Minutes - December 10, 2019 - 12:30pm - Constitution Room
CCSU FACULTY SENATE MEETING (continuation of December 2, 2019 meeting)
Present: Adair, S.; Al-Masoud, N.; Arena, J.; Austad, C.; Ayeni, T.; Barr, B.; Bishop, J.; Blitz, D.; Boscarino, N.; Bray, A.; Broulik, W.; Duquette, J.; Gamache, J.; Garcia-Bowen, M.; Gardner, P.; Ghodsi, R.; Gichiru, W.; Givens, E.; Holt, J.; Hou, X.; Hughes, H.; Kapper, M.; Kean, K.; Kjell, B.; Kullgren, A.; Kyem, P.; Langevin, K.; Latour, F.; Mahony, M.A.; Martin, V.; Mongillo, M.; Morales, A.; Pancsofar, E.; Paolino, J.; Ragusett, J.; Ruhs, T.; Sakaki, H.; Sikorski, J.; Skinner, L.; Small, I.; Sohn, Y.M.; Spillman, D.; Stickland, A.; Styrczula, S.; Sylvester, C.; Tafrate, L.; Williams, L.; York, C.; Zering, J.
Ex-Officio: Dauwalder, D.; Toro, Z; Wolff, R.
Parliamentarian: Dimmick, C.
President of the Senate: Jackson, M.
Guests: Jacob Kovel (Manufacturing & Construction Management); Peter LeMaire (Physics & Engineering Physics); Kathy Martin-Troy (Biomolecular Sciences); Caroline Marquez (Advising & Student Support); Karissa Peckham (Enrollment Management); Careen Waterman (English)
1. Minutes
a. Minutes of December 2, 2019
- Approved unanimously
2. Announcements:
a. AAUP President (L. Williams)
- No announcements.
b. SUOAF-AFSCME President (L. Bigelow)
- The chapter meeting will be on December 12 at noon, in Alumni Hall.
c. SGA (R. Tahir)
- No announcements.
d. FAC to the Board of Regents (S. Adair)
- The BOR will meet on December 19, and the FAC will present its report at the meeting. They will be asking 11 fundamental questions about the so-called "Students First" plan, which have yet to be answered by the Board.
- Unions representing CSCU faculty and professional employees have prepared a statement of unity and mutual support, opposing the so-called "Students First" plan.
- The Senate thanked CCSU's FAC representative, Stephen Adair, for his 8 years of service on the committee. David Blitz will be replacing him, effective January 1, 2020.
e. President of the Senate (M. Jackson)
- No announcements.
3. Unfinished Business
a. Discussion of Report of the Task Force on Dual Advising
- Appendix A - Interview Summaries
- Appendix B - NACADA recommendations
- Appendix C - Advisor Load Analysis
- Appendix D - Advising and Student Success Specialist Job Description
- Appendix E - Director of Advising and Student Success Job Description
- The discussion of this item, which was interrupted by inclement weather on December 2, continued.
- President Jackson discussed the history behind the proposal. It began with a summer retreat on retention. At that retreat, one of the main ideas for increasing retention that was discussed was to improve advising --- even though the retreat itself was not just on advising, the need to improve advising and the desire to try a dual advising model came organically through the retreat. Data and information were collected from other universities, and a report was prepared by a task force. The report was sent to the Senate's Committee on Academic Advising, which then forwarded the report to the Senate, with comments. The report is not intended as a final version or as a policy at this point. We will not be voting on approving or rejecting the report at this meeting. But we do need to begin the discussion now; it cannot wait until the next semester. The university will be moving forward this Spring with a small pilot that will include 7 departments that volunteered (Criminology and Criminal Justice, Nursing, and all 5 departments in the School of Business). The administration agrees that the report is not "set in stone"; among other things, some of the dates might need to be changed. However, they believe that there would be a benefit in moving fast, as we need to do something to counteract the drop in retention. Implementation of the policy might require a large investment.
- Senator Blitz asked how many new professional advisors would be needed under this model. Provost Dauwalder said that the draft strategic plan calls for 16 new advisors.
- Senator Austad asked whether a survey was conducted to see if departments were doing things that the report said should be done. Associate Vice President for Enrollment Management Karissa Peckham said that no surveys were done, but there is no insinuation that departments were not doing these things.
- Senator Sikorski pointed out that it is crucial for us to create a sense of belonging among students.
- Senator Martin-Troy pointed out that many faculty members in a variety of departments have worked hard to come up with an advising model that works well for their students.
- AAUP President Williams said that many faculty members have concerns about the dual advising proposal, especially those in the sciences.
- SUOAF-AFSCME President Bigelow pointed out the importance of understanding the many reasons why some students are leaving CCSU.
- Senator Barr is not convinced that a dual advising model is the solution to the issues that many students are facing, especially those who work multiple jobs and/or are single parents while taking 5 or 6 classes.
- Senator Gamache spoke of the necessity for a strong relation between faculty advisors and full-time professional advisors. She expressed a concern that SEST is not represented in the 7-department pilot.
- Senator Halkin is concerned that, out of the 7 departments that are in the pilot, 6 are departments that require students to apply for admission to a program (rather than just admission to CCSU); thus, the pilot might not be representative of all programs. She believes that it would be more beneficial to support other needs of students (such as mental health) at this point.
- Provost Dauwalder said that the cost of 16 professional advisors could be cover by a 195-student increase in retention.
- Senator Mahony pointed out that a department-based advising model doesn't work too well for "exploratory" students who have not declared a major, and many of these students do not return. She said that it is important to provide resources to students who have unusual schedules (for example, evening-only students).
- Senator Ghodsi spoke against the one-size-fits-all approach, since many departments have unique advising needs. For example, transfer students from community colleges may have taken "weaker" versions of some courses, and may need some additional guidance should be provided by an expert in the field.
- Senator Blitz spoke against the idea of faculty advisors being unable to advise students until they have 60 credits. He believes that professional advisors should focus on helpinf undeclared students, or students who are mostly working on their general education credits. He is also concerned that, since it is difficult to get students to see one advisor, how are we going to get them to see two? Will they get one half of their PIN from each advisor? He pointed out that a past survey from about 10 years ago revealed that there is no single factor that causes students to leave.
- Professor Kovel said that the 60-credit rule is a problem for deparments such as his, which have many program-specific requirements that should be taken within the first 60 credits.
- Senator Foster suggested that we consider peer advising.
- Senator Kean said that part-time faculty could participate in academic advising.
- Senator Arena spoke against language in the report that seems to imply that Department Chairs are "supervisors" of faculty (by implying that Department Chairs should hold faculty members "accountable"). This would contradict the contract.
- Senator Latour spoke of the importance of making sure that advisors get accurate lists of advisees. He also asked about how the proposal would affect double majors.
4. Adjournment
- The meeting adjourned at 2:25pm.