November 21, 2000 

a. Resolution Rejecting Annual Presidential Reviews of Department Chairs: Proposed by the Executive Committee, this resolution was adopted unanimously: [In addition All college councils except Baruch’s have so far adopted some version of this resolution as of November 21, 2000. Also, the Executive Committee of the CUNY Association of Scholars, and the UFS Council of Faculty Governance Leaders (comprises top elected faculty leaders from all CUNY campuses]

Whereas, the Chancellor has mandated that college presidents commence an annual formal performance review of faculty members serving as department chairpersons qua department chairpersons, and

Whereas, faculty members who are serving as elected departmental chairpersons are not managerial personnel who report directly to the president, and

Whereas, the Chancellor’s mandate requiring that department chairpersons "be responsive to College and University goals and initiatives" clearly threatens to compromise academic freedom, and

Whereas, since 1938 faculty at Hunter, City, and Brooklyn Colleges* have elected their chairpersons, and the chairpersons are subject to triennial review by their departments which has served sufficiently as the means by which their performance is evaluated, and

Whereas, procedures already exist which enable presidents to reject the results of a departmental election for chair or to remove a chair,

Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the University Faculty Senate condemns this assault on faculty governance, and

Be It Further Resolved, that the University Faculty Senate calls upon the Chancellor immediately to withdraw this initiative, and

Be It Further Resolved, that the University Faculty Senate requests each college council formally to endorse this resolution, and

Be It Finally Resolved, that the University Faculty Senate urges the faculty, by a vote at the next scheduled department meeting, to support department chairpersons in resisting this proposed practice and to refuse cooperation in its implementation.

* The policy has been universally extended to colleges since then.

b. Resolution on Proposed Pre-College Basic Skills Pilot Programs: The resolution was proposed by the Executive Committee and was approved unanimously:

Whereas, research and experience have amply demonstrated the success of remedial courses offered in college programs and taught by college faculty, and

Whereas, research has shown that students in need of basic skills instruction required for successful college study strengthen these skills most effectively in the context of college study, taking college level courses, taught by college faculty, in a college environment, and

Whereas, the transfer of remedial courses and programs away from the academic divisions could limit the ability of those divisions to provide integrated academic content in CUNY’s community colleges and senior colleges with associate degree programs, and

Whereas, the removal of such courses and programs from the academic divisions deprives students of instruction by the highly qualified, expert professional faculty of the academic divisions, and

Whereas, instituting Pre-College Basic Skills Programs threatens to further erode the policy of Open Admissions and its historic tenet of democratic access to public higher education, and

Be it resolved, that the University Faculty Senate urges the continued support of remedial courses and programs within the academic divisions of the colleges and opposes establishment of the proposed pilot programs to be offered through divisions of continuing education.

c. Report/Recommendations on Electronic Scholarship: Presented to the Plenary by UFS Status of the Faculty Committee, the recommendations were received:

November 21, 2000

a. Chair: [See New Business items below]

b. Executive Vice Chancellor Louise Mirrer: I’m very pleased to be here. I’m sorry that Chancellor Goldstein couldn’t make it this evening. He went to Albany this morning to meet with some of the leadership who will hopefully will be helpful to us in moving our budget request along. I’ve spoken with him a few times during the day. He’s had very good positive meetings, so I think it is worth his while to have missed this gathering. I know that he would have otherwise wanted to be here. Let’s hope that it is worth all our while.

As you know, the budget request was approved yesterday by the Board of Trustees. We are very hopeful that we will be successful in having some relief provided to us, because the University obviously has some tremendous needs. I’d like to point out that Vice Chancellor Frederick Shaffer is here with me. When you have questions, he may want to answer some of them, depending on their nature. He’s been very involved with some of the issues that I think you may have some questions, concerns, or comments about. I’d like to just make a few comments and then will invite your questions and try to answer them. I know that you have a panel to talk about testing on the agenda this evening. I know that testing has been an area of great concern to many of you in this room, and to others throughout the University.

I want to say, first of all, that I also am very concerned about moving forward with a very large and new assessment program with high stakes for all of us, but particularly for students. However, as you know, our Board of Trustees approved a set of resolutions that requires the implementation of a particular set of tests. We must move forward with it. I don’t think this is the moment to debate issues that were resolved some time ago. I think that we have to move forward in a way that advantages our students, is fair to our students, and enables them to be as successful as they can be. I hope that your panel discussion is a productive discussion about moving forward, rather than a rehearsal of arguments. I think these issues were resolved when the Board of Trustees approved the various resolutions. Dr. Donna Morgan is here from my office to participate in the panel and be a resource.

I’d just like to introduce a few issues that we’re looking at, both in the domain of testing, and beyond. One of them has to do with ESL students at this University. As you know, there has been a great deal of concern about the ability of the University to be as hospitable as possible to the large immigrant population in NYC. I have been working since last spring with the ESL Discipline Council. Actually, I’ve been working with them since I came to CUNY. I’ve been working with them in a much more focused way since last spring to try to determine the reasons why some of our colleges have had declining ESL enrollments. David Crook has been very helpful in providing data to that group. The group did provide me with a set of recommendations for improving the way in which we admit ESL students, and the ways in which ESL students are dealt with in terms of course work and requirements demanded of them. I have the set of recommendations.

I will shortly meet with the ESL Discipline Council. It is my intention to place these issues on the agenda for January. I think that we will really want to review some of the policies that have been implemented to this point that have affected ESL students. I know that the Chancellor’s expectation is that the Board will be agreeable to reviewing some policies that may have had some effects that have caused concern, and re-thinking them. We also have concerns about the assessment of ESL students. Some of you may share those concerns. We need to be extremely careful as we move forward with assessment instruments. We are piloting an ESL instrument right now. We really do need to think quite carefully about the assessment of ESL students, since that accounts for a very large percentage of our population.

Another area that I know some of you have expressed interest in is where we are with the RFP for year-round basic skills immersion programs. We expect to make a decision about having two pilots. They were incorporated into our Master Amendment, which was approved by the Board of Regents. They were intended primarily as an analog to College Now, which would be outreach to adult students. It would enable adult students to master some basic skills any time during the year. They would not be confined to the particular dimensions of our winter and summer immersion programs. I’d like to reassure you that these year-round immersion programs are not meant in any way, shape, or form, to undercut any of the basic skills work that is done at our community colleges. At this point we are expected and required by the State Education Department and the Board of Regents to move forward with the year-round immersion pilots. They will expect to collect data on student performance. The Board of Regents will be reviewing the Master Plan Amendment in a couple of years. The data collection is important in our success with students in this particular modality.

I’d like to mention another issue that I know was on the last CAPPR agenda. It was the establishment of core curricula throughout the University. Those of you who were at the CAPPR meeting know that the Board members expressed satisfaction with the scope, breadth, and depth of the curricular offerings at our senior colleges. They asked for similar information on the community colleges, which we will provide them with. I believe that there will be a productive discussion that will emanate from the conference that the UFS is planning. I will invite any questions that you have.

Professor Greenbaum (History, Queensborough Community College) – "My question has to do with the American History curriculum. I have read your statement on it, which seems to indicate that the Graduate School should put together a uniform course in American History. The historians led by the Graduate School said that they would rather put together resources for people to drawn upon. I would like to know where we stand." / Vice Chancellor Mirrer – The latter is true. I think that the confusion was caused by a model that was drafted. I actually asked David Nasaw permission to circulate that. He gave it to me without realizing what that actually meant. The intention is to foster a discussion, and to perhaps create some interesting modules that don’t currently exist at the University. I know the American Social History Project is going to be a participant in whatever we do. I don’t know what we will do. I think that this is an experiment to see if we can come up with some interesting modules to have on loan across the University. There is no uniform curriculum. There was never any intention to have any uniform curriculum. / Professor Greenbaum – "I think part of the problem is the use of the term ‘module.’ It seems to indicate that certain things have to be done." / Vice Chancellor Mirrer – No, not at all. What possibly could be envisaged would be a visual arts segment, for example. It could be used around the University.

