The Academic Affairs Program Effectiveness Council wishes to express its endorsement of the assessment, planning and budgeting process that the campus has established. In the context of national trends and expectations, this integrated process of assessment-based planning and budgeting is a remarkable success. As entire state higher education systems and large public universities have scrambled to create systematic “performance indicators” and concomitant “resource allocation methodologies,” the ability to link the principal features of these largely uneven processes has generally eluded such initiatives. Many of these proponents of accountability have been able to create strategic planning processes and structures, but most have failed to link the “assessment and planning outcomes” to a truly responsive mechanism of resource allocation.
Although the PEC/UBC process is time-consuming, and admittedly still evolving, we believe it to be a model of decision-making that enhances a sense of community and contributes to the ideal of shared governance. This process of cross-functional teams of the AAPEC and UBC, with feedback loops at each unit, has fostered a twin sense of accountability and community. The transparency of the entire process seems to have earned the respect and trust of faculty and staff. The highly intensive participatory functions embody the advice and counsel of national experts in this process: that is, the paramount importance of getting faculty and staff “buy-in.” The stakeholders are the principal agents of our PECs and UBC; they have embraced their responsibility and demonstrated a model of two cultures that are vital to Dominguez Hills: the culture of evidence and the culture of collaboration. In the coming adversities of the fiscal climate of the state and the CSU, this model will serve us well in maintaining the trust and the equitable distribution of either resources or the absence thereof.
The members of AAPEC unanimously and strongly support continued utilization of the AAPEC/UBC process whenever budgetary issues require action, immediate or otherwise, that impacts the resources or educational effectiveness of the Division of Academic Affairs. This is particularly true given current and projected budget reductions in funding to the university.
Following are AAPEC’s comments and recommendations based on the Program Effectiveness Reports and resource requests presented by the Schools, the College, and Central Academic Affairs.
The School of Business and Public Administration (SBPA) continues to work to increase the quality of its programs and thus its reputation in the community and to achieve enrollment stabilization and growth in its programs.
Progress toward the gold-standard of business school accreditation, the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), was endorsed by the Council last year. The University Budget Committee of 2001-02 followed up by recommending one-time funding of $26,000 toward this effort. Additionally, on-going funding of $14,859 was recommended by UBC for OE. The School has three funding requests related to this accreditation: conversion of the AACSB Chair from 10 to 12 month position, creation and maintenance of 3 databases, and membership/travel expenses related to AACSB activity.
Recommendation:
AAPEC recommends that SBPA continue its trajectory toward AACSB accreditation. High priority is recommended for one-time funding to assist in achievement of accreditation with funding for membership fees, attendance at necessary meetings, a summer stipend for the Chair of the AACSB Task Force, and creation and maintenance of a database.
The School requests funding for four faculty positions (3 in replacement of tenure-track positions and one in workload) in order to reduce SFR. The School lost four full time faculty to retirement or resignation last year, including one in the Department of Management, one in the Marketing Department, one in Computer Information Systems and one in Public Administration. The requests are to replace a retirement in each of these departments
Recommendation:
AAPEC
supports the request for faculty who are needed to provide necessary expertise
and to lower the school’s SFR. AAPEC
highly recommends support for tenure-track replacement of retired faculty in
each of the concentrations in Management and Marketing; and funding for Public
Administration is recommended in the form of funds to hire part-time
faculty. These are all areas of FTES
growth since 1999. In light of the fact
that FTES is holding steady in Computer Information Systems, the AAPEC
recommends the conversion of one full-time lecturer position to a fulltime
tenure-track position. AAPEC
encourages the interim dean’s proposals that may address the decline in the MBA
FTES.
SBPA is currently implementing an Intelligent Classroom for the Computer Information Systems concentration and a second one is requested. In addition to the cost of wiring and setting up these specialized classrooms, there are maintenance costs and a demand on the campus technical staff. Filling a classroom with computer stations reduces the flexibility of the use of that room. At this time, classroom space is minimal and such a conversion further constrains an already very tight classroom schedule.
Recommendation:
AAPEC does not support the request for an additional Intelligent Classroom at this time.
It is noted by AAPEC that the resources allocated by the UBC following the process last year were not deployed consistently within the School in the areas for which they were designated.
