A Re-examination
of Faculty Hiring Processes and Procedures
Adopted Fall 2000
Educational Policies Committee 1999-2000
Hoke Simpson, Grossmont College, Chair
Lacy Barnes-Mileham, Reedley College
Kate Clark, Irvine Valley College
Elton Hall, Moorpark College
Ian Walton, Mission College
Susan Carleo, Los Angeles Valley College, CIO
Representative
Educational Policies Committee 2000-2001 Kate Clark, Irvine Valley
College, Chair
Lacy Barnes-Mileham, Reedley College
Elton Hall, Moorpark College
Hoke Simpson, Grossmont College
Susan Carleo, Los Angeles Valley College, CIO
Representative
Introduction
This paper grew out of a workshop on faculty hiring,
sponsored by the Educational Policies Committee
at the 1999 Fall Plenary Session of the Academic
Senate for California Community Colleges. It was
clear in that workshop that few people are satisfied
with their faculty hiring procedures. Complaints
are rampant in virtually every quarter. Academic
senates claim that their hegemony suffers incursions
by the administration; hiring committees feel
that practices, which were intended to produce
fairness (e.g., having to ask the same questions
of every candidate), in fact inhibit their ability
to conduct effective interviews; and everyone
concerned with the issue is frustrated by the
lack of progress in diversifying our faculty.
Ten years prior to the Fall 1999
breakout, in the fall of 1989, the Academic Senate
adopted two papers on faculty hiring: Contract
Faculty Hiring Procedures: A Model Based on Assembly
Bill 1725 (herein after referred to as the Contract
Model paper); and Part-time Faculty Hiring Procedures:
A Model Based on Assembly Bill 1725 (herein after
referred to as the Part-Time Model paper). Faculty
are encouraged to review both papers and, with
them, the legislative intent language of AB 1725
§4, upon which the papers draw heavily. The models
posited in those papers are still valid today,
and many of the problems encountered by faculty
seem to be the result of not adhering closely
enough to them. In other cases, however, what
seems to be needed are specific recommendations
with reference to best practices in the implementation
of the models.
The current paper is not intended
as a substitute for the 1989 papers. In what follows,
those works are cited extensively in order to
highlight and discuss features of the models that
should be incorporated into current practice,
but often are not. Finally, it is the intention
of the Educational Policies Committee that this
will become a living document, and that the specific
recommendations made here will be supplemented
regularly as academic senates develop and report
on their own best practices.
The Current Status The comprehensive reform legislation
AB 1725, intended in large measure to strengthen
the community colleges as institutions of higher
education, underscored "the responsibility of
faculty to ensure the quality of their faculty
peers." (AB 1725, §4(t)(1).)
The
California Education Code is unequivocal in its
assignment of authority to faculty in the realm
of hiring. Section 87360 (b) reads: "hiring criteria,
policies, and procedures for new faculty members
shall be developed and agreed upon jointly by
representatives of the governing board, and the
academic senate, and approved by the governing
board." Two things are significant here: First,
this mandate appears in Education Code, rather
than in Title 5 Regulations, and whereas both
Education Code and Title 5 Regulations have the
force of law, this mandate is clearly the express
intent of the Legislature. Second, there is no
qualification of the mandate, no specification
of circumstances wherein it would be permissible
for boards to circumvent the requirement to reach
joint agreement with the academic senates. These
two points combine to make the authority of faculty
in hiring even stronger than in the ten-plus-one
academic and professional areas specified in Title
5 §53200. That faculty have the discipline expertise
and the motivation to set the highest possible
standards in selecting those who will be their
colleagues for the next twenty to thirty years
is simply unarguable.
A fresh look at
hiring processes seems particularly timely in
view of the aging of California community college
faculty and the fact that, between now and 2010,
over 30,000 full-time and part-time faculty will
be replaced, and 15,000 additional new hires will
be needed to meet the demands of an anticipated
half million new students in Tidal Wave II.(1)
There is, then, a real sense in which the future
quality of community college education in our
state depends on our honing our hiring processes
to perfection.
The Decision to Hire
The Academic Senate's Contract Model paper says
of the decision to hire:
The need for contract faculty positions shall
be cooperatively determined through a well-defined,
thoughtful planning process involving college
administrators, the academic senate, and faculty
in the subject area departments. A joint recommendation
on the positions to be filled shall be presented
by the college president to the district chancellor
and board of trustees. Subject area needs shall
have been reviewed to determine strengths, weaknesses,
special skills needed, and affirmative action
goals.
Among the many
factors that may bear on a decision to seek a
new faculty hire, one is strictly numerical: What
is the ratio of full-time to part-time hours of
instruction? Because the Education Code, §87482.6,
specifies a 75/25 goal in the proportion of full-time
to part-time instructors, a department is warranted
in requesting a new full-time hire whenever the
number of hours being taught by part-time faculty
is such that the conversion of some of those part-time
hours to a single full-time load would result
in a 75/25 full-time/part-time ratio.(2)
While the 75/25 ratio is monitored by the Chancellor's
Office as a district goal, colleges within the
district should not differ substantially in the
percent of full- to part-time hours of instruction.
Similarly, departments within colleges should
pay attention to the overall ratio of full- to
part-time instruction.
Departments finding themselves in
this situation should apply for a new full-time
hire, basing their case on the Education Code
and the implicit acknowledgment there that students
are best served by full-time instructors. On the
other side of this coin, as part of their mutually
agreed planning and budget process, colleges should
have a mechanism whereby the academic senate and
college administration can over-rule a department
that refuses to hire additional full-time faculty,
when this can be shown to be in the best interests
of the students. Although there have not been
funds in recent state budgets specifically earmarked
for new full-time hires, Partnership for Excellence
(Partnership) has been fully funded and many campuses
are applying substantial portions of the Partnership
money to this purpose. The use of Partnership
funds for new faculty hires should be clearly
linked to the legislative intent that Partnership
funds be utilized for program enhancements that
address student success in the five goal areas.
Every campus should have clearly
delineated procedures for deciding which requests
for new and replacement hires will be successful.
Colleges and districts utilize a range of processes
for the determination and prioritization of faculty
positions. Whatever the process, the academic
senate should be centrally involved in the determination
of new faculty positions, as hiring "criteria,
policies and procedures" are a matter of joint
agreement between the governing board and the
academic senate. These processes should be linked
to the larger planning and budget processes in
a district or college. Although an examination
of best practices in planning and budgeting is
beyond the scope of this paper, one observation
is in order. Faculty in workshops on hiring universally
agree that decision making in this arena is highly
politicized, fraught with infighting, and that
decisions are frequently made, not on the merits,
but on the basis of personal associations and
advocacy. Faculty must make every effort, first,
to become engaged in planning and budgeting through
their local academic senates, and second, to ensure
that decisions are made on the basis of objective
criteria, are applied fairly, and are focused
on student needs.
