THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT I THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK I ALBANY

THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT I THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK I ALBANY. NY 12234

TO: The Honorable the Members of the Board of Regents

FROM: Richard P. Mills

COMMITTEE: Higher and Professional Education

TITLE OF ITEM: Commissioners Recommendation for Regents Action on The City University of New York Master Plan 2000-2004

DATE OF SUBMISSION: September 8, 2000

PROPOSED HANDLING: Approval

RATIONALE FOR ITEM: Pursuant to §6206 of Education Law, CUNY needs the Regents approval of its master plan before implementing it.

STRATEGIC GOAL: 1, 2 and 4

AUTHORIZATION(S): (signed by Mills)

SUMMARY:

Among the key features of CUNY’s 2000-2004 master plan are:

• Seeking new faculty in clusters to support academic areas selected for their promise in teaching and learning, the advancement of knowledge, and the economic development of the City, and to improve the ratio of full-time to part-time faculty;

• Continuing to implement the admissions policy approved by the Regents in November 1999 as an amendment to CUNY’s master plan, phasing out remedial education in the senior colleges;

• Expanding academic support for all students; and

• Working with the New York City high schools to improve preparation of future students and of teachers.

CUNY has set forth an ambitious agenda for the next four years. At least 50 percent of the new funds for programmatic initiatives will support access-related objectives, including academic and student support services, teacher education, and College Now.

My recommendation is based on our review of the Plan’s consistency with:

• CUNY’s statutory mission

• The requirements of § 6206 of Education Law

• The Statewide Plan for Higher Education

CUNY must monitor its progress in meeting its objectives, secure the necessary funding for full implementation, and make adjustments that the funding and performance results dictate.

I recommend the following action:

VOTED, that the long-range plan of The City University of New York

("CUNY"), entitled The City University of New York Master Plan 2000-

2004, be approved and incorporated into the statewide master plan for

higher education, subject to the following conditions:

1) The Chancellor will report to the Regents the actions the University will take to achieve the Plan’s objectives and to implement its initiatives within 60 days of the adoption of the annual CUNY budget.

2) CUNY must establish enrollment and academic performance targets for SEEK/CD students, ESL students and students with disabilities and provide these benchmarks to the Regents by January 1,2001.

This action does not supersede the Regents November 22, 1999, action authorizing CUNY to change its admissions policy by phasing out remedial education in its senior colleges, subject to the conditions enumerated in that action. The Regents scheduled action in 2002 on this issue may affect one or more components of the CUNY Master Plan 2000-2004. If this is the case, CUNY may be required to amend this Plan at that time.

****************************************************************************************************************

Commissioner’s Recommendation for Regents Action on The City University of New York Master Plan 2000-2004

As § 6206 of Education Law requires, the Trustees of The City University of New York adopted The City University of New York Master Plan 2000-2004 and sent it to the Regents for approval and inclusion in the Statewide Plan for Higher Education. Many people spoke about the Plan at the Regents hearing on September 6. I have considered and responded to their comments in developing this recommendation for a Regents decision.

I base my recommendation on the three questions that I believe should guide the Regents decision.

1. Is the Plan consistent with the University’s mission as defined in section 6201 of the statute?

2. Does the Plan include the elements required for such plans in section 6206 of the statute?

3. Will the Plan help achieve the goals of the Statewide Plan for Higher Education?

The recommended decision would not change the Regents November 22, 1999, vote on the master plan amendment concerning CUNY’s criteria for admission to baccalaureate programs.

Is the Plan consistent with the University’s mission?

The Legislature defined CUNY’s mission in § 6201 of the Education Law (Attachment A). Subdivision 2 of § 6201 provides:

2. The legislature intends that the city university of New York should be maintained as an independent system of higher education governed by its own board of trustees responsible for the governance, maintenance and development of both senior and community college units of the city university. The university must remain responsive to the needs of its urban setting and maintain its close articulation between senior and community college units. Where possible, governance and operation of senior and community colleges should be jointly conducted or conducted by similar procedures to maintain the university as an integrated system and to facilitate articulation between units.

Subdivision 3 of § 6201 states:

3.The legislature’s intent is that the city university be supported as an independent and integrated system of higher education on the assumption that the university will continue to maintain and expand its commitment to academic excellence and to the provision of equal access and opportunity for students, faculty and staff from all ethnic and racial groups and from both sexes.