Recommendation:
AAPEC
expects that budget allocations be deployed within the school in a manner
consistent with the way they were allocated through the UBC process.
In the annual Program Effectiveness Report, the School of Education emphasized its mission to “prepare professionals to work successfully with culturally and linguistically diverse learners in an urban environment.” To accomplish this mission, school goals focus on students, faculty, programs, and collaborative partnerships, which in turn support a number of university-wide goals and objectives.
The school has succeeded in obtaining $8 million in grants over the last year, has established a number of successful partnerships with off-campus groups such as the Los Angeles Educational Partnership, and has continued to collaboration with the College of Arts and Sciences in offering the Liberal Studies program and in the preparation of teachers. The school should be commended for its efforts in all of these areas.
The School of Education continues to experience significant growth in FTES across all programs. FTES has increased almost 50% since the fall of 1996, and indications point to a continuing upward trend in the need for teacher preparation. In its Program Effectiveness Report and presentation to the committee, the School of Education emphasized this enrollment growth while indicating that there has not been a commensurate increase in faculty positions. In particular, there was growing concern about the steady erosion in the ratio of full-time to part-time faculty.
Budget requests for the school focus on two areas: support for past and present enrollment growth and support for NCATE accreditation. The highest priorities were assigned to increasing faculty positions, accreditation support, support for the Liberal Studies program, and administrative support in the various units. AAPEC’s recommendations on the budget requests are summarized below.
The highest priority budget request is for an NCATE Accreditation Consultant, to assist the school with the new NCATE accreditation process and coordinate the committee visit in fall 2004.
Recommendation:
AAPEC commends the school for its commitment to national
and state accreditation and its continuing efforts to renew NCATE accreditation
in the future. We recognize the
importance of outside consulting support and are in agreement that this
position could provide valuable assistance to the school in this effort.
However, we believe this request should be funded internally by the school and
therefore are not recommending it be supported.
Once again, the school has submitted a request for a fulltime dedicated Fiscal Officer. The Associate Dean has performed this role in the past, but increasing responsibility as the NCATE accreditation coordinator impacts the Associate Dean’s ability to perform both functions.
Recommendation:
AAPEC agrees that support for sound budget practices is critical to the operation of all units on campus. We support and recommend this request as a high priority.
The school has requested 3 tenure-track positions in Teacher Education and 8 new tenure-track faculty positions to support enrollment growth and NCATE accreditation requirements in the Department of Graduate Education. The positions would be distributed as follows: Special Education (4), Multicultural Option (1), Educational Administration Option (1), Teaching and Curriculum Option (1), and Pupil Personnel Services (1).
Recommendation:
AAPEC supports the request and gives high priority to funding all of the positions in Teacher Education and 5 of the 8 positions (4 in Special Education and 1 in Educational Administration). The most critical need is in the Special Education program, which has grown by 25% over two years and is heavily dependent on part-time faculty, who teach 88% of the courses.
AAPEC recognizes the need for a Professional Advisor in the department of Teacher Education and recommends the request with high priority. The complex requirements of old and new credential programs and the need for advising support before 2 pm and during the summer justify this request. The Council also believes the salary quoted on the budget request is too low, and recommends that the school review the classification and salary level of the position.
The Council recommends the request for workshops to
continue to improve RICA scores with high priority. The quoted increase
in the RICA passage rate tied to the workshop offerings supports the need for
continued funding. AAPEC also recommends that the school investigate charging
students a nominal fee to offset the workshop costs.
AAPEC supports the request for Additional Released
Time for Department Chairs, but does not recommend funding. Instead,
released time should be funded by the school internally.
AAPEC supports the request for Released Time for New Faculty, but recommends that funding for new faculty be centralized and funds distributed as positions are filled. As mentioned elsewhere in the AAPEC report, specific guidelines should be established for the distribution of such funds so that deans can have a clear foundation when making offers to candidates.
AAPEC does not recommend the full-time faculty position for Exercise Science or the conversion of a part-time position to full-time faculty for Athletic Training Certification at this time. Based on the information provided in the PER report, the programs do not appear to be at a stage that would justify recruitment yet, although we recognize that partnerships with the National Training Center/Health South can be anticipated.
