International Programs Policy Statement
AS-2329-96/AA(a) - May 10, 1996
RESOLVED:That the Academic Senate of the California State University support the role of the Academic Council on International Programs in recommending international program fees and urge ACIP to continue to act in conformance with Section 10 of the Board of Trustees Policy Statement on CSU International Programs, "The cost to the student shall be the lowest compatible with the requirements of a successful academic program abroad."; and be it further
RESOLVED:That the Academic Senate CSU endorse the proposed amendments to the Trustees Policy Statement on CSU International Programs and urge the Board of Trustees to approve these proposed amendments with the modification that the proposed new third sentence of Section 10 of the Board of Trustees Policy Statement on CSU International Programs, "The Chancellor shall, with appropriate consultation, determine and implement such fees and charges in the International Programs as may be required to sustain the high quality academic offerings of the International Programs and the provision of appropriate services for its participants," include specific consultation with the Academic Council on International Programs; and be it further
RESOLVED:That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor to interpret the first sentence of Section 10 of the Board of Trustees Policy Statement on CSU International Programs, "The International Programs shall be supported by State funds to the extent that such funds would have been required for comparable students had they continued to study in California." as meaning support equivalent to the campus average general fund support per FTES ($5,815 in FY 95-96); and be it further
RESOLVED:That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor to revise the practice that International Programs rebate to campuses the campus-based mandatory or other miscellaneous fees for the period of time that a student is enrolled in a CSU international program so that students do not pay duplicate health and student activity fees; and be it further
RESOLVED:That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor in consultation with the Academic Council on International Programs to establish a schedule of miscellaneous fees as a component of the International Program Fee to cover necessary services, such as the health and student activity requirements of IP students, and to collect, in addition to the academic program fee component, only an amount necessary to cover those services.
RATIONALE: The role of the Academic Council on International Programs is clearly identified in Section 2 of the CSU Board of Trustees Policy Statement on International Programs as the primary faculty recommending body in matters dealing with CSU international programs. Thus the elaboration of the new third sentence of Section 10 to specifically include consultation with ACIP is consistent with past and present policy.
The Academic Senate believes that the cost and funding principles contained in the CSU Board of Trustees Policy Statement on International Programs, originally passed in 1969 and amended in 1976, remain sound. These principles are:
1. "The cost to the student shall be the lowest compatible with the requirements of a successful academic program abroad" (Section 10 first sentence), and
2. "The International Programs shall be supported by State funds to the extent that such funds would have been required for comparable students had they continued to study in California" (Section 10; first sentence).
However, in recent years International Programs has not received state general funds at a "comparable" level. In FY 1995-96, IP received a general fund allocation of $1,911,577 to support 414.7 FTES, or $4,610 per FTES. Current budget planning for FY 1996-97 allocates $2,059,208 in general funds to support 429 FTES, or $4,800 per FTES. These figures are considerably below the system campus general fund support per FTES of $5,503 in FY 94-95. (The FY 95-96 average is likely to be higher.) Indeed, IP is being underfunded in state general fund support for the coming academic year by at least $700 per FTES.
As a result, International Programs has been forced to impose an international program fee which is higher than the average campus fee (State University Fee plus miscellaneous campus fees for 1995-96) of $1,891. The IP fee charged in 1995-96 was $2,750 and the fee planned by 1996-97 is $2,640. The difference between the IP fee and the campus average fee ($749) is roughly equal to the deficit in state general fund support ($700). We believe that this shifting of cost from the general fund to students is not in the spirit of the Trustees Policy.
Some may argue that CSU International Programs serves a particular cohort of CSU students who can afford the extra cost of studying abroad. It is true that students must provide the costs of their transportation and living expenses in a foreign country. However, these costs vary considerably; Japan is very expensive, Mexico is relatively cheap. It is also true that the majority of students participating in International Programs qualify for and receive some form of financial aid from their home campuses.
The Academic Senate believe that access to CSU International Programs should be as broad as possible. The benefits of an international experience in an educational program can enrich all students regardless of background and prior experience. To withhold comparable state support and impose higher fees upon prospective IP students prejudges access to these valuable programs.
The Academic Senate also believe that students enrolled in International Programs in residence in a foreign country, should not have to pay campus fees for services from which they cannot derive benefit. For example, health services fees cannot benefit students who are physically removed from their home campuses. The Academic Senate believe that these fees should be used instead to provide for the health needs of students at the international centers. Likewise, instructionally related activities fees, and student body center or association fees do not appear to benefit IP students. Where IP provides no analog services for these miscellaneous fees, they should not be collected. Students should pay miscellaneous fees only for the services that they actually receive.
APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY -- November 7-8, 1996