Qualifications For Faculty Service
In The California Community Colleges: Minimum
Qualifications, Placement Of Courses Within Disciplines,
And Faculty Service Areas
Prepared by the Standards
and Practices Committee of the Academic Senate
for California Community Colleges
Mark Snowhite, Chair, Crafton
Hills College
Dave Clarke, College of the Siskiyous
Karolyn Hanna, Santa Barbara City College
Beverly Reilly, Rio Hondo College
Sophie Rheinheimer, Las Positas
Julie Adams, Executive Director, ASCCC
The Education Code and Title
5 Regulations clearly lay out the requirements
for faculty members hired to teach courses and
perform other services in the California Community
Colleges. Since passage of the Community College
Reform Act (AB 1725) in 1988, faculty have had
the primary role in determining who is hired to
their ranks and specifically which courses each
faculty is qualified to teach. This paper explains
the various roles faculty play in this area. It
outlines the duties of the statewide Academic
Senate in determining minimum qualifications for
faculty in disciplines and support services expressed
in the Disciplines List. It also explains two
important responsibilities of local academic senates:
(1) developing policies and practices for determining
equivalencies when applicants do not possess the
exact minimum qualifications for hire specified
by the Disciplines List, and (2) placing each
course the college offers (except for not-for-credit)
in a discipline. Finally, it explains the ways
by which Faculty Service Areas (FSAs) are established
by the governing board and the bargaining agent,
in consultation with the local academic senate,
and how these may affect competency to
teach particular courses.
Introduction
When the state Legislature passed
the Community College Reform Act (AB 1725) and
the Governor signed this landmark piece of legislation
into law, the faculty of the California Community
Colleges, through the statewide Academic Senate,
was given the responsibility for recommending
to the Board of Governors of the California Community
Colleges the minimum qualifications for hiring
faculty and for developing a list of disciplines
to define those minimums. At the same time, local
academic senates gained the sole authority to
recommend to their boards of trustees the discipline
or disciplines into which each course in their
college’s curriculum was placed. Thus qualifications
needed for a person to teach a course are determined
by recommendation of the faculty (working at both
the state and local levels). Faculty also became
responsible for recommending to their local governing
boards any additional qualifications beyond the
state minimums that applicants needed to be considered
competent to teach in a discipline or perform
a faculty service.
The Academic Senate has published
papers to help faculty and others understand the
minimum qualifications for hire for faculty, the
processes by which equivalencies for the minimum
qualifications are established (Equivalencies
to the Minimum Qualifications, Spring 1999),
and how courses are placed within disciplines
(Placement of Courses within Disciplines,
Spring 1994).
The Community College Reform
Act of 1988 (AB 1725) also requires districts
to establish a Faculty Service Area (FSA) for
each faculty member (and for administrators who
have retreat rights). This requirement has created
some confusion about just who was considered by
regulation qualified to teach what courses. To
help sort out these matters, Academic Senate Resolution
10.1 F01 was adopted. It calls for the revision
of Placement of Courses within Disciplines.
Also, because an explanation of how FSA’s
could affect teaching assignments had never been
written, it became clear that such an explanation
should be included in any new paper on qualifications.
This paper will briefly explain
the significance of the disciplines lists, the
placement of courses within disciplines, and the
use of FSA’s in determining who is considered
legally competent to teach any particular credit
course. In addition, this paper will recommend
how faculty may best carry out their responsibilities
in these areas.
The Disciplines List and Minimum
Qualifications
The Community College Reform
Bill (AB 1725), adopted in September 1988, includes
provision for replacing credentials for all community
college faculty with a system that establishes
minimum qualifications for hire. The purpose of
this change was to phase out the subject area
qualifications akin to those for K-12 and establish
a system that recognizes expertise in disciplines.
The Education Code was thus amended in 1988 by
§§87350 – 87356, and the Disciplines List
for minimum qualifications for service went into
effect on July 1, 1989. Amendments were added
later in 1989 (AB 2155 and SB 1590), 1991 (SB
9), and 1993 (SB 343), establishing the statutes
that, along with Title 5 Regulations (§§53400-53430),
we use today.
What is commonly referred to
as the Disciplines List actually consists of two
separate lists. One includes those disciplines
in which a master’s degree is expected and
available from at least one major university in
California. Most of the traditional academic disciplines
are included on this list. The second list includes
those “disciplines in which a master’s
degree is not generally expected or available”
(Education Code, §87357(b) and Title 5, §43407).
