Issue 1: In its "Shared Responsibility" report,
the California Higher Education Policy Center proposes that any
new state funding for enrollment growth should be directed at
the undergraduate level and based solely on the cost of undergraduate
education. Should the CSU accept this position? If not, what
would an alternate stance be?
Both groups disagreed with CHEPC's assertion that any new state
funding for enrollment growth should be based solely on undergraduate
enrollment/costs. They cited the importance of the graduate education
programs provided by the CSU to the state's economy, particularly
our professional and credentialing programs, as the basis for
requesting additional state funding for graduate education. Our
service to "non-traditional" and "first-time"
collegiate student populations and the potential for "Tidal
Wave II" spill-over growth in graduate education were also
listed as reasons for expanded state support for CSU graduate
education programs. The groups disagreed over the use of a graduate
fee differential as a mechanism for expanding funding for graduate
programs, with one group citing the nature of our student population
as making such a differential a barrier to access while the other
specifically listed a "student fee differential" as
an alternative funding source. Other suggested options for improving
support for graduate education included developing structures
and incentives to encourage the formation of cooperative degree
programs (both within the CSU and between CSU campuses and other
institutions), moving graduate programs into Continuing Education,
charging full cost for repeated courses, and charging by the unit/credit.
The importance of effective shared governance, specifically including
faculty engagement in the budget-making process, was stressed
as well, along with the need for developing sound data on the
relative costs of graduate versus undergraduate programs.
Issue 2: Understanding CSU's projected capacity and financial
"gaps" - Do the baseline scenarios present a realistic
range for the magnitude of the problem facing the CSU? If not,
what additional assumptions should be explored?
One group focused on the technical aspects of this set of issues
and sought clarification of the assumptions behind the task force's
"gap" projections. Regarding CSU's enrollment projections,
the following questions were raised:
This group questioned the assumption indicated in Task Force II's
draft report that alternative scheduling would produce enrollment
increases. They recommended that the CSU evaluate the potential
impact of limited capacity at private and proprietary institutions
on our enrollment growth, and they also suggested that the system
should analyze the potential consequences of: 1) refusing to
accept students without concomitant state support and 2) losing
In terms of evaluating costs, this first group requested an analysis
of accepting funding at marginal cost per FTES rather than full
cost. They also wised to see an expanded discussion of capital
cost projections, including technology infrastructure and physical
plant maintenance, which the group suggested might be underestimated
in the current draft. The group felt that an estimate of the
costs of training and support for technology-mediated instruction
should be included in the draft report, along with a more developed
discussion of faculty staffing and compensation issues.
The second group focused primarily on the need to redress the
public's misperceptions regarding institutional and faculty productivity.
The need to make the case for additional resources for the CSU
was also an important concern of this group. They felt that the
Cornerstones campus consultation process needs greater definition,
including a more explicit structure for soliciting and utilizing
Issue 3: What incentives would be appropriate for encouraging
individuals, departments, and campuses within the CSU to pursue
productivity initiatives? How should such incentives be structured?
One group focused on the difficulties surrounding the development
of an appropriate definition for "productivity" as it
pertains to higher education. The group was opposed to applying
a "corporate model" of productivity assessment to higher
education, but did note the need for greater effectiveness in
defining, measuring, and articulating the value added to the economy
and society by the CSU. In terms of specific incentives, the
group suggested greater use of assigned time, travel funds, and
equipment/resources in support of productivity initiatives. The
group expressed substantial support for the view that higher education
institutions must "get out in front" of efforts to develop
standards for defining and measuring learning productivity. This
group also echoed concerns similar to those expressed by other
faculty members regarding faculty compensation and PSSI's.
The other group addressing this set of questions emphasized the
need for greater staff support to free faculty from clerical/secretarial
tasks as a vehicle for increasing faculty productivity. Other
specific suggestions included defining and maintaining faculty-to-staff
ratios and utilizing student aid resources to increase the number
of student assistants available to absorb staff responsibilities.
The group expressed the view that measures of faculty productivity
need to include an expanded emphasis on faculty's community service,
advising, and teaching activities relative to research efforts.
