CSU English Council Minutes
October 12-14, 2011
The Bahia, San Diego
Wednesday Evening, October 12
Meeting Room
7:00-9:00
Composition Coordinators Meeting—Kim Costino (San Bernardino)
Shell
Kim Costino called the meeting to order at 7:15.
After introductions, Kim C turned to the agenda:
Kim Flachmann asked if anyone had details about the Complete College
America (CCA) grant—part of the graduation initiative. Several
campuses were aware that we are not supposed to count work done by
students who fall below a total score of 147 on the EPT. Problems might
occur when the number of students who score below 147 doesn’t match
the number of students in courses with numbers below 100.
Cathy Gabor (San Jose) asked us to fill out a survey to determine the
working environment for lecturers.
Cathy also announced a job opening in writing at San Jose—tech writing,
journalism, and composition.
Cathy announced the beginning of the Northern California Writing
Program Administrators affiliate, designed to be a group of community
college and 4-year college composition coordinators. This group wants to
debunk rumors about college writing instruction while they also support
each other. Kim C explained that a similar southern affiliate is also
starting.
Cathy also circulated a survey to find out what common requirements
campuses have in comp. Here are the results:
Bakersfield:
 Common course requirements and goals
 Common grading rubric
 Common midterm essay with common reading
Channel Islands:
 Common syllabus
 Common grading rubric
 Portfolio required for grading and assessment – holistically scored
over 5 days
 (Note: 25 sections of FYC total)
Chico:
 Common outcomes
 Common portfolio requirement – individually graded
East Bay:
 Shared grading criteria
2
 Faculty listserv
 List of recommended texts
 All sections have one common assignment: rhetorical analysis
(used for grading and assessment)
Long Beach:
 Updated SLOs
 Common handbook
 Working on list of textbooks (must choose from list)
 Portfolio required in all sections (used for assessment; instructor
can choose to use it for grading)
 Repository of assignments/handouts/lessons/etc.
Los Angeles:
 Portfolio required for grading and assessment; must include
reflection
 Holistic reading of portfolios
Monterey Bay:
 Shared grading criteria
 Funding for faculty training, norming, and assessment just cut
Northridge:
 Common SLOs
 Portfolio required for grading and assessment: 1 in-class essay; 2
out-of-class essays; 1 reflection
 Now: full-time faculty norm and holistically grade portfolios
 Proposed: faculty norm together and bring in 4 portfolios to
holistically grade – grade the rest at home
Pomona:
 Common SLOs
 Assessment portfolio required (instructors can choose to use it for
grading) which includes one WAC assignment
Sacramento State:
 Common portfolio (must be worth at least 50% of final grade)
normed and graded in groups of 3
 Shared outcomes
 Custom handbook
San Bernardino:
 Explicit program philosophy for teaching FYC
 Sample syllabi and assignments available
 Ongoing faculty development: brown bags – grade this paper and
discuss
San Diego:
 Common SLOs
 Common assignment types (genres)
3
 Peer evaluation process
San Francisco:
 New SLOs
 E-portfolio: start in 1A, finish in 1B (and take into 100W
eventually)
 Portfolio required for assessment, may be used for grading
San Luis Obispo:
 Common syllabus available, not required (about 80% of faculty
use it)
 All syllabi, common or not, must be genre-based (not rhetorical
modes)
 Common reader: compilation of award-winning student texts from
previous year (used with common syllabus)
Sonoma:
 All sections are invited to have one common assignment: research
paper/annotated bib – used for grading and assessment
Kim C suggested that we take a survey of class size in composition
courses. John Edlund (Pomona) reminded us that we need to collect data
about our students’ success. The class size numbers are locally based and
are set in a very complex context in most cases.
Sugie serves on the state Early Start Committee and gave the following
report from that committee:
 Students can declare their intent to go to Early Start and be
compliant according to the CO. But once they declare a campus,
the students are under the jurisdiction of that CSU. If they don’t
actually go to the appropriate campus to register, that student is
not compliant. We will be able to track this through a “smart”
page. If the student didn’t follow through at the designated
campus, the student cannot enroll in any CSU. A campus will not
get money for a student who doesn’t show up.