The core of CUNY’s legislative mission is "its commitment to academic excellence and to the provision of equal access and opportunity for students, faculty and staff from all ethnic and racial groups and from both sexes." To provide equal access, the Plan identifies academic support initiatives for prospective students, enrolled students who need remedial education and students with academic deficiencies who enter the University through the SEEK and College Discovery programs.

For prospective students, College Now is a program of instruction in collaboration with the New York City Board of Education to improve students’ college preparation. CUNY plans to expand College Now over the period of the Plan to involve every CUNY unit and every public high school in the City, reaching 45,000 high school students by 2002-03. The College Now program will start with students as early as the ninth grade. Seventy percent of CUNY’s first-time freshmen are graduates of New York City high schools. The expansion of College Now is an important response to the University’s urban environment. The Plan proposes a four-year budget of $20 million to support this initiative.

For CUNY students with academic deficiencies, the University will expand its summer, weekend, and evening remediation programs such as Prelude to Success, Summer Immersion and Year-Round Immersion. In addition, CUNY’s Writing Across the Curriculum program is designed to improve all undergraduates’ writing. The Department will review these programs while monitoring the phase-out of remedial courses at the senior colleges. To support enrolled students, CUNY will continue and expand tutoring and supplemental instruction. Difficult academic courses will receive most of the supplemental instruction. The Plan includes a four-year enhancement of student counseling.

The SEEK and College Discovery programs will continue academic, financial aid, and student support. CUNY will attach supplemental instruction to more courses. It also will expand the services available during the pre-freshman summer program. CUNY has proposed a four-year budget of $28.7 million for additional academic services and $13.2 million for student support services.

Critics argued that standardized testing will reduce access to CUNY. They also point to the reduction of ESL students as a sign of reduced access. The effect of the University proficiency test and the assessment test for remediation will be included in our two-year monitoring of the phase-out of remediation in the senior colleges. With respect to ESL students, CUNY must improve its ability to serve these students. CUNY’s ESL Discipline Council will present recommendations to the Chancellor this fall to increase the enrollment of ESL students.

To develop academic excellence, the Plan establishes a five-year goal to increase the ratio of full-time to part-time faculty to 70:30. This year, CUNY allocated 150 new faculty lines across the University with 30 positions going to the flagship programs. Chancellor Goldstein reports that 80 percent of new positions "were dedicated to achieving 70/30 ratio." We will expect CUNY to report its success in meeting this goal in its 2002 Progress Report and in its 2004-2008 Master Plan.

The Plan also addresses excellence through a flagship concept to foster national prominence across campuses, in five areas: foreign languages, new media and computer science, photonics, structural biology, and teacher education. The University will provide facilities and recruit new faculty for each area. Using photonics as an example, the Plan describes how flagship programs will support economic development through job creation and assistance to new companies, attracting graduate students to CUNY, and influencing undergraduates to move into careers in these areas.

The Plan calls for a university-wide Honors College. Upper division students would have access to courses and faculty across the entire University. A cultural passport would give these students access to the City’s cultural, civic and governmental institutions. Admission to this program would be on the basis of SAT scores, high school averages, essays and interviews.

For each senior college, CUNY has instituted an application review committee. This committee of faculty and staff reviews the qualifications of applicants who do not meet the established admission criteria but demonstrate potential for success at a senior college. According to CUNY, the work of these committees this year "has yielded in excess of 1,000 positive actions" (i.e., admission to CUNY where students did not meet admission standards but were assessed as having the capacity for academic success). We will review how the committees’ work has affected student admissions.

The flagship program for teacher education is an important initiative to build both access and academic excellence for the K-16 educational system in New York City. CUNY provides the New York City Board of Education with a significant percentage of its teachers. Better quality teacher education programs and better-prepared teachers will improve the learning environment for the City’s one million school children. This program is consistent with the Regents teaching initiative "Teaching to Higher Standards: New York’s Commitment."

The Plan also responds to CUNY’s urban setting with outreach to public schools through such programs as College Now and workforce training programs at the community and senior colleges. The plan promises CUNY-wide discussion of liberal education, leading to compatible core curricula at each senior and community college. The State Learning Standards and Teacher Education Standards are among the documents to be used in this effort. We will ask CUNY to report on the development of core curricula in the 2002 Master Plan Progress Report.