The Hiring Committee
District policy will specify the composition of
selection committees. However, several reminders
are in order based on the Academic Senate's Contract
Model paper, which states that:
The selection committee shall
consist of at least four faculty members appointed
by the academic senate in consultation with
the faculty of the discipline or subject area.
The area administrator shall also be a member
of the committee. The department chair (if any)
shall be one of the faculty members appointed.
One member from the affirmative action committee
shall be appointed by the academic senate to
each selection committee. When appropriate,
a faculty member may be appointed from the subject
area at another college or university. Also
the academic senate may appoint a classified
staff member and/or a student to the selection
committee. All members of the selection committee
shall be knowledgeable about the affirmative
action goals and procedures of the district
which shall be reviewed by the committee. The
affirmative action office shall review the composition
of the committee with the senate president or
his/her representative. The initial meeting
of this committee shall be arranged by the area
administrator; the committee shall then select
its ongoing chair who shall be a faculty member
from the discipline or subject area.(3)
First, it is critical that faculty
on the committee be appointed by the academic
senate. Hiring procedures are, by statute, the
product of joint agreement between the governing
board and the academic senate. The academic senate's
involvement provides assurance that procedures
are being followed and thus affords a level of
legitimacy that is otherwise absent. Also, in
practice, the exercise of the academic senate's
appointing role provides an opportunity for any
objections to the committee's composition to surface
and be resolved at the earliest stage of the hiring
process. Finally, academic senate appointments
will be made "in consultation with faculty of
the discipline or subject area," acknowledging
the key role of department members in hiring into
their own discipline and avoiding unnecessary
tension between the roles of the department and
the academic senate.
A second critical point is that
academic senates must have affirmative action
committees, whose members are appropriately trained,
and who serve, through senate appointment, on
selection committees. As will be discussed below,
all members of the committee must have affirmative
action training; however, it is essential if faculty
are to meet their diversity goals that there be
one person on each committee whose primary function
is to ensure that appropriate procedures are adhered
to and that the affirmative action perspective
is maintained throughout all of the committee's
deliberations.
Finally, the suggestion that the
academic senate might appoint a classified staff
member and/or a student to the selection committee
should be given serious consideration. Typically,
these are non-voting members of the committee,
but that determination may vary with the overall
composition and size of the committee and is best
left to the local hiring policy determined by
the academic senate and local governing board.
Students and classified staff interact with full-time
faculty just as much or more than department members
and can bring perspectives to the deliberations
that heighten the probability that the new hire
will be the best possible fit for the campus culture
and for meeting student needs.
In appointing faculty members to
hiring committees, consideration should be given
to the issue of tenure. While non-tenured faculty
clearly have a stake and a contribution to make
in the selection of their future colleagues, hiring
committee recommendations must be based on an
honest and forthright assessment of the quality
of the candidates. Given the vulnerability of
non-tenured faculty, and the intensity that often
accompanies faculty hiring deliberations, some
district policies specifically stipulate that
the committees should be composed of tenured faculty,
and that non-tenured faculty only be appointed
if an exception is approved by the local academic
senate and/or collective bargaining agent.
The Role of Administration
A number of administrators will play key roles
in the hiring process. Although the precise nature
of administrative involvement will vary from district
to district, their participation is likely to
look something like this(4)
:
The area administrator (often a dean) may
be a member of the committee and through his/her
office will supply the committee with logistical
support. The area administrator, by virtue
of almost constant service on a multiplicity
of hiring committees, should have developed
considerable expertise in all areas of the
hiring process, and should be a valuable resource
to the committee. He or she will also work
with the committee chair in making the initial
reference checks on the finalists. Whether
the area administrator is a voting member
of the committee will be a matter of local
policy, jointly agreed upon by the governing
board and the academic senate.
The affirmative action officer (who may be
a faculty member or an administrator) will
be responsible for affirmative action training
and "shall serve as a consultant on district
and state guidelines and be responsible for
monitoring the district's affirmative action
procedures, including but not limited to a
review of the job descriptions and announcements,
composition and procedures of selection committees,
and the adequacy of the pool of applicants"
(Contract Model, p. 2).
The chief human resources officer will also
review committee materials to ensure their
conformity to state law and district policy
and will serve as a resource to the committee
on these matters. The chief human resources
officer may also be responsible for coordinating
the advertisement of the position.
The college president will select
the finalist to be recommended to the chancellor
(in multi-college districts) and the board of
trustees.
Even though the roles of administrators
are known to the selection committee members,
it is suggested that all involved administrators
meet with the committee and discuss their roles
at the beginning of the process. Such a meeting
can foster a spirit of teamwork, and can generate
a concrete understanding that everyone involved
is working toward the common goal of hiring the
best possible candidate.
The Job Description
The Academic Senate's Contract Model paper says
the following about job descriptions:
The appropriate
subject area faculty together with the first-line
administrator shall develop the faculty job descriptions,
requirements, and desirable qualifications. The
minimum qualifications may not be reduced by this
process. However, through this process the minimum
qualifications may be broadened or raised. Such
practice is expected and encouraged.(5)
These additional qualifications,
as all steps of this hiring process, should help
the community colleges ensure that the faculty
and administration they hire and retain are a
people who are sympathetic and sensitive to the
racial and cultural diversity in the colleges,
are themselves representative of that diversity,
and are well prepared by training and temperament
to respond effectively to the educational needs
of all the special populations served by community
colleges. Desirable qualifications include the
following:
A. Desirable qualifications
shall be included that establish as a qualification
sensitivity to and understanding of the diverse
academic, socioeconomic, cultural, disability,
and ethnic backgrounds of community college students.(6)
B. Desirable qualifications may include the following:
1. Academic qualifications beyond
the minimum set by law and regulation if these
qualifications would provide the basis for better
teaching or other service.
2. Measures of pedagogical skill
such as evaluations of prior experience, education
in pedagogy, or demonstrations of effectiveness
as a teacher, counselor, librarian, or other faculty
member.
3. Specific preparation to offer
instruction or other service narrower in scope
than a discipline. (For example, when hiring someone
to teach piano, the college would require not
only qualifications to teach music, but specific
qualifications to teach piano.
Clear and complete job descriptions,
including all job-related skills requirements
and any additional qualifications recommended
by the faculty when appropriate, are prepared
for each position, and these job descriptions
are reviewed before each position is announced,
to ensure conformity with the community college's
affirmative action and nondiscrimination commitments.
It is essential that the selection
committee remain clear throughout the drafting
of the job description as to exactly what the
candidate is being hired to do. If it is to teach,
then teaching must emerge clearly from the prose
of the job description as the focus of the committee's
concern. Too often the boilerplate rendering of
these descriptions buries the committee's central
concern amidst a host of other desirable qualifications.