 Students are eligible for fee waivers if their families contribute less
than $5000 to their student’s education.
 Students can fulfill this requirement at another campus only if they
can’t fulfill it at their selected campus.
 Campuses with stretch composition courses are recommended to
have a consolidated assessment tool.
 Long Beach is running a pilot with the CSU that will determine if
students with “conditionally ready for college composition” on the
EAP will be able to succeed in college courses if they take the full
ERWC course in their senior year of high school.
 Students might be able to receive an exemption from the EPT if
they take the ERWC in senior year.
 The students’ charge for this course is $182, which is not
4
refundable.
 Online ES courses might be inundated by students shopping for a
cheap, minimum-time ES option.
 ES can prepare students for success in composition and other
courses.
Thursday Morning, October 13
8:00-8:30
Registration ($60): Margaret Rustick (East Bay) and Kim Flachmann
(Bakersfield)
Continental Breakfast
8:30-8:45
Announcements— Sugie Goen-Salter (San Francisco)
Sugie Goen-Salter called our meeting to order at 8:35.
8:45-10:15
The EPT Committee met in May to look at field-tested items; they will
look at more items at their next meeting in November. Mira-Lisa Katz
resigned. Shay Rushing will replace her. They are also discussing
conditional exemptions. The committee is considering longer, more
argument-based reading passages for the future.
Kathryn Rummell introduced the first panel, which focused on Graduate
Studies in English.
Plenary Panel I
New Directions in English MA Programs
June Cummins, SDSU: "SDSU English Department: A New Day for
the MA."
A few years ago, the Grad Committee of the SDSU English and
Comp. Lit. Department was charged with examining and perhaps
updating the MA program. The project began in the fall of 2009. This
presentation explained how they made the decisions, how the new
program shaped up, and where they are now, with the first group of MA
students beginning the new MA program this fall.
Irene Clark, CSU Northridge: "Joining the Scholarly Conversation:
A New Culminating Experience for the MA degree in English"
This presentation described a new culminating project for the MA
degree in English at CSU Northridge, which developed when they learned
that they could no longer offer a thesis option in either Literature or
Rhetoric and Composition. The project involves a course in which
students revise and expand a paper written in a graduate seminar in order
to make it into a more professional piece of writing, and part of the
project involves developing a comprehensive literature review, engaging
in peer reviewing, and ultimately creating two projects: an 8-to-10-page
conference paper and an 18-to-25-page revised research paper. The actual
culminating experience is the presentation of the short paper at a studentrun conference, attended by both students and faculty. Conference
proceedings, including abstracts and conference papers, are then bound. In
addition, the course helps students locate and respond to calls for papers,
access funding sources, apply for funds, and select appropriate journals
Shell
Shell
Shell
5
for eventual dissemination of scholarly work.
Mary Boland, CSUSB: "Tracks and territories: Complications and
Connections in CSUSB’s MA in English Composition"
This talk explored the structure of CSUSB’s MA in English
Composition, with its 3 tracks (Literature, TESOL, and Composition
Studies) and dual concentration option, and considered the ways in which
interests in these subdivisions – both institutionally and as subject matters
– can compete, leading to frustrations for students and faculty alike. This,
in effect, can be seen as a microcosm of the “problem” of English Studies,
wherein the sub-disciplines act as the ribs of an umbrella that has no top –
no common cover or mutually defined goal. Dr. Boland suggested that
we strive for both more commonality and more depth within such
programs and that we further connect those efforts to students’
professional aspirations in order to increase programmatic relevance and
coherence.
Discussion Topics:
How do you sustain this level of innovation?
How do you really implement team-teaching in the budget? Grant
money?
Do the SLOs cited by Robert Turner represent the outcomes we all
have?
How is student assessment different from program assessment?
