The Use of Part-Time Faculty in California Community Colleges: Issues and Impact

Spring 1996

The Educational Policies Committee 1995-1996
Regina Stanback-Stroud, Chair - Rancho Santiago College
Linda Collins, Los Medanos College
Jill Harmon, Fresno City College
Jim Higgs, Modesto Junior College
Paul Setziol, DeAnza College
Jean Smith, San Diego Community College District - ECC
Robert Smith, College of San Mateo
Robert Rockwell, CIO Representative - Mt San Jacinto College

 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract
History
Institutional Integration
Institutional Support
Effect on the Institution, Program, and Students
Status of Part-Time Faculty
Positive Contributions
Attempted Solutions
Recommendations
Appendix (COFO Equity Statement Draft)
 
 

At the Spring 1995 Plenary Session, the following resolution was referred to the Executive Committee. By direction of the Executive Committee, the Educational Policies Committee examined the resolution and prepared a discussion document on the issue. This document addresses the many factors associated with the use of part-time faculty. There is an attempt to focus on the issue of how the practice affects academic integrity and what actions are necessary. Recommendations appear in the conclusion of the document.

Referred Resolution S95 13.16 Equal Education Opportunities:

Therefore, be it resolved that The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges direct the Executive Committee to develop a model policy and urge the Board of Governors and other bodies to seek legislation and/or establish regulations which will achieve students' equal educational opportunity whether they be enrolled in sections taught by full or part-time faculty, to include, but not be limited to the provision of equal office hours, phone mail, and other means of faculty-student interaction required of all faculty, full- or part-time, and report back at a future session; and

Be it further resolved that The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges request the Board of Governors and other bodies to seek legislation and/or make regulations that will require the establishment of hiring and evaluation procedures for part-time faculty that are identical to those required for the hiring and evaluation of full-time faculty, and

Be it finally resolved that The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges develop a model policy and urge the Board of Governors and other bodies to seek legislation and/or establish regulations which will achieve the removal of barriers to the payment of part-time faculty for academic and professional work to include, but not be limited to, payment for local senate work, curriculum, department and division work, and other professional shared governance duties.
 

Abstract

In the 1960's and the 1970's, community colleges experienced rapid growth and proportionate funding. New colleges were built and staffed with full-time faculties. The part-time faculty members available on an any campus were useful to staff the few sections which remained unstaffed after all full-time faculty assignments had been made and all overload requests had been met. The picture began to change as Proposition 13 went into effect, and more recently, as the state's economic climate worsened. Part-time faculty, originally useful to allow for flexibility and occasional special expertise, began to have another appeal; they were cost efficient. Part-time faculty receive approximately fifty percent of the rate of the pay of full-time faculty and typically receive no benefits, thereby resulting in a zero cost for benefits.

As college districts became more and more desperate in the search to cut costs in the face of rising enrollments and flat or declining funding there was an economic incentive, whenever full-time faculty members retired, to replace them with several part-time faculty members. Over time the make-up of community college faculties changed radically as the part-time influx accumulated. As the number and percentage of part-time faculty rose, so did concern for the continuing academic integrity of college programs. This concern was based, not on lack of confidence in the preparation and teaching abilities of the growing number of part-time faculty, but, on the lack of continuity that must inevitably attend the use of many different individuals each teaching only a fraction of a full load and an even smaller fraction of a program of study.

AB 1725 became law and mandated that the community college districts must work toward a goal of having a minimum of 75% of all class hours taught by full-time faculty. Despite this 75/25 goal mandate, there has actually been some regression in recent years; full-time faculty
taught 62% of all courses in 1988-89 but that number dropped to 60. 1% in 1993-94.

In addition to legislative attempts to alleviate the situation, the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges has tried for two decades to find workable methods of addressing the issue. The issue has been discussed in previous committees. Various breakout sessions have been conducted and resolutions have been passed.

