Monthly Archives: September 2014

Sept. 2014 Advocate – District responds on hiring practices for part-timers

PART TIMERS

District responds to Advocate letter on failure to give fair treatment to current part-time faculty in hiring for full-time positions


by Barbara Christensen, SMCCCD Director of Community/Government Relations

The Advocate published a letter [“Full-time position open: In-house adjuncts need not apply” in May 2014 issue] written by an adjunct faculty member who was bitterly disappointed because she was not offered an interview for a full time position at Skyline College. This faculty member stated that it is “unfair and inequitable not to seriously consider our own before hiring an unknown faculty member.”

First, I would like to point out that the hiring process for faculty is faculty driven; there are usually four or more faculty members and one dean on the committee that selects those to be interviewed and chooses the finalists to be forwarded to the hiring manager. Each of these committees is trained to and does seriously consider each applicant, granting interviews to those deemed to be the best qualified to join the faculty as a full time professor. The number of applicants for these positions is often well over 100, reflecting the extremely competitive applicant pool for these highly sought after positions at the District’s Colleges.

Second, Title 5 of the Education Code mandates that the District cast as wide a net as possible for candidates when filling vacancies. Therefore, a policy that would guarantee a limited number of interview slots to selected applicants would violate the spirit, if not the explicit prohibitions, of Title 5.

The District’s track record in hiring adjuncts is strong. In 2013-14, 70% of faculty hires came from adjunct faculty within our District. The percentages for 2012-13, 2011-12, 2010-11 and 2009-10 are 41%, 64%, 73% and 100% respectively. (In ’09-’10, the one faculty hire came from the adjunct ranks.) Finally, I would like to note that every year many of our adjuncts are hired into tenure-track positions for other Districts and our District hires adjuncts from other Districts as well.

The District’s goal has always been to hire the very best candidate for each vacant position and I believe we have been fortunate to have hired very talented faculty members over the past several years.

Sept. 2014 Advocate – Our 3.69% pay raise beats price increases

Our 3.69% pay raise beats price increases

Everyone is probably aware that our salary increase for 2014-15 is 3.69%. The increase, which was negotiated with the District by the creative AFT negotiating team, was based on a percentage of the  increased property values in San Mateo County. The calculation raised our pay almost a full percentage point above the 2.8% year over year increase in the Consumer Price Index in the Bay Area (as of April, 2014).  This means that faculty are beginning to catch up with some of the lost purchasing power of all the years of no compensation increases. Kudos to the members of the AFT negotiating committee: Joaquin Rivera (Chair), Monica Malamud, Victoria Clinton and Sandi Raeber Dorsett.

Sept. 2014 Advocate – Flex days and part-time faculty

PART TIMERS

Flex = flexible: Flex days and part-time faculty


by Monica Malamud, AFT 1493 Secretary

Over the years, there have been many questions about how flex days apply for part-time faculty.  The language in our contract was not very clear, so different people could interpret it differently.  For the Fall 2009 semester, in response to a request from the Vice Presidents of Instruction, the AFT and the District negotiated an academic calendar which had a flex day scheduled in the middle of the semester for the first time.  The number of questions regarding the interpretation of flex days for part-time faculty, especially those who work in the evening, increased significantly.
The AFT leadership actively engaged in communications with Harry Joel, then Vice-Chancellor of Human Resources and Employee Relations, which resulted in clarification of article 7.11.2 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (aka “the Contract”).  In an email sent to college presidents on March 4, 2009 Harry Joel wrote (emphasis added):
“We know that evening classes on March 11 will not be held due to this day (and evening) being a flex day.  If an evening part time faculty member’s class is not held and he/she elects to participate in a flex day activity that day or another day, and a flex day participation from is submitted, he/she should be paid for the flex day.”
This interpretation is in line with Title 5 language on flex days.  Article § 55720 (Operating under a Flexible Calendar), section (a) states (emphasis added):
[…] a community college district may designate an amount of time in each fiscal year for employees to conduct staff, student, and instructional improvement activities. These activities may be conducted at any time during the fiscal year. The time designated for these activities shall be known as “flexible time.”
So, even though certain days in the academic calendar are designated as “flex days” (as opposed to “instructional days”), the activities corresponding to those flex days can be carried out at any time during the fiscal year.
Although it was the mid-semester flex day which motivated this clarification, the conversations between Human Resources and Union representatives in spring 2009 resulted in unambiguous interpretation of the article 7.11.2 going forward.  This was widely communicated to district faculty and administrators:  in addition to the email sent by Harry Joel to the college presidents, Monica Malamud, then AFT 1493 president, sent an email to all faculty.
In order to reflect this shared understanding of flex days for part-time faculty in the AFT 1493 Contract, during negotiations sessions in the spring of 2013, the District negotiating team brought a proposal to the negotiating table.  Joaquín Rivera and Brian Heid, AFT 1493 and the District’s Chief Negotiators respectively, signed the revised version of contract article 7.11.2, which went into effect immediately.  The new language in 7.11.2 states that, in addition to participating in district- or college-sponsored flex activities, a part-time faculty member who is assigned to teach on a day of the week that has been designated as flex
“can elect to participate in a college-approved flex activity on an alternative day other than the College-designated flex day, show written verification of the activity, and receive regular pay for up to the normal student contact hours that the part-time faculty member is scheduled to teach on that day of the week.”
You can find a copy of the actual signed agreement on the AFT 1493 website (MOU-FlexDayObligation-2014.)
Now our contract follows Ed. Code and clearly states the obvious:  “flex” means “flexible”.