10:15-10:30
10:30-12:00
Break
Plenary Panel II
GE Reform and Assessment:
Responding to EO 1033 and the Culture of Assessment
Kim Costino, CSU San Bernardino
Jacquelyn Kilpatrick, CSU Channel Islands
Robert Turner, Mira Costa College
This plenary was a roundtable discussion about EO 1033 (and a
general cultural push towards assessment of learning outcomes), some
campus responses to this push in the CSU and the CCCs, and the various
implications for English departments and writing programs. EO 1033,
which draws on the AAC&U LEAP campaign, seeks to "establish a
common understanding of the minimum requirements for CSU General
Education Breadth" by identifying goals for CSU general-education
student learning outcomes [and] directs campuses to conduct assessments
of general education learning outcomes through regular reviews of their
general education courses and breadth programs" (http://www.calstate.
edu/eo/EO-1033.html). They started the discussion with an overview of
EO 1033 and the culture of assessment. Jacquelyn Kilpatrick, from CSU
Channel Islands, and Robert Turner, from Mira Costa College, then talked
about the GE reform processes on their respective campuses before we
open the floor to a large group discussion.
Shell
6
Discussion Topics:
How do you sustain this level of innovation?
How do you really implement team-teaching in the budget? Grant
money
Do the SLOs cited by Robert Turner represent the outcomes we all
have?
How is student assessment different from program assessment?
12:00-1:30
Buffet Luncheon
Thursday Afternoon
1:45-2pm
New CLEP Exam for A2 Written English Requirement: James
Postma, (Chair, CSU Academic Senate)
Bahia
Belle
Shell
CLEP = College Level Examination Program
CLEP provides ways to test out of specific course content, getting one
semester credit for the course. CLEP is not linked to any course; it is a
military exam that tests general GE content. James Postma’s request on
behalf of the Academic Senate is to put CLEP on the GE map. We could
use the exam for a course in the system. His committee looked at student
work at various score levels and then sent it to discipline faculty and
asked them what they thought. The discipline faculty were very
impressed with the results. They approved the exam questions and
student responses. If the responses didn’t match the GE requirements, the
items were dropped. The comp questions were rewritten. Postma asked
us to look at the questions to give the committee advice on the questions
and, in turn, feedback to the Senate.
2-3:15
Breakouts:
Early Start Discussion: Sugie Goen-Salter (San Francisco)
We looked at the “Smart Page,” which isn’t live yet, but will be delivered
to campuses during spring: John Edlund says this is a system of “all
sticks”
 Susan Gubernat raised the issue of the Early Start video; lots of
students of color talking about the 3-unit course at Bakersfield, which
is not actually the mandated Early Start, to promote Early Start. She
suggests that we should protest the video, maybe along with Math
Council. The Taskforce that Sugie is on has never seen this video; it
was made at the top, not approved by the Task Force. There have been
some objections raised about the misleading nature of the video at the
MPP meeting.
 John Edlund suggested we make a resolution that has a Whereas
clause that says we hate the video and that we’re still not on board
with this, that nothing has happened to change our minds.
Shell
Marina
Pacific
La Jolla
7
















Sugie – The Taskforce already knows that and pretty much agrees
with us, but there’s no point.
Irene Clark – Why not just do tokenism, why put real time and effort
into this.
Susan Gubernat said John Postma characterizes us as being on board
with Early Start.
Some campuses are still refusing to participate
Chris Harris – This is a good example of why English Council needs a
public relations person; can we create a public relations position?
Irene – We should just do a Mickey Mouse course, rather than invest
time in this.
Sugie – I don’t care how we’re being represented at statewide senate
as long as we know we’re acting with integrity.
Susan G – Do you feel that way even when you’re being represented
this way beyond the Senate, at the Legislature, etc.?
Sugie – The only thing that’s changed is that we sent someone to the
task force.
John E – We could still write a resolution to clarify that we still do not
think that Early Start is beneficial in any way and the only reason
we’re in this conversation is that we think even worse things will
happen for students if we’re not; it’s still a really, really bad idea.