Committees should consider drafting their own
job descriptions from scratch in order to achieve
the desired emphasis; they can then seek the assistance
of the appropriate administrators to be certain
that the job description conforms to relevant
legal requirements, particularly those noted in
Title 5, §53022-24. Once the committee has drafted
and approved the job description, it is not acceptable
for others to add additional qualifications to
the description. In districts where this intrusion
is a problem, the academic senate should ask of
the governing board that hiring policies be revisited,
and revise them to explicitly exclude this practice.
It should be noted that interference with established
hiring policies in an ongoing hiring process should
be cause for immediate alarm, and may be a basis
for terminating the process. Academic senate presidents
should be alerted to any such intrusion when it
occurs.
A note of caution is in order relative
to the addition of qualifications beyond those
minimally required for a given discipline. Care
should be taken to ensure that further qualifications
are clearly job-related, and do not function in
an exclusionary manner for candidates otherwise
well qualified for the position. Appropriate distinctions
between minimum and desirable qualifications should
be maintained, and wherever possible, alternate
means of satisfying qualifications beyond the
state discipline minimum qualifications should
be considered. Thus, teaching experience at the
community college level may be desirable, but
is not necessary for new faculty. Experience teaching
in graduate school, in other secondary or post-secondary
institutions, or in community based contexts or
institutions may all be valuable preparation for
a teaching career in the community colleges. Performance
during the interview process on teaching demonstrations
can be used to assess teaching potential. In short,
candidates should be evaluated on their overall
teaching potential and related skills, rather
than merely screened for previous experience.
This is a critical variable if we are to expand
the ranks of faculty beyond those who have historically
been participants in higher education.
The Contract Model recommendation
that the committee may seek "evaluations of prior
experience" should be given serious consideration.
Committees often do not request copies of prior
performance evaluations in an effort not to exclude
potential applicants who are seeking their first
position. This concern might be mitigated through
the use of such language as: "Applicants who are
selected for an interview and who have been previously
employed as teachers/counselors/ librarians will
be asked to submit copies of their most recent
performance evaluations." So long as a performance
demonstration is part of the interview process,
no unfair edge need be given to those with prior
experience. Evidence of prior successful teaching
can, on the other hand, be extraordinarily useful
to the committee in its deliberations, and requesting
such evidence can communicate to candidates the
committee's primary requirement. The Academic
Senate encourages local senates to discuss the
pros and cons of requesting prior performance
evaluations, and to adopt that policy that seems
to them to be fairest to all candidates.
Finally, the language of the job
description should be "diversity friendly." There
is a vast difference between, "The Golden Bear
District is an equal opportunity employer," and,
"The faculty, staff and administration of Golden
Bear College recognize the value to the campus
community of a rich diversity of backgrounds and
perspectives among its members, and therefore
encourage applications from candidates who might
contribute to our prosperity in this regard."
When it comes to encouraging diversity in applicants,
the primary rule obtains: Boilerplate is Bad!
A second rule is also worth stating: Encourage
diverse applicants at the top of the document;
placing such encouragement in small print at the
bottom of the document makes a statement in itself.
Advertising and Recruiting
The selection committee should be involved in
the development of advertising copy to ensure
that the copy is clear in its intent, honest in
its representations, and friendly to diverse populations.
The committee should then review the advertising
copy before it is published. Members do well to
remember that many M.A.s and Ph.D.s have little
familiarity with community colleges and cannot
be presumed to know about their emphasis on quality
teaching and student services. Therefore, as with
the job description, the primary qualifications
desired should be made very clear. As advertising
copy is a recruitment tool, committee members
should also give thought to the nature of their
campus culture, the features of the campus and
community that make it a pleasant and exciting
place to work, and accomplishments or traditions
of which they are particularly proud, and communicate
these to potential applicants.
To develop a richly diverse pool
of candidates, more will be required than an 8-week
advertisement in the Chronicle of Higher Education;
the watchword for the college's recruiting effort
should be "Stretch!" The selection committee should
work with the human resources and affirmative
action officers, urging them:
to send announcements to potential candidates
registered with the Chancellor's Office Registry;
to target discipline departments in colleges
with large populations of historically underrepresented
groups;
to work with national organizations, representing
historically underrepresented groups, to develop
further targeted mailings;
to advertise in a variety of organs that
increase the likelihood of reaching the most
diverse pool of potential candidates possible;
and
to make effective use of Email and the Internet
to advertise more widely and to inform potential
pools of applicants, who can register online
to receive employment announcements.
Beyond these publishing mechanisms,
faculty should consider face-to-face opportunities
at local or regional job fairs, educational placement
fairs, or other such creative venues. While human
resources officers are often invited--and may
attend unbeknownst to faculty--the committee members
themselves may make better salespersons, responding
to particular questions about the discipline,
the college expectations, the joy of teaching
at the local institution. Even more ambitiously,
Pasadena City College, using Partnership for Excellence
funds, recently sent teams of faculty on recruiting
missions around the country. Such opportunities
serve the profession as well as the college and
the local division needs. A modicum of faculty
and staff diversity funds are provided to districts
to address diversity in hiring; while minimal,
academic senates should ensure that these funds
are appropriately utilized and augmented whenever
possible to extend recruitment efforts and to
enable candidates to apply and interview.
Achieving Diversity
Whereas by 1997 over 53% of California
community college students belonged to ethnic
minorities--which is to say that there is no ethnic
majority in the student population--the same is
certainly not true of the faculty. The Chancellor's
Office data depicted above show only a 6.6% advance
in faculty diversification between 1984 and 1997,
which means that the proportion of white faculty
declined in that time from 85.6% to 79%. It is
clear that the obstacles to achieving a diverse
faculty are slow to be overcome, and much of the
fault may lie in the affirmative action dimension
of faculty hiring procedures.
At least part of the problem recently
has been the passage in 1996 of Proposition 209,
which banned many of the practices associated
with affirmative action efforts. However, in a
November 1998 ruling, the Sacramento Superior
Court held that the affirmative action statutes
affecting the community colleges as implemented
by the Board of Governors Title 5 Regulations
are constitutional. In 1998, the Board of Governors
adopted "The Community College Commitment" to
diversity, and subsequently adopted an "Action
Plan" for the Commitment's implementation. (Both
documents appear in Appendix A.) Academic senates
should be clear, then, that there are no legal
obstacles to the vigorous pursuit of community
college affirmative action policies. To the contrary,
such policies are strongly endorsed by the Board
of Governors. The effect on community college
affirmative action policies of the November 2000
California Supreme Court ruling in "San Jose vs.
Hi Voltage Wire Works" is not yet known, and,
until further analysis and possible court action,
current policies remain in force.
It should be noted that fair and
effective hiring practices protect all candidates
in the hiring process. All prospective candidates
should be assured hiring guidelines and policies
designed to: ensure equal opportunities for all
who apply; base decisions upon job related qualifications;
and establish practices fair to all regardless
of personal connections.