Sept. 2014 Advocate – Decision in Vergara case overturns teacher rights

Decision in Vergara case overturns teacher rights; is being appealed

On June 10 of this year, an L.A. Superior court Judge in Vergara v. State of California declared five Education code protections unconstitutional, striking down California’s tenure, layoff, due process and seniority laws for K-12 teachers. It is a product of right-wing ideology, rather than Constitutional law and reasoning. The decision ignores the facts proved in the case, and disregards governing law. In rolling back the protections that allow teachers to educate their students and advocate for them without fear of arbitrary and capricious retaliation, the judge has set back a century of well-reasoned law.    
    The case was initiated last year by a group calling itself “Students Matter,” funded by David Welch, a conservative Silicon Valley millionaire. The lawsuit, hiding behind a group of students, alleges that teacher workplace rights– tenure, due process rights, and seniority rights during layoffs– infringe on the constitutional right of students to an equal education.
    The case is limited to K-12 public schools. Both the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) and the California Teachers Association (CTA) intervened in the case, and were active participants in a joint effort with the Governor and Attorney General. The court’s injunction, holding these important and long-standing State laws unconstitutional, has been stayed pending appeal. The CFT and CTA have filed an appeal.
    A state Superior court decision has no precedential value and thus should not impact the community colleges. In addition, the tenure and due process laws for community colleges are significantly different than the K-12 statutes.

Sept. 2014 Advocate – What is the purpose of our work?

What is the purpose of our work?