AAPEC does not support the request for an additional full-time Clerical Position in the Graduate Education Department, although the need is recognized and acknowledged. We recommend that the school review current staff assignments to determine if reassignment of an existing position is feasible.
AAPEC agrees that the following are all valid requests but have either medium or low priority and that funding is unlikely from the general fund given the current budget picture.
Medium priority:
· Half-time faculty position for coordination of required LBS blended program
· Increase course offerings in LBS blended courses
· Increase in OE for blended Liberal Studies program
· Credential Analyst
· Four additional faculty lines (converted from part-time)
· GED technology plan request: assessment, curriculum, & software requirements
· Year-round full-time peer advising in PALS center
Low priority:
· Exercise Science laboratory OE
· Two staff positions (TED - applications and fieldwork unit)
· Support for faculty research and improvement in teaching practice (TED)
· Provide three units of release time to revise program to meet CCTC standards
· (LBS) Increase outreach and orientation sessions (LBS)
· Finish the development of the CSUDH teacher preparation assessment system
The Council does not support the request to convert the designated adult credential program to a state-supported program (TED) at this time due to the costs of conversion and the small number of students served.
Central Academic Affairs
AAPEC recognizes that Central Academic Affairs manages and supports a variety of activities cutting across all the academic units. The council commends the Provost/Vice President and her constituents for limiting its requests in what seemingly will be a lean budget year ( FY 2003-04) creating challenges for all of us.
The total amount of the request made by Central Academic Affairs, including baseline and one-time funding, is $268,533. The requests can be grouped into the following categories:
· Fee for Title V Consultant (Priority 1)
· Fund for Outcomes Assessment Implementation (Priority 2)
· Support Staffing (Priorities 3 and 12)
· Faculty Workload Augmentations/Released Time (Priorities 4 and 6)
· University Advising Center Server (Priority 8)
· Student Assistant Budgets (Priorities 9 and 11)
· Time Base Increases (Priorities 10 and 13)
· OE to Support Research Administration (Priority 7)
Continuation of funding for a Title V Consultant is the top priority for Central Academic Affairs. The consultant, hired and paid for the first year by the President’s Office, was instrumental in the campus securing a $2.4 million grant over a five year period for the purpose of assessing and improving the critical literacies of upper division transfers to Dominguez Hills. The $25, 644 is a one-time request for FY 2003-04, but additional one-time requests will follow in subsequent years in diminishing amounts, through 2007, for a total of five years.
Recommendation:
The council supports the request for a consultant and agrees with the Provost that it be given a high priority.
Implementation of a fund for Student Learning Outcomes Assessment is appropriate given that the university’s number one goal is to “strengthen and assess student learning for academic excellence and social responsibility.” However, the university goals as written are three-year goals, ending in 2004. As the university’s goals change so too will its objectives and possibly its priorities.
Recommendation:
AAPEC supports this request and gives it a medium priority. If funded, AAPEC recommends that funds be allocated on a one-time basis. Before disbursement of any funds, guidelines should be established outlining the process for qualifying and applying for funding. Once funds have been disbursed, the overall process should be evaluated to determine if the original concept and the fund’s usage warrants continuance, expansion, reduction, revisions, etc. Other funding sources, such as lottery monies, should be explored as alternative funding sources.
Additional support staff, one each for the Provost’s Office and the Office of Faculty Affairs, at a total cost of $99,110, was the third highest priority for Central Academic Affairs. Another staff request for a full-time Administrative Support Coordinator for Community Service Learning, at $35,680, was listed as priority #12. While the council can appreciate the amount of work that may be generated in these offices, we are also cognizant of the dire need for instructional faculty.
Recommendation:
AAPEC recommends that each
of the requests for support be given a low priority based on the need for
additional instructional faculty as a higher priority. For the FY 2002-03,
Academic Affairs was able to add 33 new faculty, but the net growth was five
faculty after taking into consideration the number of retirements and
resignations. In Fall 2002, Dominguez Hills recorded the highest head count in
the history of the university. The goal for FTES was exceeded as well.
Typically, with growth comes the need for additional classes and faculty. The
Student Faculty Ratio (SFR) may also be an indication that additional
instructional faculty are needed. In Dr. Walton’s own words, the SFR “remains a
serious consideration.”
