would then be brought back to the group as a whole. (A general description of each sub committee follows under item II)

When drafting the final recommendations, the Task Force focused on four essential variables that most directly deal with the scheduling concerns:

1. Access to higher education for future students of CSUS

2. Increasing usage and efficiency of facilities on campus

3. Class availability

4. Finding solutions and options that fit the needs of the working student

II. Research and Development

The charge of the initial task force allotted for the creation of several subgroups to work on individual components of the dauntless task that Associated Students Inc. have been faced with. The following is a list of work groups that worked concurrently with the general body of the task force:

1. Research sub-committee- conducted the primary research regarding scheduling and space use and efficiency. This group also conducted research on the system-wide level, inquiring into the policies and practices of other California State University campuses across the State. The body compiled information from Institutional Research, (including the utilization of relevant SNAPS responses) Council for University Planning (CUP) resources and materials, Faculty Senate and information provided by Dr. Paul Noble.

2. Public Relations sub-committee- worked with informing the student body on the actions and decisions that Associated Students Inc. were taking on October 17. This included a successful open forum at a regular ASI meeting, and a rather unsuccessful Town Hall Meeting on October 23rd where we had little input and involvement from the student population.

3. Survey and Public Opinion sub-committee- worked closely with Institutional Research and developed a survey, intending to measure the impact of this scheduling change on the students. The survey was distributed at random to over 1000 students of the campus community. We took extra care in providing an adequate sample of days (Monday-Saturday) and times (peak and non peak, mornings, afternoons and evening). Institutional Research assisted in establishing a database for more effective, efficient and credible tabulation of the received data. (Survey attached)

III. Survey Results and Analysis

Summary: In developing this survey, the intent of the Associated Students Inc. scheduling task force was to determine the impact the schedule change would have on students and what alternative options were seen as feasible in the desire to manage the influx of students projected in the coming years at CSUS.

The following is a conclusive analysis of the data received from the 768 surveys returned to the Associated Students Government office. Although the number of surveys did not meet the expected return, Associated Students maintain the validity of the instrument and the information it reveals.

1. Question one reveals that a majority of students surveyed are in their first few semesters at CSUS and only a handful of 10 semester plus students. The percentages of respondent?s semesters in attendance decrease respectively with length of attendance.

2. The number of respondents with dependents was around 15%. This may directly correlate with the age and financial obligations of the respondents.

3. In the employment category the survey ran into a small inconsistency that I will address below. This questions response portrays an interesting picture. Approximately 25% of students surveyed held no employment responsibilities at all. Only 20% worked full time and the remainder worked part time (471 or approx. 52%)

4. The predominant (almost 90%) unit load was full time, 12 units or more, and only a handful of respondents were enrolled in one class. (3 units)

5. According to respondents, approximately 50% have a 15-minute or less commute time to campus. The number of surveyed students decreases respectively with the extended commute time. It might be important to note that the number of respondents who commute over one hour is still quite high, thus impacting commute hours per week (approx. 25%).

6. With question seven, we will go into detail on the various elements. The negative impacts focus on academic concerns over job and family. The second most popular category was no impact whatsoever. So the conclusion stands that it either affects you negatively or not at all. Work schedule pulled over half negative effect where family life stood just under half.

7. The most favorable alternative by far is the current scheduling policies with a control on the limitations. There was also an expressed interest in the MR TF WS format. A problem with this question is the proposal from the original task force was not available as a choice on the survey.

I would like to close by thanking Micheyl Gardner and Alicia Romero for their thorough and dedicated efforts in tabulating this information for the task force. They spent many hours in front of the computer so we could assess the impacts this policy will have on the students of CSUS.

I would also like to thank Dr. Sutee Sujitparapitaya in assisting Associated Students in the formulation, design and analysis of the survey. Sutee was always available when a concern or technical difficulty arose. The Associated Students thanks you.

Faculty Senate Work Group

In addition to the Associated Students task force, President Artemio Pimentel and Chief of Staff Kevin M. Greene sat on the Faculty Senate Work Group addressing flexible scheduling. The additional information and research obtained by this work group was brought back to the students for further understanding of the issue and of the current situation at CSUS. The group provided an opportunity to collaborate and discuss the impact, alternatives and options of this scheduling policy.

The Associated Students recommendations will not precisely mirror those of the Faculty Senate; however, there will be several areas where the two proposals will be consistent with each other.

