Standard Seven: Faculty & Staff
The institution has sufficient qualified full-time and part-time faculty and staff to support its education programs and services wherever offered and by whatever means delivered. Consistent with its mission, the institution demonstrates its commitment to the significant educational role played by persons of diverse ethnic, social, and economic backgrounds by making positive efforts to foster such diversity.
Committee for Standard Seven
Gilbert
Cruz, Engineering Faculty
William Dunn, Mathematics Faculty
Gail Ehrhorn, Staff Assistant
Neal Ely, Dean of Academic Services, Division III
Aileen Furuyama, Library Faculty
Denise Gauthier, Adjunct English as a Second Language Faculty
Nan Ho, Biology Faculty
Stuart McElderry, History Faculty
Anne Powell, Business Faculty
Michelle Rosenberg, Administrative Assistant
Randolph Taylor, Mathematics Faculty
A. Qualification and Selection
7A.1 The institution has sufficient faculty and staff who are qualified by appropriate education, training, and experience to support its programs and services.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
As of Fall 2002 LPC employs 399 people. Twelve are administrators, 94 classified, and 293 faculty. Of that 399, 168 are full time and 231 are part time. (7.2)
From 1995 to 2000, full-time faculty increased from 66.00 full-time to 82.00 full-time; or a 24.2 percent increase. (Table 1) By Fall 2002, the number of full-time faculty increased to 97, which is a 46.97 percent increase over 1995. From 1995 to 2000, administrative services personnel, including classified staff in the president's office, technology staff, business services staff and security, increased 112.7 percent; academic services personnel increased 77.4 percent; and Student Services personnel increased 10 percent (Table 2). By Fall 2002, administrative services staff has increased to 18.77 or 151.94 percent over 1995; academic services increased to 32.61 or 89.04 percent; and student services has increased to 24.35 or 32.69 percent.
Table 3 shows the number of full-time faculty to part-time faculty expressed in full-time equivalents. The number of full-time faculty includes teaching, counseling and library faculty for a total of 97 FTE. With respect to the part-time faculty, the figure of 79.16 FTE also includes teaching, counseling, and library faculty but does not include any full-time faculty who have an overload assignment. It should be noted that the College continues to have a large percentage of part-time FTE due largely to the increase to four Basic Police Academies per year equivalent to over 15 FTE per year in teaching.
Since the College's last accreditation, Academic Services has been reorganized. In response to one of the self-identified recommendations in the 1996 Accreditation Report (7.3), a Reorganization Committee worked in conjunction with the Technology Exchange Center consulting group to make reorganization recommendations to the College President in May 1997. These recommendations were subsequently approved by the Board of Trustees and effective starting in the 1997-98 academic year. Four major recommendations were outlined in the LPC Accreditation Midterm Report. (7.4) The reorganization of Academic Services was evaluated in May 1998 by the staff after operating for less than one year. Areas identified for further improvement include easing the deans' workloads, reorganizing the discipline alignment, strengthening coverage for all instructional hours, clarifying some staff job descriptions and identifying and clarifying institutional versus divisional tasks. (7.4)
SELF-EVALUATION
LPC is staffed by highly committed faculty, administrators, and support personnel who effectively meet the needs of students and instructional programs. Faculty and administrators meet or exceed minimum educational qualifications as defined in AB 1725 and other State regulations. They also meet employment standards stated in the Chabot-Las Positas Community College District (CLPCCD) policies specified at the time of application. A number of faculty and administrators have received national and state recognition for program development, research, textbook and journal article publication, professional presentations, performance or exhibition of art, or for their service in professional organizations or committees. In addition, a number of faculty and staff have been recognized for outstanding contributions to teaching and to the LPC community. (7.1) All classified personnel meet or exceed minimum qualifications for their positions, and each is screened and hired on the basis of training, experience, and general suitability.