Requests for part-time faculty workload for thesis/project supervision and release time for the CURL Project Developer total $21,816. According to the request, utilizing part-time faculty for nine units of workload would allow full time faculty supervising theses/projects the time needed to work with students requiring advising on their thesis/project.
The Center for Urban Research and Learning (CURL) requests 3 WTU per semester for a junior faculty member to develop community relations and community based research projects as a means of fostering the “Communiversity” vision articulated by President Lyons.
Recommendation:
AAPEC recognizes the need for thesis/project workload and
suggests that the $13,090 for part-time faculty workload for thesis/project
supervision be given as a one-time request, or as seed money for beginning the
process of support/released time.
However, we further recommend that a procedure for distributing and
evaluating released and/or assigned be established for all units under Academic
Affairs.
The Council commends CURL for its efforts to foster the “Communiversity” concept as put forth by the University President but recommends that release time, in this instance, be given a low priority. As Dominguez Hills, along with all other CSU campuses, faces another year of funding reductions as the result of the State of California’s budget, AAPEC does not feel this requests warrants a higher priority.
One time request for a server for the University Advising Center totals $6,928 and is ranked #8 on the priority list.
Recommendation:
AAPEC recommends that the
University Advisement Center consult with Information Technology as to how it
might piggyback with an existing server to ensure security and ongoing
technical support. It is our
recommendation that this request not be funded.
Two requests for state-funded time base increases from half-time to full-time are #10 and #12 on the priority list, totaling $62,713.
Recommendation:
AAPEC endorses the idea that the Grants Information Specialist and Testing Administrative Support Coordinator positions be moved off of “soft money” so that these monies can be used for their primary purposes. AAPEC suggests the request be given a medium priority.
The remaining three budget requests are:
· OE to support travel for research administration
· Student assistant funding to assist with new computer-based testing facility
· Increased allocation for student assistant in Center for Teaching and Learning
Recommendation:
AAPEC recommends that each of the three requests be given a low priority. The total amount of the requests is nominal and perhaps can be funded from an auxiliary fund.
Extended Education
Extended Education (EE) has weathered a significant enrollment and fiscal challenge with the advent of state-supported YRO and a decrease in revenue. Dean Gordon reports a $92,833 deficit that was offset by funds in the EE construction account.
Extended Education has overcome some of the potential loss due to YRO with healthy enrollments in its wide variety of popular programs and addition of new programs such as the BSQA that began this fall. Further growth in enrollments in many of these programs can be expected with increased marketing. Additional programs are being considered, including a self-support, distance bachelor’s degree. A Master of Science in Engineering Management offered jointly with CSU Long Beach has been approved. Other certificate programs are planned.
Dean Gordon is requesting a $38,200 baseline increase to pay for television time from KCLS and LA@36 for the President’s Notebook and state supported television classes, fee waiver courses and an annual webcasting software fee. Currently Academic Affairs funds the TV Studio Manager and the Media Production Specialist and IT funds the Television Engineer although these are included in the EE organization chart. It should be noted that personnel and equipment are used interchangeably between state- and self- supported classes and projects such as video production, the university video sign, Blackboard management, the video archive, video dubbing, videoconferencing, satellite conferencing, web casting, and television broadcasting.
Recommendations:
AAPEC supports the allocation of general funds to EE for support of activities that the Division manages that serve broader university interests. For example, EE should be allowed the use of facilities without charge for on-campus meetings of courses managed by EE that have significant (majority) enrollments of matriculated students, such as the television courses.
We recommend that President’s Notebook funding
($700) more logically should fall to the President’s Office budget or to
University Advancement, as it is primarily related to Public Relations. The remainder of the costs of televising for
state supported and fee waiver courses ($11,900) should receive high
priority. The webcasting software ($15,000)
is low priority due to minimal use by state-supported classes.
AAPEC reiterates its
recommendation from last year that the EE services/personnel that are utilized
by state-supported programs undergo an effectiveness evaluation process in
which feedback can be supplied by all who utilize these services.
Finally, but not least,
AAPEC strongly encourages increased marketing activity to recruit
students/enrollments from outside of the state of California for all
self-supported programs.