Sugie – We can take this up tomorrow and decide whom we should
send this to; we don’t need to send this to the implementation
committee.
John E. – This is part of a way bigger shift.
Sugie – We’re in a “harm reduction mode” now; we should be sharing
what we’re doing with each other and ask how we can mitigate the
impact on students. I think we had something to do with keeping the
cost as low as possible, and we talked at our last EC meeting about a
way to use Early Start to do something else we already want to do and
give students 15 hours of something that does no harm and might help
them be a little more self-aware and have a better understanding of
what the fall curriculum is going to be and having a say in where
they’re going to be in the fall. And if we can turn it into that, then we
have done something worthwhile and if we can win this battle with
stretch where stretch makes early start go away, then that’s worth
fighting still. It’s possible that this might give some campuses the
ability to do stretch.
John E. – Even Reed knows there’s a lot of opposition to it.
Sugie – 2012-2014 is an information=gathering period; by 2014 we
should come forward with data. This is why stretch precludes the need
for Early Start. If we want that exemption, we have to continue to nag
about it and go after it.
Sugie showed the group their online 15-hour course (3 days of
activities and then DSP), which is modeled after U of M. (Anne
Gere’s article in AssessingWriting 2010). All of these activities are
simply being used to get students to do an honest assessment of
8


themselves as students. After they do
the activities and write and submit the essay, the self-placement
inventory pops up, and they go through and fill it out and then their rec
ommendation pops up. If they’re Early Start students, they go back to
the Early Start page and so a final reflection assignment; if they’re not
Early Start students, they get bumped to the registration page and enro
ll in the course. If ES students don’t complete the DSP portion, they
still get credit for having completed ES, but they don’t have a
placement, so they still need to talk to them. A lot of students during
the pilot really wanted advice from instructors, so they decided to keep
class size at 15 for these courses. We are in conversation about how to
change the language of what pops up after the inventory.
Sugie – I’m happy to share all of this with you as soon as I figure out
how to give you access.
John E. - Is the implementation committee aware that most ES plans
won’t reduce the number of remedial courses?
SB 1440 Discussion: Kathryn Rummell (SLO)
Attending: Andy Troup (Bakersfield); John Engel (SJSU); Alison Baker
(Pomona); Liliane Fucaloro (Cal Poly Pomona); Alison Baker (Cal Poly
Pomona); Mimi Hotchkiss (CSULB [note taker])
The group shared some background information on SB 1440, including a
brief overview of the two options. We then voiced individual and campus
concerns, questions that had come up, and responses from our individual
campuses.
SLO, SJSU, Long Beach, and Bakersfield have agreed to variations of
“we’re similar, though we reserve the right to require additional lower
division coursework provided it does not keep the student from timely
graduation.”
Other points that were raised follow:
 Q: If upper-division classes @ a CSU are part of a CC’s lowerdivision offerings, will we (eventually) have to accept those for
articulation? Example: Children’s and Adolescent Literature. Or will
we be pressured into changing our courses to lower-division?
 A: At the moment, the answer seems to be “no,” but some departments
are concerned to the point of already considering curricular changes in
course numbering.

Q: How does this affect majors with fewer than 18 semester units of
lower-division courses required? Do departments need to select and
include new lower-division courses?

A: This doesn’t seem to be the case.
Discussion:
9











At this point it seems that we are all right in saying we are “similar,”
since departments can still require students to make up lower-division
requirements as long as they can meet the timely graduation deadlines.
Most of us have checked, and our students will still be able to take our
lower-division requirements if they haven’t had those specific courses
and still graduate within the unit cap.
However, our concern is that this may grow into a more rigid pattern
of “you have to accept the entire TMC as your lower-division classes,
no matter how a student has met it.”
Further, this raises another concern: because of issues of articulation,
the effect is that community colleges seem now to be driving our
curricular decisions, and they may have a different model for the
major than we do.
