Summary of Provost's Directive Memo & CFA Responses
Highlights
The Directive Memo proposes the following:
Reduce instructional costs by increasing course size: increase course caps, enforce minimum enrollments & create mega-sections of large courses
Limit Course offerings: minimize non-required courses and electives
Eliminate low enrollment programs: programs will be considered not viable if required courses are consistently under-enrolled
Increase Teaching load/decrease research time: a new process to reinstate the 4/4 teaching load across the university, focused on post-tenure faculty
Hiring freeze for faculty, but not the administration
'Minimize' use of lecturer faculty: the general goal of increasing T/TT faculty workload (class size) is to downsize lecturer faculty, who are are critical members of our academic community
Full Text of the Directive Memo
Directive Memo on Academic Affairs Budget Realignment - January 28, 2021
This memo follows from Academic Affairs’ “Portfolio of Imperfect Options,” with thanks to the Academic Senate Executive Committee, the Academic Affairs Council, and all who contributed by sharing feedback over the fall 2020 semester. It sets out the specific directions that Academic Affairs will take in order to address its current budget shortfall. These efforts are not only directed at short-term adjustments: in order to create long-term sustainability, we need to repair a structural deficit that challenges us to reduce and reorient our operations through purposeful, collaborative planning. The goal of this memo and the actions it describes is to align Academic Affairs’ spending with its base budget, and to establish a direction that will allow us to remain strong and mission-directed now and into the future.
The following is provided for colleges, academic support units, programs, directors and chairs, faculty, staff, and administrators within Academic Affairs. Guidance for the implementation of specific directions will be provided in separate documents, which will be shared with those responsible and archived at this link. Contextual information can also be found at this link, which includes presentations on Academic Affairs’ budget as well as Frequently Asked Questions; there is also a link for providing feedback and asking questions. In order to monitor our progress, an assessment and accountability framework is provided at the end of this memo; communications and updates will be shared regularly and archived at this link.
Goal 1: Reduce Instructional Costs
As might be expected and is appropriate, Academic Affairs’ largest investment is its tenured, tenure-track, and lecturer faculty, whose core work is building and delivering the university’s curriculum. It is therefore imperative that we 1. effectively design curriculum that delivers our educational goals; 2. align tenured and tenure-track faculty teaching with areas where students will receive the greatest direct benefit; 3. enlist lecturer faculty to meet areas of high curricular need that cannot be met by tenured or tenure-track faculty, following the order of work and limiting non-contract or new lecturer faculty hiring.
Short-term (beginning winter 2021)
Reduction targets. In their budget proposals for 2021-22, the colleges, library, and
academic support units will plan to meet specific budget reduction targets in line with the university’s overall budget goals, which will be shared at February’s University Budget Council meeting. Where appropriate, planned reductions are expected to include a mix of instructional and operational cost savings, using scenario-planning templates, enrollment estimates, and guidelines that will be provided during the February/March 2021 budget planning period. The resulting scenarios will inform Academic Affairs’ budget proposal in April/May 2021.Schedule building. As chairs plan their programs’ Fall 2021 schedules, they are expected to manage instructional costs by placing tenured and tenure-track faculty in areas of high student need and impact, reducing the number of sections for multi-section courses, and minimizing non-required courses and electives. To support their decision-making, in February and March 2021 chairs and AOCs will receive training in the uses of instructional cost estimates, enrollment data and projections, and policies related to faculty teaching assignments. Fall 2021 schedules will be due April 16, allowing additional time for planning.
Minimum enrollments. Beginning Fall 2021, lectures or seminars that fall below the following minimum class size will be cancelled: Lower division: 18 seats; Upper division: 14 seats; Graduate: 7 seats. Some exceptions may be approved by the dean. Anticipating these minimum enrollments, programs should place tenured and tenure-track faculty in high-demand areas and build schedules that take into account both historical and projected enrollments in order to minimize the likelihood of cancellation, rather than expecting to cancel classes that are already scheduled (see 1.2 above).
Increasing section enrollment capacity. The above minimum enrollments do not affect enrollment caps. Caps will be raised wherever possible, especially when doing so will allow us to offer fewer, but larger, sections of the same course. Deans will determine appropriate enrollment caps for their colleges before submitting their 2020-21 budget proposals, which may include TAs for larger classes.