School of Health
The School of Health should be applauded for its efforts in developing a detailed three-year strategic plan that can serve as a guide for further improvements and developments in the school. Also, the school is to be commended for its effort in strengthening its programs through curricular changes and organizational restructuring. This is especially timely given the rapid changes that are occurring in health care and in light of falling enrollments in the school. Hopefully, as was noted, enrollments seem to have stabilized and will begin to increase given the changes that have been made and additional changes that are anticipated. While we note that the school offers the only fully online nursing program in the CSU, we encourage the expanded efforts to reach out, in collaboration with Extended Education, for additional online nursing students beyond the borders of California and the U.S.
The school should also be applauded for the successful negotiation of collaborative arrangements with health care centers and joint efforts in securing funding provided through the Workforce Initiatives program.
The proposal to develop a “Division of Social Work” appears worth pursuing. We recognize that significant further investigation needs to be done before such a proposal can be formally considered. The only budget request that was presented by the school related to this proposal.
Based on the brief information that was presented
concerning the development of a Division of Social Work, we recommend that this
possibility be pursued in collaboration with other relevant departments and
programs. However, we do not recommend
that a full-time, tenure-track faculty be employed in this preliminary stage. Instead, we recommend that the development of
the proposal be accomplished with the assistance of a consultant or with a
temporary appointment and be funded out of existing school resources. This
temporary funding would be an interim arrangement with the view that when and
if the proposal is approved, permanent funding would be pursued. This precludes placing the school in an
untenable position should the proposal for the new division not receive
approval.
College of Arts and Sciences
The College of Arts and Sciences is a complex academic unit, with 22 departments and 11 interdisciplinary programs staffed by 173 full-time and 225 part-time faculty. CAS courses generated approximately 54% of the university’s FTES in 01-02. CAS is clearly the heart of the undergraduate on-campus program and makes significant contributions to graduate work as well in several departments. CAS faculty have been engaged in college-wide strategic planning activities, and the requests are clearly related to the college goals.
The budget requests are grouped into four categories:
· Funding for Enrollment Growth
- Correct disparity between full-time faculty and instructional budget
- Increase offerings of Liberal Studies
- Offer additional remedial and GE sections
- Strengthen programs (demand, depth, breadth)
· Funding for Student Learning Outcomes Assessment
· New Faculty Recruitment Costs
· Increase in OE for Increased Instructional Costs
The structure of CAS complicates the analysis of budgets requests. Besides the large number of departments and programs, there are many faculty who are FERPing or receiving substantial release or assigned time. The nature of the interdisciplinary programs, which may have no courses of their own, further clouds the issues.
Many of the requests involve the offering of additional sections. AAPEC strongly recommends that the College carefully review its departmental and program structure for possible reorganization. It is possible that a decrease in released/assigned time for chairs and/or coordinators may result. In some cases requests for departmental workload augmentations appear in more than one category, making analysis quite difficult. It also appears that workload increase requests do not always coincide with growth in FTES and/or majors. The committee recommends that workload augmentation requests be tied to documented program/department growth.
Request #1 – Funding for Enrollment Growth:
The requests in this category are primarily based on the anticipated enrollment growth funded by the Chancellor’s Office (6.6% is the given figure). The target figure for the requests is based on the current CAS funding rate (as reported by Institutional Research) of $3,531 per FTES. The Dean feels that CAS should receive its share (based on 54% of University FTES) of the enrollment growth allocation. The requested total is divided into four areas.
Funding for extra course sections in eight departments is requested. In each case, the Dean has indicated that there is insufficient workload, given the number of full-time faculty assigned to the department and that there is sufficient student demand to warrant the increase. In some cases the full-time faculty are teaching in other areas; in other departments released and assigned time are currently available to balance the equation.
Upon examination of FTES, number of majors and section
offered, it appears that not all the departments listed have the demand to
support additional course sections. For example, Africana Studies has 22 majors
and generated 23 FTES (23 total class sections including Independent Study, 14
class sections excluding independent study) with 1 full-time tenure track
faculty and two full-time lecturers. Biology, however, has 207 majors, and
194.1 FTES (121 total class sections including lab and independent study, 49
class sections excluding lab and independent study) with 13 full-time tenure
track faculty. Because of this disparity, the committee recommends that data
(FTES, majors, sections offered) for the departments in the list be
re-evaluated before extra workload is assigned. The departments with documented
student demand should be granted extra workload.
