Spring Conference 2010
Wine & Cheese Soiree (debit): $138.62
Doubletree Hotel (debit): $5929.95
Executive Luncheon (debit): $98.94
Registration: 44 participants + $400 ECCTYC (credit): $2820.00
UC Participation (credit): $520.00
Campus Dues: Fullerton 2009, San Marcos 2010, Sonoma 2009 (credit): $775
Bank Dividends (credit): $11.03

Ending Asset Balances
Checking (+ transfer of CD to checking): $6228.79
Savings: $504.62
Golden 1 Account (August 31, 2010)

TOTAL ASSETS (September 30, 2010): $6733.43

Respectfully Submitted: Sugie Goen-Salter, Treasurer

downloadable printer-friendly version available here

WHEREAS      The AS-CSULA acknowledges and values the regional character of individual campuses and the diversity of their student populations, and affirms the necessity of diverse campus approaches to moving fully qualified first-time freshmen (FTF) who require additional skill acquisition (remediation) in English or mathematics to achieve proficiency either prior to, or during, their first year of enrollment; be it

RESOLVED    That the AS-CSULA opposes the implementation of “early start” programs as a pre-condition for enrollment at CSULA campus; and be it further

RESOLVED    That the AS-CSULA urges that prior to any implementation the CSU ensure that serious attention be paid to the financial consequences–both to campuses and to individual students–resulting from the various “early start” approaches; and be it further

RESOLVED    That the AS-CSULA opposes the use of tests, such as the ELM and the EPT, which were originally designed as placement instruments, to either grant or deny otherwise qualified first-time freshmen (FTF) admission to CSULA; and be it further

RESOLVED    That the AS-CSULA, steadfast in its belief that the faculty are responsible for developing, delivering and assessing curriculum, urges that CSU faculty be fully engaged in the planning, teaching, and evaluating of any “early start” pilot programs and that CSULA faculty be fully engaged in any planning, teaching, and evaluating of CSULA “early start” programs; and be it further

RESOLVED    That such “early start” pilot programs supplement but not supplant already existing, successful models of proficiency attainment at CSULA and other campuses; and that the success of the pilot programs themselves be assessed over time to determine their effects upon such factors as retention rates and progress toward degree before the CSU considers mandating adoption of any “early-start” models system-wide; and be it further

RESOLVED    That the AS-CSULA distribute this resolution to the CSU Board of Trustees, the Office of the Chancellor, the Chair of the Academic Senate of the CSU, campus Presidents, Provosts and Senate Chairs, the Chair of the English Council of the CSU, and the Chair of the Mathematics Council of the CSU.

The resolution passed unanimously on March 2, 2010.

We understand that the Board of Trustees’ resolution to implement Early Start programs on all CSU campuses is an effort to help integrate first year students into mainstream academic life quickly, humanely, and with a high degree of probability that they will graduate. We share this concern.  However, along with the Statewide Academic Senate, the CSU English Council opposes a mandatory Early Start as a precondition for enrollment at any CSU campus.  We believe that a mandatory Early Start program will not serve our students well for these reasons:

• Mandatory Early start is discriminatory, forcing an identified group of students to participate in summer as a pre-condition of enrollment to the university, even though this same population of students is not only fully qualified for admission, but arrive at the CSU having earned high school GPA’s of B or better;
• While we do support voluntary summer programs, as a mandatory program, Early Start is punitive, placing high-stakes preconditions on admissions to fully qualified first year students.  This raises the questionable legality of denying admission to these students;
• Mandatory Early Start places undo financial burden on students who can least absorb it. Whatever financial aid students may receive cannot compensate for summer income lost and summer costs incurred, which could lead to resentment, hardship, and disenrollment;
• No valid evidence has been presented to us that Early Start is effective, and we do not feel students should be forced to enroll in programs whose educational value is unproven;
• By contrast, in a two-year experiment at SFSU, Summer Bridge was designed as an early start, where students who were highly successful in this summer bridge course (earning a B+ or higher) were promoted to the next level composition course. The students did so poorly that Summer Bridge went back to its original model as an addition to, rather than a substitute for, the full sequence of composition courses;
• There is a great deal of evidence from a number of campuses indicating that innovative first-year programs (e.g. directed self-placement and stretch) are successful at retaining students, improving compliance with EO 665 (system-wide, roughly 85% of students are compliant within their first year), and improving graduation rates;
• In a CSULA study, students who placed into regular semester basic writing courses had higher persistence rates than students who placed directly into first-year composition, showing that students who go directly into our existing first-year courses do as well as, if not better than, their more “proficient” peers;
• From long-term consultation with Chancellor’s Office representatives, we understand that remedial courses that do not count toward graduation are a problematic option in today’s budget climate.  We believe that directed self-placement and stretch courses solve this problem.  Early Start, on the other hand, creates an additional remedial course;
• Early Start is an unfunded mandate that will require substantial resources to design, implement, and sustain and that will place differential burdens on individual campuses.

For these reasons, English Council recommends that writing programs throughout the system decline to participate in the design or implementation of mandatory Early Start Programs. We understand that conditions are different on different campuses and that some writing programs might for various reasons feel compelled to participate, and these programs have our full support.  Nevertheless, the Council as a whole feels it is important to voice our strong opposition to this ill-conceived, however well-intentioned, program.

printer-friendly version

Easy Reference Pocket Card

Dear Colleagues in the English Council:

As your Senate liaison, I felt that this was something you needed to see right away. We should have some interesting discussions at the April meeting. Please be aware that though we were shown something (much vaguer outline) of what would be presented to the Board of Trustees, this specific presentation was NEVER shared with the Senate, as is customary. We have never seen the actual document that the Early Start Task Force presented to the Vice Chancellor. Since Glen was on that task force, I’m sure he can be more specific about which recommendations were followed, and which were not.