Professor Crain (Psychology, City College) – "When I was an undergraduate and graduate student in psychology, we learned that you never go forward with high stakes tests, unless you have firm data on the reliability and validity of the test. I’ve seen no data on the reliability and validity of the tests, certainly not at the City University. The only fair and productive way to proceed would be to gather this data before going ahead. If the Board of Trustees want to do it one way, our responsibility is to say that this is not a fair and appropriate way to proceed." / Vice Chancellor Mirrer – We have had pilots. We have been pilot testing for a good long time. I want to say that we are going to administer the test. I think you all know that there are certain data that are difficult to gather unless one administers the test for real. We will not move forward with consequences of that test which are either determined by ourselves, or by the ACT, to be inappropriate consequences. The ACT have been our partners. We will look very carefully at the results of this first administration.

Professor O’Malley (English, Kingsborough Community College) – "My question is about the RFP for the Pre-College Basic Skills Program. Initially, it was to be for students over 25, who had failed the three tests. Suddenly, it looks like it is recent high school graduates, not older students. It is now for people who failed two of the tests." / Vice Chancellor Mirrer – There have been two RFPs. This one is not focused on recent high school graduates. It is focused on students who have had difficulty passing more than one of our assessment instruments. There have been two RFPs. The first RFP was, as I’m sure you remember, a result of a mandate of our Board to have a pilot outsourcing some aspect of our remedial instruction. We produced an RFP that was very carefully constructed to focus on adult students who had failed three exams. We had two vendors bid on the RFP, and neither of them responded to the RFP in a way that qualified them. Because of this, we didn’t go forward with either of the outside external vendors that actually bid. This RFP we are attaching to our Master Plan Amendment. It promised that we would develop a range of interventions to help students with basic skills needs. It was so that they would be more advantaged in terms of gaining admission to our senior colleges that were phasing out remediation. It will also advantage them in general, in making progress in basic skills available anywhere in the University.

Professor Wallach (Political Science, Hunter College) – "I have two brief questions. One of them is occasioned by Bill Crain’s remarks. I take it from your response that you understand the administration of the test for all CUNY students to be based on something more than the idea of throwing the students in the water and seeing if they will swim. What are we to rely on to believe that this is the case, rather than throwing them in the water to see whether or not they will swim? Is it the pilot programs, or is it something else?" /

Vice Chancellor Mirrer – There are two things. One is that we’ve piloted the exam. Two is that the particular exam that we are using is not an exam unique to CUNY. It has been used elsewhere. There is a body of evidence about student performance on this particular exam design that has been used to inform us about going forward. I’d just like to say, for those of you who actually recall, the decision was to postpone introducing this exam for real until we piloted it sufficiently. We wanted to feel comfortable administering the exam for real. I want to say that we are going to look very carefully at the results of the exam when it is administered for real. We are going to be very careful about moving forward from there. / Professor Wallach – "Will the faculty be involved in this evaluation?" /

Vice Chancellor Mirrer – The faculty have been involved throughout. The faculty will continue to be involved in the evaluation. I think you have concerned people in the administration who feel the weight of responsibility very strongly. I know the Chancellor would be very concerned about moving forward with any instrument that he didn’t feel confident about. /

Professor Wallach – "My second question is derived from a concern that I expressed at one of the meetings of the Academic Policy Committee. At that time I was day-dreaming about where core curriculum proposals might go. I thought, "Well, the next thing you know, what they will require among the social sciences is Economics." Then it was perhaps less than two weeks later when Chair Badillo mentioned, "Gee, maybe Economics should be used in addition to U.S. History. I wondered if you could comment on whether this was more than an off-hand, knee-jerk, or other body-part movement on the part of the Chair, or does this indicate that there is going to be a serious movement to include Economics as part of the core?" /

Vice Chancellor Mirrer – Three years ago, the Empire State Foundation did a survey of general education requirements at CUNY and SUNY. They then did a report, one for CUNY, and one for SUNY. Curiously enough, CUNY was reprimanded in that report for not requiring Economics. I say ‘curiously’ because they did the same report for SUNY, which also doesn’t have a uniform requirement of Economics. However that wasn’t one of the things that they criticized about SUNY. At that time we, as a University, reacted rather strongly in opposition to the report that was issued about CUNY. First of all, it was full of inaccuracies. In particular, we were asked about the Economics requirement. The Chancellor, who was then the President of Baruch College, was asked the question as well. Neither of us felt that that was a fair criticism. Were you at the CAPPR meeting? Or did you just here about it? / Professor Wallach – "No." /

Vice Chancellor Mirrer – I responded to the question about Economics. I said that Economics is embedded into 90% of the course work that is offered in any institution of higher education in one way or another. Even in my own field of Medieval Literature, people talk about the importance of Economics. I didn’t sense any huge appetite for requiring Economics. I think that is the short answer. Frankly, I don’t believe that the Board is about to require Economics of every CUNY student. / Professor Wallach – "I hope that in your august position, that you will not increase the appetite of the Board." / Vice Chancellor Mirrer – I don’t think you can accuse me of that.

Professor Friedman (Developmental Skills, Borough of Manhattan Community College) – "Vice Chancellor, my question is also about the RFP for Basic Skills. You used the phrase that these programs would be a kind of analog to College Now. Maybe I can get some clarification of a statement made on page three. It says, "each college will be responsible for designating an appropriate entity, such as an academic department, a division of continuing education, or a special program, for the responsibility of organizing and operating the program." Does that organizing and operating of the program include teaching in the program?" / Vice Chancellor Mirrer – Yes, it does. / Professor Friedman – "So if an Academic Skills Department, for example, wanted to bid for this RFP, would there be money available to pay our instructors and professors at the regular adjunct rate?" / Vice Chancellor Mirrer – There is a dollar figure attached to the program. It would have to be demonstrated in response to the RFP that you could pay whatever salaries you are anticipating. This is in addition to doing what you are suppose to do in response to the RFP while staying within budget. / Professor Friedman – "So it would be possible." / Vice Chancellor Mirrer – It would be possible if you could budget it.

Professor Richter (English, Kingsborough Community College) – "This question is also about the RFP. I know that at the moment the RFP calls for two pilot projects. Presumably one is for a senior college and one is for a community college." / Vice Chancellor Mirrer – It could be, but not necessarily. / Professor Richter – "You alluded to the fact that it might actually increase the number of students at the senior colleges by giving them a chance at some remediation. However, if these programs proliferate within the entire University to all of the senior and community colleges, do you have any projections about the impact that this might have upon enrollment and retention at the community colleges?" /

Vice Chancellor Mirrer – I don’t see this proliferating around the University. It is not anticipated at the moment. It is not seen as an outreach program that is going to be gobbling up potential enrollees at our community colleges. You would certainly be the first one to know it. I think that students enroll in a community college or a senior college in order to follow a package of courses that includes at the community colleges some basic skills instruction in some credit bearing courses. Students who enroll in a degree program want to make progress toward their degree. They want to be in a community of students who are doing the same things that they are doing. I think that this is not a program that is going to mimic in any way, that kind of context for students. What I would envisage as a candidate for this program would be a student who is not ready to make the time commitment to enrollment at the moment. I think that it will potentially help them to make progress. I really don’t see this as an option over enrolling at a community college at this University.