Dean Williams is requesting twenty-three additional sections for Liberal Studies students (15 in the regular program and 8 for PACE) and two sections of released time for the coordinator of PACE Liberal Studies.
The committee recommends
funding the additional sections and the release time. Liberal Studies is the
largest major in CAS, and the new PACE program is generating a great deal of
interest. The Chancellor’s Office supports an emphasis on teacher training; nearly
all Liberal Studies students declare an intention to become teachers.
The request includes forty-eight additional sections in seven departments and a .20 remedial coordinator for the Math department.
The committee recognizes
that the campus has been recruiting first-time freshman, which should increase
the need for lower division GE and remedial courses. However, it is unclear
from the requests whether there is overlap in requested sections with the
increase in Liberal Studies offerings. An analysis of waitlists from previous
semester in the remedial and GE courses would be especially useful in
determining which courses require more sections.
CAS Priority 6:
Strengthen programs (demand, depth, breadth)
The Dean is requesting increased workload in eight departments. The requests are in the form of FTEF and vary by department. The request includes a reference to the Division of World Culture Studies, which has been proposed but not as yet created.
The committee recommends
that the FTES and majors growth in the departments listed be examined before
funding is recommended. As with other requests listed above, the departments in
the list vary in apparent student demand. Breadth and depth needs are difficult
to determine from the departmental Program Effectiveness Reports. Asian-Pacific
Studies, for example, has one full-time faculty (who also coordinates the
program), no majors (APP is a minor only) and generated 5.1 FTES in 01-02.
There is a request for an additional 1.0 FTEF, which does not appear to be
supported by demand, though the creation of a Division of World Culture Studies
and a proposed APP major might justify it. The Communications department (also
in the list) has over 300 majors and six full-time faculty. They are requesting
1.0 FTEF, to replace a staff journalism position with a tenure-track faculty
position. This type of disparity is evidence of the need for further study
before these requests are supported.
Request #2 – Funding for Student Learning Outcomes
Assessment (CAS priority 2)
The Dean is requesting release time and/or course OE for learning outcomes assessment in seven departments.
The committee recognizes the university emphasis on the
development and implementation of student learning outcomes assessment. Because
it is university-wide activity, AAPEC suggests that funds for SLOA projects be
controlled at the division level, with specific criteria for distribution. For
example, the funds might be used for curriculum development or purchasing
tests. If a new course is required, each school or college can apply for extra
workload (permanent) when the course has been (or is in the process of being)
approved through the curriculum review process.
CAS anticipates that fifteen new faculty will be hired by Fall 03. The requests includes two courses off during the first year, relocation costs for each new faculty (up to $5000), and equipment costs (ranging from $3000 for each computer to $70000 for special equipment)
AAPEC
Recommendation (Recommend money be
distributed through Academic Affairs)
AAPEC recognizes the
competitive nature of faculty recruiting, especially in the sciences. Because
of the nature of the requests, the committee recommends that funding for new
faculty be centralized in Academic Affairs and funds be distributed to the
schools and colleges as new faculty are hired. Specific guidelines must be
established for the distribution of funds so that deans can have a clear
foundation when making offers to candidates.
CAS is requesting money for equipment, renovation, and development activities. The equipment requests include $40,000 for IT (replacing old computers, network maintenance, etc) and $100,000 for new technology to ensure currency in the sciences. Also requested are funds for possible renovation ($25,000) as CAS moves into spaces vacated as Welch Hall opens and $85,000 for development activities (hire grant writer, buy project management software, travel to grant workshops).
The committee recognizes the need for up-to-date
technology support in all fields, especially the sciences. It is unclear from
the justification exactly what type of equipment is proposed for purchase,
particularly in the sciences. Alternatives for equipment and technology support
include IT line items in grant proposals and support from the Student
Technology Fee Committee. The committee feels that development activities,
especially those related to grants, should be supported by the indirect cost
revenues received from previous grants.
The Library has two ongoing goals that are essential to its operation: 1) the expansion of its book collection and online resources and 2) the effective use of library technology. AAPEC agrees that these operational goals require and deserve consistent funding since they directly affect the Library’s capacity to effectively serve students and faculty in all departments and programs, both on-campus and in remote locations.