Consideration of the cost-benefit ratio should be given to the actual economy created under the auspices of saving money with part-time faculty. While there appears to be an immediate cash saving, the cost of the full-time faculty members taking on additional departmental work, advising, curriculum development, and program development should be considered. Further, consideration must be given to the cost of the increased load on the full-time faculty members and its impact on their participation in the governance of the institution through deliberation and participation on committees. The subsequent cost both to the administration and the institution of insufficient deliberation, and therefore, the inability to resolve certain issues in the governance process should be considered. According to a 1993 study on the use of part-time faculty members, "..institutions may calculate efficiency by focusing on how to get the most instruction done for the least money within a given fiscal year; what they often overlook is that the full-time faculty have broad roles to play in the operation of high-quality academic programs. These roles consume significant portions of their time, and that costs money."

Perhaps the major catastastrophe of large numbers of part-time faculty on any one campus is that the long-term institutional goals and programs are the product of, and known to, a relatively small number of full-time faculty and administrators. These latter groups are the ones who fill the many committee and planning positions, both ad hoc and continuing, that design the overall academic goals and framework for progress that guide a college and its curriculum.

Part-time faculty usually have little to no role in setting these long and short range college goals and/or no sure way of being informed about them. Part-time faculty are not usually engaged in any way in the institutional processes of their department nor in the shared governance structure of their college as a whole. They simply do their best, on a day-to-day basis, with textbooks they did not choose and a course outline they had no hand in designing.

The question of educational equity for students is posed in the context of the part-time faculty discussion. Does the student receive or have a right to receive an equitable educational experience regardless of whether they chose a section taught by a full-time faculty member or a part-time faculty member? Students who happen to choose a section taught by a part-time faculty member may find that their teacher is not available for any office hours or, if willing to be available, has no office in which to meet with them. They may also find that there is not even a college telephone number or mailbox through which their teacher can be contacted. This puts the student at a distinct disadvantage compared to other students who happened to choose classes taught by full-time faculty who can provide all these advantages to support their classes.

Part-time faculty sometimes believe they are treated as Asecond-class citizens@ because of either real or perceived slights of various kinds from both full-time faculty and the administration. Because of almost total lack of job security, they also find it hard to speak out on academic issues which could benefit from their attention and expertise. Job security in the form of being a full-time tenured faculty position is a powerful stimulant to the academic courage to speak one's mind on professional issues. In a culture where silence is often interpreted as consent, this silence can lead to personal and professional frustration and a sense of powerlessness for part-time faculty.

In the discussion that follows, it must be realized that while there are specific collective bargaining issues which impact this issue, this paper seeks to concentrate on the academic implications which arise from the characteristics of the faculty. In doing so, this paper will examine the use of part-time faculty and the implications for an equitable educational experience for all students irrespective of the employment status of their faculty.

 
History

Decades of use of part-time faculty is evidenced in this 1986 League for Innovation statement: "The employment of large numbers of part-time faculty in America's community colleges was a longstanding practice (Cohen and Brawer, 1982). This practice continued to the point that in 1978, part-time faculty outnumbered full-time faculty in all states, and some states by a two-to-one ratio (Haddad and Dickens)." In the California Community Colleges the number of part-time faculty is estimated at 26,727 and the number of full-time faculty is estimated at 16,012.

The table below lists the percentages of the Weekly Faculty Contact Hours (WFCH) taught by part-time faculty since the passage of AB 1725 which required the establishment of a goal and allocated program improvement funds such that at least 75 % of the hours of instruction be taught by full time faculty. Despite the slight decrease in the numbers of part-time faculty, the Chancellor's office estimates an increase in the number of contact hours taught by part-time faculty. Since the 1988 passage of AB 1725, the percentage distribution of the weekly faculty contact hours (WFCH) for part-time faculty has decreased by less than one percent if the estimates provided by the Chancellor's office in the Fall of 1993 are accurate. Total WFCH Taught and the Percentage Distribution  

*Figures are statewide estimates from the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office
 

Institutional Integration and Processes

Depending upon the institutional and/or the department culture, part-time faculty have professional lives which are more or less integrated into the processes of the college. The institution's and department's efforts at integrating part-time members will affect these opportunities to be successful, their value as professionals, and their perceptions of support by the college.