Professor Cooper (English, York College) – "Every test or examination has two parts. There is the student part, and the grader part. Our experience with the now defunct WAT, the CUNY Writing Assessment Test, indicates that over the last four years or so, the students have done their part, pretty much the same way that they had always done it. However, the graders that were re-certified in the last four years were asked to do their part slightly differently. They were asked to find acceptable features of writing that were not previously found acceptable. Last night the Chairman of the Board congratulated the Board in ending the meeting with the great success that we have had in moving away from remediation at the senior colleges, and toward the halcyon days of yore. The reports from those who have been allowed to have some kind of orientation by the ACT people indicate that, in their opinion, the standard for the ACT that we will be using is even lower than the recent standards for the WAT. It would seem that while we are congratulating ourselves in eliminating the need for remediation, we are continuing to accept students who have that need, but we can no longer provide it at the senior colleges in the classroom. The Chancellor has said that we should manage that through other programs within the college. The WAC will be one, writing labs and centers will be another. What is the Chancellery doing in Albany to get the very sizeable budget it would need to serve those students?" /

Vice Chancellor Mirrer – First of all I want to disagree with the statement that the ACT is introducing lower standards than the WAT or any other assessment instrument that we use. I don’t believe that that is the case. I do believe that the time was right to look carefully at the standards that we are using at this University to make determinations about students’ educational careers. I think we’ve done that. You may know that last year the Chancellor made a very big push in Albany and in the City to get resources for academic support services. By academic support services, he meant things like tutoring, counseling, writing across the curriculum programs, etc. We got $7 million, which was truly a major achievement. We’ve asked for an increase. We expect to have a significant increase next year in the dollars. What do we want to do with the dollars? A lot of the money was shipped out to the colleges in response to their submission of plans for how they would use funds for academic support. All of the colleges got exactly the budgets that they requested for their Writing Across the Curriculum Programs. We got significant amounts of dollars for that. If we are successful in Albany this year, we expect to double the size of that program. From what we have heard so far, the program has made a difference. In response to your question, we did get funds last year, and we hope to get more funds this year. /

Professor Cooper – "Is there careful monitoring of the campuses to make sure that the money is spent as allocated?" / Vice Chancellor Mirrer – Donna Morgan is here, and she monitors very closely the coordinated Freshman Year Programs. Each of the campuses submits plans, and in advance of going forward those plans are approved with modifications. Next, the successive students are monitored by David Crook’s data on student progress. This helps us understand what particular interventions may have been helpful with particular groups of students.

Professor Bohigian (Mathematics, John Jay College) – "I had a student come to me today for a recommendation. He works for the city. He brought to my attention something that I was not aware of, which I would like to bring to your attention. I am reading from a document, "the Mayor’s Graduate Scholarship Program is a challenging opportunity for full-time city employees, and full-time city per-diem employees, who are considering undertaking graduate study. Through the generosity of the New York City area colleges and universities, and in full cooperation with the City of New York Department of City-Wide Administrative Services, full and partial scholarships are offered for graduate study in the areas of business, public administration, public policy analysis, computer science, law, engineering, and other management related programs. I bring this to your attention because there is only one CUNY college mentioned here. This is another indication, in my opinion, of the Mayor’s downgrading of CUNY. It shows his preference of privates over publics." / Vice Chancellor Mirrer – I am aware of this. We have questioned the exclusion of a number of our colleges that should be on the list. This will remind me to follow up and see what’s happening.

Professor Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) – "Obviously this entire collection of tests, new systems, and new vendors that has been introduced is a reflection of some kind of dissatisfaction with the previous testing practices in this University. Those previous procedures have had a 30 year track record which has been traced with some kind of success. This is the case, unless we disbelieve everything David Lavin and others have published. I was wondering whether you have begun to think about what procedures are going to be put into place to see whether or not this brand new collection of exams, barriers, and measurements is valid. The kind of question that Alan Cooper raised is being raised all over the place now. Some of us have anecdotal evidence that in the last year, despite the rhetoric about higher standards, fewer students are getting through junior and senior courses with good writing skills. There are many people who are unhappy about the fact that they cannot teach the kind of math that the students need to get through economics, where it exists. Those of us who are going to be held accountable for the students’ passing the Liberal Arts and Science Test of the State Certification Exam, as well as the presidents who are going to be held accountable for retention and productivity, have a right to know whether or not these new things are going to work. If they aren’t going to work, we have to know fast. We need to know what kind of medical treatment can be quickly introduced, without waiting for the HMO to approve the cure." /

Vice Chancellor Mirrer – "I know that when we introduced a couple of surrogates for the CUNY WAT, the DTLS, and the Math Assessment Test, there was a lot of concern that the students who performed at the required level on the SATs were less qualified than those who passed our test. David Crook has looked at the data and followed the progress and performance of those students. I am happy to share the data with you, but you will discover that those students performed just as well or slightly better than the others. I think that we need to separate facts from fears. One of the elements of the RFP that we issued, in response to which we contracted with the ACT, was that they would do a longitudinal study with us. We are going to do a longitudinal study in order to track student performance in first year courses and beyond. We will match that with performance on the new set of exams. I think that’s responsible, and that’s what we have to do. I would be absolutely pleased to share all of the data with you.

Professor Young (English, Borough of Manhattan Community College) – "I have two related questions. One has to do with the new requirement that students pass the ACT Writing Test as well as the Reading Test in order to take Composition 1 on any campus, including the community colleges. Evidently, however, this double whammy is not required for taking subject courses such as sociology, or any other courses that might involve writing skills. A lot of students are going to put off taking English 100 until after they take their remedial treatment, if they have to pass both the Reading and Writing tests. We have students in our college who are taking Reading after having 40 credits of other courses under their belts. I am really puzzled as to why there is a stringent requirement for taking a Composition course, but not for taking other subject courses, at least in the community colleges." /

Vice Chancellor Mirrer – It was my sense that the faculty involved in both the English Composition courses, and in Reading and Writing remedial and developmental instruction, felt very strongly that in order to enter Composition students should have achieved a certain level of competence in Reading as well as Writing. / Professor Young – "But not in the subject courses?" / Vice Chancellor Mirrer – Colleges can establish their own pre-requisites for taking whatever courses they want. If a given college wants to establish as a pre-requisite the completion of basic skills in X, Y, and Z, before moving onto a course in History, that would be the prerogative of the college. /

Professor Young – That leads to my second question. Local control has largely been taken away from the community colleges in terms of the exit requirements for remediation in writing. I don’t know about other subjects. I know that at Kingsborough and LaGuardia, the practice was that the students take a teacher or department designed test, before they were even allowed to take the exit exam from writing remediation. Under the current system that will no longer be permitted. Under the current system, any student must be permitted to take the exit exam. We were told that you can give a failing grade to the student, or a passing grade; they just can’t take Composition 1. Realistically speaking, most of us agree that that is ridiculous. Why would you give a passing grade to a student if the student can’t progress? What does it mean to give a satisfactory grade to a student when they can’t in fact go on to Composition 1? There seems to be a kind of control factor here which is disturbing the culture of many English departments. These departments were really geared to making sure that students who went onto Composition 1 were really competent." /

Vice Chancellor – This is a Board Resolution. It was approved by our Board of Trustees. It is not up to me to say that there should be or shouldn’t be an exit from a remediation exam at this point. Our Board of Trustees has the right and the prerogative to mandate such things, and it did. My view is that we need to move forward productively. We need to make sure that the students are advantaged, not disadvantaged by arguments with a resolution that was approved more than a year ago. / Professor Young – "To say that just because it was approved, means that it was right…" / Vice Chancellor Mirrer – I didn’t say that. It is not my job to evaluate a resolution that the Board approves. It is my job to implement it in a way that is as fair as possible to students. Frankly, that is what I am trying to do. / Professor Young – "As faculty we also have the responsibility to question things that we think aren’t right." / Vice Chancellor Mirrer – I have no argument with that whatsoever.

Professor Philipp (Biology & Chemistry, The Graduate Center) – "I understand that Mr. Badillo said that the achievement level of our incoming students is higher. Is there any data to support that? I ask that because I certainly do not sense that in my classes, particularly in math skills." / Vice Chancellor Mirrer – I can’t recall exactly what he said about the level of achievement of our incoming students. We have provided data on the number of academic units completed in pre-collegiate work and various other indices that we use to measure the level of preparation. / Professor Philipp – "The tutoring program that you describe coming from the city, does that include tutoring for basic mathematic skills?" / Vice Chancellor Mirrer – I’m not sure what you are referring to. / Professor Philipp – "You mentioned a program that came from the city that provided funds for enrichment, tutoring, etc." / Vice Chancellor Mirrer – It actually came from the State. Each of the colleges was asked to submit proposals describing ways in which they wanted to provide those kind of services to students. Most if not all of them had tutoring in the mix. / Professor Philipp – "Was there a program to let students from certain labor unions come into the University without entrance exams? Or is this a false rumor?" / Vice Chancellor Mirrer – It is totally false.

