Monthly Archives: February 2023

February 2023 (Issue 46, Num. 4)

In this issue:

February 2023 Advocate: CFT Leadership Conference

Statewide Organizing

AFT 1493 reps attend CFT Leadership Conference

AFT 1493 members Rika Yonemura-Fabian and Marianne Kaletzky joined over 140 CFT local leaders and activists at the 2023 CFT Leadership Conference on February 3rd and 4th in Burbank, with Yonemura-Fabian speaking on the conference’s introductory plenary panel. Together with representatives from United Teachers of Los Angeles, the Downey Education Association, and the AFT College Staff Guild of LA, Yonemura-Fabian shared how she incorporates principles of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion into her work as a union leader and educator, and spoke particularly about the work of our local’s Anti-Oppression Committee.

AFT 1493 rep Rika Yonemura-Fabian speaks at opening panel of the CFT Leadership Conference

The annual Leadership Conference provides skills training for emerging union leaders in the fundamentals of organizing (from how to have effective one-on-one conversations to how to create an escalation plan for a contract campaign) while also offering attendees a chance to connect with members around the state and strategize on how to address ongoing challenges in public education. This year’s conference was organized around the theme Unleash your JEDI (Justice, Equity, Diversity, Inclusion). Workshops that AFT 1493 members attended included Creating and Supporting Programs for Black Students, Asian American Workers Rising, Climate Equity 101, and Supporting and Engaging Parents of LGBTQIA Students. If you’re interested in attending future Leadership Conferences, please let Marianne know by emailing them at kaletzky@aft1493.org.


February 2023 Advocate: Unemployment assistance available

Unemployment Insurance for Part-time Faculty

Problems claiming unemployment?  Help for adjunct faculty is available! 

by Jessica Silver-Sharp, AFT 1493 Secretary

California community college part-time faculty (aka “adjuncts”) are eligible for unemployment benefits in between semesters and during summer. As a result of the 1989 Cervisi decision, part-time faculty are eligible for unemployment benefits between terms because they do not have “reasonable assurance of reemployment”—even though they might have been offered an assignment for the following semester or have a signed contract in hand. Unfortunately, as adjuncts know all too well, an offer or even a contract does not guarantee an income for the coming semester. Because your future assignment is subject to enrollment, funding, and program needs, you are eligible to claim unemployment until the day it begins (and longer if the pay you earn from it is not as much as the unemployment benefit you receive).

File your claim on your last day of work of the semester

If you haven’t filed an unemployment claim in California before, mark your calendars for May 26, the last day of the term. You will want to file your new claim on your last day of work that week, which may be May 24 or 25 depending on your teaching schedule. If you do not file before Sunday May 28 you will not be able claim the week of May 29, resulting in a loss of up to $450. If you haven’t filed before, be sure to allocate about 2 to 3 hours of prep time to gather all the information you will need from your pay stubs, etc.

A trustworthy step-by-step guide for filing or re-opening your unemployment claim, written specifically for California adjunct faculty members, is available here. (This guide is part of the “Contingent World” website, which is maintained by John Govsky, Co-Chair of the CFT Part-Time Committee and provides useful resources for California community college part-time faculty.)  Additionally, your union can help with any questions you may have along the way. Our local is planning to hold unemployment office hours on Zoom in May to assist adjuncts with the nuts and bolts of claiming benefits.

If you’ve had problems with EDD, contact your local state legislator

During the past two or three years, many adjuncts considered giving up on claims they had previously filed due to a wide variety of problems with the California Employment Development Department (EDD.)  As an adjunct myself, my claim had been “stuck” for almost two years, which was extremely frustrating. Because EDD became so overwhelmed during Covid, our California senators and assembly reps hired extra staff to help Californians struggling to claim their benefits. If you believe you are owed money by the EDD that you have not received, you can contact your local state legislator using one of the links in the table below which provide forms to describe your issue. A legislative staff member will usually call you within a short time and start a case for you. Within two weeks of seeking help from Josh Becker’s office, I was able to get $2,000 of benefits I was owed from 2021 and 2022.

For more information, see AFT1493’s website AFT1493 | Unemployment Info. Our Executive Secretary Marianne Kaletzky <Kaletzkym@aft1493.org>  and Secretary Jessica Silver-Sharp <silver-sharp@aft1493.org> are both on hand to answer your questions as well.

Legislator Geographic area How to contact re EDD
Sen. Josh Becker San Mateo County except SSF and Daly City; northern Santa Clara County  

Use this form and for Select an Issue choose “Assistance with a state agency”

 

Asm. Phil Ting Western San Francisco and northwest
San Mateo County (incl. SSF and Daly City)
 

Use this EDD-specific form

 

Asm. Matt Haney San Francisco – east side  

Use this form and select “Assistance with Unemployment/EDD”

 

Sen. Scott Wiener All of San Francisco plus SSF and Daly City  

Use this form and for Select an Issue choose “**Assistance Needed with EDD or Unemployment Benefits**”

 

Sen. Nancy Skinner East Bay (incl. Oakland, Berkeley, and Richmond)  

Use this form and provide as much detail about the issue as possible

 

 

Sen. Dave Cortese

 

Most of Santa Clara County Use this EDD-specific form

February 2023 Advocate: Dual enrollment update

Dual Enrollment

The District wants Dual Enrollment:
Do we?