A common attempt at integration includes orientation to the academic community. Part-time faculty are professionally socialized to understand their roles, their jobs, and the culture and climate of the department and institutions. The orientations vary across the state. Some orientations are very in-depth and include information about the institutions mission, goals, plans, community served, and history. There is a greater propensity for the part-time faculty to be appropriately acculturated if there is a formal and distinct orientation. Absent a formal orientation, the part-time faculty may perceive that they have to sink or swim. To that extent, the part-time faculty member receives messages, through intent or benign neglect, of the lack of regard for the program course, institution, student, and the part-time faculty member him or herself.

Professional and shared governance privileges, duties, and activities are other processes which affect the integration of part-time faculty. Depending upon the climate of the college, shared governance activities may be regarded as a privilege, a duty, or both. Still, many part-time faculty members do not participate in the general shared governance activities. While this nonparticipation may be in part affected by compensation issues, the privilege and right to participate should be available to part-time faculty.

In light of the prolific use of part-time faculty, legitimate concerns rest with full-time faculty as they struggle to consider avenues for part-time faculty participation, but maintain the appropriate full-time tenure faculty influence on matters under consideration. Some colleges have resolved this conflict with weighted roles. For example, some departments encourage and support part-time faculty participation in department meetings, curriculum development, textbook selection, and course outline development discussions, but do not permit them to vote if the matter is resolved by voting. Others allow part-time faculty to vote but give full-time faculty veto power.

Hiring processes vary for part-time faculty members. Prior to the passage of AB 1725, part-time hiring processes were relatively informal and predominantly done by the department chair or the responsible administrator trying to fill an emergency slot. This factor significantly affects the debate about part-time faculty seniority and consideration when full-time faculty positions become available. On the one hand, the part-time faculty member is an insider who has demonstrated a commitment to the institution or the program. On the other hand, s/he may not have been hired using fair hiring practices designed to ensure equal opportunity for others to be considered. The failure on the part of the institution to submit the part-time employment decisions to the scrutiny of the regular academic and professional processes that result in the hiring of a full-time faculty member may expose the part-time faculty to status discrimination.

While some colleges continue to hire part-time faculty by considering who the department chair, faculty, or administrators know, since the passage of AB 1725, greater efforts have been directed at attaining and implementing fair hiring practices. One approach is for colleges to advertise the construction of a part-time pool. Hiring processes which are similar to the full-time faculty hiring processes, but relative to part-time faculty hiring realities, are employed. A pool of qualified faculty is identified by the department and recorded in the personnel department. This pool is made available to the department chair or administrator that has to hire a part-time faculty member. In addition to addressing the issues of qualifications and perceived status based on the hiring process utilized, this approach enables the institution to build an ethnically and culturally diverse pool of faculty.

Similarly, evaluation procedures also impact the integration of the part-time faculty. A

common evaluation practice is for the department chair to evaluate department faculty. The implications of this are multifaceted if the chair is also key to hiring decisions. The part-time faculty member is at the entire mercy of the judgment of the department chair. Without job security, this practice can and does affect the part-time faculty member's sense of academic freedom. This fact alone has a great impact on the integrity of the program or course. Paradoxically, the evaluating full-time faculty member may judge the part-time faculty member's ability to maintain academic integrity while ignoring the impact the institutional evaluation process itself has on academic integrity.

 Institutional Support

In order for all faculty to be effective in their professional efforts, the institution must provide some basic levels of support. Full-time faculty, staff, and administrators unquestionably have access to institutional mail, telephones, offices, equipment, professional development resources and internal support processes. However, part-time faculty are often expected to function professionally with access to little or no institutional support. Because students are not able to call or leave mail for the part-time faculty member, access for the students is significantly diminished. Office hours may not be available either because the part-time faculty member is not expected to hold nor be compensated for them, or because even when part-time faculty are nonetheless willing to hold office hours, no office is available in which to do so.