This list includes mostly vocational or technical
disciplines.
The task of establishing a working
definition of discipline and preparing
and maintaining “a list of disciplines that
are reasonably related to one another”
has been assigned by Education Code §87357 to
the statewide Academic Senate. In carrying out
this task the Senate must “consult with appropriate
statewide organizations representing administrators
and faculty collective bargaining agents”
before sending its recommendations to the Board
of Governors for final adoption. The Board of
Governors must “rely primarily on the advice
and judgment of the Academic Senate” to prepare
and maintain the disciplines lists. Once every
three years the Academic Senate conducts a review
of these lists to consider additions and changes
to recommend to the Board of Governors.
The first disciplines lists
were approved by the Board of Governors in July
1989 and slightly revised in November of 1990
and again in May 1991. Further revisions have
occurred as a result of the review conducted by
the Academic Senate once every three years. Thus
the disciplines lists have been amended in 1993,
1996, 1999, and 2002.
Although we now use these disciplines
lists to determine qualifications to serve as
faculty, we need to keep in mind that credentials,
which were issued before the minimum qualifications
were established, are still valid. Education Code
§87355 states, “…every person authorized
to serve… under a credential shall retain
the right to serve under the terms of that credential,
and, for that purpose, shall be deemed to possess
the minimum qualifications specified for every
discipline or service covered by the credential
until the expiration of that credential”
(see also Title 5, §53403). Because credentials
were issued for subject-matter areas instead of
disciplines, credential holders may qualify to
teach a number of related disciplines under one
subject area. Some more senior members of our
faculty may hold the old general secondary credentials
qualify them to teach any course taught
in the community colleges. Most community college
credentials are life-time subject area credentials
and therefore maintain their validity for every
discipline that was recognized as part of that
subject-matter area when credentials were issued.
Thus if someone holds a life-time community college
English credential, he or she may teach reading
classes even though he or she may lack minimum
qualifications in reading because the English
credential would have authorized him or her to
teach reading when that credential was issued.
The change to minimum qualifications does not
invalidate the authority of that credential.
In addition, the Education Code
(§87359) recognizes a process established by local
districts for determining equivalency status whereby
someone who does not possess the minimum qualifications
for service may be hired as a faculty member if
he or she is judged to possess “qualifications
that are at least equivalent to the minimum qualifications....”
This process and the criteria for making determinations
of equivalency must be jointly agreed upon by
the local academic senate (or senates) and the
governing board and approved by the local governing
board. Section 87359 specifies that the process
must assure that the governing board rely primarily
on the advice and judgment of the academic senate
in each case where equivalency is at issue, even
though the governing board has the ultimate legal
authority of approval in all policy decisions
(see also Title 5, §53430).
Beyond qualifications specified
by the Disciplines List or equivalency, Title
5 Regulations have additional controls over qualifications
for service. Title 5, §53410 specifies that in
order to qualify for service in a discipline on
the master’s list, a person must possess
“a master’s degree, or equivalent foreign
degree, in the discipline of the faculty member’s
assignment… [or] a master’s degree,
or equivalent foreign degree, in a discipline
reasonably related to the faculty member’s
assignment and … a bachelor’s degree,
or equivalent foreign degree, in the discipline
of the faculty member’s assignment.”
This section also includes requirements for those
hired to teach courses in disciplines on the non-master’s
list. In order to be hired for such service, candidates
must possess either of the following: “1)
a bachelor’s degree, or the equivalent foreign
degree plus two years of professional experience
directly related to the faculty member’s
assignment” or 2) …an associate degree
or the equivalent foreign degree plus six years”
of such experience (§53410). Title 5 further
requires that all degrees and credits must be
from accredited institutions (§53406).
In addition, an occupational
license or certificate is required to teach in
certain programs, such as nursing, allied health
fields, and family counseling (§53417). Title
5 also allows for the following professional licenses
to substitute for a master’s degree for related
disciplines: Certified Public Accountant (Accounting);
Marriage, Family and Child Counselor (Counseling);
Professional Engineer (Engineering); Registered
Dietician (Nutritional Science/Dietetics).
Title 5 also includes separate
minimum qualifications for the following faculty
positions:
health services professionals (§53411)
instructors of noncredit courses (§53412)
apprenticeship instructors (§53413)
disabled students programs and services faculty
(§53414)
learning assistance and learning skills coordinators
or instructors and tutor coordinators (§53415)
work experience instructors and coordinators
(§53416).