The Plan would integrate the CUNY system by ensuring coursework transfer through the CUNY Transfer Information and Program Planning System (CUNY TIPPS). In April 2000, CUNY TIPPS provided current and potential students with a variety of online information. This information covered transfer policies, transfers from associate to baccalaureate programs, course equivalencies, guidance on making transfer decisions, hot links to CUNY college websites, and online applications. CUNY is exploring enhancements such as the transmission and evaluation of transcripts.

Critics have argued that many of these programs for academic excellence (i.e., flagship programs and honors college) are designed to benefit the few at the expense of the larger student population. I don’t agree. I believe that the allocation of financial resources between ensuring access and academic excellence is reasonable. I find the commitment to ensuring articulation between the requirements of the two and four year colleges to be an important safeguard to ensure that community college students can participate in baccalaureate programs.

In summary, I find CUNY’s Master Plan 2000-2004 to be consistent with the mission as stated in statute.

Does the Plan include all elements required by statute?

Section 6206 requires master plans to include these elements: plans for new curricula; plans for new facilities; plans for change in policies with respect to student admissions; potential student enrollments; comments upon CUNY’s relationship to other colleges and universities, public and private, within the state; and for informational purposes only, projection standards and overall expenditure projections of capital and operating costs.

I find that the CUNY Master Plan includes the elements required by Section 6206 of the Education Law.

Will the Plan help achieve the goals of the Statewide Plan for Higher Education?

The Statewide Plan for Higher Education includes three goals. They are:

Goal A. New York will provide quality higher education that equips New Yorkers with the knowledge and skills necessary to contribute to society, compete successfully in the work force, and appreciate life-long learning.

Goal B. New York will assure affordable and equitable access to a coordinated system of higher education.

Goal C. New York will provide a cost-effective system of quality higher education.

The Plan identifies a five-year goal to increase the ratio of full-time to part-time faculty to 70/30. It proposes development of flagship environments to foster national prominence in foreign languages, new media and computer science, photonics, structural biology, and teacher education. It calls for creation of a university-wide Honors College. These elements respond to Goal A.

The Plan proposes to expand College Now to involve every CUNY college and every public high school in the City, reaching 45,000 high school students by 2002-03. It calls for expansion of CUNY’s Prelude to Success and Summer Immersion and YearRound Immersion programs, providing instructional modules for students to complete remedial work and prepare for exit examinations. CUNY will attach supplemental

instruction to more courses. It also will continue to expand the services available during the pre-freshman summer program. CUNY’s Writing Across the Curriculum program is designed to improve all undergraduates’ writing. These elements respond to Goal B.

The Plan proposes to strengthen academic support systems. It calls for development of core curricula at each college, for public-private partnerships to assist with resources for the flagship priority areas, for coordinated plans for different campuses to contribute to and share in the flagship programs, and for technology plans. These elements respond to Goal C.

The CUNY Plan is consistent with the Statewide Plan’s three goals.

Accountability

CUNY has provided some benchmarks by which its success in meeting the Plan’s objectives can be assessed. The Plan includes four-year minimum targets for academic performance. For example, it projects one-year retention rates to rise from the current 82 percent to 88 percent by 2004 for regularly admitted first-time freshmen in baccalaureate programs (and from 66 percent to 72 percent for associate degree students). It projects transfers from associate to baccalaureate programs to rise from the current 19.5 percent to 25.5 percent. Pass rates on the Liberal Arts and Sciences Test of the State teacher examinations are projected to rise from 80 percent to 86 percent over the period of the Plan, and the job placement rate from vocational associate degree programs, from 80 percent to 83 percent.

In addition, CUNY set benchmarks for important indicators including the percentage of students successfully completing Summer Immersion, degree credits earned in the first year, and first-year grade point average. In addition to these indicators, I recommend that the Regents require CUNY to identify benchmarks for SEEK and College Discovery students, ESL students, and students with disabilities. We will ask CUNY to report in its 2002 Progress Report on the Master Plan its degree of success in attaining the Plan’s quantitative, financial, and qualitative objectives.

Issues Raised in the Public Hearing and Other Communications

More than 60 people presented their views at the September 6 public hearing on the CUNY Plan and we received written statements from more than 20 individuals. Those who spoke and wrote included Trustees, members of the central administration, faculty members and administrators from CUNY colleges, students, and other interested parties. In addition, Chancellor Goldstein responded to issues raised at the hearing in a letter on September 8. The Regents heard arguments in support and in opposition to the Plan. This section summarizes the main points in opposition.

Access to CUNY. Some said that CUNY’s admission and assessment plans would limit access for many among its traditional student pool. Phasing out remedial courses at the senior colleges, except for summer and intersession programs, continues to be a strong concern.