Faculty raise concerns with a Board Member, but he and the District administration still strongly support increasing Dual Enrollment programs at high schools

By Tim Maxwell, CSM English Professor

   Tim Maxwell

In 2007, the year I was hired, several of my new colleagues in CSM’s English department–including Daniel Keller, Merle Cutler, and James Caranza–climbed into Madeleine Murphy’s minivan and drove the short distance to the District Office for a meeting with previous Chancellor Ron Galatolo. We had been stirred into action by the district initiative to expand Concurrent Enrollment–which, at the time, consisted only of Middle College and high school students electing to take regular college courses–from our campuses into local high schools, debuting Dual Enrollment (DE), which essentially licenses high schools to offer our credit for our courses even though they would be taught in any area high school by anyone with minimum qualifications. It seemed to us then as it does to many faculty now a fraud. In a heated discussion, we raised many of the same issues we have with the program today and the former Chancellor listened, growing more and more agitated but offering no reassurance that he was interested in preserving the integrity of our colleges. Dismissing us, he declared simply, “It’s here!”


We argued that Dual Enrollment only offers a nominal college experience–and one that effectively cancels out the authentic one they could have, thus depriving them of learning at both the high school and college levels. Especially, as the data show Dual Enrollment is underutilized by lower-income students of color, how, we asked, does it serve equity?
x
x

 

Read Tim Maxwell’s Viewpoint article on Dual Enrollment: “A Bridge to College or a Highway Right Past Us?” from the December 2022 Advocate
x

At the time, in fact, the initiative seemed to go nowhere, which I liked to think we had something to do with. Resistance to the idea was firm–and not limited to those of us taking a stand–and the former Chancellor dropped it. Expressing his exhaustion with the fight but feeling like we’d won, one faculty member wrote in an email: “They don’t have high school faculty on board; other departments are opposed to it and many more will be as this blows open; we are in charge of hiring; our student gov. doesn’t support it; CSM Speaks [a college-sponsored climate survey] is evidence against it; COI [now Committee on Instruction] will get involved, and I doubt, seriously, that people on that committee will allow it…I think it will die a slow death on its own.” He was right that it died, but it appears we were naive to think we could abandon our resistance. Today, Dual Enrollment-–this “revolutionary” scheme to render the difference between high school and community college meaningless to boost enrollment-–truly is here.

Administrators, boards, and legislators across the country praise Dual Enrollment

In fact, it is widespread, not just in our district and our state but all across the country; it will soon be virtually everywhere. Administrators, boards, and legislators at the local, state, and even federal levels parrot the same arguments about the supposed virtues of DE, especially the claim that it will serve our most underserved students by providing them with an accelerated, less expensive, and more efficient way to complete college. The US Department of Education concludes in a blog post lavishing praise on DE:

We believe that the upheaval and crises the pandemic engendered present us with the urgent opportunity now to transform how our young people transition from high school, to and through college, and into rewarding careers through deliberate integration and alignment across secondary, postsecondary, and work.  The work we do today to build more equitable dual enrollment career pathways will lead our students to a bright future.

Despite the appeal of this model to neoliberal managers determined to increase “throughput,” as community college educators, we must insist on providing all students who choose our institution a true college education.

Faculty discuss Dual Enrollment issues with Trustee John Pimentel

     Board of Trustees    .Member John Pimentel

On January 18th, AFT 1493 Co-Vice President Katharine Harer arranged a meeting between DE enthusiast and SMCCCD Trustee John Pimentel and a half dozen DE-concerned faculty to discuss some of the issues I raised in the December 2022 Advocate as well as the Trustee’s reasons for supporting the program, put simply that it would increase enrollment and provide students with a less expensive and more easily accessible college pathway. I do credit the trustee for choosing not to include Aaron McVean, the District DE lead, so that he could hear the faculty perspective, and for taking the time to read my article in advance. He also listened to us intently and respectfully.

While Nick Kapp, a biotech professor at Skyline, discussed his mostly positive experiences overseeing and mentoring high school teachers in several different high schools, most of us made strong and compelling arguments against this headlong rush into DE, emphasizing many of the unresolved issues with academic integrity, oversight, quality of education, and staffing.

Faculty support high school students taking college classes on campus or online taught by our faculty

We made it clear that we support Concurrent Enrollment and Middle College–two opportunities for high school students to earn credit for college coursework–because they both require students to join regular, adult college students on campus, online, or at open-enrollment satellite campuses staffed by our faculty. Everyone benefits. First, the high-school-age students, who feel ready to move beyond not only high school curriculum but also culture, benefit because they get to have an authentic college experience in classes pitched for adults, alongside more mature classmates. The adult students benefit from the presence of these younger students who tend to be highly motivated to learn. The professors benefit from these mixed classes because they may continue designing instruction for adults while also enjoying the perspectives these students bring to discussions. The college benefits by increasing enrollment as well as increasing the likelihood these students will continue once they’re done with high school rather than taking their units elsewhere when they apply to transfer.