Professor Baumrin (Philosophy, The Graduate Center) – "In response to Professor Alan Cooper, you indicated that $7 million had been allocated and distributed to the campuses. This could mean as many as 7 lines per campus." / Vice Chancellor Mirrer – There weren’t faculty lines distributed. / Professor Baumrin – "At the Budget Advisory Committee we often look at lump sum distributions. Sometimes we like to find out what they were actually distributed for. Since this is for instructional activity, I would like your office to supply to Professor Sohmer a list of how much was actually spent on each campus. We will then see if it had any effect. In my very narrow experience, I have seen no trace of this $7 million." / Vice Chancellor Mirrer – The Budget Office actually has all of that information which was supplied by my office. I would be happy to supply it to Professor Sohmer.

Professor Crain (Psychology, City College) – "Dr. Mirrer, to say that this is a nationally recognized test, the ACT, like the SAT, is extremely controversial. It is probably discriminatory toward women and people of color, as well as financially disadvantaged people. Secondly, we should have had all the data on reliability and validity to go over as colleagues. We should be able to make this assessment. For us to not have this data is an outrage." / Vice Chancellor Mirrer – We have actually been sharing the data. There have been reports provided to the chief academic officers of the colleges. I think that we have piloted the exam very responsibly. There has been a committee, which has been reviewing the data. The committee is representative of the various constituent parts of the University. / Professor Crain – "To say this is the Board of Trustees plan, and not the Chancellery’s plan.." / Vice Chancellor Mirrer – I didn’t say that. I said that it was a Board of Trustees resolution. / Professor Crain – "You lobbied with the Regents twice, as if this was the greatest things since sliced bread, these tests. It is not right to put it off on the Board." / Vice Chancellor Mirrer – I think that the lobbying effort was part of plan to move forward after the Board of Trustees had approved a set of Resolutions.

Professor Kaplowitz (English, John Jay College) – "In the budget request, the part about the library needs in the University seemed to focus on on-line resources. Since that budget request document was issued and passed, I’ve had an opportunity to talk to various librarians around the University. It seems that the cost of these on-line resources is so high that the colleges are finding themselves with fewer resources to buy monographs and to keep their collections up to date. They do not have funding to acquire books and other kinds of materials that libraries require. I would like to ask you if we could address that, both from an academic part and from a budget part. The chart in the budget request about inflation and the real dollar drop was very helpful. However it didn’t really address the acquisition of monographs and other materials." /

Vice Chancellor Mirrer – I have no problem whatsoever supporting the acquisition of books. There are several particular reasons why the budget request was developed in the way it was. It was a huge request for library resources. I think it would make a very big difference. I think the on-line resources will be useful to many of our campuses that have run out of space, or do not have sufficient space for more books. It should free up some space. I think our students everywhere like the capability of working with the on-line resources. I think we owe it to them to be like every other institution and have those resources available to them. I’m sure you know that I would be the last person on earth to see any problem with acquiring books. / Chair Sohmer – I think we can ask our library committee to write an analytical statement.

Professor Gallagher (English, LaGuardia Community College) – "I just wanted to add a little piece of information to this debate about the ACT Test and standards. As you may know, at LaGuardia we never used the WAT Test as an exit test from remediation in writing. I think we are the only branch that never did that. However, several branches were following our lead in the last couple of years. I can assure you, there is absolutely no doubt, based on everything we have heard about how the ACT Test will be scored, it will be scored much more easily than the exit exam we have had for about a quarter of a century. We are very worried about this. We think that students who get through the ACT test with these standards simply will not be ready to take our Composition course." / Vice Chancellor Mirrer – As I said before, we are going to monitor the progress of students very carefully and very closely. We will be in a position to know that, which we aren’t right now.

Professor Beaky (English, LaGuardia Community College) – "I want to make a variety of observations from what I’ve heard about the ACT, and some from my recent experience in a training session. The first thing I want to say is that I do not want to be unproductive. However, we have to understand that the ACT test’s being nationally normed was a political demand, not an educational one. The requirement that it be nationally normed is at the root of all of our problems. Yes, we are stuck with it for the moment. But that doesn’t make it valid. That test is an invalid test. I’ll refer you to the Minutes of September 26^th. On pages 8-9, there is a statement from Jane Young about how the ACT standards are being lowered. There is also a statement from Chancellor Goldstein about how this is a nationally normed test with a lot of historical data about how it performs. From Vice Chancellor Mirrer, there is a statement about how the setting of equivalencies was done on the basis of data. Chancellor Goldstein said, "Any data that you want, you will get." We heard some requests today for data.

There was a pilot, which ran during the spring from March to May. Then there was a standard setting committee composed of some faculty and some administrators. I can tell you from what I hear -- I was not there -- that the CUNY results of that pilot and the ACT data on which the standards were based, was confiscated. The people who were at the standards setting meeting had to sign statements swearing that they would not release any of that information. So far as I know, they have not done so. If this can be released to those of us who were not there, that would be a good thing. I was told that the information could not be released; that it was confidential. This was at the direction of ACT. They set the standards. Now we have the new standards.

I was at the reader training session on November 10^th. We were also told that there was a great deal of information that we could not release. I was told to turn over to them, before I left the room, the notes that I took during the discussion. We had to sign a book. We were allowed to take away with us two pieces of information that you have in your handouts. One of them is the ACT scoring scale. Another is "Considerations When Rating English as a Second Language Writing." That is two pages. Both of those are very interesting. There are a number of us who think that the standards indeed are being lowered for the students who are going to be writing these essays. We were told that standards were being re-balanced concerning language features.

Over the years, with the CWAT, there had been too much focus on language features, i.e., "grammar." We were now moving away from such an emphasis on that. There is a very nice list of ESL errors listed. They are described as "local" versus "global." Local errors, unless there are so many of them, are to be de-emphasized. What this means is that it is possible for a student coming in with ESL problems not to ever take ESL courses or remedial courses. They could go directly into English 101. Since the passing grade on the Writing Test is a 7, you could pass if one person gives you a 3 and one person gives you a 4. You should read what constitutes a 3 and a 4 in these scoring scales. English types pay a lot of attention to the adjectives and the adverbs here, how many of what, how intense, the number of errors, etc. A 3 is considered adequate. There may be numerous errors in that paper. There may be only a little elaboration or explanation and the student will be given a 3. If one person gives it a 3, but somebody else gives it a 4 -- the score for some elaboration or explanation -- the student will pass. That student will go into English 101. You can get a 5 with moderate elaboration, with a few errors. We were told that just because a paper isn’t perfect or fabulous, doesn’t mean that it can’t be a 5 or a 6.

On the sheet titled "Standards and Placement," it is my understanding that this particular recommendation I am going to cite did not come from the advisory committee of faculty. It is suggested that a paper with a combined score of 10-12 could perhaps be exempted from English 101. Such a student, who has written an adequate, 60-minute essay, would not have to learn research. Where do people learn research for the first time? This is why faculty who have been at these sessions are really concerned about the lowering of standards. What will happen with these students when they get to English 101? What will happen to these students when they get to the Proficiency Exam? What will happen to these students when they get to the upper level courses? It seems as if we are actually being easier on them. We are committed to teaching them less about writing than we did before.

I invite you to look at the scoring scale and at the ESL. It seems to favor ESL students, but at what cost to those students? I also want to point out that the grammar part of the writing, The Asset, is not going to be counted at all this year. However students are going to take it. You heard the Vice Chancellor saying that we are going to be studying the results longitudinally. However, it is my belief that what people would like to do is jettison the essay all together and go directly to the grammar. The grammar, The Asset, is not going away. I think that ACT will come back and tell us that they discovered a perfect correlation, so you don’t need an essay at all.