Finally, Title 5, §53417 requires
that whenever a certificate or license to practice
in California is necessary for program or course
approval, such a certificate or license will be
an additional minimum qualification. Thus all
nursing instructors must possess a current license
to teach nursing courses.
We must also keep in mind that
the minimum qualifications listed reflect only
the statewide minimums for persons to be considered
qualified to teach in a given discipline or to
perform a defined service. According to AB 1725,
each district may establish additional qualifications
more rigorous than those listed. But we need to
be aware that
when qualifications are raised
and fewer people are eligible for a position,
some Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
identified population groups may well suffer a
disproportionate impact. If raising qualifications
has such a negative effect, the district may be
violating equal opportunity guidelines. For this
reason, some districts include additional hiring
qualifications under “Preferred Qualifications”
to allow for both a larger pool and the flexibility
to choose those applicants who best fit the needs
of the district.
Equivalency Issues
Occasionally a district will
find itself with an insufficient pool of qualified
applicants for a faculty position. Partly in response
to such pressures, some districts have instituted
policies and practices that have resulted in granting
equivalencies on questionable grounds. Equivalency
was established to credit those whose preparation
is at least equal to those who possess
the exact minimum qualifications defined by the
Disciplines List (Minimum Qualifications for
Faculty and Administrators in California Community
Colleges, March 2003).
For disciplines requiring a
master’s degree, colleges may accept applicants
who have earned a degree with a name or major
different from that which appears on the Disciplines
List but which require a similar course of study.
A term such as Literary Studies might substitute
for English, or Cybernetics for
Computer Science.
Also included are those whose
professional experience has provided them with
knowledge that is equivalent to that gained from
a formal course of study. These equivalencies
are most often applied to vocational disciplines,
for which the required degrees are a bachelor’s
degree and two years of professional or occupational
experience or an associate’s degree and six
years of professional or occupational experience
(According to Title 5, §53404, this experience
does not include teaching in the discipline).
Equivalency may also be granted
on the basis of eminence in the field. Artists,
authors, winners of widely-recognized prestigious
awards, performers, and athletes or others may
have developed skills and knowledge that prepare
them to teach in their respective disciplines.
So, §87359 of the Education Code and §53410 of
Title 5 define equivalency and provide
guidance for establishing policies and procedures
at the local level for determining equivalency
(see Appendix A).
It should be stressed that AB
1725 intent language
[1] makes clear that a candidate for a faculty
position who claims equivalency must have qualifications
at least equivalent to those specified.
In addition, Title 5, §53430 states, “No
one may be hired to serve as a community college
faculty [member] unless the governing board determines
that he or she possesses qualifications that are
at least equivalent to the minimum qualifications
specified.”
Many districts, however, do
allow for equivalencies clearly less than what
is indicated above (see Chancellor’s Office
compilation of Equivalency policies, 1992). Some
districts consider as equivalent someone who has
completed all (or most) of the course work but
not a required thesis for a master’s degree.
Some districts provide for a provisional equivalency,
which allows for a candidate to teach classes
provided that he or she is pursuing the required
degree. And there is at least one district that–contrary
to regulations–formally recognizes single-course
equivalencies.
This single-course equivalency
is particularly disturbing as it fundamentally
violates the principles of establishing minimum
qualifications to assure students and the public
in general that our instructors have achieved
the high degree of academic preparation and professional
qualifications that we deem essential for quality
instruction. One of our most strongly held principles
has been that minimum qualifications are determined
for disciplines, not for courses or subject
areas within disciplines. Both the Education
Code and Title 5 Regulations refer to qualifications
only in terms of disciplines (see particularly
Education Code, §87357 and Title 5, §§53410 and
53430). Finally, the Chancellor’s Office
has ruled that “…a district is not authorized
to establish a single-course equivalency as a
substitute for meeting minimum qualifications
in a discipline” (Appendix B: Legal Opinion
L 03-28, December 2003).
Although single-course equivalency
has been defended as a necessary measure where
colleges have difficulty attracting candidates
who satisfy minimum qualifications, we need to
insist that our districts uphold minimum standards
and not compromise the professionalism of the
faculty and the quality of instruction and other
faculty services. Someone who seems to have preparation
to teach only a course or two in a discipline
does not possess the broader knowledge about how
that course relates to the entire discipline and
therefore will not be likely to perform as well
as someone with that scope of knowledge. For example,
someone with a knowledge of mathematics from training
as an engineer may be able to teach a course in
geometry or algebra, but he or she may not be
qualified to teach the other courses in the mathematics
sequence or understand the relationship among
the courses in the college’s offerings in
mathematics.