Q: Does using the term “Introduction to” universally designate a
lower-division course; can we keep courses at the upper-division level
if we use another term? Can this nomenclature help us differentiate
our courses from community college courses?
A: Practice across campuses and departments seems to vary
considerably.
Concern voiced over the “C” average; how well prepared will these
students be for our majors?
Concern that this was not as well publicized as an issue before it
became a mandate. Response from Beverly Young of CO’s office that
this was not new, but that legislators were fed up with how slowly the
articulation progress was moving; students would complain that they
were required to “retake” courses they had been told would not be
needed, thus extending their time to graduation and therefore the cost.
We recognized this as a significant concern we had also noted and
sought to address in various ways on our campuses.
In general, despite the background of SB 1440, we noted that the way
it was implemented seems to be part of a system-wide pattern of
undercutting faculty governance that we need to be aware of and
respond to.
Concerns were voiced about lack of campus identity and
homogenizing tendencies.
Concerns were raised about how this move to have students choose
majors and complete the TMC in order to receive priority admission
will penalize those students still finding their way, which we feel the
college/university should recognize and encourage.
We noted the intersecting issues of CCTC mandated course coverage
and the TMC.
Budget Impacts Discussion: Mimi Hotchkiss (CSULB)
This breakout focused on the budget and its impact on individual
campuses. A lot of the conversation was speculative, but various CSUs
got to hear the details of the budget crisis at other schools and how they
were processing it.
10
GWAR Coordinators Meeting: Fiona Glade (Sacramento)
Attendance: 4 campuses
We reviewed what campuses are doing with the GWAR Requirement. In
the interest of keeping up, Fiona is going to find the old GWAR survey
and send it to the list to be updated. We are interested in the following
questions:
Do you use assigned time for the GWAR?
Do you have a test and/or course?
What do you charge your students for the test?
Topic for spring: GWAR courses?
:
3:15-3:30
3:30-5:00
Break with Refreshments
Disciplinary Breakouts
English Education: Mary Warner (San Jose)
Attending: Mary Warner, Mary Adler, Dorothy Clark, Beverly Young,
Nancy Brynelson, Alison Baker
Beverly Young: CCTC Staff brought forward a new ELD credential at the
last meeting: English as a World Language. The new credential would
have full rights as a secondary English credential. It requires the 3 English
Subject Matter Requirements with an expanded section in the fourth,
Linguistics and Literacy. No input was solicited from the English
Education faculty at the CSUs or at other institutions. It will be coming up
as an information item at the November meeting. Beverly asked if the
English Ed group would like to weigh in. Issues discussed include:
 How it would apply to existing campus structures
 The relation of this credential to the existing English credential. Why
is it not an add-on authorization rather than an overlapping one?
CLAD started this way. An add-on authorization would have the
additional benefit of being applicable to other content areas as well.
 The preparation for ELD is essentially different than for English—
Nancy noted that they really are “different animals.”
 Students may complete the credential for one purpose (desire to teach
ELL students) but may be hired for another (teaching regular English
courses).
 Nancy suggested that the impetus is coming from the ELD community
who may feel as though the English credential is not enough
preparation for ELD students. The reality is that ELD teachers need to
know how to deal more with language concerns and then move the
students into regular English classes. For this credential, teachers
would need both sets of learning, and they are very different.
 Beverly noted that English teachers are responsible for content, and
when this is tagged onto an English credential, it suggests that English
is the only discipline responsible for ELD and that the English content
is not validated.
Marina
Pacific
Shell
La Jolla
11

Beverly suggested that we go online, look at the proposal, and provide
feedback to Terri Fesperman at CCTC (tfesperman@ctc.ca.gov).
Beverly Young: Should we continue to approve subject matter for
students who come from other non-subject matter institutions? In some
cases schools are not approved by the CCTC but students still try to get a
waiver from an approved CSU. The group suggested that we not approve
students from other institutions except on a case-by-case basis (such as a
student from out of state).