According to 93 percent of students, the faculty and staff are supportive of student educational plans. And 97 percent of students admire or respect one or more instructors or staff persons at LPC. (7.5)
Faculty and staff possess appropriate education, training and/or experience to support high quality educational programs and services. Ninety-four percent of students agree that faculty are knowledgeable in the subjects they instruct. In addition, 91 percent of students surveyed feel that their instructors are willing to spend time outside of class to discuss issues. (7.5)
While LPC has increased the number of full-time faculty by 46.97 percent since 1995, student enrollment numbers have increased at nearly a parallel rate. During the same time, the student population has increased 38.9 percent. (7.6) Nearly half (41%) of faculty and staff surveyed believe that the size of the faculty is inadequate to meet the needs of the College, and 75 percent of them believe that the current ratio of full-time to part-time faculty is inappropriate. (7.7) While the College has increased its full-time faculty hiring, it has not been able to keep pace with increased enrollment, so the College has also increased part-time faculty hiring. While LPC continues efforts to achieve a 75 percent to 25 percent full-time to part-time faculty ratio, the College should be cognizant of the increased need for classified support to the growing faculty and the expanding academic programs.
LPC plans to continue hiring full-time faculty as funding allows, but there is limited space to accommodate incoming faculty. Additionally, space is limited for classified personnel as well. At this point, LPC has outgrown its physical plant, and all current office space is occupied.
It is difficult to quantitatively evaluate the changes in classified staff from 1995 to 2000, because of the reorganization and reclassification of many classified positions since the last accreditation. Table two is most representative of changes in classified staff when looking at the totals expressed in the table. The total number of classified staff has increased 42.06 percent from 1995 to 2000. Despite the increase, staff Accreditation Survey results show that 55 percent of all faculty and staff surveyed believe that the current size of the classified staff is inadequate to meet the needs of College; 78 percent of administrators believe this; and 72 percent of the classified staff believe this. (7.7) As the College continues to grow, the organizational structure, particularly for Academic Services, needs to be continually evaluated to meet the LPC mission.
According to staff Accreditation Survey results, a majority (72%) believes that the transition from faculty Area Chairs to Division Deans during the reorganization in 1997-98 better supports College programs and services. (7.7) However, a large number of staff disagree that the number of Deans is adequate to meet the needs of the college. Forty-two percent of faculty, classified staff, and administrators feel that the nubmer of Deans is not adequate (14% administrators, 34% classified staff, 46% full-time faculty, and 34% part-time faculty).
Table
1: FULL-Time and Part-Time Faculty by Assignment from 1990-2000
expressed in Full-Time Equivalents.
| 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | % Change* | 2002 | % Change+ | |
| Full-time Faculty | 58.00 | 66.00 | 82.00 | 24.20 | 97.00 | 46.97 |
|
Instructors |
50.00 | 55.00 | 66.00 | 20.00 | 80.00 | 43.63 |
|
Counselors |
6.00 | 7.00 | 11.00 | 57.10 | 11.00 | 57.10 |
|
Librarians |
2.00 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 33.33 | 4.00 | 33.33 |
|
Specific Assignment |
0 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0 | 2.00 | 100.00 |
| Full-time
Equivalent of Part-time Faculty |
not available | 52.64 | 66.03 | 25.43 | 79.16 | 50.38 |
Sources:
(7.8 through 7.9)
* % Change from 1995 to 2000
+ % Change from 1995-2002
Table
2: Full-Time Classified Staff by Assignment from 1990-2000
| 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | %Change* | 2002 | %Change+ | |
| Administrative Services | 5.5 | 7.45 | 15.8 | 112.10 | 18.77 | 151.94 |
| Academic Services | 18.51 | 17.25 | 30.60 | 77.40 | 32.61 | 89.04 |
| Student Services | 9.25 | 18.35 | 20.20 | 10.00 | 24.35 | 32.69 |
| District | 8.00 | 10.00 | 13.0 | 30.00 | 14.00 | 40.00 |
| TOTAL | 26.00 | 57.05 | 82.13 | 42.60 | 89.73 | 57.28 |
Source:
(7.8 and 7.9)
* % Change from 1995 to 2000
+ % Change from 1995 to 2002
Table 3: Full-Time to Part-Time Faculty Ratios for 2000 expressed in Full-Time Equivalents.