This system of testing goes against every professional association and against what we know as teachers of reading and writing. The Board of Trustees passed it. It is policy. We have to follow it. We have to move on. It is an invalid test. You can go to Barnes & Noble and find seven bookcases of test preps for all sorts of tests. There is about a shelf-and-a-half of ACT materials. At LaGuardia, Alan & Bacon Publishers came this past week, and said that they have a new publication package of materials to prepare students to take the ACT. This is called "WritePass." It is a software/textbook package. The person who the Alan & Bacon representative talked to thinks that this will cost about $50 for the students. The Alan & Bacon representative has been talking to us as well as BMCC. We are now in the midst of all of these commercial products.

Students are going to have to get a ticket with their social security number, and the professor is going to have to sign the ticket. The students, when they actually take the test, are not going to be able to take it in a classroom. They are going to have to go to a theatre where they will be monitored. We are going to have to have a special change of program immediately afterward at LaGuardia. LaGuardia, Kingsborough, and Bronx Community Colleges are not going to be able to screen the students who will take the ACT. We thought we could, but it turns out that we can’t. It is quite possible that students could fail our course because our own exit is more valid and more difficult, and then go on to pass the ACT. What will happen then? I just want to let you know that LaGuardia is setting up a whole system of expresses and workshops in reading and writing for these students. Why? Because we had to take a nationally normed test.

Professor Bell (Educational Services, Brooklyn College ) – Unfortunately I am still Chair of the Reading Discipline Council. I say "unfortunately" because since we have put into place the ACT, I have been the focus of hundreds of phone calls asking about the ACT. They are asking about information that I don’t have. Someone greeted me tonight who I hadn’t seen for a year or two, and she said, "I came because I need information about the ACT." I thought to myself, that characterizes the whole thing. We are lacking in information.

When I initially sat on the Committee that was to select ACT from ETS, we were told that we were going to hire them to develop a test. I think perhaps that I am the only Reading faculty member who has seen this test. I sat in one of the offices at 80^th Street and reviewed it. My impression was, interestingly enough, that it was too easy. But, nevertheless, what we’ve had is no information about the reading test. We were promised faculty training this summer on the test. There came to be no faculty training, mostly because everyone was too overwhelmed to do it. There are no practice materials for the reading test, except for one set of passages that are being developed and will be on the Web after Thanksgiving. The target date for giving the test is December 4^th. Some of the faculty members have developed stuff based on the books that Lenore mentioned, which you can find in any bookstore. The books are not for our test, they are for the ACT test used for the college preparation. The passages are much more difficult in comparison to those.

The students who are supposed to be advantaged are now being disadvantaged. They are being whipped up into a frenzy by being given passages that are so difficult that they cannot finish in 30 minutes of practice. They have this sense that they need to be frantic if they can’t finish these passages. They are being asked to read passages of extremely high complexity, because that is the one sample passage we had. The passage was difficult and people were emulating that passage. The instructors are disadvantaged and the students are disadvantaged. Long ago at Brooklyn College, we stopped teaching, or even reviewing for such tests. It seems to me that the level of the stakes of this test have become so high, that the curriculum is being driven away from reading whole, extended texts. These are the very texts that we want our students to be reading. Instead, curriculum on many campuses is being driven to test taking practice for a test that nobody has seen. We don’t have the data.

Chancellor Goldstein said that we could have the data. We still don’t have the data to analyze. We were told what the cut-off should be, but we can’t figure that out ourselves. We don’t have sample tests. It is interesting that the University of Indiana has bought the ACT for this semester as well. They have had no problem getting the information and materials they need. I wonder, when the University of Indiana has comparable schools to what we have at CUNY, as well as comparable student populations, why don’t we have the materials we need. There is no facility in this test for an appeals procedure that makes any sense. There needs to be one. There is no procedure to norm the test completely against the previous test, or to include in the administration of this test all of the students who should be taking it. If we are only going to give this test to those who are exiting remediation, as well as those who have neither passed the SAT cut-off or the Regents, we are giving it to a smaller group of students than the previous test. We are using a group that isn’t representative of our entire group of students.

It is very clear to me that we are not going to have the range of scores of this test that we had when the DTLS was normed. Nor are we going to have the range of scores when we did the CWAT. We are only going to have a range on the lower cut of students. This is then going to move the scoring in peculiar ways. When we asked about some of the data on the previous pilot, the problem was that no student took the complete test. Since each student only took one segment of the test, you couldn’t get a comparable set of data. I think it is very important -- if we are going to give this test now although I think we shouldn’t until next semester -- it should be given along with the previous test. It should also be given to a wider group of students. We need to actually see the full range of results, rather than results that are narrowed in.

I think we have to make the data as public as possible for the faculty to look at and to analyze. We need to look at the overall cohort, as well as break-out cohorts, such as individual college performance. If we only have narrow groups from the senior colleges taking it, that’s going to influence how it works. We really have to have more information. I would suggest that we really look to give it to only entrants right now. We should be giving it along with another set of tests. We then need to look at the next semester when people are prepared and ready to give this. There is an enormous sense of franticness among the faculty who teach reading at the University. We haven’t hired a lot of reading people in the last couple of years. People have been doing this for 20-25 years. These people have reached a pitch that their students are absorbing at very high rates. This should not be the atmosphere to bring in a new test.

Professor Richter (English, Kingsborough) - I apologize for the impromptu nature of these kinds of remarks. I did not realize that I was going to be put on this forum until the very last moment. Therefore I don’t have any prepared remarks. The Proficiency Exam is the only test that has been developed by a faculty group. Therefore, I think it has a great deal more legitimacy than these off-the-shelf tests like the ACT. The basis of the Proficiency Test is both reading and writing. It requires a written response to a reading. The reading, as you know, is something that the student is given ahead of time. The student then comes into the examination, is given a second shorter reading relevant to the topic, and is then asked a question on both readings. The student is asked to do a number of different things. The kind of question that is asked tests the analytical and organizational skills of the student, the ability to summarize the reading, etc. This is all in a unified response, which is required in a limited amount of time. It is a three hour test. It is a test that allows for a great deal of thinking.

These are tests based on tests that are already used in second semester Freshman Composition courses. It was felt that the format of the test was a reasonable one. The test is thought to be reasonable for students who have achieved 45-60 credits. The problem comes with the pilot. It is something that we have not really been informed about. The problem is, in listening to what Lenore and Martha had to say, there are questions of secrecy and a lack of public information. It is a lack of data, so that we can properly assess what this test does and what it tells us. There have been a lot of very interesting initiatives in connection with the Proficiency Test. For example, the writing across the curriculum initiatives, such as graduate students going to the different campuses and training faculty in writing across the curriculum.

My sense is that the achievement has been spotty in some schools. There hasn’t been very much heard from these particular people, who were suppose to facilitate writing across the curriculum. A number of people have come up to me and said, "Do you know anything about them? Who are they, where are they?" At Kingsborough we have had six people who have been extremely active, and very good. But again, it is spotty across the University. The problem comes with the rumored results of a couple of Proficiency Pilot Tests. These tests have had as many as 1/3 of the students failing the test. That is very serious. Students who have taken courses and passed with a 2.0 GPA, at the very least, and earned 45-60 credits, are then failing the exam. They are then not able to go on, because it operates as a real bar in the case of the two-year colleges. It is certainly a real hindrance in the four-year colleges. There have been certain arrangements made for two-year college students who have failed the exam to go on to the four-year colleges to take the exam again and again, until they pass it on the third try.

The consequences here are really very serious. What happens to a student who has been unable to pass, even though that student has completed 60 credits and is ready to graduate from a community college? That student can’t graduate. This is even if the student is allowed under a special dispensation to go on to a four-year college. That student still must pass the exam before he or she can leave with any kind of certification. If we are talking about 1/3 of our student body, we have a very serious question in front of us. It seems to me that we need to ask for information, we need data, we need to know who is being normed and how, as well as what the standards are going to be. None of this has become very clear to me. This constitutes serious questions.