Nancy Brynelson: Update on Common Core. The California version is
available online, along with several PowerPoints. California has gone
with the Smarter Balance consortium for K-12 assessments with Common
Core. These are looking to be available in 2014-15. The hang-up is that
California first needs a lengthy process to form a framework committee,
produce textbook criteria, and adopt textbooks. SB 150 just re-established
the curriculum adoption committee, K-8. They are going to do math first.
The earliest this will be available is perhaps 2016, maybe 2018. For
grades 9-12, textbooks are a local decision. States have already started the
process for materials to supplement the core.
All of this depends on money for new books; the last time that most
districts bought books was about 10 years ago, in 2002. Other texts are
out in different states (without the CA 15% add-ins). CAR has
PowerPoints available. And, we still do not know what will happen to
CSU funding from the mid-year budget cuts.
CCTC has to revise the subject matter standards before the CSU would
have to revise subject matter programs. So, this will be delayed
potentially until 2014 or later.
Dorothy: She suggested we gather data to inform the CCTC about the
primacy of the subject matter programs as an alternative to the CSET, to
ward off any potential to discontinue subject matter like what happened
with liberal studies.
Beverly: There is a new executive director of the CCTC, Mary Sandy,
who will start November 1. She is a former CSU employee. Beverly
recommends her as someone who understands the importance of subject
matter as opposed to testing.
Composition: Kim Costino (San Bernardino)
Chris Wierry: He wants to train TAs to use platforms other than Bb and
publish a book of student work. He would then like to fund a project of
new media studies with the proceeds from this self-published book
(Fountainhead Publishing).
 Discussion: Is this unethical? The problem is that the money might not
be able to go to the department; it can only go to the author. We can
12

sell books through the bookstore, but we can’t donate the money to the
department; it has to go to you.
Bob Mayberry: Bob is working with Fountainhead to create readings.
Suggestions: Go to Googlesites.com
CLEP Exam: Should we evaluate the current draft of the CLEP
composition test? We are being consulted as experts, so we should
respond as such. We don’t want to be left out of the conversation. It gives
us another opportunity to look at this exam so we can articulate our stance
on timed writing.
 Volunteers: Fiona Glade, Glen McClish, Cathy Gabor, Bob Mayberry
John Edlund: Should we write a clarifying position on Early Start? We do
not want to use English Council’s participation on the Early Start
implementation committee in any way as an endorsement of Early Start.
Do we need to restate our position about this program? Our time is best
spent in proving that students who go straight into freshman comp
succeed.
Options:
 Put a current statement on our website.
 Publish an open letter to the taxpayers; letter to the editor
We decided to do both.
The group viewed the video and agreed that it completely misrepresents
the full scope of Early Start at the other campuses in the system. The
Bakersfield video features students who are voluntarily taking a grantsupported Early Start Program.
Kim Flachmann announced that Mike Rose will be attending CATE 2012
for a dinner with our graduate students on Thursday, February 9, 2012.
She will put a note out to the list with this information. She needs RSVPs
for the dinner.
Department Chairs: Kathryn Rummell (San Luis Obispo)
Pomona and LA noticed an increase in the number of students in
developmental English.
Those using DSP remarked that market forces seem to encourage students
to choose whatever they can get rather than what they might need.
Most campuses are not hiring tenure-track faculty this year, despite the
fact that the system lost over 500 tenure-track faculty this past year. The
Senate is pushing for data on separations.
Glen raised a concern on his campus (SDSU) that the UAW approached
him because their TAs were doing "too much work" for a .2 assignment.
Glen indicated that there was no way to increase the TA's assignment, and
cited the "work to rule." We want to know how this plays out over the
13
year and whether it occurs on other campuses.]
John Engel talked about moves to reorganize and streamline departments
and colleges on SJSU's campus. The dean moved comp/rhet out of
English without heeding the 54-1 English faculty vote.
The group noted that assigned time continues to disappear and course
loads are reported to be increasing.
There was discussion of the Periodic Evaluation process.
Faculty appear to be FERPing earlier because of the toxic environment in
the CSU.
The chairs discussed funding for faculty research and travel.
