April 1986

Background
The "Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates" is a group of Academic Senate leaders from each of the three segments of public higher education in California, CSU, UC, and CCC. It meets monthly for the purpose of Jointly addressing matters of academic importance to all three segments. The value of the work of this committee is unquestioned, but few faculty, administrators, or others in the field of education in California are aware of the existence of this remarkable group, and are unfamiliar with the work that it does.

The origin of the committee appears obscure because it is a voluntary organization having no official status. Meetings have been informal, and there is little archival material such an minutes, agendas, or correspondence on file in Senate offices from which to derive information on the work of the committee. However, it was formed recently enough that the impounding members have no difficulty in recalling the circumstances, and we are indebted to them for having provided, from memory, most of the background information here described.

Informal discussions on the need for better relationships between the three segments of public higher education began as early as 1978-79. The impetus for this was rooted in concerns about the transfer function, declining levels of academic preparation of high school graduates, and a common desire to preserve the quality of baccalaureate education. Other matters of mutual interest that brought the segments together included Proposition 13, Proposition 9, and legislation requiring a common course numbering system modeled on the Florida system (the Molina Bill).

Early discussions began mainly through the efforts or Norbert Bischof, President of the CCC Academic Senate, 1979-80, and Karl Pister, Chair of the UC Academic Senate 1979-80. Their efforts led to a meeting of the Chairs of the three Academic Senates with some key administrators from the segments with the objective of opening discussions on ways to upgrade standards of transfer programs and reduce the rate of student failure on transferring to four-year schools. A subsequent meeting of historic significance was held at the Headquarters of the Community Colleges in Sacramento in the Spring, 1980, attended by Chancellor Hayward, and Karl Pister, Robert Kully, and Norbert Bischof representing the Academic Senate chairs of UC, CSU, and CCC respectively. The decathlon was made at that meeting for a group of senate members from each segment to meet regularly to address a variety of issues of mutual concern to faculty in the public segments of higher education, most notably the Master Plan, transfer issues, articulation, general education requirements, and educational quality. The need for the faculty to make a clear statement of standards for transfer programs was recognized at the outset.

By the Fall of 1980, the senate group began to meet regularly, and became known as the "Intersegmental Committee of Academic Senate Representatives," or more simply but less correctly as the "INTERSEGMENTAL Senate." The initial membership of the committee is unclear, but the senate chairs during this crucial year were Ben Aaron (UC), Robert Kully (CSU), and Tyra Duncan Hall(CCC). Additional members who subsequently played key roles in the committee's work included Lyman Heine (CSU), William Broen (UC), Phil Curtis (UC) and Henry Alder (UC).

The structure of the committee was determined by consensus. It was agreed that there would be five members from each of the three segments, including the chair and the vice chair of each Academic Senate. There was a strong sentiment that there should be no administrators on the committee. Meetings were held at various locations, and it was understood that the member from the host segment would chair the meeting. That is to say, the chair rotated from meeting to meeting according to where it was held. However, in 1984-85 it was decided that the chair should rotate among the segments annually rather than monthly. Initially, meetings were very informal, and no minutes were kept. The committee continues to operate on an informal and voluntary basis with no official statute or, for that matter, recognition from the various administrations. There is no staff support or budget for this intersegmental activity other than expenses claimed by individual members in connection with senate business. This presents a problem because the work of the committee is growing, both in terms of volume and importance; minutes are now routinely taken, and the need for staff support on a continuing basis is apparent.

Relationship Between the Round Table and the Intersegmental Committee.
A letter dated October 20, 1980 from Ben Aaron to UC President, David Saxton, documents the founding of the Intersegmental committee of faculty representatives from the three segments, recounts the hope that similar meetings could be held between the heads of the three segments, and expresses delight that the latter will happen under the auspices of the California Round Table on Educational Opportunity. Consistent with this, an information item in The UC Regents agenda of the May 14, 1981 meeting is a joint statement from President Saxon and Chancellor Hayward pledging cooperative efforts through the Round Table to strengthen the transfer function. It would appear then, that the Intersegmental faculty group formed before the Intersegmental administrative group. The Round Table group was apparently formed in response to a UC task force report, the "Kissler Report," on retention and transfer which was sharply critical of transfer programs and which elicited a thoughtful rebuttal prepared by MaryAmber Villa for the CCC Academic Senate.