What the Contract Model paper says
about affirmative action is brief but extremely
important:
All participants in the process are given appropriate
training in affirmative action procedures and
the affirmative action goals and timetables
of the community college so that success in
reaching those goals is better assured. At each
level, nominating entities and selection committee
members have the responsibility to ensure that
individuals, preferably minorities, the disabled,
or women, who are knowledgeable about and responsible
to the community college's affirmative action
goals are included on all selection committees
or similar groups. An affirmative action committee
shall be established under the auspices of the
academic senate. Members of this committee shall
receive appropriate training and shall be expected
to serve as members on selection committees.
The affirmative action officer shall serve as
a consultant on district and state guidelines
and be responsible for monitoring the district's
affirmative action procedures, including but
not limited to a review of the job descriptions
and announcements, composition and procedures
of selection committees, and the adequacy of
the pool of applicants.
The recommendation
that all members of the hiring committee have
affirmative action training is more than an opinion
of the Academic Senate; it is a legal requirement
(Title 5 §53003 (c) (4)).(7)
Those districts, therefore, which are not supplying
such training are in violation of the law. Academic
senates in such districts should:
Notify the college president or chancellor
and the chief human resources officer in writing
that the district is in violation, citing
Title 5 §53003 (c) (4);
Request both a written response and the implementation
of appropriate training by dates certain;
and
Failing appropriate responses from the district,
including full compliance with mandated training,
the academic senate should file a complaint
with the state Chancellor's Office, sending
a copy to the Academic Senate.
In other districts, affirmative
action training occurs, but is perfunctory in
nature, meeting only the letter and not the spirit
of the law. In such cases, academic senates should
work with appropriate district and college administrators,
and with their faculty development committees,
to find ways to infuse their affirmative action
training with meaning, relevance and depth. Such
training needs not only to communicate system
and district goals, but should also:
convey a sense of the educational,
vocational, and social value to students and the
campus community of a rich variety of backgrounds
and perspectives among its members;
reduce trainees' fear of, and induce
a positive appreciation of, cultural differences;
communicate clearly the moral wrongness
of discrimination based on cultural and racial
difference, and illustrate the damage--social,
socioeconomic, and psychological--that has occurred
as a result of discriminatory practices;
communicate the importance of campuses
becoming cultural models for students: that, by
providing an environment which honors diversity
and is free of prejudice, the college can produce
in students attitudes that will contribute to
the elimination of bigotry in the larger community;
provide trainees with specific strategies
and techniques for promoting inclusiveness
in job descriptions, advertising, paper screening,
and interviews, as well as eliminating unintended
exclusiveness;
persuade trainees that following affirmative
action guidelines is no more than good hiring
practice, in that such practice demands reaching
the broadest pool of potential candidates
and hiring the candidate who will be the greatest
asset to students and the campus community;
and
stress the importance of confidentiality
as a protection to participants and candidates
alike.
For several years, the Yosemite
district has placed at the heart of its affirmative
action efforts the training available through
the Los Angeles Museum of Tolerance. Based on
the success of the Yosemite program, the San Mateo
Community College District has embarked on a similar
effort, and their proposal and other materials
related to their "Commitment to Diversity Project"
are contained in Appendix B.
In the Contra Costa District, no
faculty member may serve on a faculty hiring committee
unless they have completed affirmative action
training. The training is conducted by the academic
senate of each college, in concert with representatives
from the human resources department and the affirmative
action officer. Upon completion of their instruction,
trainees receive a dated card from the academic
senate; the certification must be updated every
two years if they are to continue as members of
hiring committees. In addition, the district requires
"diversity checks" of candidate pools, not only
at the initial stage, with the "paper screening"
pool, but also at two later stages, with the interview
and the finalist pools. If the pool is found to
be insufficiently diverse at any of the three
stages, the process is shut down and begun anew.
In the case of faculty hiring, the academic senates
of the district's colleges are responsible for
terminating the process should the pools be found
to be insufficiently diverse. Such a process underscores
the importance, mentioned earlier, of the academic
senate's making the faculty appointments to the
hiring committees, and of its having an Affirmative
Action Committee, one of whose members serves
on each selection committee.
Paper Screening
The selection of candidates begins with the review
of their applications. The hiring committee's
first pass through the applications should eliminate
any applicants who do not meet minimum qualifications.
According to the Contract Model paper:
The desirable qualifications of
the district may well be higher, but may not fall
below the state's minimum qualifications. Each
individual employed must possess qualifications
that are at least equivalent to the applicable
minimum qualifications specified in regulations
adopted by the Board of Governors. Thus, local
equivalency procedures shall be developed and
agreed upon jointly by representatives of the
governing board and the academic senate.
The faculty on the selection committee
from the given discipline or subject area shall
make the determination whether applicants meet
the desirable qualifications, the state minimum
qualifications, or, when applicable, their equivalents
as specified above.
Note the suggestion that it is the
discipline faculty on the committee who make the
decision regarding the candidates' meeting minimum
and desirable qualifications, and that any questions
regarding equivalency are to be resolved using
procedures "developed and agreed upon jointly
by representatives of the governing board and
the academic senate." In some districts the "initial
screening" for minimum qualifications is performed
by clerks in the human resources office. As the
Contract Model paper clearly recognizes, this
is not good practice, and could result in the
loss of excellent candidates, whose qualifications
would be evident to discipline faculty.
The jointly agreed upon process
at Moorpark College has three members of the selection
committee review the applications to determine
if minimum qualifications are met. Those applications
that do not meet minimum qualifications are set
aside, and all committee members are invited to
review them. If a committee member believes that
any of the applications set aside in fact meet
minimum qualifications, those applications are
returned to the pool for the review of the entire
committee, which then collectively makes the final
decision.
The Contract Model paper further
observes:
The selection committee shall review all applications
and shall select those applicants for an interview
who best meet the desirable qualifications listed
on the job description, as measured by evidence
of professional qualifications, including educational
background and experience. All relevant academic
information shall be submitted to the selection
committee including transcripts and letters
of recommendation.
The selection committee shall evaluate candidates
in regard to subject area knowledge and competency,
teaching and communication skills, commitment
to professional growth and service, potential
for overall college effectiveness, and [extent
of demonstrated (see footnote 5)] sensitivity
to and understanding of the diverse academic,
socioeconomic, cultural, disability, and ethnic
backgrounds of the district's students.
The committee should have a screening
instrument, or score sheet, which allows members
to rate each candidate on the qualities enumerated
in the job description. As with the job description,
the responses on the screening instrument should
be weighted to emphasize those qualities most
relevant to the candidates' performance of the
work for which they will be hired. A fascinating
thesis topic, or demonstrated grant-writing ability,
should not be weighted equally with teaching experience
when one is hiring someone to teach.