Irrespective of the actual reason, the result is that the student does not have access to a significant service which could have a major impact on the probability of their success. The employment status of their instructor and the failure of the institution to provide fundamental support and resources with which the part-time faculty member can effectively function as a

professional can negatively impact student persistence, retention, and success. According to Vincent Tinto "..students isolation from the academic life of the college, particularly from the faculty who shape that life, proves to be an especially important source of attrition because the absence of faculty contact undermines student involvement in the learning process and thereby diminishes student growth."
 

Effect on the Institution, Program and Students

A corps of full-time tenured faculty is essential to the maintenance of educational excellence, academic integrity, and the freedom to pursue and effect the acquisition of knowledge without fear of reprisal for exercising that freedom consistent with one's academic and professional judgment. Failure to attain and maintain such a faculty corps threatens the very ambition, creativity, innovation, exploration, and criticism which is central to academic integrity of programs and courses of study in institutions of higher learning. The prolific and unexamined use of part-time faculty incrementally poses a principal threat to tenure and academic freedom. Combined with increasing attacks on tenure and academic freedom, uninformed public policy, fiscal constraints, increasing student demand for decreasing enrollment opportunities, and the declining tradition of respecting faculty, the prolific hiring of part-time faculty can and will create a stratum of faculty who comprise a majority but do not possess the fundamental privileges and rights considered by most in higher education and on accrediting boards to be essential among the standards of sound educational practice.

The Council of Faculty Organizations proposed a Faculty Equity Statement which indicates that because part-time and full-time faculty share common professional interest in providing educational opportunities of the highest quality to students and are required to meet consistent minimal qualifications, full-time and part-time faculty should communicate effectively with each other, share institutional responsibilities and rewards, and create an academic community that is based on mutual respect. Further, the American Federation of Teachers state that the problems surrounding the use of part-time faculty do not originate from some form of "... inadequacy of the part-time faculty members themselves; rather it is their exploited status which relies at the root of the problem."

The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges states that an accredited institution is one which meets many criteria including the following standards:

1. Members of the faculty, administration, and support staff remain current in their field of expertise (Faculty Development).
2. Faculty, administration, and staff members engage in professional activity supported by the institution.
3. Governing boards and administrators protect and support faculty in their exercise of academic freedom.
4. The faculty have established and participate in an effective academic or faculty senate...
5. It is considered part of each faculty member's professional responsibility to participate in committees and the governance structure of the institution.
While institutions may meet this standard with the full-time faculty, they may be more vulnerable as one considers the part-time faculty. Embodied in these standards are good educational practices which support academic integrity.

When considering the related accreditation standards, along with the issues of academic freedom, institutional integration, hiring and evaluation processes and practices, it is relatively easy to logically conclude that excessive reliance on part-time faculty can have a negative effect on academic integrity. According to Gappa and Leslie (1993), a more prudent examination of the issue would reveal that ".part-time faculty vary widely in their teaching performance, but.. little suggest that they are the root of any systematic decline in the quality of higher education."
 
Status of Part-Time Faculty

According to the American Federation of Teachers, "Full-time faculty must regard part-time faculty as colleagues in the academic community. They must see part-time faculty as exploited members of the same labor force, and must see part-timers as like themselves except in being more vulnerable to manipulation by management." This statement appeals for full-time faculty to respect and empathize with part-time faculty members. Often part-time faculty members are not given the professional respect to have adequate preparation time for a course or to participate in the curriculum and pedagogical decisions of the courses they teach.

An array of titles are often used to classify or rank part-time faculty members. Names such as associate instructor, associate professor, adjunct faculty, etc. are examples of commonly used titles to classify part-time faculty. Equally as common, no institutional reward is associated

with the attainment of such titles or rank. Full-time or part-time faculty should not be seduced with meaningless titles given to part-time faculty which often are symbolic and abstract gestures institutions substitute for quality of work life and professional rights and privileges.