Assigned time. Regardless of the funding source, all assigned time requests, including those carried over from previous semesters, must be approved by the dean. Following approval, assigned time must be reported using consistent codes and accountability measures. In line with recommendations from the Equity in Faculty Work Assignment Task Force, guidelines around assigned time will be developed that establish equitable and consistent practices, following the expectation that 1 WTU represents the equivalent of 45 hours of work a semester.
Program development and revision. New proposals for any General Fund-supported programs (including program revisions and new degree programs, certificates, and minors) must include data-informed estimates of likely resource requirements (including costs of instruction and impact on existing program costs).
Tenure-track hiring freeze. The current tenure-track faculty hiring freeze will remain in effect for 2021-2. Some exceptions may be considered, based on exceptional enrollment demand, in June 2021. Proposals for future tenure-track hiring are expected to align with long-term academic program plans (see 1.9 below).
Long-term (start planning toward implementation beginning or after fall 2021)Low-enrolled programs. Programs that experience low enrollments in required courses (that consistently fall below the minimum enrollments in 1.3) are expected to undertake curriculum revision in order to establish viability. Curriculum revisions should reduce the number of sections offered, minimize the use of lecturer faculty, and establish realistic expectations for measurable improvement. As well as reviewing course enrollments in the major (graduate as well as undergraduate), they should reconsider their offerings in GE; those that are consistently under- enrolled or duplicative should be reduced or eliminated. Programs whose low enrollment trends are unlikely to be addressed through curriculum redesign may be combined, discontinued, or encouraged to move into self-support.
Long-term Academic Program Planning. Long-term academic program planning will help San Francisco State build enrollment and establish sustainability by aligning its academic program mix with the needs of students and their future employers and communities. Beginning in the Academic Year 2021-22, colleges will develop long- term academic program plans in light of student enrollment projections, program review findings, and regional workforce needs as determined by data and market analyses. Plans for future tenure-track hiring and program development, revision, or discontinuance should be integrated with these plans. As well as focusing at the college level, long-term academic program plans should involve and inform university-level academic planning in collaboration with the Academic Senate.
Faculty Work Assignment (1): fourth course equivalent. San Francisco State’s normative 3/3 (9/9 WTU) teaching distribution is exceptional in the CSU (for which a 4/4 [12/12 WTU] teaching distribution is standard); it is founded on the expectation that faculty will apply the fourth course equivalent (3 WTUs) toward a mission-directed program of research, scholarship, and/or creative activity. We are required to account for this fourth course equivalent through a reporting process to the Chancellor’s Office. To establish accountability, clear expectations for achievement will be developed in line with program RTP criteria through a process that will be determined by Academic Senate policy and is expected to involve college deans, Faculty Affairs, and the programs themselves. Post-tenure faculty members may teach a fourth course in lieu of research, scholarship, and/or creative activity.
Faculty Work Assignment (2): supervision courses. Collaborating with college deans, Faculty Affairs will establish consistent measures to account for supervision courses within faculty work assignments. Colleges may need to limit the assignment of supervision courses (including graduate, research, clinical and fieldwork supervision) in order to balance curricular offerings and instructional costs.
Goal 2: Reduce Operational and Administrative Costs
Administrative and operational spending must support our educational mission. It should be managed and reduced where possible within a holistic reconsideration of the structures, processes, and outcomes of the work it is designed to support. As well as managing and reducing these costs within Academic Affairs, we need to consider how our work aligns with that of other cabinet areas—and might, in collaboration with them, be redesigned in order to create both division- and institution-wide savings.
Short-term (beginning winter 2021)
Reorganization of Offices. Academic Affairs administrative units and colleges are currently reorganizing offices in order to recover from staff layoffs and MPP reductions without adding costs. In a collaboration led by Academic Resources, some offices will be reorganized across colleges and units in order to share resources and increase efficiency overall.