One other argument put forth
in favor of single-course equivalency is that
it is a way to allow for those qualified to teach
basic skills to teach only basic skills classes.
The reasoning here is that such teachers may very
well be better equipped by training and experience
to meet the needs of our basic skills students
than those with more advanced degrees. But here,
again, the reasoning is flawed. The Academic Senate
has consistently maintained that applicants with
minimum qualifications to teach only lower-level
or introductory courses in a discipline may very
well have the depth of knowledge to teach that
limited area; however, with such limited expertise
these people will not be as likely as someone
with minimum qualifications in that discipline
to have an understanding of how each course fits
into the sequence of courses in their respective
disciplines. Single-course equivalencies would
also lead to the establishment on campuses of
a two-tiered system of the well qualified and
the not-so-well-qualified. In addition, department
heads and administrators might have a difficult
time determining which faculty in a discipline
could teach which courses.
When a college offers a course
for which it is very difficult to hire an instructor
with the minimum qualifications, its curriculum
committee might consider offering the course through
a community service program (not-for-credit) or,
in the case of lower level basic skills subjects,
as a noncredit course. [2] Minimum qualifications for noncredit classes
are similar to those for adult school, generally
a bachelor’s degree in disciplines. Another
possibility is for the district to increase its
efforts to attract qualified faculty.
Sound policies and practices
in the area of equivalency must be based on faculty
control of the equivalency process. Education
Code §87359 requires that each district establish
an equivalency policy and procedures that “shall
be developed and agreed upon jointly by representatives
of the governing board and the academic senate,
and approved by the governing board.” Thus
faculty, working through their local academic
senates, fulfill their responsibility for controlling
the way that a district grants equivalency by
assuring that their district’s policies and
procedures require faculty to maintain authority
in this area. (The Academic Senate’s paper
Equivalence to the Minimum Qualifications (1999)
provides suggestions and model equivalency policies).
Locally established requirements
The intent language of AB 1725
is very clear about the rights of colleges to
add qualifications beyond the statewide minimums
established in the Disciplines List. Section 4
(S) (4) of this legislation states, “…the
[faculty] hiring process should be focused on
ensuring that the community colleges will select
teachers who can teach and who are expert in the
subject matter of their curriculum; and counselors,
librarians, and other instructional and student
services faculty who can foster community college
effectiveness and who are experts in the subject
matter of their specialty. This means that the
colleges may establish criteria for hiring that
go well beyond the minimum qualifications set
by regulation. The establishment of additional
criteria of this sort should be expected and encouraged.”
A district may then require
candidates for hire to have requirements in either
formal educational preparation or specified experience
(or both) to qualify for a particular faculty
position. For example, a counseling faculty position
might call for three years of counseling experience
in a school setting in addition to what appears
on the Discipline List under “Counseling.”
Placement of Courses within
Disciplines
The statewide Academic Senate
is primarily responsible for recommending the
contents of the Disciplines List, and local senates
are responsible for working with their governing
boards to develop policies and procedures for
hiring faculty and determining equivalency. Local
academic senates are also primarily responsible
for placement of all credit courses offered by
a college in appropriate disciplines. Title 5,
§53200, which defines the areas that are academic
and professional matters, includes as the
first such area “curriculum, including establishing
prerequisites and placing courses within disciplines.”
The task of assigning courses
to disciplines is important for two reasons. First
it helps describe the course by classifying it
in a discipline (e.g., Anthropology103is clearly an anthropology course). Second,
it indicates what preparation is needed to teach
the course. Only a faculty member with a master’s
degree or its equivalent in anthropology may teach
Anthropology 103 (except if this course is also
listed under another discipline).
Each credit course offered by
your college must be in a discipline. The curriculum
committee, usually an academic senate committee
(see Title 5, §55002 (a) (1) for required academic
senate primacy), is where the process of assigning
a course to a discipline (or disciplines) occurs.
By now all colleges have assigned courses to disciplines.
The disciplines are those that appear in the Disciplines
List (Minimum Qualifications for Faculty and
Administrators in the California Community Colleges,March 2003). For clarity and as a convenient
reference, discipline designations should appear
on course outlines of record.