Full-time faculty should recognize and attempt to minimize the vulnerability of part-time faculty to reprisals from tenured faculty and administrators for perspectives or attitudes not associated with their qualifications or teaching abilities. This fundamental threat to academic freedom should be confronted with an attitude of defending the freedom to teach and learn.

The impact of this lack of academic freedom for part-time faculty extends beyond the classroom. Full-time faculty may prefer tenured faculty to represent them on committees; given their relative vulnerability many districts exclude non-tenured faculty from participating on hiring and shared governance committees. Lack of tenure coupled with the lack of institutional memory and experience, make part-time faculty unlikely to be selected for representation on major committees, even where they are not specifically excluded. With little to no job security, part-time faculty are placed in a difficult position on department and shared governance committees where frank discussion and advocacy for positions of educational principle with administrators is frequently required.

Beyond tenure, part-time faculty in many districts lack protection normally afforded tenured faculty such as recourse to grievance committees and an appeal process in cases of dismissal. The AAUP in its Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure, revised most recently in 1990, noted the integral relation between academic freedom and academic due process. The AAUP recommended that faculty members with special or probationary appointments and/or graduate student academic staff should be given reasons for

termination in writing and afforded access to a hearing or faculty grievance committee, to protect them from possible dismissal "due to considerations violative of academic freedom or of governing policies against improper discrimination..." (Recommended Institutional Regulations, 5(a), 5(b), 13 and 14).

Of particular concern is the manner in which part-time faculty have been used as a wedge to undermine commitment to basic principles of sound academic, institutional practice. For example, the increasing number of part-time faculty has been cited in the literature as evidence that lack of tenure is not a problem and that tenure is no longer necessary or justifiable. Similarly cost considerations and flexibility are often cited as reasons for not following fair and effective practices for hiring part-time faculty. This strategy in turn further distances part-time and full-time faculty. Conflicts between part-time and full-time faculty may reflect such administrative practices; such practices can have the effect of playing full-time and part-time faculty off against one another.

 Positive Contributions

Discussion about part-time faculty often focuses primarily on the problems they face and the possible detrimental effect of employing too large a proportion of part-time faculty on a multitude of college activities. Seldom mentioned are the many positive contributions made by part-time faculty; these include more recent graduate level work, knowledge of the most current practices if they are working in a professional non-academic setting, knowledge of problems and practices at other local area colleges, both two-year and four-year institutions, and the cross pollination of ideas resulting from having this broader exposure than does the average full-time faculty member.

Attempted Solutions

New legislation is aimed at affecting collective bargaining factors which include the retirement benefits of part-time faculty, A new teacher retirement plan that benefits part-time faculty, AB 1298 (Doucheney) was signed into law October 1995. Also, fall 1995, the Governor signed AB 1122 (Canella) which allows part-time faculty to receive total service credits accrued from teaching in multiple districts. Equally importantly, the legislation will also improve part-time faculty service credit and vesting rights for retirement contributions directing districts to accurately calculate the actual hours the part-time faculty member teaches. Another bill, AB810, introduced by then Assemblywoman Doris Allen, now carried by Assemblyman Campbell will be under consideration during the Spring 1995 legislative session. It would provide health benefits for "freeway flyer" faculty who travel to several different colleges in the area teaching part-time loads in an attempt to piece together a full-time job..

The major step forward was contained in the provisions of AB 1725. Section 4(a) (1) states "There must be guarantees that the full-time positions which become open because of the retirement of these faculty members not be divided into part-time positions that are less expensive to fill than the full-time positions. The division of full-time positions that become vacant into part-time positions is currently occurring too frequently. The maintenance of a fully staffed, full-time faculty is an essential element of a coherent program." Accompanying language in the bill recognized the appropriateness and need for using part-time faculty, but indicated that the "...appropriateness of part-time faculty should be made on the basis of academic and program needs, not financial savings. The Legislature's concern about abuses in this regard led to the establishment of the current statutory cap on part-time employment."