| Year | Full-time
(FTE) |
Part-time
(FTE) |
| 2000 | 97 |
79.16 |
| Percentage | 55.1 |
44.9 |
Sources:
(7.10)
*Does not include full time teaching overload
Table 4: Full-Time Administrators
| 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | % Change* | 2002 | %Change+ | |
| Full-time Admin | 7.00 | 10.00 | 11.00 | 10.00 | 12.00 | 20.00 |
Source:
(7.8 and 7.9)
* % Change from 1995 to 2000
+ % Change from 1995 to 2002
7A.2 Criteria, qualifications, and procedures for selecting all personnel are clearly stated, public, directly related to institutional objectives, and accurately reflect job responsibilities.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
To ensure that all hiring for full-time positions is directly related to the College mission and institutional objectives, all employment requests are successively reviewed at the discipline, division, Institutional Planning Committee (IPC) and Presidential levels. Following approval at these levels, requests are forwarded to the Board for approval.
Job responsibilities in job announcements are accurately stated and publicly available. Job announcements are advertised at the District office, the administration office, on District and College websites, on the campus job board, through campus mail announcements, and through national higher education publications.
Job announcements specify employment responsibilities, minimum qualifications and desirable qualifications. Job announcements for faculty include a description of required tasks within and beyond the classroom. Job responsibilities for all campus positions are determined by the relevant administrator in consultation with the respective search committee and with assistance from the District Human Resources Director.
Minimum qualifications for employment derive from the particular duties for each position and conform to State and Federal employment laws, as well as the policies of the CLPCCD. Educational administrators and faculty must meet the minimum qualifications specified for their positions by AB 1725 or possess equivalent qualifications. Minimum qualifications and an equivalency model are stated on job announcements. Desirable qualifications for each advertised position are established by the search committee and approved by the District Human Resources Director.
Criteria and procedures for hiring all positions at the College are available to College personnel and the public by the CLPCCD Human Resources office.
SELF-EVALUATION
Criteria, qualifications, and procedures for selecting all personnel are precisely stated, directly related to institutional objectives, and accurately reflect job responsibilities.
7A.3 Criteria for selecting faculty include knowledge of the subject matter or service to be performed, effective teaching, and potential to contribute to the mission of the institution.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
Qualifications of all applicants for faculty positions are evaluated by a Level I search committee through paper screening based upon the required qualifications in the job Descriptive Summary. Then selected candidates are interviewed with the Level I search committee. Final candidates are subsequently invited to interview with the Level II committee, comprised of the LPC President, a Vice President, and at least one member of the Level I search committee. Applicants for full-time teaching positions demonstrate their teaching skills as part of the selection process at Level I when the majority of committee members are faculty. When time allows, adjunct applicants are also asked to demonstrate their teaching abilities.
An applicant's ability to contribute to the College mission may be judged indirectly or specified among other criteria by the search committee during its interview process. In the final interview with the Level II search committee, the applicant's potential for serving the College mission assumes primary importance.
SELF-EVALUATION
Faculty must meet the minimum qualifications specified for their positions by AB 1725 or possess verified equivalent academic and experiential preparation. These minimum qualifications ensure that applicants possess appropriate knowledge of the subject matter. Subject specific questions may be included in supplemental applications and are included in subsequent interviews for selected candidates. The selection process also includes teaching demonstrations that are evaluated on the basis of the knowledge of the subject, the sequence of concepts taught, and methods of delivery.
Full-time faculty must also maintain a current Faculty Service Area form with the Vice President of Academic Services, substantiating subject areas that they are knowledgeable to teach.