Comment. The Regents considered these concerns before they acted in November 1999 on CUNY’s Master Plan amendment. The Regents action requires CUNY to report in December 2001 on the effect of the change on access to baccalaureate programs. The report must include information about the effect on minority students; the effect on remedial efforts and on academic programs at senior and community colleges; and the effect of examinations used to assess student remediation needs. The 1999 action also requires the Department to provide for an audit of CUNY’s data, to send a team of consultants to CUNY in the 2000-01 academic year to examine the implementation of the change in admission requirements and its effects, and to monitor implementation. Thus, the effects of the Master Plan amendment will be assessed before the Regents make a decision concerning its continuance after 2002.

Use of Tests. Some speakers said CUNY’s plans to use tests to determine students’ readiness to exit from remedial programs would reduce access. They were concerned about CUNY’s reliance on standardized tests and about the validity and reliability of these tests.

Comment. We will address the effect of these tests as part of the Master Plan amendment monitoring.

Faculty Consultation. Several speakers said that consultation with the faculty as the Plan was drafted was insufficient. CUNY responded that the individual colleges’ five-year plans, from which the Plan was derived, were produced in full consultation with faculty and students. Chancellor Goldstein also said that the Long Range Planning Committee of the Board met with the chairs of the Faculty Senate and the Student Senate; and that members of the CUNY Central Administration met repeatedly with faculty groups and representatives as the Master Plan was developed.

Comment. The faculty and administration disagree on whether sufficient consultation took place. It appears that the administration sought faculty involvement in the development and formulation of the Plan, but did not seek formal faculty approval of the Plan before the Trustees acted on it.

There is no statutory provision requiring the CUNY Trustees to confer with the faculty or seek its approval before adopting its Master Plan. § 6206 of the Education Law, which sets forth CUNY’s master plan provisions, requires the Board to hold a public hearing before adopting the plan. The Trustees held a public hearing on May 15.

The bylaws of the CUNY Board of Trustees provide for the University Faculty Senate. The Senate is responsible for "the formulation of policy relating to the academic status, role, rights, and freedoms of the faculty, university-level educational and instructional matters, and research and scholarly activities of university-wide import." There is no other provision in the CUNY Trustees’ Bylaws requiring that the Trustees consult with the faculty or seek the faculty’s approval before adopting the Master Plan.

On February 2, Deputy Commissioner Patton wrote to Chancellor Goldstein concerning the need for CUNY to prepare a master plan. On February 22, CUNY Vice

Chancellor Mirrer wrote to the Chair of the University Faculty Senate to inform him that CUNY was obliged under Education Law to submit a master plan by June 1 and to seek the faculty’s participation. In a July 27 letter from Dr. Sohmer (Chair of the University Faculty Senate), he states that "The Master Plan was generated with little or no involvement of the faculty or legally extant governance bodies as required by the Board of Trustees’ Bylaws..."

CUNY has furnished lists of meetings in which Dr. Mirrer and members of her staff participated that related to the Master Plan. These meetings began early in the fall 1999 term and continued into May 2000. According to CUNY, "the Master Plan reinforced the themes in the University Budget Request which had been prepared in the early Fall. These themes were University priorities and were discussed with groups of faculty as well as with the Presidents and Chief Academic Officers of the colleges throughout the year."

Dr. Mirrer has stated that, "on April 28, I provided Trustee Sohmer a copy of the programmatic portion of the Master Plan, which contained submissions from all college presidents. Although the introductory section was not available at that time, there were few changes subsequently in the main body of the Plan." Staff has reviewed the college plans submitted by the presidents. They are consistent with the Master Plan’s major themes.

Given the efforts that CUNY has made and the absence of a statutory requirement on consultation, I find no basis here to reject CUNY’s Plan. The statements made at the public hearing by members of the administration and members of the faculty indicate strong disagreements about the scope and depth of the consultation. This is a matter for the University community as a whole to address, and should not affect the Regents decision.

Resources. Some speakers said that CUNY was not requesting sufficient funds from the State and the City to carry out its plans, especially for faculty hiring and development of the flagship initiatives. Some speakers also said that CUNY had not stated its priorities should funding prove insufficient to carry out all parts of the Plan. Some said that CUNY should hire faculty in all disciplines instead of cluster hiring for the flagship environments.