Risking and receiving the displeasure of the legislature, community colleges have relied on hiring part-time faculty for financial savings. At a 1994 Assembly Committee on Higher Education meeting, chaired by Assemblywoman Marguerite Archie-Hudson, the California Community Colleges were called upon to speak to the issue of why the system appeared to be making little to no progress on the 75% goal even though program improvement funds were allocated. The community colleges responded that the Board of Governors set regulations which required a number of faculty to be hired, not a percentage. Chairwoman Archie-Hudson responded with the assertion that the Board of Governors' regulations do not take precedence over statute.

AB 1725 went beyond legislative intent language by specifying the expenditure of program improvement monies for the purpose of hiring full-time faculty. The goal was to have a minimum of 75% of all credit hours taught by full-time faculty. The Board of Governors then translated this into regulations concerning the use of part-time faculty under program based funding. The penalty for noncompliance was the reduction of a districts revenue. While this penalty appeared to be the ultimate weapon, the Board of Governors included provisions in the regulations for years in which there was no cost of living adjustment (COLA) or no program improvement funds. Title 5 section 51025(e) allows for the Board of Governors, by January 20th of each fiscal year, to A...determine whether adequate growth funds and adequate COLA funds have been provided to allow full or partial implementation of the provisions.......@ If such funds are not available, the Chancellor is authorized to issue a waiver to the requesting district which would absolve the district from the necessity of any corrective action to try to move toward the 75/25 ratio.

Greater discussions have developed in light of the disincentive for hiring counseling and library faculty. Prior to July 14, 1994, the regulations allowed the inclusion of library faculty in the calculation of the 75/25 ratio. Counseling faculty were not included. The regulations which allowed the inclusion of library faculty in the 75/25 ratio were designed to sunset in order to prompt a re-evaluation of the regulation. In the re-evaluation, the office of Fiscal Affairs proposed an option which would include counting new library and counseling faculty toward the ratio. The Academic Senate requested that the Board of Governors delay action in order to allow the consultation councils to consider a proposal to include all counseling and library faculty.

A September 21, 1994 meeting was held at the Chancellor's office. In attendance were representatives from Association of California Community College Administrators (ACCCA), the Chief Instructional Officers (CIOs), the Chief Student Services Officers (CSSOs), the Council of Student Body Government (CSBG), the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, and the Chief Business Officers (CBOs). The Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) did not send a representative. In that meeting, the members looked at data from sample colleges, both large and small, to determine the impact of including all library and counseling faculty in the ratio. Consideration was given based on assumptions of 1%-5% growth. At the conclusion of the meeting, every consultation group representative except the CBO representative, agreed that the regulations should include all counseling and library faculty in the 75/25 calculation, understanding the effect to be minimal in numbers but great in removing the disincentive to hire counseling and library faculty.

Despite repeated requests for the Fiscal Affairs office to provide the numbers delineating the effect of the proposed option, they have not been forthcoming. Nor has the recommendation returned to the Board of Governors for action on the issue. Consequently, the regulations sunset and with it the inclusion of the library faculty in the calculation. No counseling faculty are yet included in the ratio calculation and the disincentive for hiring both remains.

This disincentive has contributed to a decreasing number of counseling and library faculty available to serve students, even as the student population and demand for counseling and library services faculty have increased.

For decades the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges has passed a number of resolutions concerning part-time faculty. Issues addressed in the resolutions include:

1. participation in governance
2. participation in local academic senates
3. hiring processes
4. evaluation processes
5. accreditation
6. part-time faculty hiring cap
7. qualifications.

(These resolutions are available from the office of The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges.)