AAPEC commends the Library’s wisdom in clearly recognizing that it is currently operating, like all other units of the University, in “an era of limited funds and increasing accountability.” AAPEC further commends the Library’s commitment to “getting the most from library resources.” AAPEC especially applauds the Library’s efforts to increase effectiveness by retraining and redeploying personnel from other units within Academic Affairs. AAPEC strongly encourages the Library to continue these efforts and to seek other means of maximizing productivity and the effective use of resources, including more effective scheduling of full-time librarians and increased consultation in the acquisitions process.
In addition, AAPEC applauds the Library’s efforts to “strengthen the library distance learning initiative.” AAPEC commends the Library for the proactive role that it has taken in recognizing and responding to the special needs of the University’s varied and growing number of on-line programs. AAPEC also recommends that the Library take steps to regularize contributions from Extended Education, which makes frequent use of the Distance Learning Library Services. AAPEC also encourages the Library to use the budget process to address state-supported programs that make heavy demands on the Library’s Distance Learning Services.
Support for Library Electronic Databases/Other Library Materials is the top priority for the Library. The $190,000 amount requested represents a projected estimate of what the targeted databases will cost, since these costs are often subject to rapid change. Faculty needs dictate that the Library remain committed to maintaining both its book collection and online resources. Given scarce resources, the Library must be highly selective in its acquisition of new databases to meet faculty and student need across all the disciplines. Access to some databases is negotiated on a system-wide basis, but many are not. In addition, databases paid for at the system level are often funded for a limited time and each campus must then pick up the cost in order to maintain access.
Recommendation:
AAPEC supports this request
and concurs with the Library in giving it top priority. However, AAPEC strongly urges the Library to
sharpen its priorities for deciding how to spend the limited funds available
for purchasing databases. AAPEC also strongly encourages the Library to find
ways to increase the level of consultation in decisions about how to allocate
funds for purchasing books and online resources as well as which databases to
acquire. AAPEC urges the Library to take a more proactive approach in
determining the needs of departments and programs. Such an approach might include designing and administering a
needs assessment survey and making more effective use of the Library Advisory
Committee. In addition, AAPEC
recommends that the Library gather reliable statistical information on current
usage of databases and incorporate this data in the decision making
process.
Restructuring of Library Floor Space to Create Additional Stack Space is the second priority of the Library. The need for additional stack space has become a higher priority because the construction of a new library building has been pushed back to an indefinite point in the future. Additional stack space is needed to house the new books that have been and will be acquired. The anticipated availability of space on the fifth floor of the ERC will provide additional office and administrative space, but will not address the need for stack space. In addition, the need for study and reading spaces in the Library will have to be balanced against the need for additional stack space.
Recommendation:
AAPEC supports this
one-time request and gives it a high priority. AAPEC believes that the Library
should also investigate other sources of funding for this project. The Library
might pursue, for example, the possibility of obtaining Minor Capital Outlay
funds to pay for certain phases of the project, such as installation of the
shelves. The Library might also investigate the possibility of obtaining a more
competitive off-campus contract for such services. AAPEC also suggests that the
Library might investigate whether or not discretionary Lottery Funds could be
made available as part of the budget process in order to fund projects such as
this one.
Restoration of Student Assistant Hours is the third priority of the Library. The Program Effectiveness Report indicates that the Library significantly decreased the number of student employees in FY 2002-03 in order to adhere to the campus-wide five percent budget reduction. The PER also notes that the Library is very dependent on student employees, especially to provide needed services in circulation, reserve, and re-shelving functions. The decrease in student employees has impacted the speed and efficiency with which these functions are currently being fulfilled.
Recommendation:
AAPEC supports this request
and gives it a high priority. AAPEC agrees that restoring student assistants to
previous levels and thereby increasing the efficiency of the functions they
fulfill would enable the Library to more effectively serve its patrons.
Restoration of Part-Time Librarian Hours is the fourth priority of the Library. The Library is requesting funds to increase the hours of part-time librarians in order to cover its hours of operation. These part-time librarians would assist with the coverage at the Reference Desk and in other ways that provide students with access to information resources.