However, the group also felt that the draft report should identify
how research efforts would fit into alternative scheduling options
(e.g., YRO). They echoed the thoughts of the first group regarding
the importance of increasing the resources and support dedicated
to faculty-based productivity initiatives. They recommended that
the balance between larger class sizes and appropriate classroom
space should be evaluated, and they stressed that increasing class
sizes further was not an effective means for increasing productivity.
They finished their discussion by emphasizing that the inconsistencies
between the reports of the various task forces need to be resolved.
Issue 4: Public policy rationale for financing higher education
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of the framework? Do
the principles and disconnects stated provide a solid foundation
for justifying public financing of higher education?
Both group addressing these issues felt that the draft report
should contain an expanded discussion of the state's responsibility
for addressing the CSU's potential "gaps." The first
group advocated that this discussion be informed by the changed
political dynamics regarding public investment facing all public
entities, including higher education. They noted that the policy
framework should be linked to a comprehensive plan for financing
the Master Plan in its entirety. This group also stated its desire
to see a broader discussion regarding the relative costs and benefits
of technology as applied to higher education in the report. They
further requested that the report's discussion of learning productivity
explicitly address concerns that the term "learning productivity"
is simply an euphemism for increased faculty workloads, and that
the whole of the report place greater emphasis on institutional
productivity and the limited possibilities for financial savings
from increased utilization of technology.
The second group noted the difficulty public entities might have
in pursuing increases in private giving due to targeted donations
and potential donor attitudes regarding public responsibility
for financing public universities. They also expressed their
view that there is limited potential for savings from reductions
Issue 5: The California Higher Education Policy Center advocates
linking student fees to a percentage of the cost of education
in a "shared responsibility" model. Task Force II's
public policy framework also supports this concept. Is such a
linkage viable, and if not, what should be the guiding principle
behind CSU's student fee policy given the state's reduced support
for higher education?
The first group addressing this set of questions generally felt
that linking fees to costs in a predictable fashion that would
allow for student planning is appropriate. This group also noted
general support for the goal of assuring access and the view that
higher fees may be necessary for assuring quality. The point
was made that students will accept higher fees if they directly
receive the benefits, but that financial aid needs to be closely
linked to whatever fee policy is developed. The importance of
making the case to the public and legislature for investing in
higher education was stressed by this group as well.
The second group was of a mixed mind regarding these issues.
Some expressed the view that higher fees would negatively impact
access for lower-income students, while others felt that higher
fees would improve student motivation to reduce time-to-degree
and better link the direct benefits received by students from
higher education to the costs associated with providing that education.
Still others appeared to agree with the perspective of the first
group that planned, predictable fee increases should be given
reasonable consideration. However, these participants also expressed
concern that the potential impact of higher fees on enrollment
growth needs to be carefully evaluated. The overall group felt
that the CSU should not make a non-negotiable commitment to meet
enrollment demand within available resources, and that the draft
report should make a stronger case for greater state support.
Issue 6: Again, both CHEPC and Task Force II reports argue
for differential fees at the graduate level driven by the higher
costs for graduate education and the state's fundamental interest
in ensuring maximum availability of undergraduate education.
Furthermore, CSU's graduate fees are well below the national average,
perhaps limiting an important source of funding for enhancing
the quality and quantity of graduate education in the CSU. Should
the CSU pursue a graduate fee differential on this basis? What
principles should guide the development and implementation of
a graduate fee differential? To what extent and in what form
would graduate financial aid need to be expanded to make a graduate
fee differential viable?