Susan
Susan Gubernat
Associate Professor, English Department | Statewide Academic Senator, CSU
California State University, East Bay | (510) 885-3520 | susan.gubernat@csueastbay.edu

Early Start Board of Trustees Presentation 03.17.10

As most of you know by now, the new Vice Chancellor, Jeri Echeverria, spoke at the Fall English Council meeting about the BOT resolution to begin mandatory Early Start programs on all campuses next year.  She explained that she is to make her recommendations for what these programs might look like to the BOT in Feb 2010 and that she has organized a taskforce to help her make her recommendations.  Glen McClish , as president of English Council, is a member of her taskforce.

At the Fall meeting, Glen asked for a taskforce of English Council members to come up with English Council’s proposal for Early Start.  After consultation with English Council members on Thurs and Fri of the fall meeting, the following document is what this taskforce (which consists of Sugie Goen, John Edlund, Tara Lockhart, Jim Garrett, Brenda Helmbrecht, and myself) came up with.  I sent it to Glen on Sat for his meeting today.  If you have any questions or comments about the document . . ., please let me know.

Best,
Kim

———-
Kimberly Costino
Associate Professor of English
Gateway Program Director
Composition Coordinator
5500 University Pkwy
California State University, San Bernardino
San Bernardino, CA 92407
tel: 909-537-5825
fax: 909-537-7086

This proposal, which we intend to be rolled out over the next three years so that we can collect data for assessment, is offered in response to Vice Chancellor Jeri Echeverria’s request for input from the CSU English Council on the implementation of an English Early Start program.

We understand that the Board of Trustees’ resolution to implement Early Start programs on all CSU campuses is an effort to help integrate first year students into mainstream academic life quickly, humanely, and with a high degree of probability that they will graduate. We share this concern. Thus, based on the clear consensus of national scholars within the field of rhetoric and composition (see Appendix A) and on the strong results of data-driven research conducted on our own campuses (see Appendices B-E, listed and linked below), we make the following recommendations:

1. Discontinue use of the English Placement Test. The English Placement test was originally designed to place students fully qualified for admission, into appropriate first-year English courses. In addition to widely held skepticism about the ability of a single timed test to reliably predict a student’s ability to succeed in college, it is a gross misapplication of the EPT to use it to determine eligibility for admission or to place prohibitive preconditions on admission.
2. Allow campuses to choose one of the following placement options as an alternative to the EPT:
   • Option A–Directed Self-Placement–a placement system in which students choose, with guidance from designees of the writing program, the course of writing instruction most appropriate for their needs.
   • Option B–Directed Self-Placement combined with a Stretch Program–a placement system in which students choose, with guidance from designees of the writing program, an accelerated one quarter/semester writing course or a series of baccalaureate credit-bearing writing courses “stretched” over two or more semesters/quarters with the same instructor and cohort of students. (See Appendix C: Fresno and Appendix D: CSUCI for data findings supporting this option.)
   • Option C–A locally administered placement tool that has been approved system-wide–such a system would ideally be based on an assessment of writing students produced in high school, such as a portfolio generated by ERWC, an ERWC waiver, etc.
3. Develop a reciprocal Early Start option for each campus, designed by English Council members and modeled on the strong and successful ERWC program. While it will be mandatory for each campus to provide an Early Start option for its students, it will be optional for students to enroll in these programs. Such an option, which must be delivered by composition faculty hired and supervised by the English department or relevant Writing Program on each campus, would be reciprocal throughout the system.
4. Provide campuses with resources necessary to collect appropriate evaluation data. Given the Chancellor’s Office’s, the Board of Trustees’, and our own commitment to data-driven decision-making, policies, and practices, we also request an assurance that we will have the resources for an Early Start coordinator to collect comparative data on these alternate placement approaches and on the Early Start option. Collecting such data will enable us to discern how alternative forms of placement compare to the EPT, and the success rates (pass rates, retention, persistence to graduation, etc.) of students who choose the Early Start option compared to students who go directly into first-year writing programs currently available on our campuses.

Appendix A: A Selected Bibliography on Writing Placement and Assessment (download)
Appendix B: SFSU Early Start IRW Report (download)
Appendix C1: CSUF Summary (download)
Appendix C2: CSUF Report on DSP for English Council (download)
Appendix D1: CSUCI DSP Summary (download)
Appendix D2: CSUCI DSP Final Four-Year Report (download)
Appendix E: CSULA Report on Remediation (download)

President, California Association of Teachers of English (CATE)
Susan Schauwecker
McLane High School
2727 North Cedar
Fresno, CA   93703
209.441.3500

Academic Senate of the California State University, Chair
Gene Dinielli
400 Golden Shore, Suite 134
Long Beach, CA   90802.4275
Chaffey College
5885 Haven Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA  91737
909.941.2130

UCLA Writing Programs
George Gadda
371 Kinsey Hall
Box 951384
Los Angeles, CA  90095.1384
310.206.1145

ECCTYC Liaison to the English Council
Michael Dinielli

Academic Senate Liaison
Susan Gubernat
English Department
California State University, East Bay
Hayward, CA  94542
510.885.3520

Executive Vice Chancellor; Senior Vice Chancellor,  Academic Affairs
Jeri Echeverria | 562.985.2025

Director, Extended Education
Edward McAleer | 562.985.2824

Senior Director, Access and Retention
Allison Jones | 562.951.4744

Senior Director, Academic Services and Professional Development
Lorie Roth | 562.951.4779 | FAX 562.951.4981

Academic Senator, English Council Liaison
Susan Gubernat | 510.885.3520 | susan.gubernat@csueastbay.edu