We argued that Dual Enrollment, on the other hand, only offers a nominal college experience–and one that effectively cancels out the authentic one they could have, thus depriving them of learning at both the high school and college levels. Especially, as the data show Dual Enrollment is underutilized by lower-income students of color, how, we asked, does it serve equity?

Who will teach dual enrollment classes at high schools if program is expanded widely  

At the meeting, we raised the question of who ultimately will teach these classes if the program is allowed to expand to as many as 16 feeder schools. A legion of DE-dedicated adjuncts? High school teachers with minimum qualifications? Any of us?  When asked whether divisions, departments, or individual faculty could opt out, Trustee Pimentel asserted that the District would maintain the right of assignment. This means that any of us might find ourselves teaching in high school no matter what we were trained for or chose for our careers. Overall, he seemed less interested in discussing the issues that we were raising about the nature of the program – the pedagogical and philosophical concerns – than negotiating practical questions like mileage pay for faculty.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Trustee Pimentel acknowledged that the meeting had made him think “more deeply” about DE than he had before and he thanked us for our time. Katharine, who’d been facilitating, asked if based on the discussion, he’d “put the brakes on it.” He replied, “No, I still see it as a net benefit for everyone.” In other words, “It’s here.” This time for real.


Do you have another perspective on dual enrollment?  The Advocate encourages readers to comment on this article on AFT 1493’s Discord server. Click here to comment.

How to join Discord: (1) create an account and download the app. (2) request to be added to our AFT1493 server. Want to learn more? See this beginner’s guide to Discord for more information.

We would also like to publish a range of views on the topic of dual enrollment and other issues of importance to faculty in our district.  Please submit your article for publication to The Advocate Editor Eric Brenner at brenner@aft1493.org


 

 

February 2023 Advocate: District can afford healthy pay & benefit increases

District Budget

District’s strong financial position could easily provide fair faculty and staff pay & benefit increases

by Steven Lehigh, AFT 1493 Treasurer, CSM Economics Professor

Contract Year Salary Increase Inflation* Real Change Amount below 50% Law
2020-2021 5.67% 5.25% 0.42% $14.1 million (41.6%)
2021-2022 0.52% 8.26% -7.31% $15.7 million (41%)
2022-2023 5% 3.20% -5.71% TBD
2023-2024 3% 3.20% -5.81% TBD
2024-2025 3% 3.20% -6.02% TBD

Numbers in this table have been updated from a previous version. “Real Change” represents the additional amount that would need to be added to the salary increase to get us back to our 2019-20 salary, accounting for inflation.
* Inflation projections of 3.2% for 2022-23, 2023-24 & 2024-25 are the CPI historical average since 1913. See CPI Inflation Calculator
The District’s initial salary increase offer is 5%, 3%, 3% for the 2022-2025 contract

x
It is clear that when the district wants to prioritize something, the money is there… We must continue to demand that our district make faculty and staff a priority!
x

.
Faculty pay is being eaten away by inflation

At this point, everyone is aware of the impact the surge in inflation has had on cost of living the past few years: the data above illustrates the direct impact it has had on our faculty. In July of 2021, the last time all faculty received an across the board salary adjustment, it was an increase of just 0.52%. Over the course of the next 12 months, actual cost of living (inflation) rose an average of  8.26% and has continued to remain above historical averages for the first half of this academic year. Not only does the district proposal fail to address the wages that were lost, it is not projected to come close to closing the cost of living gap from where we were in 2019-20.

District budget is strong, but faculty and staff pay & benefits are not being prioritized

All of this while our district is in a state of financial strength. Revenues remain strong, colleges and the district all have healthy reserves, and the district continues to reallocate funds elsewhere while not meeting the 50% law, the requirement that community college districts must spend at least 50% of their educational expenses on classroom instructors’ salaries. (Read more on the 50% law and the district’s history of violating it.) It is clear that when the district wants to prioritize something, the money is there. With the rollout of our free college initiative (SB 893), $6 Million was allocated for the Spring semester alone and in budget meetings, the prospect of building in $10 Million to the budget has been floated for next year. And just last weekend, at the Feb. 4 Board of Trustees Retreat, different scenarios for the annual costs for the free college initiative were presented, which could potentially cost up to $23 Million for next year. Why the district can’t also meet basic cost of living increases for its faculty and staff has to be questioned. The union supports free community college, but there must be a sustainable funding mechanism and there is no reason free college or funding for other initiatives should come at the expense of faculty and staff.

The significant chunk of money being saved by not meeting the 50% law should be the starting point for meeting faculty cost of living needs. The salary proposal is just one illustration. Health care costs have continued to rise, the part-timer pay parity gap still has not been fully addressed (the district proposal also falls short) and additional part-timer health care coverage is also needed. We must continue to demand that our district make faculty and staff a priority!