7A.4 Degrees held by faculty and administrators are listed in the institution's primary catalog. All U.S. degrees are from institutions accredited by recognized accrediting agencies. Degrees from non-U.S. institutions are recognized only if equivalence has been established.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The LPC Catalog lists all full-time faculty and administrators and their degrees, the institutions where their degrees were received, and their initial date of employment. When an individual is selected for hire, personnel staff verify degrees with official transcripts from accredited institutions. Degrees from institutions outside the United States are evaluated for equivalency at that time.
SELF-EVALUATION
LPC is in complete compliance with the criteria included in Section 7A.4 of Standard Seven.
7B. EVALUATION
7B.1 The evaluation of each category of staff is systematic and conducted at stated intervals. The follow-up of evaluations is formal and timely.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
Article 15 of the Faculty Contract (7.11) specifies the purpose, standards, frequency, timeline, components and procedures for tenured faculty evaluations. Tenured faculty participate in a systematic peer-reviewed evaluation once every three years as part of the regular evaluation process. Non-scheduled evaluations are permitted as outlined in the contract. The timeline for the entire evaluation process is described in the contract, and should take place within a single semester.
Untenured faculty are involved in a four-year process of evaluation and mentoring before being considered for tenure. The process includes three evaluation cycles in four years. Each evaluation cycle includes a Level One Tenure Review Committee that includes student surveys from three classes, and three classroom evaluations by faculty peers and the supervisory Dean, a professional review, and a supervisory review. A Level Two Tenure Review Committee consisting of a vice president and faculty member then reviews the recommendations of the Level One committee and any other relevant information, forwarding a final recommendation to the LPC President. The systematic process and meeting intervals are described in Article 14 of the Faculty Contract. (7.11) A similar evaluation process is in place for counseling and library faculty.
Adjunct faculty are evaluated during the first semester they teach and approximately every third year thereafter with a classroom visit. (7.12) These classroom visits are conducted by College administrators, designated members of the full-time faculty, and/or designated adjunct faculty.
The Classified Contract (7.13) stipulates a formal, systematic and timely evaluation process. New classified staff are evaluated at the end of the third and fifth months of their probationary period of service. Regular classified staff are evaluated once each year.
The process of evaluation of Administrators is described in Board Policy 4120 - Evaluation of Management Personnel: "It is the purpose of the evaluation of managers to increase their leadership ability and productivity to the end that educational opportunities for students are enhanced. Each manager shall be evaluated annually by a procedure developed in conjunction with the management staff and approved by the Chancellor. These procedures are included in the Administrative Rules and Procedures." (7.14)
SELF-EVALUATION
Evaluations of tenured and untenured faculty have occurred on a regular and timely basis. Responses to the survey question "Evaluations of my job are systematic and conducted at stated intervals" indicate that 90 percent of the faculty surveyed agree that their evaluations are systematic and timely. (7.7)
The large number of new faculty hired since our last accreditation has placed a significant burden on existing tenured faculty to serve on untenured and tenured faculty evaluation committees as well as on the Division Dean. The timeframe described in the Faculty Contract requires a significant amount of additional work in November and December, at a time when faculty are already busy with other duties and commitments. The evaluation process and its time frame are governed by the contract, precluding LPC from altering this process. Furthermore, this observation may be a transitional, operational problem that will resolve itself once the College recovers from the influx of new faculty during the 2000-01 year.
Evaluations of adjunct instructors have not been consistent among the instructional divisions. Some adjunct instructors are being evaluated with class visits and student evaluations while others are evaluated with only class visits. It is difficult to assess whether all adjunct faculty evaluations are occurring at stated intervals. It is unclear if the tracking report housed in the administration building (100) is used consistently.
Evaluation of adjunct faculty only every three years after their first semester may be of concern. Part-time instructors might benefit from additional feedback, especially early in their teaching careers. Data from the Accreditation Survey indicate that only 53 percent of part-time faculty believe that their evaluations are systematic and conducted at stated intervals. (7.7) Increasing the frequency of part-time faculty evaluations, however, would place an even greater burden on the limited resources available for this function.