In determining which candidates
to interview, selection committee members should
allot time for a full discussion of their responses
to candidates' applications. Fatigue and time
constraints are sometimes conducive to simply
"adding up the scores" and moving on. Whereas
initial scores on the screening instrument are
clearly helpful in the decision making process,
they are an inadequate substitute to a full and
informed discussion, with give and take among
the various members' perspectives. Members should
be encouraged to modify their scores in the light
of insights gained through discussion, and at
that point the scores might be given a major role
in the final decisions. Because all of the documents
used in the hiring process must be submitted as
part of the legal record, committees may want
to create a second rating sheet for this discussion
phase, on which they make notes and enter their
sometimes-revised scores. Both sets of scores,
both pre- and post-discussion, would then be submitted.
Once the decision as to who to
interview has been made, the committee should
establish a tentative interview schedule. At that
time, both successful and unsuccessful candidates
should be notified immediately. It will probably
not be the responsibility of the committee to
notify the candidates; however, this courtesy
is extremely important, as any faculty member
who remembers his/her own job applications will
recall, and the committee should follow up with
the responsible party to see that the courtesy
has been rendered.
The Interview Process
"A hiring process involves the evaluation of people
for a position. It is at the same time a process
in which your institution is evaluated by those
who are touched by your process. Your goal should
be to present yourself in such a way that all
candidates exposed to your process come away feeling
that yours is the only institution in the world
at which they would want to work."(8)
This principle applies, of course, to every stage
of the hiring procedures; but nowhere is it more
relevant than in the interview process, when the
candidates and the members of the selection committee,
representing the institution, come face to face.
In the interview, both the selection
committee and the candidate will give and receive
information, on the basis of which decisions will
be made: by the committee, whether to advance
the candidate as a finalist; by the candidate,
whether this is the place he or she wants to make
a career.
The committee should strive to
make the interview process humane, and to create
a relaxed atmosphere conducive to the candidate's
doing his or her best. To this end, the chair
might begin by telling the candidate, "We are
aware that we are not the only ones making an
important decision today, but that you, too, are
deciding whether you would want to work here.
So we thought that, in the process of introducing
ourselves, each of us would tell you something
about what we like and don't like about Golden
Bear College." Then, after the introductions,
the committee members can begin asking their questions
of the candidate.
Of the interview process, the Contract
Model paper says:
The selection committee shall evaluate candidates
in regard to subject area knowledge and competency,
teaching and communication skills, commitment
to professional growth and service, potential
for overall college effectiveness, and sensitivity
to and understanding of the diverse academic,
socioeconomic, cultural, disability, and ethnic
backgrounds of the district's students.
The committee shall formulate interview questions
(including an appropriate follow-up question
procedure) to ensure a thorough assessment of
the candidate's qualifications. The committee
shall also provide for appropriate teaching
demonstrations, writing samples, and/or other
performance indicators related to the subject
area.
The committee shall conduct interviews and
use a rating system to evaluate responses. Individual
committee members must be present for each interview
in order to participate in the evaluation of
candidates.
At the point at which the selection
committee begins asking its pre-formulated questions
of the candidate, the interview process often
becomes stiff and awkward. The key to relaxing
this process lies in the committee's approach
to follow-up questions. The committee should work
closely with the affirmative action representative
to set parameters that will ensure fairness to
all candidates. In general, follow-up questions
will take the form of requesting the candidate
to clarify or expand something he or she has said;
they should never involve coaching or leading
the candidate. It is a good idea, for the first
two or three questions, for the committee to have
scripted two follow-up questions for each item.
If the candidate happens to answer one of the
scripted follow-ups in his or her initial response,
the committee simply skips that one and moves
to the second follow-up. This establishes a pace
for the interview right away, and communicates
to the candidate that the committee is willing
to take its time, and encourages depth as opposed
to brevity in the responses. During the first
questions, as well as throughout the duration
of the interview, committee members should listen
attentively and seize frequent occasions to ask
the candidate to expand or clarify something he
or she said in response to the pre-formulated
question. The advantages of such an approach are
that:
the candidate will appreciate the committee's
attentiveness;
the interview will take on the quality of
a genuine conversation as opposed to that
of a stiff, formal exercise; and
the committee will learn more about the candidate's
qualities than it would otherwise.
If a writing sample is desired,
it can be administered prior to the interview,
in a quiet area with a computer or other writing
implements made available to the candidate. The
writing "assignment" should be designed to provoke
a thoughtful response as opposed to "interview
boilerplate," and sufficient time should be allotted
for the candidate to complete the task. Similarly,
the committee should build in time to review the
writing products as part of the overall assessment
of the candidate. Rubrics for evaluation of candidates'
writing samples should be agreed upon by the selection
committee in advance, as part of the overall design
of the interview process.
Sufficient time for the task is
also a key factor in a performance demonstration.
As opposed to the 10 to 20 minute role play that
is often used in interview situations, the committee
might consider the advantages of a "real life"
demonstration. A candidate for a teaching position
could be asked to present to a class of students
in the discipline, for example, and the presentation
could be video taped for later viewing by members
of the committee. This procedure would overcome
the obvious logistical difficulties involved in
assembling all the members for a single class
time. It would also avoid the artificiality that
would be introduced into the classroom by having
all the committee members appear for the presentation.
The affirmative action representative on the committee
could assist in ensuring that all candidates have
an equivalent experience during such taping.
Selecting the Finalists
As with the paper screening instrument, the rating
system used by the committee for the writing sample,
interview and performance demonstration should
give appropriate weight to the qualities on which
candidates are being evaluated, with the greatest
weight given to the qualities most essential to
the candidate's performing the job for which he
or she is being hired. The committee will certainly
want to know about a teaching candidate's general
intellectual interests; but these are not nearly
so important to success as a community college
teacher as the candidate's teaching skill, discipline
expertise, and generosity of spirit.
While the interview process is on-going,
committee members should not discuss the candidates
with one another. This practice gives members'
impressions time to gel--but not to ossify! Once
the interviews are over, the committee should
give themselves time for a full, open and professional
discussion, rising above any temptation simply
to "add up the scores and move on." Again, because
all of the documents used in the hiring process
must be submitted as part of the legal record,
committees may want to create a second rating
sheet for this discussion phase, on which they
make notes and enter their sometimes-revised scores,
with both sets of scores then submitted. The discussion
should progress, under the chair's direction,
toward consensus on the top candidates, or, lacking
consensus, until the requisite number of first-rank
candidates emerge from the post-discussion rankings.
As observed in the Contract Model paper:
The chair shall lead the committee
discussion regarding strengths and weaknesses
of the candidates and summarize final committee
rankings. The committee may include rankings and/or
written comments for each candidate as a further
means of communicating its recommendations.
On some campuses it is the practice
to forward the list of finalists to the president
unranked. However, informing its rankings, the
selection committee has had the benefits of discipline
expertise among its members, extensive discussion
of the candidates, and observation of a performance
demonstration. Hence the suggestion of the Contract
Model paper that it is appropriate to forward
the committee's rankings and/or written comments
on the candidates.
The Contract Model paper maintains:
In case the list of faculty to be interviewed
is large, the selection committee may wish to
schedule second-stage interviews for those considered
best qualified. Teaching demonstrations or other
performance tasks may be deferred to this time.