Dr. Donna Morgan (Office of Academic Affairs) – This is a heavy dose of questions, but I will try to summarize and make some general statements. Let me take the problem of information. We have had some information books out since last spring on both the Proficiency Exam and the ACT Test. We distributed several thousand of those on each of the campuses. We asked provosts, department chairs, and so forth, to give them out to faculty. There will be updates. There was a new update on the Proficiency Test in terms of a handbook for the fall. There will be another update on that in December. There is, I believe out on the table, a recent piece of information on the Proficiency Test in terms of the standards. This has gone out to the provosts as of about a month ago. They were asked to share that information with their faculty. I am hoping that that information is out and being talked about on all of the campuses.

We gave the Proficiency Test for the first time in October. It was not a pilot. About 1,600 students took the test. Those papers will be read by faculty this coming weekend, December 1–3. There will be a standard-setting session with faculty and outside consultants in mid-January. For the first time we will have information on real students. When you have a pilot, you always have the question of who responds to the pilot? Are these better students who want to see how good they really are? What is that group of students? It is usually not a totally typical group of students. So these 1,600 students who took it this fall are real students. These will be the papers that are looked at and scored by the faculty. As you know, the current plan for that test is that it would be administered once each semester to students who are in the 45 credit or more range. It will be given to students who were freshmen in the Fall of 1999 or transfer students in the Fall of 1999. Students who started prior to the Fall 1999 semester are not subject to the examination until the year 2003. If students entered prior to the Fall 1999 semester and have still not met requirements by other means by 2003, they will be asked to take the test at that point. But, until then, students who entered prior to the Fall 1999 semester are not subject to the Proficiency Examination.

Just a couple of comments about the ACT and the training sessions for the faculty who are going to be reading the essays. Those sessions are being conducted by a professional person from ACT. She comes to us with a great deal of experience. She has been a teacher of writing for years in a university. She is well versed in the problems of student writing. We will see if the standards are lowered. I personally do not believe so. When we look at the data from the pilot and used for the standard setting, it was clear that about the same number of students who would have been assigned to remedial courses using the WAT will be assigned to remedial courses again. You also must remember that now a student has two standards that they have to meet. This was in response to the kind of feeling that was widespread among the faculty, that multiple indicators would provide us with a much better indicator of readiness, than does a single measure, when you are making a placement into a particular set of courses. It may be an end result in the standard setting, where the faculty decided that both a reading score and a writing score would be used to determine placement into Freshman Composition.

We are putting together practice materials that will be in a booklet form. They will be on the University Website. We are meeting with the people over at the technology offices next week to talk to them about the Website. It will also have on it the information book for the Proficiency Examination. We are gathering together additional practice materials which can be used in workshops. We are getting information together; it may seem very slow, but it will be there.

Professor McCall (English, Baruch College) – "I just need some clarification. This is the fourth administration of the Proficiency Exam. Is that correct? There were three pilots prior to this? As far as I know, the data for those three pilots were released. Is that correct?" / Dr. Morgan – They have all been released except for the last one, and those are ready to go. / Professor McCall – "On the 1/3 failure of students, there was no failing score as far as I know on those three pilots. The standard setting that was done this summer was to determine the passing rate. Those tests have not yet been graded, have they?" / Dr. Morgan – Those are the papers that are going to be scored December 1-3. / Professor McCall – "I don’t know where you are getting the information on a third of the students failing. There was no failing level on those pilots."

Professor O’Malley (English, Kingsborough Community College) – "Just to support what Lenore was saying. In the booklet that is titled, "Information for Students and Faculty, About the CUNY ACT Basic Skills Test," you can turn to page 12 and read an essay that gets a score of 3. For those of us who have been normed on the WAT scoring, if you look at the comparison this is a much lower standard than anything we have ever been normed on. That is just one comment. Do we know how much this is costing the ACT? Are there any budget figures for the ACT?" / Dr. Morgan – We can find out. /

Professor O’Malley – "If community college students have finished all of their courses, and have not passed the Proficiency Exam, they can still transfer to a four-year college over a two-year period? It says here, "For a two year period, community college students, who have completed everything, without passing the exam, may go onto a senior college, but must take the exam during the first semester at the senior college." / Dr. Morgan – That is correct. As you all remember, the resolution passed by the Board said a student could not transfer. It said they would have to pass the examination before they were allowed to transfer. This is something that the committee has worked hard to try to put in place as a two-year experiment. We think it is very important to be able to do that. As you know, the WAT has been in place for several years as a requirement for graduation. There are hundreds of students in some of the community colleges who are not graduating because they have not passed the WAT. / Professor O’Malley – "I know that. I applaud this experiment. I hope that we can continue it." / Dr. Morgan – We will; we’re determined.

Professor Gallagher (English, LaGuardia Community College) – "I want to make a few statements on the Proficiency Test and get reactions from the panel members. First, it seems insane, structurally, dealing with two such high risk tests at the same moment. I think we are going to see what chaos that produces. One or the other should be put in first, and thoroughly tested before we go on to the second one." / Dr. Morgan – If the Trustees had not passed both resolutions in the same year, we might not be in that position. /

Professor Gallagher – "If only the Trustees would listen to us once in a while. Putting aside the question of the validity of the Proficiency Exam for the moment, I think that structurally it is prejudicial against community college students for a number of reasons. First, it is now a graduation requirement. Therefore students can’t progress beyond 60 credits without passing this test. Second, they will be admitted to four-year colleges, de facto, if not de jure. I think that many of them will not go to four-year colleges until they pass that test. Three, imagine this scenario: a student takes the Proficiency Exam for the first time after completing 55 credits at a community college. The student comes close to passing it, but does not pass. The student needs to remain at the college for another term. The student only needs 5 credits. The student will have to remain at the college to take a 5-credit program. A student in exactly the same situation at a four-year college -- who has 55 credits and does not pass the exam, and is pretty sure they will pass it the next time -- can take a full load the next term. I think there are a number of structural inequities in the way that this system is administered." /

Dr. Morgan – This same problem is in place today with the WAT. This is not a new problem. The community colleges have many students with 70-80 credits who have not passed the WAT. / Professor Gallagher – "Unfortunately I think that some of those credits are just credits that they take to maintain financial aid, which catches up with them down the road."

Professor Crain (Psychology, City College) – "What we mean by multiple measures is that you can use tests, grades, portfolios, and alternative methods of assessment altogether. This is really a multiple barrier because you have to pass both the reading and writing. I would like to raise a question among the faculty. What is wrong with having a test that is too easy if it is a barrier? If it is a barrier, we want a lower barrier, not a higher barrier, right? The problem is that we are hand-cuffed with our curriculum. We cannot offer the kind of help that we used to offer. Isn’t that it?" /

Professor Bell – It is not an issue of high barrier or low barrier. It used to be, when we gave a screening test, we tried to figure out who needed help. Those of us who don’t think of remedial, developmental, or preparatory programs as punishment, but in fact a privilege or opportunity to prepare students, want to be able to select those students and help them before they are in trouble. We want to help them before they are in trouble, before they are on probation, and before they drop out and discover that they were in over their heads. The idea of having a broad screening mechanism, or some way to diagnose someone who comes in the door, is to find students who need help. There are enormous numbers; you can’t interview each student, which would be ideal. You have to say, how can we find these students who need help. Now that this has become high stakes, it has become a harder thing to do. If you set the standards very low, you will have students who go on thinking that they are in good shape, which is the same thing that their high schools did to them. The high schools graduated them, but they still don’t have the skills. Fifty-percent of the students who we tested this summer, who were exempt because they passed the Regents, failed the CWAT. Some of them avoided giving me a writing sample until I insisted. We are discovering that these students will go forward into English 101, without the right preparation. /

Professor Crain – "What do you recommend?" / Dr. Morgan – I really hope that the reading and writing tests are going to be used for advising purposes. There really is no other reason to have this information unless the colleges are going to take it and use it, and help students make sound decisions. / Professor Crain – "But they are high stakes. They are in or out." / Chair Sohmer – The best thing would be for the Board to reconsider it and change the policy. / Professor Beaky – Or these tests could be used as placement and not exit. A lot of us never had problems with the WAT as placement. It is a rather crude instrument, but it worked well enough. The problem is that it is being used as an exit. There are equal problems with its being too difficult or too easy. There are different consequences for each of those scenarios.