One of the groups discussing this set of issues was split over
the question of whether or not the CSU should institute a graduate
fee differential. Some members of that group felt that the benefits
accruing to the state from graduate education, and therefore the
state's responsibility for funding access to graduate education,
were just as great as those derived from undergraduate education,
if not greater. Other members of the group took the position
that graduate programs do consume a greater level of university
resources, and therefore a graduate fee differential would be
justified to offset those additional costs. The group as a whole
recommended that if a graduate fee differential were instituted,
systemwide graduate fee differentials should be developed by type
of program, based on the relative costs of the type of program
and the relative benefits accruing directly to students in a particular
field. This group also felt that any increased revenues from
such differentials should be funneled back into graduate programs,
and that the state should identify "critical" professions
(e.g., teaching) for special treatment in the setting of differential
fees. They stressed the importance of providing graduate financial
aid in a variety of forms (e.g., fellowships, grants, scholarships,
teaching assistantships, internship partnerships with companies/organizations)
in order to assure access to graduate education. Partnering with
employers to support their workers' further educational development
was particularly emphasized, as was aggressively pursuing "whole
contract groups" and foreign graduate students. It was also
suggested that Continuing Education programs could "buy out"
faculty time for graduate/ postbaccalaureate courses, which would
enable graduate programs to acquire funds directly. General consensus
was reached that the campuses should be relieved of restrictions
that prevent them from being more entrepreneurial in graduate/postbaccalaureate
The second group agreed that differential fees at the graduate
level could be justified if a large portion of the additional
revenue was retained at the campus level and the higher fees would
not hurt our competitiveness. This group agreed with the first
group that differentials should be explored on a program/discipline
basis that more closely links the fee level to actual program
costs. They also felt that additional factors should be considered
in setting differential fees by program area, including student's
instructional needs and earning potential within the field. The
group recommended charging fees on a per-course basis as opposed
to the current fee structure. They agreed with the first group
that graduate education is an important part of CSU's mission
and of critical importance to the state, and that the CSU needs
to do a better job of making this case to the public and marketing
our services to other organizations/companies. The possible need
for greater campus specialization in specific program areas was
also noted. This group opposed the diversion of increased revenues
from fee differentials to financial aid, stating that financial
aid resources should come from other areas.
Issue 7: How might the CSU assist campuses in pursuing more
complete utilization of their existing facilities? What are the
important implementation issues that will need to be evaluated,
including mechanisms for overcoming structural and cultural barriers
to options such as year-round operation and extended scheduling?
How might the CSU most effectively assist the campuses in their
individual processes for developing and implementing capacity
plans that reflect their unique missions and contexts?
The first group addressing these questions expressed concerns
about the availability of state support for "regular"
summer sessions and their potential impact on Continuing Education
programs and the revenues they generate. They felt that the decision
to institute year-round operation should be campus-based, and
that campuses should look to best practices from the private sector
for guidance on such issues as variable fees and discounting fees
to promote more complete use of facilities. The group also had
concerns regarding the need to renovate existing classroom/instructional
space to accommodate the application of technology and distance
learning techniques to the teaching/learning process. They suggested
that private sources of funding be explored to finance the needed
renovations. The group addressed faculty workload and composition
(part-time vs. full-time) issues and suggested that greater creativity
was needed in developing incentives and flexibility in faculty
The second group emphasized that course scheduling must be based
first on educational considerations as opposed to faculty/student
convenience or facility utilization patterns. However, they also
recognized the need to remain flexible and consider different
options; in this regard, they requested greater information about
space utilization options tried by other institutions and their
successes/failures. They advocated the development of partnerships
with other organizations to fund new facilities. In terms of
current space utilization at the campus level, the group suggested
that space planning and scheduling was fragmented and needed to
be pursued in a comprehensive, campus-wide fashion. They, too,
identified the need for renovating classroom/instructional space
to accommodate technological applications for instructional purposes.
The group also recommended the greater utilization of off-campus
space, including renting facilities and on-site instruction, as
a means for handling the campuses' capacity needs.
Regarding scheduling issues, this group recommended that incentives
be developed to encourage faculty to teach and students to take
courses outside of "regular" hours, and that new course
formats besides the traditional "TTh, MWF" schedules
be explored. They noted the need for campus and student-support
operations to be scheduled and available at the same times as
courses offered at "non-traditional" times and places.
The group also discussed concerns regarding the impact of year-round
operation on faculty governance, Extended/Continuing Education,
student financial aid, and facilities maintenance/renovation.