The most frequent response made in a survey (7.14) of classified personnel indicates that the evaluation form used for classified staff evaluations is too brief and too general. They would like an evaluation more tailored to their job, but this is a district-controlled form. However their response to being evaluated in a systematic and timely fashion was 3.00, above average; 84% believed their evaluations were systematic and conducted at stated intervals (7.7).
The most current administrator evaluation process is a Board Policy (7.15) that was issued in 1997. This process, however, is not mentioned in the Handbook for Administrators. (7.16) The administrator evaluation process, as described in the Administrative Rules and Procedures of Board Policy 4120 (7.17) is currently not being used exactly as specified. The process has been under review since shortly after its inception.
The process as described in the Administrative Rules and Procedures was followed for one year and approximately one third of administrators were evaluated using these procedures. The process turned out to be too cumbersome and the described timelines unrealistic. In an effort to create a more manageable process, the Chancellor's Council suggested a district-wide discussion of the process. The Chancellor's Council is composed of members from both LPC and Chabot College: two college presidents, the administrative association president, the faculty senate presidents, the classified senate presidents and the student association presidents. During the 2000-01 year, LPC assembled a committee comprised of the Faculty Senate President, the Classified Senate President, the Dean of Instruction for Division I, and the Vice President of Student Services. This committee put together a proposal of new procedures. The proposal was not accepted by the LPC faculty. The main issue of concern is the format of the respondent survey. Current procedures described in the Board Policy 4120 allow for an evaluation of the manager by a respondent group of faculty and/or staff supervised by the manager. If a respondent survey were to be included, administrators would like respondents to sign the survey. The signatures would remain confidential and be seen only by the LPC President. The administrator being evaluated would only see a summary of respondent comments. Faculty want respondent surveys to be anonymous. Furthermore, faculty would like to be more involved in the actual writing of the evaluation. No compromise could be reached. (7.18)
Currently, Board Policy 4120 is followed in spirit. Managers are evaluated annually by a procedure developed in conjunction with the management staff and approved by the CLPCCD Chancellor. However, the specific procedures described in the Administrative Rules and Procedures are not being followed. All administrators are currently evaluated annually with an extensive self-evaluation and a supervisor's evaluation. A respondent evaluation is currently not used. (7.18)
Administrators indicate with their response of a mean score of 2.11 that they generally are not being systematically evaluated at stated intervals. This compares to a response of 2.85 for "all" categories of employees. (7.7) Administrator response scores the lowest of all categories of employees. (7.7)
PLANNING AGENDA
- Standardize adjunct faculty evaluations, ensuring that all adjunct faculty evaluations are actually occurring at specified and frequent intervals.
- Resume discussions between the Faculty Senate, the Classified Senate, and administrators about the design of a new administrator evaluation process and finalize a recommendation for submission to the CLPCCD Chancellor and for Board approval.
7B.2 The evaluation processes seek to assess effectiveness and encourage improvement.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
Evaluation
procedures are defined in separate, existing agreements for faculty,
classified, and administrative staff.
The Faculty Contract (7.11) establishes three goals for full-time tenured
and untenured faculty members:
- Excellence in working with students
- Collegial participation
- Professional and personal enrichment
As part of the evaluation process, tenured and untenured faculty complete a professional review specifically addressing each of these goals.
The Class Visit form (7.19) asks the evaluator to observe and comment on methods of presentation, materials used, topics, objectives, content, and presentation effectiveness with an additional section for the reviewer to make recommendations. A conference between the evaluator and the instructor is scheduled for a later date to discuss the class visit.
Student Evaluation Forms that are used in full-time and some adjunct faculty evaluations were supposed to have been reviewed and rewritten as a result of the last accreditation report. According to the Accreditation Midterm Report of 1999 (Midterm Report), they were in the process of being rewritten. As of this date, they have not been revised. Older forms are discussed below.