The Academic Senate has rethought
this opinion regarding the postponement of performance
demonstrations to second-stage interviews. It
now holds, to the contrary, that performance demonstrations
are crucial to wise selection and should be part
of the primary interview process. It is possible
for people who are poised and confident in an
interview to perform poorly in a performance demonstration,
and these situations would clearly show up in
the process recommended in the earlier paper.
However, it is also possible for people who are
rather unexceptional in interviews to perform
superbly in a performance demonstration, and these
individuals would be passed over were the earlier
recommendation followed. It is simply the case
that the best hiring practices take time; there
are no shortcuts.
Reference Checks
As stated in the Contract Model
paper:
Reference checks shall be conducted by the
area administrator and the selection committee
(faculty) chair and shared with the selection
committee before names are forwarded. Reference
checks shall include academic background, professional
experience, and personal qualities relevant
to performance in the faculty position.
Reference checks pose the same dilemma
as letters of reference: the fear of litigation
has so infected the process that committee members
have difficulty eliciting completely honest responses.
Because reference checks are usually conducted
orally, responses may, on the whole, tend to be
more open. However, committee members conducting
such checks need to be prepared to "listen between
the lines," and to be attuned to--and follow up
on--instances of damning with faint praise, or
bland and non-committal statements about the candidate.
Sometimes a question such as, "Is there any aspect
of the candidate's professional record that might
warrant further investigation on our part?" will
elicit such critical information as, "It might
behoove you to take an interest in the public
records of our district's legal activities in
the past ten years." Reference checking has become
a sophisticated art, requiring that inquirers
learn to hear what respondents are telling them
while the respondents are, at the same time, trying
to avoid any subsequent litigation.
Finalist Interviews
Once reference checks have been made and reported
back to the selection committee, then, according
to the Contract Model paper:
The committee shall recommend up to three candidates
to the college president for final consideration.
The candidates whose names are forwarded shall
be the best qualified to fulfill the requirements
of the faculty position. If the committee cannot
recommend any of the applicants the hiring process
shall be reopened.
The president shall review the selection committee's
recommendation, the qualifications and the reference
checks on the final candidate. The president
may interview the finalists and conduct additional
reference checks.
Final hiring decisions
are, whenever reasonably possible, made during
the regular academic year and promptly communicated
to the faculty. The expectation that faculty
recommendations regarding the hiring of faculty
shall normally be accepted is reinforced, and
only in exceptional circumstances, and for compelling
reasons communicated to the selection committee
and to the president of the academic senate
of the college, will someone be hired as a faculty
member who has not been found to be among the
best qualified by the faculty.
The selection of the finalist to be recommended
to the chancellor and board of trustees shall
be made by the college president in joint consultation
with the selection committee chair, the area
administrator, and the academic senate president.
If exceptional circumstances and compelling
reasons exist why the president cannot choose
any of the final candidates recommended, then
he or she shall meet with the selection committee
to discuss these issues. If the selection committee
and the president cannot reach an agreement
as to a candidate, then the president shall
put his or her objection in writing to the selection
committee and to the academic senate president,
and the position shall be reopened.
Notice that, in this model, once
the finalists are forwarded to the president,
the process is not out of the faculty's hands.
There is, first, the presumption that the faculty's
recommendations will be followed unless there
are "exceptional circumstances and compelling
reasons" not to do so. Second, the model is based
on the intent language of AB 1725, which clearly
requires the president to make the final selection
"in joint consultation with the selection committee
chair, the area administrator, and the academic
senate president." Then, if there are "exceptional
circumstances and compelling reasons" why the
president cannot choose among the finalists, he
or she must take the further step of meeting with
and attempting to seek agreement with the selection
committee. Failing agreement, the president registers
his or her objection in writing and the position
is reopened. Although the phrase "exceptional
circumstances and compelling reasons" is not explicitly
defined, it clearly implies an extremely high
standard that would rarely be invoked, and would
be subject to challenge if the circumstances were
not truly exceptional and the reasons not genuinely
compelling. This sort of theoretical circularity
is acceptable when, in practice, there would seldom
be a gray area here.
The legislative intent language
of AB 1725 §4(t)(2) asserts, in regard to hiring,
"Both faculty members and administrators participate
effectively in all appropriate phases of the process."
Many local hiring policies specify that a faculty
member will participate in the final interview,
and the Academic Senate supports this as the procedure
implicit in the AB 1725 intent language.
Finally, it is hoped that the president
would make it clear to finalists in their interviews
that, if hired, they will continue to be held
to the high standards of the selection process.
Part-Time Faculty Hiring
The most noteworthy feature of the Part-time Model
paper is that the process recommended there is
virtually identical to the process for full-time
hiring examined in this paper. There are, however,
two minor differences and one major one worth
highlighting.
First, with reference to the composition
of the selection committee, the Part-time Model
paper recommends that each committee "shall consist
of at least two faculty members appointed by the
academic senate in consultation with the faculty
of the discipline or subject area." For full-time
hiring, four faculty members are recommended,
one of them being the department chair. The language
of the part-time hiring paper also states that
the area administrator "may" be a member of the
committee, and that the academic senate "may"
appoint a member of the affirmative action committee
to each selection committee. The language of the
full-time hiring model, it will be recalled, does
not make those appointments optional.
The second minor difference lies
in the number of finalists advanced, and to whom.
The Part-time Model suggests that "from among
those interviewed and considered well-qualified,
the committee selects up to three candidates for
reference checks," and subsequently "recommend[s]
up to two candidates to the dean of instruction
and the college president." [Emphasis added.]
The dean of instruction "and/or" the president
then conduct the finalist interviews.
Notice
that many committees will recommend a considerably
larger number of candidates in order to have an
available pool of part-time faculty for future
scheduling. Indeed, some colleges solicit applications
to a candidate pool even in the absence of a specific
opening. In such cases, the Part-time Model paper
says:
...it
is recommended that a list of qualified faculty
be kept up to date by the department or area
administrator. These faculty should have been
interviewed and found to be acceptable by the
faculty of the subject area and the administration.
The major difference from the full-time
model is found in the Part-time Model policy that
is designed "to cover a subject area's sudden
need for substitutes or for hiring at the beginning
of an academic term." In such cases, the Part-time
Model paper says,
...
in case of an emergency, if the instructor scheduled
to teach a class becomes unavailable at the
last minute or if there are not enough instructors
available to accommodate all the enrollment
in a course for which there is a policy not
to turn students away, then the emergency procedure
outlined below may be used.