 
Recommendations
 

1.A corps of full-time tenured faculty is essential to the maintenance of educational excellence, academic integrity, and the freedom to pursue and effect the acquisition of knowledge without fear of reprisal for exercising that freedom consistent with one's academic and professional judgment. Failure to attain and maintain such a body of full-time tenured faculty threatens the very ambition, creativity, innovation, exploration, and criticism which is central to academic integrity of programs and courses of study in institutions of higher learning. Local academic senates should resolve the above statement and work with the local administration to ensure the colleges maintain such a commitment.

2. Local academic senates should resolve to create a climate of mutual respect between the full and part-time faculty.

3. Consistent with the intent language of state law, the decision to hire part-time faculty should be based on educational program and service needs, not perceived financial savings.

4. The California Community Colleges should diligently work toward surpassing a minimum of 75% of the hours of instruction to be taught by full-time faculty. Consistent with previous resolutions, local academic senates should continue to support student access to faculty in all disciplines including the counseling and library disciplines.

5. Colleges should make every effort to support the integration of part-time faculty into the institutional processes. Local academic senates should consult with the local union, where applicable, to facilitate the availability of part-time faculty to interact with students, participate in governance, and participate in curriculum decision making processes.

6. Hiring processes for part-time faculty should have components identical to those of full-time faculty hiring processes, including proper notice, recruitment, screening, interviewing, and selection. Local academic senates should work with the designees of the board to ensure the faculty hiring policies include processes for hiring part-time faculty. A hiring process which establishes a diverse pool of qualified faculty for part-time assignments should be pursued. (See Part-Time Hiring Procedures: A Model Based on AB1725 - adopted at the Academic Senate Fall 1989 Plenary Session.)

7. Local academic senates should work with their union to ensure evaluation processes for part-time faculty have identical components as full-time faculty evaluation processes.

8. In order for part-time faculty to effectively perform their professional duties and for students to have reasonable access to the faculty, the local colleges should provide a level of support comparable to that of full-time faculty with similar professional duties. Support usually includes office space, communication technology, faculty development resources, and instructional media/reproduction support.

9. The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges should seek legislation and/or regulations which would require that local colleges provide all students comparable access to instructors, whether they be full-time or part-time, and that all faculty will have comparable access to institutional support of professional services.

APENDIX I

COFO Faculty Equity Statement

We, the members of the Council of Faculty Organizations (COFO), recognize that the part-time and full-time faculty members of the California Community College system share common professional interests. The core of this common interest is our responsibility to provide educational opportunities of the highest quality to our students. To accomplish that purpose fulland part-time faculty must communicate effectively with each other, share institutional responsibilities and rewards, and create an academic community that is based on mutual respect. Part-time faculty must be recognized as competent, responsible and productive members of a distinguished and honorable profession. At the present time these conditions do not uniformly exist in the community colleges of California.

Providing students an excellent education and instituting fair working conditions for part-time faculty are complementary objectives. To this end, COFO supports the right of part-time faculty to participate in organizations and activities that shape the direction of the individual community college. All faculty should participate in departmental functions, assume organizational responsibilities, and contribute to the general well-being of the institution.

Full-and part-time faculty are required to meet the same minimum qualifications for employment and should be hired and evaluated using comparable processes. Students should have reasonable access to all faculty members - both full-and part-time. Since full-and part-time faculty have the same responsibilities to students, part-time faculty members should have the same support services, office space, choice of educational materials, and opportunities for professional development as their full-time colleagues.

Part-time faculty should be accorded fair compensation, professional respect and due process. It is the recognized role and responsibility of individual bargaining agents to make the contractual gains that will benefit part-time faculty which in turn will improve the educational quality of the institutions that employ them. However, we, the representatives to COFO, urge support for the following rights for part-time faculty: pro-rata pay, contractual considerations for full-time positions, health benefits, seniority on re-hire rights, paid office hours, legitimate STRS pension opportunities and true professional status relating to teaching and learning issues.

We view the need for improving these conditions as self-evident, and we are confident that better communication and mutual respect between full-and part-time faculty, as well as frank discussions of these labor and educational issues, will lead to changes that will benefit community colleges and full-time faculty as well as the part-time faculty who are directly affected.