Research and Service Organizations. In line with recommendations from the University Budget Council and following policy to be developed by the Academic Senate, RSOs receiving General Fund allocations should consult with their deans and prepare to reduce their General Fund costs in alignment with the university’s budget reduction targets (see 1.1 above), as well as preparing plans toward becoming self-sustainable (see 2.5 below).
Additional one-time cost savings. General Fund spending on travel and hospitality will be suspended, with few exceptions, through the end of Academic Year 2021-22.
Long-term (start planning toward implementation beginning fall 2021)Re-engineer/ eliminate costly processes. To identify work processes that can be reduced or redesigned to cut costs and save staff time, we will enlist the experienced perspectives of staff who are most directly involved in these processes. Starting in winter 2021, a collaborative team drawing staff from across Academic Affairs, as well as from Administration and Finance, will identify opportunities to reorganize our work and meet our goals with reduced resources.
Research and Service Organizations. In line with recommendations from the UBC and forthcoming Academic Senate policy, RSOs receiving General Fund allocations will prepare to become self-sustainable by spring 2024. In summer 2021, a task force will consider how resources, including staff, might be shared across RSOs in order to support their sustainability.
Goal 3: Establish Assessment Measures and Accountability Framework
Achieving fiscal sustainability in line with our educational mission requires a collaborative effort, supported by budget transparency and accountability. Toward this end, Academic Affairs commits to the following:
Regular communications. The Academic Affairs website will be kept current with regular updates about budget processes and timelines, as well as budget-related FAQs following from this memo. The Provost will deliver regular presentations on Academic Affairs’ budget to the Academic Senate and University Chairs’ Council, with follow-up email communications to all faculty. The Vice Provost for Academic Resources will continue to meet monthly with all deans and College Business Officers, which will be followed up with minutes and archived communications.
Budget Realignment Assessment Council. This memo sets out actions that are meant to address significant fiscal challenges, but we must continuously assess them to determine their effectiveness. Starting in winter 2021, a Budget Realignment Assessment Council will be co-convened by the Provost and the Vice Provost for Academic Resources, with the Academic Senate Chair serving as an ex-officio member, and charged with 1. monitoring and measuring the effectiveness of actions detailed in this memo; 2. tracking Academic Affairs’ overall progress towards meeting our savings targets; 3. in consultation with the Academic Affairs Council and the Academic Senate Executive Committee, recommending revisions to any of the above actions that will increase their effectiveness.
Support Chairs’ financial decision-making. Department chairs and program directors play a critical role in managing instructional costs and promoting budget transparency. To support them, we commit to providing enhanced training in the use of relevant policies and financial data, including enrollments, instructional costs, and academic resources (such as room capacity) (see 1.2 above), developing instruments that support transparent financial management and planning around instructional costs, and reviewing campus-wide norms around chair time base and compensation structures in line with clear and equitable work expectations.
CFA's response to Directive Memo FAQ's
The Administration has put up a site (https://academic.sfsu.edu/content/frequently-asked-questions) with frequently asked questions that regard the administration’s Directive memo. In addition, President Mahoney has released an email giving more context to the administration’s view of the budget. The CFA has a different reading of things and here we will try to address their questions with questions and answers of our own. You can click on the questions themselves to see what the administration had to say about each question.
Q1. How did we reach the minimum enrollments?
The administration gives a technical answer to this question but the CFA rejects the very premise of minimum enrollments that are a one size fits all model. Academia does not lend itself to cookie cutter style numbers which, no matter how careful the process is in determining that number is inherently arbitrary because it fails to reflect the basic fact that some subjects are going to be more popular than others. We propose as an alternative that FTE targets be met by averaging rather than by a one size fits all model. Larger classes will help float smaller ones.
Q2. How will the tenure-track hiring freeze affect our tenure density?
The administration says that tenure density at SFSU is relatively high compared to other CSUs. This is true but that is only because it is so awful system wide. Some campuses like Bakersfield only have about one third of their faculty in tenured lines. Of the various campuses, only Cal State San Luis Opisbo and Maritime have over 50% tenure density. Our campus is well below 50% in terms of tenure density. The administration had two opportunities to increase tenure density over the last two academic years (prior to the current academic year). The CFA got the state legislature to create special funds specifically earmarked for increasing tenure density. In both cases the administration decided to spend that money on other things. It’s devotion to tenure density is therefore extremely suspect. Furthermore, they claim in the FAQ that tenure density might well go up. That is probably because their directive memo calls for the elimination of lecturer faculty positions, an alternative that CFA strongly opposes.