Graduate Coordinators: Bob Carlisle (Bakersfield)
Attending: Mary Boland, SBSU; Jane Robinett, SDSU; Faiza Shereen,
Cal Poly Pomona; Mimi Hotchkiss, CSULB [note taker]
Announcement by Bob Carlisle: All CSU System English Departments
need to update their info on the English Council website; this info is in
some instances quite out of date. Bob had a hard time contacting the grad
coordinators in advance of this meeting.
Considerable discussion of the idea presented by several programs
(Northridge, for example) of a Portfolio/Publishable Paper as
“Culminating Experience” with a presentation as an alternative to a thesis.
There was general interest in and enthusiasm for this model.
Where are our MA students are headed: We talk about addressing the MA
population not going into PhD or teaching, but even our newer models of
a “culminating experience” (publishable paper) assume our own
professional model.
Interest in addressing students’ abilities to go on after MA, whether
getting CC job, going on to PhD, going into professional writing.
We shared examples of schools putting on workshops/panels for applying
for jobs after grad school; applying for PhD programs; getting
Community College jobs.
Question about how many of the grad programs have classes on tech/prof
writing for graduate students.
Bob has surveyed MA students about what they plan to do after degree: at
Bakersfield, breakdown is approximately 70% community college
teaching; 30% high school teaching. Very few students have ever gone
on to PhD; Bakersfield more a local population, and they can’t do the PhD
14
because they have to stay in the area for various reasons.
Mary: San B hasn’t done official surveys, but rough numbers:
30% active high school faculty; 30-40% interested in getting community
college position; the rest go for Ph.D. They have had high rate of success
placing students in PhD programs.
Mary asks students interested in community college jobs if they are
willing to move. They need to think nationally to get a tenure-track
position, which was seconded by Jane.
Bob Carlisle: How successful have your grads been in finding
employment?
 Faiza, Cal Poly: She’s new in the position, but from what she’s heard,
very successful.
 Jane, SDSU: She can’t speak for literature, but Rhetoric and Writing
Studies students work in both in industry and community college. The
networking through the program and connections with professional
writers have been highly valuable. Still, there is some difficulty in
finding work, especially for people who had been laid off and came
back to school. We need to remind our students of jobs in industry:
NGO, Tech, software, biotech; in-house publications.
 Long Beach: Our students have been successful in getting into PhD
programs & getting both teaching and professional jobs, but current
hiring numbers are off everywhere.
SUGGESTION: This group should survey the Community Colleges and
see where these jobs were. We need to give people the data to work.
Noted problem with rising number of high school English teachers who
lose jobs and come back to MA—and now are taking on a whole new
level of debt; what will their prospects be?
SDSU: Metropolitan areas like SF, SD, LA are rich areas for students
with Rhet/Writing skills: NGO’s, speech writing, propaganda. Students
may not also realize that they are good candidates for state department
jobs, particularly on the cultural side.
Could English Council be a clearinghouse for these sorts of things:
workshops on getting jobs? Sharing best practices? Yes, but we don’t
want to create any more work for ourselves; we’re overbooked already.
We need to be sure we avail ourselves of resources already out there:
MLA/ADE etc. The following ideas were proposed:
 Having a special topics course on what people within the larger field
of English Studies do and what English Grads have done;
 Joint regional (clusters of local CSU campuses) Conference/
Workshops on job search, PhD app, Community College apps, etc.
SDSU: RWS regularly runs two-hour workshops, one on applying for
15
PhD programs, which invites students who have recently gone through
this process to come share info with their peers, and the other on all the
details connected with how to get a job
Another best practice: Teaching internship program through the English
Department; students who get into that program get the foot in the door.
Discussion of size of TA programs and issues of attrition, since adjuncts
with entitlement need the courses. At CSUSB, since TA’s deemed not
“necessary to our academic program,” no institutional support. Of course,
no tuition waivers. Does anyone know how to get around this?
 SDSU: we have a big program: lots of sections of freshman comp.
Built into the program as a requirement: teaching or writing internship.