Issue 8: How might the CSU assist campuses in most effectively
managing their faculty resources and developing faculty renewal/reinvestment
Both of the groups discussing this question reiterated the call
of the other groups for a broader, more effective effort towards
educating the legislature and public regarding the wide range
of benefits accruing to the economy and society from the state's
investment in the CSU. The first group also stated, however,
that the CSU should not depend on the "good graces"
of the legislature alone, but rather should become more entrepreneurial
and more effectively cultivate the financial and political support
of CSU alumni. This group indicated that it did not believe that
Task Force II's "renewal/reinvestment" strategy would
result in more resources for the campuses, although they did acknowledge
that "some" savings might be generated through the use
of junior and part-time faculty. They also expressed concern
that the task force's recommendations for greater utilization
of existing facilities might actually be more expensive than current
operations due to increased staff and maintenance expenditures.
Some members of this group felt that the university may not be
able to effectively integrate "mediated instruction"
into its educational environment without sacrificing more "humanistic"
values, and that more needed to be said in the draft report regarding
how the CSU plans to address the needs and expectations of a more
ethnically, socially, and culturally diverse student population.
They also expressed the view that decisions regarding the allocation
of resources from faculty retirement should be campus-based and
involve faculty in establishing expenditure priorities.
The second group rephrased the question as follows: "How
might the CSU assist campuses in using CSU resources more effectively,
both existing and newly identified, to assist and enhance faculty
in serving the educational vision of the system through continuous
development of faculty throughout their careers?" Their
decision to restate the question grew out of their concern for
addressing the development of existing faculty in terms of the
effective use of new technologies and maximizing their teaching
effectiveness. The group recommended that this be accomplished
through the identification and dissemination of productive faculty
development efforts systemwide, as well as the review and clarification
of retention-tenure-promotion criteria across the system to remove
obstacles to faculty innovation in teaching. They also listed
a variety of ways in which faculty development could be pursued,
such as training workshops, cross-disciplinary team teaching,
and mentoring of new faculty, and emphasized the importance of
release time to make these activities possible.
Issue 9: Are the goals and policies regarding institutional
and learning productivity complete, or do additional considerations
need to be included? How might the CSU and its campuses most
successfully pursue increases in institutional and learning productivity?
What kinds and levels of support might be necessary to realize
the full potential of technological applications in increasing
For this issue set, only one of the two groups returned its record-of-discussion
form. This group questioned the usefulness of the definition
of productivity provided in the draft report and wondered whether
a good definition of learning productivity has yet been developed.
They provided a list of potential ways to increase productivity
that included the following:
Though the group indicated support for the concept of competency-based
learning, they expressed concerns regarding funding issues related
to implementing the necessary changes. They wondered how academic
programs incorporating competency-based learning would correlate
with state funding modes, financial aid structures, and student
Issue 10: Does Task Force II's draft report effectively illustrate
the capital budget picture facing the CSU? Given Task Force II's
report, what should CSU's priorities for capital spending be -
increased technological infrastructure/capability or additional
buildings/campuses? Is the emphasis on studying the technology
versus new capital construction options available to the CSU well-placed?
What other capital options should be considered?
As with the previous set of questions, only one group returned
its record of discussion. This group stated its view that areas
of instruction are more amenable to the application of technology
than other areas of the university, citing the ability of CSU
libraries to utilize technology to share access to their collections.
They argued that decisions regarding instructional technology
should remain under the auspices of Academic Affairs and that
faculty should play a role in the allocation of funding for technology.
The group agreed with the task force's view that the system should
not pursue additional new campuses, but also felt that the report
was skewed against construction projects in general. They recommended
that campuses expand their ability to serve through the development
of satellite campuses and space sharing arrangements with community
colleges, and through greater utilization of existing space.
In addition, they echoed the views of the other groups that the
CSU should vigorously pursue additional funding from the state.
The group did not feel that the draft report effectively illustrates the capital budget picture facing the CSU. They expressed the view that the draft report's discussion of technology costs should include an analysis of the operational, training, technical support, and replacement costs associated with the application of various forms of technology to the instructional environment. They also suggested that the report include enrollment projections by geographic region and/or campus in relation to capacity/capital/technology needs. This group highlighted the need for effective assessment of technology as applied to the teaching/learning process.