We do not question that there is a budget crisis going on but we do not agree with the administration that the situation is so dire as to require a permanent and devastating set of cuts and austerity measures as a response. The administration (and President Mahoney reinforced this in her email on February 15th) maintains that the distinction between one time money and recurring money is critical because one time money can only be used for the immediate crisis. The CFA’s response is that this is a one time crisis and therefore one time money is precisely the correct remedy for this moment. This is not the first time we have faced an economic crisis and in this case, the fact that the economic crisis is tied to a pandemic means that as the pandemic lifts, the economic crisis will too (whereas in previous crises, it was never clear when the recession was going to end). In the last major crisis in 2009 the faculty had to take a furlough to save on costs. That year the CSU as a whole made a profit as a result of the furlough. We are not willing to let the CSU profit from the current crisis too.
Here, we ask a question of our own: is there a structural deficit at SFSU? The administration makes much of having this point. A structural deficit means that even in good years, a certain degree of austerity is in order. The very premise of a structural deficit then gives the administration carte blanche to call for budget measures (and other policies that affect workload, student success, etc.) And yet an independent audit of the university commissioned by the CFA in 2016 showed ‘no empirical evidence for the structural deficit’ (source)
A current independent audit being undertaken now has preliminarily come up with the same conclusion. The current structural deficit (which not incidentally was said to be just over 6 million dollars until the President’s email on February 15th when it became over 12 million) that they are referring to may be something of an own goal in that it appears that the administration underfunded teaching to assert a ten percent cut and then claimed that shortfall showed that there was indeed a structural deficit.
For more of our budget analysis see: Budget Facts
The administration has some work to do to explain why, given that the originally draconian picture of the budget crisis has been really ameliorated, we still have to resort to such drastic and permanent measures. Those monies include:
December 2020 CARES Act channels $33m directly to SFSU for institutional support (source)
Governor’s 2021-22 proposed budget increases funding to CSU by 3% (source), for anadditional $7m annually for SFSU over last year (source)
The CA Legislative Analyst Office reports that the CSU Chancellor’s office currently has over $400m in reserves, to distribute at will (source)
These monies specifically are addressed to resolving the shortfalls caused by the pandemic itself and yet while citing the pandemic as the reason for the current crisis, there are claims that these monies will not solve our long terms problems (like the previously mentioned “structural deficit.”
In general the administration has been extremely vague about how the changes that they are proposing will effect the financial picture at our university. They have also been a bit vague about what they will spend the money that they have received and will receive on (the President’s February 15th email painted a slightly more clear but still not complete picture). They frequently say that there are ‘strings attached” to the money but don’t give a complete picture of what those strings are and what money will be spent on what.
As part of their answer, the administration writes that “the university cannot use HEERF funds [the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund which was created as part of the CARES Act] as reimbursement for costs that it would have incurred prior to the coronavirus. For example, the university cannot use HEERF funds as reimbursement for salaries and benefits it would have otherwise incurred in the absence of the coronavirus. ” This is where the issue of the “structural deficit” becomes important. The idea of a structural deficit is a kind of floating signifier that can address every question with the same answer “not enough money.” If our current crisis is in fact caused by the covid pandemic than monies that are earmarked for that issue can and should be used to address those issues. Furthermore, the administration has argued for the past few months that, given the fact that the democrats were almost certainly not going to win back the senate, we shouldn’t expect any more federal stimulus packages. And yet the democrats did take over the senate and even as we speak a much larger stimulus package is being negotiated which will no doubt pump even more money into the CSU. But this factor is not being discussed at all, only doom and gloom forecasts of more deficit.
Here, we simply repeat that the furloughs of 2009 amounted to an attempt to squeeze more money out of a frightened faculty which in fact produced a net profit for the CSU. Because the CFA knows this and has articulated this very clearly to the CSU they are not able to use this gambit again. That is the real reason why there is no furlough this time. However, the administration has turned from furloughing the largely tenure/tenure track faculty, who are the true object of these FAQs by decimating the ranks of lecturer faculty and staff. One way or the other they are going to get their pound of flesh and in the process can turn the university employees against one another in the process.