Statements on Preparation
Initially, the focus of the Intersegmental committee was on the transfer function. Bill Broen(UC) was invited to head a subcommittee to draft a statement on the distinction between baccalaureate-level courses (for credit) and remedial courses. There was strong sentiment among the four year segments that the key to maintaining quality and upgrading the transfer function was to remove the possibility of a student receiving degree credit for courses that were deemed remedial in nature. An acceptable statement on this issue would, in the long run, materially assist the Community Colleges by signaling clear standards for baccalaureate education. It was natural, then, for the committee to wish to identify as far as possible what a student should know on entering college as a freshman. This led to the decision to prepare statements of competencies expected (according to faculty perceptions) of high school graduates entering college. The committee set highest priority on issues of greatest concern, namely, preparation in English and mathematics. Subsequently, the committee developed a draft statement on competencies in English and mathematics, invited critical review by the three Academic Senates, engaged in extensive consultation with other segments of education in California-including high school and college teachers of English and mathematics and administrators and parents--and, finally, prepared a document for publication and dissemination.

The level of consultation was extraordinarily high, and in view of the number of organizations that had input, it is surprisingly that the statements survived such critical scrutiny. Although much of this effort is lost in history, there remains a sense that there were unforeseen difficulties for the faculty in preparing statements that were acceptable enough for the California Round Table to endorse for publication. The Round Table Staff, through the efforts of Alice Cox (UC), Steve Weiner (UC) and Jack Smart (CSU) were supportive of the project and stressed the need to consult with K-12 and Independent schools before final approval by the Senates. To quote the final paragraph of a letter dated 10/12/81 from Steve Weiner to members or the Intersegmental committee "I believe that the document being developed by the Senates is of profound importance. To be effective, however, it must finally emerge as a statement enthusiastically supported by the Senates, K-12, the independent colleges and the Round Table. Anything else will muffle the clear message that you wish to send."

The letter also expresses Weiner's concern that Senate "ownerships" of the expectations document would reduce consultation with K-12 to pro forma status.

Disagreements were expressed by various K-12 groups that the statements were offensive--placing the blame on underpreparation on intermediate and secondary educators while ignoring the multifaceted nature of the problem. Aspects of the material were seen as intruding on a high school's responsibility for determining methods or instruction. Also, support by the Round Table staff and principals was not unqualified. Although the principals of the three segments were very supportive, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Wilson Riles, did not respond favorably to faculty meddling with K-12 education. Not surprisingly, Riles wanted to shape the English and math statements to the perception of the Department of Education. But, it was mainly through the support of David Saxon, who stressed that the document represented faculty opinion and was therefore an independent point of view, that the Round Table principals (Dumke, Hayward, Saxon, Callan, Riles) finally accepted it. Thereafter, closer consultation ensued with the State Department of Education to resolve any differences and misunderstandings; offending statements to the K-12 sector were also removed or revised, and the revised statements were brought back to the Academic Senates for approval of the modifications. The players at this stage who must be credited with guiding the statements towards closure were Barbara Hinkley (CCC), Jack Bedell (CSU), Phil Curtis (UC) and Henry Alder (UC), with continuing support from Bill Broen (UC) and Lyman Heine (CSU).

The foregoing gives a little impression or the time, energy effort, and dedication that went into the preparation of the English and math statements. The document that was ultimately presented to the Round Table on June 24 1982, and finally published in November 1982, with both statements bound in the same volume, had gone through innumerable drafts along the way, and were not the same as the versions originally approved by the Senates. The most significant difference was the deletion from the printed version of the Committee's definition of Remedial and Baccalaureate-level Coursework in English and Mathematics. The committee was unable to convince the Round Table to retain this section. The section was seen as controversial, although the reasons for the controversy are not clear. The best that can be said is that CSU wanted to establish a level of college-level work below which baccalaureate credit could not be given; David Saxon opposed this in the grounds that in the UC system it was to simply send them around to the schools. Seminars, workshops, and conferences are essential to the implementation of recommendations in the statements, and to curriculum development in general. One of the main objectives of the Intersegmental Committee is to find mechanisms and funding for the dissemination of the statements and activities related thereto.

The foregoing illustrates that considerable effort has been and continues to be invested by many faculty from all three segments in a concerted effort to improve the preparation of students entering our colleges and universities. Every effort is made to consult with teachers and principals at the secondary schools, with representatives of the Department of Education, and with the California Round Table. The statements build on the recently published Model Curriculum Standards prepared by the Department of Education and hopefully will contribute to better precollege preparation of students and to their greater success in college.

Further Objectives
Important matters or mutual concern to the segments and therefore to the Intersegmental Committee include the ongoing review of the Master Plan for Higher Education; general education requirements and transfer core curricula; efforts to bring minorities into the mainstream of education and to foster their success; strengthening communication and cooperation between the segments of education, including K-12; criteria for upper versus lower division coursework, and so on. The Committee's record in its short history argues well for its effectiveness in intersegmental cooperation. It considers that it has a lot to offer, but the extent to which its full potential can be realized depends a great deal on whether the institutions that make up the segments are supportive of the cooperative efforts that many faculty have shown they are capable of.

Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates
April 1986

Intersegmental Coordinating Council