Comment. According to the Plan, to achieve its goals and objectives will require an additional $141.1 million in programmatic support over the next four years, an average annual growth rate of 2.6 percent. Inflation and other mandatory cost increases (excluding future collective bargaining requirements) are projected to bring the total operating budget increase to $235.4 million, an average annual growth rate of 4.4 percent.

The Plan gives priority to hiring faculty members for the flagship environment disciplines, but it does not preclude hiring additional faculty in other disciplines. This year, for example, of 150 new faculty lines, only 30 were used for programs in the flagship environments.

Once the Trustees commit to the Plan and if the Regents should approve it, the reasonable expectation is that the University will do everything possible to follow through. I suggest that there is no need to add conditions concerning the outcome of a particular budget season.

Delaying Regents Action. Many urged the Regents to delay action on the Plan. Time for faculty and student consultation and additional time to assess the results of the new admission requirements by analyzing the fall 2000 enrollment data were the central issues.

Comment. I have already addressed the consultation issue. Many presenters at the Regents public hearing wanted the Regents to disapprove the Plan based on the effect of the new admission requirements. They requested a 90 day delay to analyze the fall 2000 enrollment figures. In a September ₈th letter to the Board, Chancellor Goldstein states that the Regents approval in November 1999 of the Master Plan amendment "has not resulted in noticeable changes in CUNY’s enrollment patterns." I do not recommend that the Regents base their decision on the fall enrollment figures. Here are the reasons.

As part of the Regents November 22, 1999 action on the CUNY Master Plan amendment relating to remediation, an extensive data reporting requirement was established to monitor its implementation. Between June 1, 2000 and November 15, 2002, CUNY will provide data to the Department on nine separate occasions. CUNY’s data submission in conjunction with on-site monitoring will evaluate the consequences of the Master Plan amendment on the University so the Regents may act on the matter at their December 2002 meeting. Preliminary fall 2000 enrollment data will be available in late October, with additional data on ethnicity and testing available by the end of December. However, the Regents have already established a timetable for the overall assessment of the change in admissions policy by phasing-out remedial education at the senior colleges. Using only the fall 2000 enrollment data to assess this impact would alter the Regents November 22, 1999 action. Furthermore, using data for only one semester will not provide CUNY a reasonable period to implement this change and make any necessary adjustments. I urge the Regents to maintain the existing timetable for assessing the phase-out in remediation at the senior colleges. I also recommend that the Regents decide the matter of the Master Plan with the information they now have before them.

Conclusion

The City University of New York Master Plan 2000 — 2004 is consistent with the University’s mission. The Plan includes all elements required by statute. And the Plan would help achieve the goals of the Statewide Plan for Higher Education. I recommend that the Regents approve the Plan.

Attachment A

§ 6201 EDUCATION LAW

Title 7

§ 6201. Legislative findings and intent

1. The legislature finds that in order to meet the state’s responsibility to provide post-secondary education in New York city beyond the associate degree level, as it does elsewhere in the state, there should be full state funding of senior college operating and debt service. The governance of the university must reflect in. creased state responsibility but should preserve the city’s participation in the governance of the university it created and developed at city expense.

2. The legislature intends that the city university of New York should be maintained as an independent system of higher education governed by its own board of trustees responsible for the governance, maintenance and development of both senior and community college units of the city university. The university must remain responsive to the needs of its urban setting and maintain its close articulation between senior and community college units. Where possible, governance and operation of senior and community colleges should be jointly conducted or conducted by similar procedures to maintain the university as an integrated system and to facilitate articulation between units.

3. The legislature’s intent is that the city university be supported as an independent and integrated system of higher education on the assumption that the university will continue to maintain and expand its commitment to academic excellence and to the provision of equal access and opportunity for students, faculty and staff from all ethnic and racial groups and from both sexes.

4. The city university is of vital importance as a vehicle for the upward mobility of the disadvantaged in the city of New York. The pioneering effoi¼s of the SEEK and College Discovery programs must not be diminished as a result of greater state financial responsibility for the operation of the city and state of New York.

5. Only the strongest commitment to the special needs of an urban constituency justifies the legislature’s support of an independent and unique structure for the university. Activities at the city university campuses must be undertaken in a spirit which recognizes and responds to the imperative need for affirmative action and the positive desire to have city university personnel reflect the diverse communities which comprise the people of the city and state of New York. in its urban environment this commitment should be evident in all the guidelines established by the board of trustees for the university’s operation, from admissions and hiring to contracting for the provision of goods, services, new construction and facilities rehabilitation.