The only courses that do not
need to be placed within a discipline are community
service (i.e., not-for-credit) courses and those
courses taught under contract with external agencies
and not supported by state apportionment [3] .
Some courses may be appropriately
placed in more than one discipline. For example,
a course entitled an Economic History of the United
States may be appropriately placed in both the
economics and the history disciplines.
This means that it is placed in both disciplines
by the college curriculum committee. Such a placement
means that a faculty member with minimum qualifications
in either discipline would be qualified
to teach this course, provided that he or she
also possesses any additional qualifications established
by the governing board in conjunction with its
academic senate or senates (such “additional
qualifications are explained below, under Faculty
Service Areas).
Other courses may not clearly
fall within a single discipline in that they might
combine two or more disciplines to such a degree
that they need to be taught by someone with some
preparation in the constituent disciplines. These
courses are designated as interdisciplinary.
Examples can be drawn from the many humanities
courses taught in community colleges. Some colleges
have courses listed under the discipline of humanities
and taught by someone with minimum qualifications
in humanities. However, under Humanities
in the Disciplines List we find the following:
Master’s
in Humanities OR
The equivalent OR
See Interdisciplinary Studies
(Minimum Qualifications, 7)
And the entry for Interdisciplinary
Studies is as follows:
Master’s in the Interdisciplinary
area OR
Master’s in one of the
disciplines included in the interdisciplinary
area and upper division
or graduate course work in at least one
other constituent discipline[s].
(Minimum Qualifications, 7)
Therefore the interdisciplinary
designation requires more specialized minimum
qualifications than courses listed under two or
more disciplines. For example someone with minimum
qualifications in humanities may teach a course
entitled Western Civilization and listed under
the Humanities discipline. Someone who
has a master’s degree in one of its component
disciplines and upper division or graduate course
work in one of the other constituent disciplines
is also eligible to teach this course (exactly
how much coursework in a second discipline is
not specified in the Disciplines List).
Component disciplines for this
course may be art, philosophy, and literature.
Agreement on qualifications to teach any such
course should be made by the college curriculum
committee and based on the course outline of record.
Noncredit courses also need
to be placed into disciplines; however, the list
of disciplines for noncredit differs somewhat
from the list of disciplines on the for-credit
side. For example, the noncredit list includes
basic skills and citizenship as
designations. All noncredit designations can be
found in Title 5, §53412.
A college curriculum committee
must be very careful to place courses in disciplines
according to the preparation needed by the person
who will be determined qualified to teach them.
Curriculum committee members should remember that
placing courses within disciplines is done to
assure that the instructor qualified to teach
those courses are likely to possess the appropriate
preparation to teach them effectively. Curriculum
committee members should resist the impulse to
place courses in disciplines primarily to broaden
the pool of those who may be considered qualified
to teach those courses or to restrict the pool
of potential instructors as a means of protecting
the assignments of any faculty member or group
of faculty who have traditionally taught such
courses.
We also must keep in mind that
cross-listing a course might affect its articulation
status. If, for example, Journalism 140 is also
listed as Speech Communication 140, then the articulation
agreements for either course need to be extended
to the other course title. Articulation could
be denied if a receiving institution questions
the appropriateness of such a cross-listing on
the grounds that a course whose content could
be taught by an instructor in a different discipline
would not have sufficient concentration in the
discipline for which it is being articulated.
This problem would be more likely to occur with
articulation to University of California campuses,
which require faculty review of community college
courses, than at California State University campuses,
where articulation relies on community college
certification. For this reason, curriculum committees
should include your college's articulation officer,
who can provide insight into these concerns and
make suggestions.
Faculty Service Areas (FSAs)
In addition to understanding
how minimum qualifications (including equivalency)
dictate what discipline a faculty member may teach
in and how placement of courses within disciplines
affect teaching assignments, we need to understand
how FSAs come into play. AB 1725 requires that
each local governing board, working with its faculty
bargaining agent—in consultation with the
local academic senate–establish faculty service
areas.
Each faculty member upon hire
is assigned a FSA or multiple FSAs depending on
his or her qualifications. FSAs have only one
purpose: they determine the order by which faculty
may be laid off when a district is facing reduction
in force – lay offs of full-time faculty.
(For the conditions under which a district may
initiate faculty lay-offs, see Education Code
§87743).