Professor Cohen (Sociology, LaGuardia Community College) – "I am really raising this as a question, although it will sound a little critical. I am raising it on the basis of insufficient information. I read two samples from the Proficiency Exam. One was in the pamphlet by Lewis Thomas. The other was the Stephen J. Gould essay. There had been a tremendous amount of research on testing in general, but particularly on issues such as cultural context. There have been issues about gender, race, class, and culture. Clearly on a test like this, there is a tremendous link between the reading passage and the writing. That is to say, it is quite obvious that students will be able to show most clearly their writing abilities when they are writing things that are meaningful in terms of their own experience and context. I know that we think that there are certain kind of universals out there. Some people say by this time everyone should be able to read philosophy and logical analysis. Maybe we should have different samples of different kinds of writing. I want to know, who chose the prompts? What kinds of discussions went on? Were the issues I mentioned taken into account? Was there a ratio between community colleges and senior colleges? Was there a consideration of the type of subjects or the kind of writing? Was it all analytic essays? Was there literature? Did the literature represent any kind of diversity? Were there considerations such as gender, race, class, and culture? In terms of thinking about the diversity of CUNY’s students and who they are, were there readings that would bring out their best writing?" /

Professor McCall – The readings were chosen by the committee that designed the exam. Some were discarded on the basis of various pilots and various comments made by readers. When ETS came aboard, various other considerations were made in terms of issues of equity and cultural bias.

Professor Rooney (Academic Development, York College) – "I’m particularly concerned with the reading test. I serve as the reading coordinator at York College. This is the first time that I’ve actually got to speak to anybody about the test. The problem that I have is that, from a theoretical perspective, I see a direct conflict between what the test asks students to do. On one page it says that it is measuring reading comprehension as a combination of referring and reasoning skills. According to theoretical models that I’m familiar with, I am comfortable with a test that tries to measure referring and reasoning skills. But then I go back to the first page. It is a 24 item, 25 minute reading skills test. That adds in a very important factor for our students, which is time. We have done this before with the DTLS. I don’t know the institutional history, but we bought a test from ETS, and after years of discrimination against numerous populations in our CUNY student body, we decided 30 minutes wasn’t enough. We changed it to 45 minutes. We re-normed the test because we messed up. I am concerned that we are going to mess up again." /

Dr. Morgan – One of the very things that we will be looking at with this first administration is, What are the completion rates of different groups of students? That is a very important thing. We will be monitoring that very closely. / Professor Rooney – "Perhaps a test deconstruction can be done. It was done on the New York City Board of Education Test. Denny Taylor, who is a renowned literacy specialist, deconstructed the New York City Board of Education Test and found major flaws. Modifications were made. That is one suggestion, that test deconstruction could be done. The second point I want to bring up is that at our Senate Faculty meeting today, we looked at budget requests. One request was a very large figure, and very highly prioritized. It was for a testing center. Of course I asked what was this testing center going to be? I was told that it was to establish a computer data base of the ACT. I was told that as of 2001, all campuses must give the computerized version of this test, which has enormous implications when it comes to reading. We all know from reading on the computer, how our eyes bug-out. If you are not seated properly there are all kinds of issues. That is a consideration in the piloting." /

Dr. Morgan – The year 2001 is only 35-40 days away. There is no such plan. The hope is that there will be some pilot studies conducted this spring using the computerized version of the test. My personal feeling is that it will be quite a long time before CUNY does this. It is something that many state colleges and universities are moving to directly. If they are going to ACT, they are going directly to the computerized version. Two or three states this fall said there is no in between -- we are moving right to it. We just thought that that was not the right way to go. There will be a lot of consideration of that before anything happens. / Professor Rooney – "I would assume that both the DTLS and the CUNY ACT Reading are both commercially driven exams. That there is statistical data, reflecting the theoretical models on which they were based, and indices measuring power, comprehension, speed, or vocabulary. Those kinds of categories and sub-areas should be provided with the test. We should try to do some type of correlational study between those two, the prior test and the current test. I must go on the record that I am not mourning the death of the DTLS."

Professor Young (English, Borough of Manhattan Community College) – "We have been attempting to teach to the test with very few materials. People have been handing around frantic pieces of paper saying, "Here is one I tried." It is a very scrambling kind of process that we are going through. What I wanted to say was, after 25 years of using the WAT, in comparison to the ACT test, which is a very dry and limited kind of test and involves only questions about school and community, a lot of the students are quite turned off by it. It is not an interesting thing repeatedly to give questions like this to students, and force them to write for 60 minutes. Whereas sex education in the high school, marijuana use, etc. were at least interesting to many of our students and promoted lively discussions. Many of my students, seeing my former material, say why can’t we write about that stuff, instead of a proposal to the Mayor or City Council about rent stabilization. I think from the teacher’s point of view, we do have to in some sense teach to the test, like it or not. Many people say, don’t do it, forget it, give it to them a couple of times, and that’s the end of it. I won’t be guided by this. However, many of us feel very responsible for our students’ getting through this test, so we do teach to some extent to that test. I find that a lot of us are very unhappy with it in that sense. Many people are really uncomfortable and bored. The students are bored." /

Dr. Morgan – We had about 2,000 students write pilot essays this spring. They were all, as a group, well written. The students didn’t have any trouble with the subject. They were able to write something. / Professor Young – "That’s not the issue that I am bringing up here." / Dr. Morgan – One of the things about some of the old topics, and some of the problems that we had with the old topics, is that they are very personal. Students wrote extremely personal essays. Many times these were found to be very difficult to score, because of the personal nature of them. There was hesitancy of people to score them in any kind of objective way. We had a faculty group of 15 this spring sit down and work with the ACT people. They developed a whole new set of prompts. These prompts are now going to be tested for us nationally, so that we can say that they are going to be normed. They are going to be given around the country to students in about 40 colleges. We have been very careful to see that those colleges have student bodies that are similar to ours. I think that you will find that these are more timely and more suited to City University students than the more general topics. I think you will like them. The faculty worked very hard on them, and we are quite satisfied with what they produced. They produced things that they thought would be meaningful and good topics for City University students to write on.

Professor Frisz (Student Personnel, Queens College) – "I think that we are really in a Catch 22 here. On the one hand, we as faculty are being told that we want to increase the student body at CUNY. We are getting a lot of pressure to get students in, to have retention, and so forth. We are making more and more hurdles for students to get in and stay in. We are talking about making this University attractive to students by reaching out to bring in more students. If I was somebody who was being recruited, and I had to look at a comparison of colleges, I don’t think I’d pick CUNY. First of all, I need an entrance exam, and there is no opportunity for me to get help in a particular subject that I might be weak in, if I am on a senior college level. Now I can’t get beyond the 60^th credit because of the Proficiency Exam. Why go here? I think we can’t have it both ways. That is what the frustration is among faculty and students who are talking about this on my campus. It is not a question, it is a comment. It is something that is very disturbing. We need to think more about it." /

Dr. Morgan – Just one comment. There certainly is still help at the senior college campuses for the students who may have not passed all of the assessment tests. We are running very large programs in the summer for these students. Those students who have gone through the summer and still need additional work are being encouraged to register in the Prelude Program. I think that there really hasn’t been diminution in the effort and the number of programs that are being offered to these students. / Professor Frisz – "We’ve heard this all before. There is a major problem here. CUNY students often need to work and have other obligations. Being forced to take programs in the summer and at other times when they are earning money is a very big hardship. Before, there was an opportunity to do this while they were also enrolled in their courses. There was an opportunity to be at the campus at the same time as they were taking their other courses. I know those are available, but those aren’t helpful to everybody." / Dr. Morgan – Before I was at the Central Office, I was for many years at City College. I was very much involved in the development of the Freshman Year Program. If ever there was a group of students who were working and had other responsibilities, it was certainly the student body at City College. We had hundreds of students in the summer time in our programs from the very get-go. We had courses on the weekends, in the evening, and in the early morning if students were going on to a job. There are plenty of ways to do it if you are determined to do it.