IV. Recommendation 1

Summary: Maintain the current scheduling policy and appropriately enforce the policy as it was written in 1996 with the introduced controls and limitations. In addition offer General Education and Core Courses within the major outside of peak scheduling periods. This refers to Friday block scheduling.

Rationale: Enforcement is key here. Enforcement of the policy as it was written in 1996, requiring the blanket usage of lecture space on Friday is essential. Also, the increasing demand for class availability will cause the percentages and utilization on Friday to rise. The current conditions of admissions and our FTES will require and enable the adequate filling of Friday and non-prime time classes.

If we offer necessary classes outside of peak periods, this will guarantee the enrollment of students to graduate.

The following is a list of concerns that exist:

1. According to the Council on University Planning (CUP) facilities utilization workgroup, Spring 2001 recommendation, the accountability indicator states that if we increase Friday usage to 7.2% we will hit our target for 2002-03 and at 8.5% we will rise above the system average by 2004-05. CUP did not see Friday usage as a high priority eight months ago, why now? The conclusion of the facilities work group detailed non-prime time as a greater usage issue than Friday utilization or peak periods. The recommendation was also made that each college should be responsible for developing their own plans through a thoughtful, collaborative and consultative process, and recommended that the Scheduling Standards and Controls of the Synchronized Scheduling system implemented in Fall 1996 be reinforced.

Recommendation 1b.

Summary: In addition to maintaining the current schedule we would ask that core courses within majors and general Education coursework be phased into MWF 50 minute blocks. (This will be addressed in greater detail under recommendation 3)

Rationale: Associated Students support a graduated phase in of General Education as well as core courses within the individual majors to MWF as a beneficial strategy as well as one that limits the impact this potential change would have on existing student populations.

V. Recommendation 2

Summary: Postpone full implementation to allow for further research and measurement of impact of the decision on the academic, professional and family lives of the currently enrolled student population.

Rationale: The following is a list of points supporting the above recommendation:

1. This decision was made so hastily, without due diligence and absent the measurement of the impact this policy change will have on students and therefore places the decision in question and places many students at risk of discontinuing their academic goals.

VI. Recommendation 3

Summary: Adopt the original policy change as instituted by President Gerth eliminating MW classes (75-minute) during prime time and instituting MWF 50-minute blocks, with the graduated phase in of General Education and Core Courses during the Peak periods.

Rationale: Three main points on this issue are as follows:

1. Utilization and Efficiency- CSUS has an interesting predicament in terms of land use and space. We have the American River on one side and an established residential/commercial zone on the remaining borders. We have nowhere to grow. We also have an impending economic crisis on our hands in this State, and we will not get the funds to expand when we aren?t adequately utilizing the facilities we currently have.

2. Access and Retention- it is fairly clear that the influx of students will make it difficult to guarantee access to higher education. This will eliminate opportunity for those who have historically been underrepresented in our institutions of education. We talk about capping enrollment, but if we have the facilities to admit these students we are denying them the right to an education. It is a question of convenience versus opportunity.

Retention has been cited as a plausible victim of this policy. Could it possibly be quite the contrary? Attributing greater ownership of the campus community and an enhancement of educational resources available to the student who is on campus for longer periods of time.

3. Campus Life- by having classes? predominately on Monday thru Thursday this campus fosters the commuter mentality. By ensuring participation in the campus community five or more days a week, we create a more vibrant campus life. Education does not take place solely in the classroom. A great deal of personal development and enrichment stems from extra curricular activities in and around the campus community. If enrichment means joining a club or organization, taking advantage of a recreational activity on campus, or assisting others in the community on behalf of CSUS, learning and enrichment does occur.

VII. Conclusion

We hope these suggestions prove helpful and allow you to make a decision that proposes solutions to the values and charge of this work group. These recommendations are products of many hours of research and fact finding. By allowing students to have a voice on this topic truly encompasses a healthy collegial campus where students faculty and administration work collaboratively to influence policy and guide the principals of this institution for years to come.

We feel, as students, the aforementioned recommendations will allow for greater access to education, enhance facilities utilization and efficiency, permit full time workers to attain a degree and speed up time to graduation by having creating greater class availability.

Associated Students, speaking on behalf of the greater student population, encourages you to take utmost care when considering and reviewing these recommendations. You presented the students with an opportunity to respond and address the concerns we face. We hope this is represents adequate consultation and you will address the issues in a meaningful and collegial fashion.