Recommendation:
AAPEC gives this request a low priority. AAPEC believes that the shifts of the full-time librarians should be re-scheduled in order to accommodate library hours and student need. The schedules of full-time librarians could be staggered to cover evening and weekend hours. AAPEC feels that part-time librarians would not serve the needs of students as effectively as would full-time librarians. AAPEC also notes that full-time librarians are faculty positions and that, given the nature of the CSUDH student body, faculty in other units are typically expected to accommodate the needs of our students by offering evening and weekend classes and office hours.
Addition of Link Plus through Innovative Interfaces is the fifth priority of the Library. Link Plus is a part of the Library’s new online system that is an ongoing budget initiative. This feature increases the speed and efficiency of Interlibrary Loan by enabling students and faculty to link up with libraries that are also a part of the consortium and to request interlibrary loan materials directly.
Recommendation:
AAPEC supports this request and gives it a medium
priority. AAPEC believes that Link Plus would provide a valuable resource to
library users.
Other Recommendations
In this section of its report, The Academic Affairs Program Effectiveness Council wishes to make some general recommendations and to identify some over-arching concerns that arose in the course of the Council’s deliberations this year. These recommendations and concerns fall into the following categories:
The
Assessment, Planning, and Resource Allocation Process:
AAPEC recommends that undesignated Lottery monies that come to the campus be made available to the University Budget Committee for distribution in response to requests for one-time expenditures, and that the availability of these funds be announced to all divisions of the university.
In future cycles of the process, AAPEC will ask that Deans and the Provost provide information on how previously allocated funds were deployed. Further, AAPEC recommends that the University Budget Committee do the same.
One of AAPEC’s responsibilities is to review academic program and curriculum proposals that may have resource implications. In order to be in a position to make these determinations, AAPEC needs more information than is provided through the curricular process, particularly in the area of modifications to existing academic programs. AAPEC recommends that in preparing program and curriculum proposals, departments and deans should provide more extensive narrative justifications and data for the costs associated with course and program modifications as well as those associated with new courses and programs. For example, what are the costs associated with changing the number of units for a course or program or for changing the mode of instruction in such a way as to significantly impact class size and numbers of sections needed? What are the equipment, facilities, and library costs associated with program and curricular proposals? AAPEC notes that while the current curriculum forms ask these questions in the form of boxes to be checked, the majority of proposals indicate that no new faculty, space, equipment, library materials, or other resources will be needed. In many cases, it appears to AAPEC that the proposed changes may indeed require additional resources. AAPEC recommends that the University Curriculum Committee create appropriate curricular forms to elicit the information needed by AAPEC so that it may provide informed recommendations to the Provost regarding the resource implications of academic program and course proposals.
Released/Assigned
Time:
AAPEC notes that released and assigned time does not appear to be awarded in a uniform manner across the Division of Academic Affairs, yet it has a significant effect on the calculation of Student Faculty Ratio (SFR). AAPEC recommends that guidelines be developed for released/assigned time provided by the Schools, the College and Central Academic Affairs. For example, AAPEC notes that there does not appear to be uniformity across the academic departments in the released/assigned time accorded to department chairs.
AAPEC will request that deans and Central Academic Affairs include assigned time in future Program Effectiveness Reports. AAPEC will provide a common format for reporting released/assigned time.
AAPEC recommends that uniform guidelines be developed for awarding released/assigned time to support new faculty. Funding for this released/assigned time should be part of the allocation when a unit receives authorization to recruit for a new or replacement position.
Recruitment
and New Faculty Start-up Costs:
Guidelines should be established for funding the costs associated with new faculty recruitment and hiring. Such costs may include relocation expenses, additional operating expenses for new positions, and start-up costs such as furniture and computers. These guidelines should also recognize any specialized equipment or laboratory requirements of new faculty hires. AAPEC recommends that a formula be developed for one-time allocations to support such new hires, and that these funds be held centrally.
Student
Learning Outcomes Assessment:
AAPEC recommends that funding for student learning outcomes assessment be held centrally and distributed to programs and departments according to established and agreed-upon guidelines. AAPEC suggests that the Center for Teaching and Learning might be called on to serve this need, given the centrality of assessment to the teaching and learning process and the expertise associated with CTL.