Districts have different patterns
for FSAs. Some have aligned all or most FSAs with
the disciplines list. Others have sub-divided
disciplines. For example, journalism might be
recognized as an FSA sub-division of English.
Other districts have added competency requirements
such as recency to some or all of their FSAs.
Taking the opposite approach, other districts
have broad areas, such as language arts,
which may include English, speech, reading, and
foreign language. A few districts have just one
FSA for all faculty members.
This variation of pattern is
a result of different values faculty and their
governing boards held when agreeing to their initial
FSAs. The broader the FSA the greater security
for faculty with older credentials that allow
them to teach in a range of disciplines. The narrower
the FSAs the easier it is for disciplines to maintain
their more recently qualified faculty at the expense
of those holding the older credentials.
We can readily see what problems
occur when districts with broadly defined FSAs,
those that include more than one discipline, lay
off faculty. First, there is some question about
the consistency of broadly defined FSAs. The Education
Code, §87743.3 states that “…a faculty
member shall be eligible for qualification in
any faculty service area in which the faculty
member has met both minimum qualifications…and
district competency standards.” Faculty
members hired under minimum qualifications, as
opposed to those with old (but still valid) credentials,
do not necessarily qualify for all disciplines
under a broadly defined FSA and so might not truly
qualify to teach courses in all disciplines included
in an FSA that they are assigned at the time of
hire.
In addition, if faculty with
grand-fathered credentials are retained because
they qualify for a broader range of disciplines
when more recently hired faculty are laid off,
the district may find that it has a shortage
of faculty members to teach a discipline (or courses
within a discipline) and therefore may not be
able to provide students with certain course offerings.
For instance, suppose a newly hired French instructor
is laid off from the Language Arts FSA and that
leaves no full-time French instructor. Others
in the Language Arts FSA include speech, reading,
and English faculty, but none of these faculty
members may have the statewide minimum qualifications
to teach French courses.
Since community colleges have
not had much occasion to lay off faculty in the
past decade or so, most of us have paid little
attention to how FSAs are established. Perhaps
it is time to re-evaluate our local policies and
procedures in this vital area, especially in these
times of financial uncertainty.
Conclusion
The writers of AB 1725 recognized
that for the state’s community colleges to
fulfill its role as a partner in providing high
quality post-secondary education to Californians
it needed to ensure that the colleges would hire
fully qualified faculty. To achieve this goal
the authors of this watershed legislation authorized
the faculty to play a central role in establishing
qualifications for hire, determining under which
disciplines courses should be placed, and developing
reasonable rules to use when faculty lay-offs
became necessary. It is the responsibility of
California’s community college faculty to
fulfill its responsibilities to keep the community
college teaching profession strong.
Recommendations for Local Senates
Encourage all faculty involved in your college’s
hiring processes to read this paper and other
resources, such as Minimum Qualifications
for Faculty and Administrators (2003), and
the Academic Senate’s paper Equivalence
to the Minimum Qualifications (1999).
Access the Academic Senate web site (www.asccc.org)
for other resources that help educate faculty
about their professional responsibilities in
maintaining reasonable qualifications for hire
and placing courses within disciplines.
Encourage all faculty, especially those involved
your college’s processes for placing courses
within disciplines, to read this paper.
Encourage cooperation between your district’s
bargaining agent and academic senate and others,
such as department chairs, to establish faculty
service areas that protect the integrity of
disciplines on our campus.
Become involved in revising the Disciplines
List (Minimum Qualifications). The Academic
Senate relies on suggestions from those at the
colleges to suggest changes that keep the Disciplines
List current. New disciplines emerge with the
discovery of new knowledge and the use of new
technologies.
Work towards creating an equivalency policy
in your district that is both fair and reasonable.
Keep in mind that equivalent means having
qualifications at least equivalent
to those specified (Education Code, §87359).
Consider the impact on diversity of any policies
and procedures affecting hiring.
Work with your local bargaining agent (i.e.,
union) to evaluate your district’s Faculty
Service Area (FSA) policy and procedures to
see whether they help protect your college’s
programs.
When reaching agreement on issues about competency
of faculty becomes difficult, seek the help
of the statewide Academic Senate (www.asccc.org
).
[1] the part of the legislation explaining the authors’
intention as opposed to the rules chaptered into
code.
[2] Community college noncredit classes are similar
to classes offered by adult school programs. Most
of these offerings are in basic skills, citizenship,
and vocational training.
[3] Some classes taught under contract may be supported
by state apportionment.