The recommended emergency procedure
reads as follows:
If an instructor becomes unavailable to teach
at the last moment or if enrollment in a course
for which there is a policy not to turn students
away is so large that a pool of properly screened
applicants is not sufficient to staff all the
added sections required, then the college may
act to hire under this emergency procedure provided
that:
1. The college president or designee and the
academic senate president both certify that
the situation was not one that could have been
foreseen;
2. The hiring committee does the screening,
interviewing, and hiring;
3. The hiring committee includes, at a minimum,
one faculty member in the discipline or a closely
related discipline selected by the academic
senate president, and the area administrator
may also be a member; and,
4. Anyone hired under this emergency provision
must be evaluated during the first semester
or quarter of employment by at least one full-time
faculty member chosen in accordance with the
college's evaluation procedure.
Let us repeat:
The principle that part-time hiring processes
shall mirror as closely as possible those for
full-time hiring is critical, as it guarantees
a consistently high quality of instruction to
students, and it endows the status of part-time
instructor with the aura of professionalism that
it deserves.(9)
Review and Revision of Hiring Policies
and Procedures
Because there is nothing either in Education Code
or in Title 5 that requires further consultation
once agreement has been reached between the governing
board and the academic senate concerning hiring
policies and procedures, it is important that
the policy statement contain a provision for re-engaging
in the consultative process. The following wording
is recommended in both the Contract Model and
the Part-time Model papers:
This hiring policy and its procedures
are subject to review and revision at the request
of either the academic senate or the board of
trustees. Such revised policy or procedures shall
be mutually agreed upon by both parties before
it replaces the previously agreed upon hiring
policy or procedures.
Beyond Hiring: Welcoming and Mentoring
the Newly Hired Faculty
Though technically the work of the hiring committee
is completed once the board has formally hired
the new faculty members, whether they are full-time
or part-time faculty, the obligation of the entire
institution just begins. From assigning the newcomers
a mailbox and securing signatures on appropriate
forms to explaining the discipline's curriculum
and assisting with methodological and pedagogical
questions, staff, faculty and administrators have
responsibilities to integrate new hires into the
work of the department and the institution. The
academic senate has a particular responsibility
to address issues of new faculty orientation,
given their primary responsibility for faculty
development processes outlined in Title 5, §53200.
Of particular pride are the myriad
approaches California community colleges have
adopted to orient and mentor new hires. While
these methods might range from an intensely focused
mentoring project to the more general series of
orientation meetings sponsored by the local academic
senates, the goals are the same: fostering inclusion
into the college community and instilling within
the newcomer a sense of pride and familiarity.
Irvine Valley College has had an
orientation program for its new faculty members
sponsored by its academic senate subcommittee
on academic affairs. Beginning in the spring prior
to the newcomer's appearance on campus, the senate
committee works with the division deans to ensure
that all new faculty will have a common free time-slot
in their teaching schedule. Beginning in flex
week, the new faculty are met by members of the
senate committee, given a comprehensive tour of
the campus and its facilities, and escorted to
various flex week events, also often accompanied
by senior faculty in the discipline. As the fall
semester gets underway, the new faculty are not
assigned to a standing campus committee; rather,
as their contractual committee assignment in this
first semester, they meet weekly in the academic
senate committee's orientation program that features
presentations by staff, students, and faculty
throughout the college.
Los Angeles Valley College also
has a formal orientation process. There, new faculty
receive 12 hours of orientation in sessions planned
by a team that includes the college's vice president
of instruction, representatives of the academic
senate and the bargaining unit, and a representative
of the professional development committee. New
and participating senior faculty can receive staff
development or flex credit for participation in
such sessions.
Faculty—new and continuing—profit
from orientation activities such as these:
being sent on a campus "treasure hunt" sending
them to a library resource, the student health
center, the emergency supply stations, the
art gallery, labs, learning centers, etc.
sitting through the math/English matriculation
assessments (for faculty in those disciplines).
applying for and registering for a class.
attending a career-planning or academic preparation
course.
having presentations from all campus governance
groups.
having a special, crash course orientation
presented by technology staff.
sitting in and reporting on the work of college
committees.
shadowing learning resource faculty working
in their same disciplines.
researching and explaining to their new faculty
colleagues the curriculum or teaching innovations
in their department.
attending a college sports event together,
sponsored by the athletic department whose
teachers/coaches join them.
observing distance education classes as they
are being televised or taped.
preparing their own acronyms list for future
reference.
Los Medanos College has an extensive
orientation program for newly hired faculty. The
new hires are given reassigned time of up to 25%
(the equivalent of at least one 3 unit class)
to participate in an ongoing weekly seminar related
to their new roles. A faculty coordinator (who
similarly is provided reassigned time) who is
not involved directly in their formal evaluation,
is assigned to coordinate the seminar and mentor
the new faculty. The seminar includes not only
orientation to the programs, policies and educational
model and philosophy of the college, it also stresses
ongoing pedagogical discussion and incorporates
instructional improvement workshops. These latter
include peer observations and critiques of classroom
teaching, and utilize video taping to assist new
faculty in identifying their teaching strengths
and areas in need of improvement. This program
essentially utilizes a learning community model
and helps build a strong cohort of new faculty
whose ties carry forward long into their teaching
career. The academic senate is centrally involved
in designing and participating in the Nexus program
as well as in selecting the faculty coordinator.
On the other end of the spectrum
are the more formal, contractual mentoring arrangements
that pair senior faculty with neophyte instructors
or experienced faculty new to the district. These
pairings most frequently occur within the department
or division and allow for exchanges of syllabi,
visits to one another's classrooms, discussions
of assignments and grading practices. Mentors
can address both the practical and pedagogical
concerns of the new hire and build mutual confidence
and trust: the confidence the hire has in himself
or herself, and the trust the department now has
in this new faculty member. The practice can also
permit the department to address any perceived
weaknesses detected during the interview process.
Such mentoring arrangements usually operate more
intensely during the first year of the new hire's
employment but may be extended throughout the
probationary period as part of the on-going preparation
for peer evaluation and tenure review. While successful
mentoring obviously depends on successful pairing
of the mentor and mentored, the mentoring arrangement
is obviously a means of personalizing the professional
development of both colleagues throughout this
period.
On-going orientations and mentoring
experiences can also be easily embedded into other
professional development activities of the department
or division. English departments often conduct
annual "norming" sessions using actual student
papers to allow their department members, including
part-time faculty, to recalibrate their expectations
about student performance and discuss candidly
course objectives. Faculty members in math and
the sciences may also meet periodically for mini-teaching
demonstrations presented by their own colleagues;
solutions to problems, orientations to new technology
or equipment, hands-on lab work of their own provide
showcases for various teaching methodologies and
underscore for new members the intellectual dimensions
of their work.
While orientation and mentoring
of new faculty is more generally provided to full-time
hires, it should be noted that part-time faculty
also are in need of such attentions. In fact,
given the conditions of part-time faculty employment,
the use of orientation and mentoring to integrate
part-time faculty into educational programs is
critical for the quality and consistency of students'
educational experiences. Part-time faculty are
all too often institutionally disconnected, and
kept unaware even of curriculum expectations and
practices at the department level. Local academic
senates can work to mitigate these challenges
with the inclusion of part-time faculty in well
designed orientation and mentoring programs.
