Reflective Essay on Theme I, Issue No. 2: Expanding Summer Session and Move to Year-round Operations

The issue of conversion to a state-supported summer session and year-round operations, which loomed large as an issue for the campus when our Self-study Plan was written, turned out to be not as difficult and controversial a matter as was anticipated.

Background:

In the early 1970s it was decreed by the legislature that all CSU campuses should convert to year-round operations with full state support. Four campuses were converted (Hayward, Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo and Pomona) but funding ran out for this project. The other campuses continued to run summer sessions on a self-supporting basis through their Continuing or Extended Education divisions. All costs of operating the summer quarter were paid for through student fees, which were approximately four times higher than in other terms of the academic year. Faculty members were paid from the CSU Summer Session Salary Schedule, which was considerably lower than their salary during fall, winter and spring terms. Prior to state year-round funding the summer term in effect was operated at CSUSB much like a private institution. Some basic administrative operations were funded by the state on a 12-month basis, but the University received additional reimbursement from Extended Education for additional services provided directly in support of the Summer Session.

In order to serve more students, improve graduation rates, accelerate degree completion, and maximize use of campus facilities and classrooms, in 1998 the state began to convert additional CSU campuses to year-round operations with a plan of phasing in more campuses as funds were available. To accelerate this process, additional campuses were provided partial summer session support in 2000 with funding to reduce student fees. CSU San Bernardino elected to participate in this "buy-down" program in summer of 2000 and was provided funding equivalent to the 285 annualized FTES that were enrolled in the previous year.

Result: A large Summer Session Transition Committee with representatives from many offices on-campus and representatives from the faculty developed plans and new operational procedures that allowed the conversion to state-supported summer session go very smoothly. The reduction in summer student fees, along with increasing the rate of faculty pay, resulted in a dramatic increase in number of courses being offered and rapid growth in summer enrollments:

The total number of students enrolling in summer session has doubled and the number of student credit units produced tripled. Students have been very appreciative of the expanded summer offerings and lower fees, but most only enroll in one of the two five-week sessions. The average unit load is lower in summer, though it is rising. For part-time students, who are working full-time, summer enrollment is a bonus, but they still wish to take some break for summer vacation. Enrollment continues to grow and Summer 2003 is anticipated to increase 10% over 2003 for approximately 1100 FTES and 5500 individual students.

We have continued to receive direct state funding only for the original 285 FTES, but have been able to accommodate additional summer students through use of the student fees and by using enrollment and state funding originally projected for the rest of the academic year. Although the campus enrolled more summer students than were budgeted by the state, in fact, the campus was able to transfer FTES that had been projected for the following academic year to the previous summer. Increased summer enrollment also resulted in slightly lower FTES enrollment in the fall and allowed the campus to accommodate additional new students during the rest of the year.

Conclusions and Issues to be Resolved

While the move to year-round funding has been positive overall for CSUSB students and the institution, we would be remiss not to discuss certain negative and problematic effects resulting from the conversion to a state-supported summer quarter.

First, the College of Extended Learning lost a significant revenue stream when it relinquished the summer session to state support. Prior to the summer of 2000, the revenue collected by Extended Learning for summer session registrations was not only a large portion of its annual revenue, but it provided the "kick start" to cover the College's operational expenses at the beginning of the fiscal year. In the first year of summer state funding, the CSU system provided "buy down" funds, which cushioned the financial crunch somewhat; however, the subsequent summer revenue losses have created cash flow and annual expense-to-revenue issues that the College of Extended Learning must overcome. The majority of Extended Education programs within the CSU system are experiencing the same challenges and many are running year-end deficits. Undoubtedly, it will take some time for the College of Extended Learning and its system-wide counterparts to regain financial ground through major shifting of program planning and budgeting.

Second, the funds that Extended Learning had been providing to various departments on campus for summer session services now have to be paid for by the state side of the budget and, therefore, patterns of budgeting and allocation of funds have had to be reexamined. This change in budgeting is still not complete. Excess summer session funds are being held centrally until we have a better analysis and method of determining which expenses are new and related to the growth of summer enrollment and which were part of the earlier baseline and projections for summer. All new direct expenses, such as faculty salaries, cost of programming, overtime for conversion of operations, additional admissions and evaluations of students admitted for summer term, etc., have been reimbursed, yet some departments still are seeking additional funding recompense for the loss of direct summer reimbursement funding from Extended Learning. This confusion was exacerbated because Extended Learning had been combining payments to the rest of the campus for the entire year into one payment, based on a formula developed and negotiated many years ago.

Although their summer salary rate is now higher than in previous summers, faculty members still are not paid at the same rate per course that they are during the rest of the year. At present, the faculty is only paid in summer for teaching and direct instruction, not for university service, such as advising, committee work, or research. They are paid on the basis of 12 Weighted Teaching Units (WTUs) being full-time versus the 15 WTUs used for the calculation of a full-time equivalent faculty member during the rest of the academic year, which includes compensation for university service. The latest union contract calls for the campus to pay faculty for the full 15 WTUs starting in Summer 2004, at which time they will be paid at the same rate in summer as during the rest of the year. Summer teaching assignment is still optional; and we continue to rely on volunteers, which limits the type and number of courses we can offer in summer term. We are not anticipating moving to a true year-round operation for several years because there would be additional cost to the state and would require some faculty to teach in summer term which is likely to prove controversial.

Increased summer enrollment also will require additional financial support for activities and support services. Miscellaneous non-instructional fees are being increased by $131.50 for summer 2003 in order to recognize the need to provide expanded Student Union, Recreational Sports, and Student Activities, Student Government, and Health Services operations during the summer. This may have some impact on student enrollment, but we are also now providing financial aid for the summer term.

Finally, summer enrollments now are an important part of our facilities planning. We have been told by the CSU system and the state Department of Finance that it will be more difficult to justify construction of additional new facilities until the campus has increased summer FTES enrollment to approximately 40% of the average enrollment during the other three quarters. Summer 2002 FTES enrollment was approximately 21.4% of the average for the rest of the academic years. We hope to increase summer enrollments by 10-15 percent in summer 2003 and, over time, achieve the established benchmark. We also will continue to request specialized facilities and space that are justified and needed during the entire college year, such as the library expansion, the performing arts renovation/expansion, and the 600-seat auditorium.