Whereas Partnership for Excellence (PFE) has been under way within the California Community College System for more than a year, and
Whereas the focus of PFE is student success, and
Whereas colleges in the California Community College System would benefit from a mutual sharing of innovative projects funded by PFE, and
Whereas the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges has already published several papers that address strategies for student success,
Whereas the 2000-2001 budget language calls for increased accountability for Partnership for Excellence plans, including more rigorous goals and stronger accountability requirements, and
Whereas the Board of Governors is considering the adoption of conditions to require collegial consultation in the development of Partnership for Excellence plans and to require governing board reviews of local expenditure reports and progress toward goal attainment,
Whereas colleges are accountable for achieving five goals in PFE: transfer, degrees and certificates, basic skills, course completion and vocational education, and
Whereas faculty have a primary responsibility for ensuring student success in these five goals,
Resolved that the Academic Senate urge local senates to develop and adopt a separate Partnership for Excellence (PFE) policy that describes how PFE funds will be allocated, lists the criteria for allocating the funds, and includes the signature of the academic senate president on the final expenditure report, and
Whereas all students enrolled in California community colleges deserve local access to adequately funded programs, regardless of their geographic location, and
Whereas all students enrolled in California community colleges deserve local access to adequately funded, rigorous academic programs, regardless of their socio-economic background, and
Whereas the existing funding formula for California community colleges is highly inequitable, leading to disparity in educational opportunities in the lowest funded districts, and
Whereas the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges has supported resolutions requesting local senates to demand sign-offs on the expenditures of PFE funds, and
Whereas the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges and local senates support expenditure of funds for the five stated goals of PFE funding: transfer, degrees and certificates, basic skills completion and advancement, retention and workforce development, and
Whereas there will always be populations which, for reasons of a social, cultural, linguistic, economic, or educational nature, will be academically disadvantaged in a community college setting, and
Whereas the goals of Partnership for Excellence do not incorporate considerations of student equity, and
Whereas colleges, under pressure to achieve the Partnership for Excellence goals, might give insufficient attention to student equity in their pursuit of outcomes and might, in fact, pursue an increase in quantitative outcomes at the expense of student equity,
Resolved that the Academic Senate establish a process whereby local senate presidents sign off on all Partnership for Excellence documents going to the Chancellor's Office, verifying that all policies and procedures relating to academic and professional matters were developed following collegial consultation with the academic senate.
Whereas the Partnership for Excellence is non-categorical funding with which local districts have "flexibility" but the clearly-stated legislative intent is that funds are provided for "program enhancement that will improve student success and make progress toward the system goals," and
Whereas the Partnership for Excellence is supposed to be an accountability approach to educational funding, but the Chancellor's Office reporting mechanism is designed for marketing the program to the Legislature, rather than for audit or accountability purposes, and
Whereas the Academic Senate for the California Community Colleges has opposed the distribution of apportionment dollars (5.02 F97 and 5.05 F98 according to student achievement because such distribution could result in a net flow of dollars to colleges with socioeconomically advantaged service areas and away from colleges serving more disadvantaged communities, and
Whereas the Partnership for Excellence was envisioned as a substantial infusion of state funds in exchange for progress on increased student achievement on selected measures, and the legislation specified that the Partnership was to be "an investment to supplement funding for enrollment growth and cost-of-living adjustments," and