Professor Bell – "I want to say in response to what Ruth just said in terms of students getting help. George had a student this morning who came in, who is taking statistics. She said, where do I go to take a course to help me prepare? George’s answer was, "Nowhere. we are not allowed to offer such courses." The student went to the Affirmative Action Office, complaining that there are not courses, there are no workshops for the students who fall between passing the CUNY Assessment in Math, and repeating a particular math course. The earliest and easiest thing to take other than an introductory core course, which she already passed, was pre-calculus. There is no mechanism at the campuses anymore to give the students what they need."

Professor Baumrin (Philosophy, GSUC) – "Is there a sense among the members of the administration that you have come in contact with, that on these matters of test and re-test that the faculty is not with them?" / Dr. Morgan – I will just say that they are certainly aware of it. / Professor Baumrin – "But we are supposed to trust them because they are well meaning?"

Professor Richter – "It has been said that there has been no norming. On the other hand, in this book that has been distributed to everybody, there are a number of essays on the Proficiency Test, which have been awarded grades – 2, 3, 4, etc. According to those ratings, the students would have either passed or failed." / Dr. Morgan – No one has made it clear that there are two parts to the Proficiency Exam. Those two pieces will both be scored in December. The standard setting will take place using both of those tasks, not only as individually scored, but determinations in how those two pieces will be weighed.

Chair Sohmer - One of the things that we did as an Executive Committee was to try to convene and invite to a meeting all the chairs of the University. There are probably about 400. There were about 40 who showed up at the meeting who were in serious consonance with each other in their attitude toward the resolution that we are now placing before you. The faculty governance bodies at all campuses have now passed similar resolutions, save the Graduate School (to whom it doesn’t apply) and Baruch College (which has not yet acted). It would be very good for the Senate to consider this Resolution on the Presidential Review of Departmental Chairs.

A discussion took place last week among the Chairs. The reaction was from somewhat angry to very violently angry about the very concept of the Chairs bearing some responsibilities other than to their faculty colleagues who elected them. They are all aware of their institutional responsibilities. This has been demonstrated in CUNY for years and years. At the meeting there was a strong agreement that if the administration were to call them in to the evaluation process, rather than reporting about the activities of the department, some would not partake. Others indicated that they would resign on the spot if they were pressed. This seemed to be met with general approval of the group which was there at the time. It was 10% of the total. The Council of Faculty Governance Leaders has already approved this. Since it emanates from this body, it would be good for this body to forward it. It is before you as a motion from the Executive Committee.

Professor Bohigian (Mathematics, John Jay College) – "I have just a brief comment. While this is a perfectly good Resolution, it is obviously a matter of negotiation of the PSC contract. I would like to point out that at the PSC Chapter Chair meetings, we had great reservation about chairs resigning in mass. Some of you may remember Tim Healy, our illustrious Vice Chancellor in the 1970’s. Among his more famous proposals was one converting librarians, counselors, and appointed chairs to HEOs. If the chairs go ahead and resign in mass, you are opening the door for presidents to appoint whomever they wish as chairs. That is not necessarily a good policy to implement. I just wanted to bring that to your attention."

Professor Hounion (Library, New York City Technical College) – "I am the Chair of the Status of the Faculty Committee of the University Faculty Senate. We had a meeting of the Committee just before this plenary. We discussed the Resolution. We support it whole-heartedly. We re-affirm that chairs are faculty members and not managerial personnel. They are evaluated by their own peers within their departments. We passed a resolution within the Committee supporting your Resolution. We gave a copy to Bill Phipps. We just want you to know that we urge all people to support this Resolution."

Chair Sohmer – There is a motion to call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Against? The question is before you. All those in favor of this motion as it stands, please indicate by saying aye. Against? It passes unanimously.

Professor Bohigian (Mathematics, John Jay College) – "There is still one open issue. We have a number of chairs who, because they are not full professors, still need evaluation. Both the contract and the by-laws are silent on that issue. Who does their evaluations if they are to move forward in a promotional process? I’m just raising that issue." / Chair Sohmer – There is an answer to that question. It is a technical answer. If you want, I will talk to you later.

Chair – The text you have before you should be slightly altered, leaving the first two "whereases" standing, and the third "whereas" is an alteration of the fifth. The fifth "whereas" is changed to "whereas the transfer of remedial courses and programs away from academic divisions could limit the ability of these divisions to provide integrated academic content." The fifth "whereas" is the current forth, and then "be it resolved." If you want to be particular about this, it is only the "resolved" that you are really voting on.

"Be it resolved that the University Faculty Senate urges the continued support of remedial courses and programs within the academic divisions of the colleges, and opposes the establishment of the proposed pilot programs to be offered through divisions of continuing education."

Are there any comments? There is a move to call the question. All those in favor of calling the question, please say aye. Against? The question is before you. All those in favor of this motion please say aye. Against? Abstentions? There is one abstention. It passes virtually unanimous.

Professor Hounion (Library, New York City Technical College) – This is something that we have been discussing for the past year. I have a lot of documents relating to this topic. This has been in the newspapers, the Chronicle of Higher Education, and on the Web. Many faculty still use the old traditional methods of scholarship – books, periodicals, etc. A lot of new and current faculty will be using electronic scholarship more and more. What we want to do is to have some recommendations for college-wide P&B committees for those faculty who are up for promotion and tenure. Review committees could look at these electronic resources as well as the more traditional sources. This is why we produced these recommendations for looking at new ways of doing things. Candidates for tenure promotion will be able to submit Web-based electronic and cyber material as part of their evidence and support for their personnel action. We had a sub-committee of the Status of the Faculty Committee work on this report and recommendations. This document is up for you to consider. I just want to thank the sub-committee who worked on this, including Stefan Baumrin, Jeanne Galvin, Michael Kahan, Melvin Nathanson, and John Seely.

Chair Sohmer – The recommendations are before you. One of the recommendations is that we create a committee to co-consolidate, and make ultimate recommendations. Is there any discussion about these recommendations?

Professor Cooper (History, College of Staten Island) – "I speak in favor of them with tremendous enthusiasm. Three or four years ago the Senate began to explore this new world of electronic media and created a list-serv. It became very clear to those of us who have been around for 30-40 years that our younger and newer colleagues were well versed in this material. They came from institutions from around the country where this was becoming normal. They were somewhat astounded at our backwardness in a number of areas. I remember one being overwhelmed discovering the first rotary phone that she’d ever seen in her life. In any case, I would urge that everyone support this. The problem is probably going to be to popularize these ideas with personnel committees, who are staffed with less forthright and open folk. I think we must give it a leg up if we can."

Chair Sohmer – I just heard a motion to move the question. All those in favor of moving the question say aye. Against? The question is now before you. Several recommendations will be forwarded and attempted to be implemented. All those in favor of these recommendations say aye. Abstentions? It passes unanimously.

VI. Old Business

Professor Bohigian - I think that the Resolution that was held over from our last meeting is also an important resolution. I think it should be passed. I made a few minor corrections. I will read those corrections or the Resolution.

"Be it resolved that CUNY postpone the administration of the new ACT remediation exit exam until the University Faculty Senate can fully evaluate the extent to which the exam is reliable and valid for CUNY students."

Chair Sohmer – That is a Resolution. It would have emanated from the discussion today, but it came before. That Resolution is before you. Are there any comments about the postponement of this ill considered examination? There is a motion to close the discussion. All those in favor please say aye. All those against? The motion is before you to demand postponement of this process. All those in favor please say aye. Against? Abstentions? No Abstentions. It passes unanimously.