TA pool from both English & Rhetoric: joint decision. Slots: 12-15;
used to be able to take on 16 or 18. Students have to take Theory and
practice of teaching comp before applying for positions.
Discussed compensation for MA coordinators:
Bakersfield: one course release per year (quarter)
SBSU: one course per year
SDSU: one per semester
CSULB: one per semester
 We don’t protest these issues enough; we try to go along for the
students’ sake. Is this the best practice, in the long term?
 Discussed the resentment on administrative level about giving any
release time for work that needs to be done to run programs.
SDSU: Students have to pay a $400 fee in May to hold their place for fall
(part of their fall money). If they choose not to enter, it’s not refunded.
Related question: Mary, SBSU: Big shifts in financial aid: now the grad
students are being questioned at the financial aid office and are getting cut
off from their financial aid while they are in the process of finishing MA.
5:30-6:30
Wine and Beer Soiree
Friday Morning, October 14
Reports and Business Meeting
7:30-8:30
Continental Breakfast
8:30-9:45
GENERAL REPORTS: SPECIAL TOPICS
Early Start (see summary above)
In addition to the report above, we are going to request money for a
meeting that focuses on an online version of Early Start modeled after the
San Francisco program.
SB 1440 (see summary above)
Suite of
President
Shell
16
Budget Impacts (see summary above)
GWAR Coordinators (see summary above)
Report from ECCTYC (Gary Enns, Cerro Coso Community College)
Our community colleges colleagues are preparing for the ECCTYC
Conference this month, with topics on literature, composition, and
approaches to jobs in the community colleges.
The hiring picture is bleak in the community colleges. Most department
hiring is in freezes; for each opening; applications for teaching positions
in the community colleges are dramatically increased.
Jon Drinnon from the CC Academic Senate is now a part of the ERWC
Advisory Committee.
Report from John Edlund on ERWC
The full ERWC course is in 376 high schools. In nine years, we have
trained 6006 English faculty. The program continues to grow in
California and beyond.
We are currently revising the ERWC assignment template to include more
sophisticated theory and practice, and we are developing a new model
module. We are also introducing 8 middle school modules.
Mark Weidman and Karin Wescom are two high school teachers who
have joined the committee.
We have written a proposal for an i3 grant, which we will find out about
in December.
9:45-10:00
Break
10:00-10:30
GENERAL REPORTS: BREAKOUT SESSIONS
English Education (see summary above)
Composition (see summary above)
Sugie added to Kim’s report that she contacted Eric Forbes about our
unhappiness with the way English Early Start is represented, especially in
the new video posted on the CSU English Success site.
Department Chairs (see summary above)
Graduate Coordinators (see summary above)
10:30-11:00
Resolutions and Directives: Vice President (Kathryn Rummell)
17
We have one resolution from the Composition Break-Out session
reinforcing their stance on Early Start: The resolution was approved by
acclamation.
 John Edlund: Statement about Early Start to go up on Web site and to
the Academic Senate.
 Susan Gubernat (Academic Senate) will send out the email to the state
senators and read it at the next Senate meeting.
11:00-11:45
Business Meeting
Margaret Rustick: Treasurer’s Report
We have the same amount of money. Margaret has sent out invoices to the
departments for dues.
Sugie: SF Humanities dean is asking why our campus dues are so high.
Do other schools have this problem?
Other items of business:
We are going to update the website and keep it up with agendas, notes,
new contact information, etc.
The group asked Kim F to supply an executive summary of this meeting
for the website. We need to showcase our meetings, which are like miniconferences with presentations. They are good for faculty development
and the introduction of new faculty into the profession. We also deal with
policy statements.
John Engel is being pressured into offering “special session” classes.
Different campuses are responding to these “self-support” classes in
different ways. Some campuses run classes for profit through Extended
University; others have been told they can’t combine state-side offerings
with EU offerings.
12:00
Adjournment
Executive Committee Luncheon
Spring English Council Meeting April 11-13, 2012
Doubletree, Burlingame