New hires report that mentoring
and orientation efforts are widely appreciated,
clarify the expectations the institution has for
them--inside and outside the classroom--and integrate
them more quickly into these larger responsibilities.
Such welcoming and mentoring activities familiarize
new faculty with college procedures as well as
the professional practices of their colleagues,
and, more importantly, offer them warm and welcoming
faces wherever they go. New hires are seemingly
more willing to ask questions of senior faculty,
to share their teaching successes (and woes),
and to engage in the on-going work of the college's
faculty to which they can now be significant contributors.
Recommendations
The Academic Senate makes the following recommendations
for local senates:
Faculty practices, procedures,
and policies should be informed by the 1989
Academic Senate-adopted papers Contract Faculty
Hiring Procedures: A Model Based on Assembly
Bill 1725, and Part-Time Faculty Hiring Procedures:
A Model Based on Assembly Bill 1725. Any review
of hiring practices should involve a review
of the intent language of AB 1725.
In addition to considering program
needs, decisions to hire should consider the
mandate for a 75/25 full-time/part-time instructor
ratio.
Every local academic senate
should have an Affirmative Action Committee,
one of whose members is appointed to each
faculty hiring committee.
Roles of administrators in the
hiring process should be clearly articulated
both in policy and in practice, and should
be reviewed by all participants prior to the
onset of the hiring procedure.
Job descriptions must observe
the state minimum qualifications while inviting,
through statements of desirable qualifications,
faculty of highest professionalism. Thus,
job descriptions must give primacy to the
traits or abilities most sought and must avoid
boilerplate language that homogenizes all
faculty positions
Hiring committees must be actively
involved in the creation of job descriptions,
announcements, and advertising efforts in
their effort to promote the institution's
commitment to diversity and invite a broad
spectrum of qualified applicants.
Local academic senates should
take steps to ensure that their districts
provide affirmative action training for all
faculty and staff participating on hiring
committees.
Faculty should explore strategies
to infuse their affirmative action training
with meaning, relevance, and depth.
Faculty must resist the efforts
of district clerical or human resources staff
to make substantive decisions about the suitability
of applications, the completion of packets,
the meeting of minimum qualifications, or
other matters that should fall under the review
of the hiring committee or its equivalency
determination committee.
While all hiring policies and
practices must be attentive to legal constraints
as they apply to fairness and equity, they
should be infused with and guided by empathy
for the applicants. Thus, faculty must insist
upon prompt and courteous notification of
candidates--successful and unsuccessful.
Hiring processes must include
time for fair and appropriate discussion of
candidates' merits--both after the paper-screening
and the interview processes.
Selection committees should
make use of follow-up questions in interviews
to create a more relaxed, conversational tone,
to establish a pace for the interview, and
to elicit greater depth in the candidates'
responses.
Adequate time must be allowed
for performance demonstrations, as these are
the activities for which candidates are being
hired. They are not being hired to give interviews.
Faculty making reference checks
should be sensitive to respondents' desire
to avoid litigation and should follow up on
any suggestion of the candidate's unsuitability.
Processes for hiring part-time
faculty should mirror as closely as possible
those for hiring full-time faculty.
The conditions allowing emergency
hiring of part-time faculty at the beginning
of the semester should be articulated in policy
such that such hires are the exception rather
than the rule.
Jointly agreed upon hiring policies
should contain a provision to revisit the
agreement at the request of either the local
academic senate or the governing board.
Faculty should establish mentoring
programs for new faculty with the aims of
integrating the new hires into the life of
the campus and promoting the highest standards
of performance. Attention should be paid to
the mentoring of both full- and part-time
faculty.
Conclusion
Outside of their primary functions as teachers,
counselors, and librarians, there is nothing more
important that faculty do than to select those
who will become their colleagues and join them
in service to community college students. Faculty
everywhere have the potential to change the lives
of their students, but it can be reasonably argued
that nowhere is this potential so great as in
the community college. It is therefore essential
that utmost care and attention be given to formulating
hiring policies and procedures, and that their
execution be entered into with creativity and
patience. In hiring, faculty are building the
future. For the process to be sound, as was observed
earlier, there can be no shortcuts, and it will
be difficult and time-consuming. However, as the
philosopher Spinoza observed at the end of his
great work, the Ethics, "All things worthwhile
are as difficult as they are rare."
2. For example,
suppose a department is offering 27 sections of
3-hour classes, and that 15 sections are being
taught by 3 full-time department members, and
12 sections by anywhere from 4 to 12 part-time
instructors. (The current practice is not to count
full-time overload in the 75/25 calculation. For
the sake of the illustration, then, none of the
full-time instructors is teaching overload.) The
current FT/PT ratio is then 56/44. (Eighty one
hours total; 45 hours taught by full time, 36
hours by part time. 45/81=56%; 36/81=44%.) A full-time
load is 5 sections, or 15 hours. Thus, converting
15 part-time hours to full-time ones would result
in 60 hours taught by full-time instructors and
21 taught by part-time instructors. This would
bring the department within a percentage point
of the 75/25 goal: 60/81=74%; 21/81=26%.
3. In addition,
regarding the committee's composition, Title 5
§93024 states: "Selection committees shall include
members of historically underrepresented groups
whenever possible."
4. The roles
of administrators delineated here follows closely
the suggestions and/or assumptions in the Contract
Model paper.
5. Title 5 §53023
states: "If adverse impact persists after taking
steps required under subdivision (b), the selection
process may proceed only if: 1) the job announcement
does not require qualifications beyond the statewide
minimum qualifications; ." [Emphasis added.] This
consequence is not entailed if the additional
qualifications are placed among the desirable
qualifications.
6. The Title
5 language has been strengthened since the Contract
Model paper was written, and now reads: §53024(a)
"All screening or selection techniques, including
the procedure for developing interview questions,
and the selection process as a whole, shall be:
(2) designed to ensure that for faculty and
administrative positions, meaningful consideration
is given to the extent to which applicants demonstrate
a sensitivity to and understanding of the diverse
academic, socioeconomic, cultural, disability,
and ethnic backgrounds of community college students;
." [Emphasis added.]
(a) The governing board of each
community college district shall develop and adopt
a district-wide written faculty and staff diversity
plan to implement its affirmative action employment
program. Such plans and revisions shall be submitted
to the Chancellor's Office for review and approval.
(c) In particular, the plan shall
include all of the following:
(4) A process for ensuring that
district employees who are to participate on screening
or selection committees shall receive appropriate
training on the requirements of this Subchapter
and of state and federal nondiscrimination laws;
8. Hoke Simpson.
Presentation on hiring to North Orange County
Community College District, January 13, 2000.
9. Further discussion
of issues related to the hiring of part-time faculty
can be found in the paper, The Use of Part-time
Faculty in California Community Colleges: Issues
and Impact, adopted by the Academic Senate in
Spring 1996.