Why a college education is much more than achieving a set of learning outcomes


by Chad Hanson, Professor of Sociology, Casper College

 
HansonEvery spring we conduct commencement ceremonies. At the end, students toss their mortar boards up in the air. They leave their seats to find their families. Then they hug relatives as new and different people. Graduating from a college is a milestone in our culture. When education is at its best, graduates are not the same as entering freshman. They leave as professionals. They add vitality to civic life.
To some degree, we all understand the broad, transformative purpose of education. Even so, in the past two decades, attempts to assess our work have focused, narrowly, on the short-term cognitive gains that students make, or fail to demonstrate, in courses and degree programs. On some level, as educators, we know that our goal is to help students build new identities—those of nurses, fire fighters, artists, scientists, technicians, citizens, etc. But recent efforts to evaluate our work have centered on one feature of education: cognitive learning.
In 1995, Robert Barr and John Tagg published, “From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education.” The article proved itself one of the most widely cited and influential writings of the time. The buzz around the essay grew so great, interest in learning took on the character of a movement. The drive caused many institutions to describe themselves as “learning colleges,” expressly devoted to cognitive development. At the same time, and partially as a result, we also began to forsake our broader roles, in the lives of students, and the culture of the nation.
In order to convince us to reduce our conception of education to learning, Barr and Tagg questioned the historic values of academics. In the past, when we thought about “going to college,” we pictured students engaged in an experience. That experience involved stretching out beyond home and work, searching for a new type of self, and then taking on the traits that we associate with educated people: dignity, thoughtfulness, idealism, etc. We used to see going to college as a rite of passage. Historically, staff and faculty thought of their work in terms of providing a cultural experience, but Barr and Tagg and their successors convinced many of us to shrink our thoughts down to the point where we see education as a cognitive product, as opposed to a cultural process.
Short-term cognitive outcomes lend themselves to measurement, but the real purpose of schooling is to give students a chance to address questions, such as, “Who am I and what can I become?” In Why Read, Mark Edmundson added two more questions that students ought to ask, “What is this world in which I find myself? And, how can I change it for the better?” For centuries, the process of becoming educated served as a chance for students to form new ways of seeing themselves and relating to others.
Studies of knowledge acquisition cannot assess what it means to become a graduate of a college or university. The process of documenting learning does little to help us understand how our graduates present themselves in a work setting, as members of families, or while taking part in community events. We cannot describe a graduate’s personal, civic, or professional identity by testing memory or skill. The most meaningful outcomes of schooling relate to the traits that students develop.
Traits come about, and they endure, to the degree that they become a part of one’s identity. The human identity or “self” is a story. We use narrative to build a sense of who we are. We are the life stories that we create and present to people. The most crucial feature of a college education is that it offers students a chance to develop a new story—one that allows them to explain who they are, to themselves, and to those they know. In the long run, colleges become alma maters: settings for key chapters of our stories. Those stories about who we are and where we are from turn into reservoirs that we revisit, time and again, for insight, direction, and counsel. More so than the bits of knowledge that we remember for tests and then soon forget, it is the memory of the college experience that gives students an avenue on which to maintain the traits that we associate with educated, i.e., curious, creative, analytical, and civic-minded people.

EinsteinQuote    Learning is ubiquitous. It occurs all the time, everywhere, even online. Learning can take place while people watch TV. It happens when viewing a podcast. No one doubts that we learn through a range of methods, but the education-as-learning metaphor keeps us from asking big questions about what it means to attend and graduate from a postsecondary school. For example, students can learn online, but we rarely ask if you can become an educated person by visiting websites. Can you become an educated person by watching podcasts? The learning metaphor keeps us from raising such questions. Too often, we assume that our purpose is to produce learning, and we forget that our real charge is to create an environment where entering freshman become college graduates.
If we fail to tackle the common, but faulty, assumption that we are in the business of manufacturing, and learning is our product, schools will continue to change in consequential ways. For example, the learning-as-product metaphor provides the rationale for using adjunct faculty. Learning proponents argue, “Why invest in full-time teachers when learning is all that matters?” The learning-as-product mindset justifies MOOCs and online curricula. Digital learning advocates ask, “If you can learn online, why should students or the public pay to build or maintain campuses?” We often leave these questions unchallenged. Few of us have been willing to make the case that the role of a college is to provide a social environment where students can develop the traits that we attribute to educated citizens—past and present.
Barr and Tagg suggested, if we reduce education to learning, the enterprise could one day break free from the need for “live” teachers. But it takes campuses, faculty, and an educational experience to turn freshman into graduates. The process of becoming an educated person is a ritual and a rite of passage. In our culture, the process requires people, places, and memorable experiences. In the months and years ahead, faculty will do well to remind students, administrators, and the wider public that education involves more than learning, in a cognitive sense. To know the impact of our work, we will need methods other than those of educational psychology. We will need the perspectives and techniques of anthropologists, sociologists, political scientists, writers, philosophers, and historians, among others.
We live in an era where the importance of our work is no longer taken for granted. Therefore, we must communicate the value of teachers and campuses. To do so, we will need to stop shrinking our conception of the college experience down to cognitive learning—a stimulus and a response. The institution of higher education is not the same as a Skinner box. Even B.F. Skinner understood, “Education is what survives when what has been learned has been forgotten.” At its best, higher education is a life-changing process. It is time to start taking stock and taking pride in our efforts toward that end.

Chad Hanson serves as chairman of the Department of Sociology & Social Work at Casper College. He is the author of The Community College and the Good Society, and the editor of In Search of Self: Exploring Student Identity Development. For more information, visit:www.chadhanson.org.