Q7. Is Academic Affairs the only campus division that is subject to budget reductions?
It is true that there have been cuts beyond Academic Affairs but Academic Affairs is still receiving the brunt of the cuts (that is to say the core mission of the university is what is being cut the most). Furthermore there are certain priorities that have been given raises while many other parts of SFSU are being cut. Here is a preliminary view of changes in budgets at SFSU from our ongoing audit:
Table 1.
Note that the biggest positive change has been in the president’s office (15.1%) and University Enterprise (14.3%). Meanwhile let us not forget that SFSU increased upper administrators by 66% from 2012-2018 (source)
We think the picture over enrollment is more complicated than the administration is letting on but we note that there is no enrollment crisis in the southern California campuses of the CSU (or rather there is but it is as crisis of over enrollment) and yet austerity measures are being applied there as well.
This is another example as with the issue of tenure density of comparison to a system where the same problems exist throughout. We have very large classes vis a vis the UC system for example. The fact that we are 11th in class size in the CSU is meant, we think, to suggest that we can afford to grow our classes bigger but this is a race to the bottom that we are not interested in winning
Here again, the administration is showing that it has the wrong priorities. So much of budget is not on the chopping block. The large administrative bloat, favored programs and the number of administrators (more on that in question 14) are largely exempt from consideration, another sign of the urgent need for greater budget transparency and the democratization of the budgeting process.
This question is meant, we believe, to raise the specter of ever greater declines in student enrollment but either way we think that the correct way to deal with this issue is not by administrative fiat but by consultation with the chair and the department faculty including lecturer faculty who are the most affected by cancelled classes (what they don’t say in their answer is that when a tenure track faculty member with a low enrolled class is switched to a higher enrolled class, a lecturer faculty member loses their job and possibly their health insurance in the process). Only by opening up this process can we assure an equitable and fair process for dealing with low enrollment courses in a way that will create labor peace.
The elephant in the room here is SFSU’s course load. When the administration says things like “given the amount of spending on instruction,” they mean in part that the Academic Senate’s move to normalize a 3/3 teaching load (except for the College of Education which remains at 4/4) for tenure/tenure track faculty is very expensive. The administration is constantly asserting that they “won’t touch” the 3/3 load even though they are also asserting how costly it is, sending a distinct double message. In fact, they are planning to “touch” the 3/3 with a note in the directive memo that full professors who are deemed to not publish enough or do sufficient service will henceforth be required to teach a fourth course. This image of the lazy full professor is a largely mythical creature which smacks of the “faculty deficit” narrative that animates so much of what the administration, like administrations around the country, subscribes to and which justifies any degree of administrative oversight. In our view, any crack in the wall of 3/3 will eventually lead to the general reimposition of the 4/4 teaching load which is standard at most other CSUs (although that is starting to change). It is already the case that some junior faculty have been asked to teach 4 courses in a semester and don’t really see a way to refuse their chairs who have a lot of power over their career trajectory.
Here, in bland bureaucratese the administration is showing how it will devastate the ranks of lecturer faculty, many of whom have taught here for decades. In full the answer is “TT faculty are at the top of the order of work according to contractual imperatives. As we move TT faculty into higher enrolled and GE courses, we will save money on Lecturer spending. ” Saving money on Lecturer spending means essentially casting these people out into a recession and losing health care for themselves and their families in a pandemic. Furthermore it will mean much larger classes for our faculty and students which is a sure fire way to further alienate our students (but it will improve tenure density!).
The administration points out that it has eliminated five MPP positions even though it is currently hiring a major position despite a “hiring freeze” for faculty. Furthermore these positions tend to be on the lowest rungs of the administrators and don’t involve the highly paid high six figure salaries that are the norm for the top administrators. Also, given the huge increase of administrators at SFSU in the last decade, five positions is not going to change much so we do not make much of this at all except to say that by firing a few people, the administration may be trying to head off the challenge that they should “chop from the top.” Clearly they have not done so as of yet.