Student evaluations of instructors provide additional feedback regarding student interest, responses and attitudes. There are three slightly different student evaluation forms currently in use: Forms A, B, and C (7.20, 7.21, 7.22). The front of each form is different, but the reverse side of each asks the same two questions. Forms ask students to write comments about what they believe the instructor has done especially well in instructing the course and what specific teaching techniques the instructor might use to improve the course.
Part-time faculty evaluation includes a class visit by an administrator, full-time faculty member, and/or designated adjunct faculty and uses the same form and follow-up procedure employed for evaluations of full-time faculty. Part-time faculty have an opportunity to discuss recommendations for improvement. The use of student evaluations is inconsistent across instructional divisions. Part-time faculty are not evaluated in the areas of collegial participation or personal or professional enrichment as these activities are not required of part-time faculty.
Classified staff are evaluated using a two-page standard form. The form evaluates the employee in seven areas: quantity of work; quality of work; job knowledge; initiative; interpersonal relationships; dependability; and potential. The evaluator is asked to judge the employee in each of these categories using a range of descriptors that include excellent, good, satisfactory, needs improvement, and unsatisfactory. There is space at the bottom of the form for comments, and unsatisfactory ratings must be accompanied by a written statement from the supervisor indicating specific reasons for the unsatisfactory rating. Also, the opportunity exists to recognize and commend exemplary performance.
The 1990 Self Study recommended that an evaluation process for administrators be developed and that it include input from faculty and classified staff. In 1997, Board Policy 4120, Evaluation of Management Personnel, was issued. The purpose of administrator evaluations is to seek to increase the administrator's leadership ability and productivity so that educational opportunities for students are enhanced. (7.15) The exact process, however, is unclear. The administrator evaluation process, as described in Administrative Rules and Procedures 4120 (7.17) has been on hold since shortly after its creation. Current procedures being used are not described in a formal document.
SELF-EVALUATION
Of the 41 full-time faculty respondents in Accreditation Survey, 78 percent agree or strongly agree that the evaluation process assesses job effectiveness, and 83 percent agree or strongly agree that the process encourages improvement in performance. (7.7)
Of the 26 part-time faculty respondents in the same survey, 69 percent agree or strongly agree that the evaluation process assesses job effectiveness, and 68 percent agree or strongly agree that the evaluation process encourages improvement in performance. (7.7) Since both full and part-time faculty are evaluated for excellence in working with students using identical forms and procedures, it is unclear as to why part-time faculty satisfaction levels were 10 percent lower than full-time faculty.
Of the 36 classified staff respondents in the same survey, 86 percent agreed or strongly agreed that the evaluation process assessed job effectiveness, and 78 percent agreed or strongly agreed that the evaluation process encouraged improvement in performance. (7.7)
Of the nine administrators who responded to the survey, 56 percent agree that the evaluation process assesses job effectiveness. No respondents strongly agree with this statement. Fifty-six percent also felt that the evaluation process encouraged improvement in performance, and again, no respondents strongly agree with the statement.
Survey results indicate that there is a high degree of satisfaction (more than 78%) among full-time faculty and classified staff in the current procedures for evaluation. A majority of part-time faculty also feel satisfied, but not as strongly as the full-time. Administrators are least satisfied with only a slim majority of satisfied respondents.
7B.3 Criteria for evaluation of faculty include teaching effectiveness, scholarship or other activities appropriate to the area of expertise, and participation in institutional service or other institutional responsibilities.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
LPC has evaluation procedures for both tenured and untenured faculty as outlined in the Faculty Contract. (7.11) Faculty are evaluated by identified standards: Excellence in Working with Students, Collegial Participation and Professional and Personal Enrichment.
The mutual goal of the district, administration and faculty is to hire and maintain faculty who are expert in their subject areas and skilled in their professional responsibilities. The untenured faculty evaluation process described in Article 14 of the Faculty Contract and the Tenured Faculty Evaluation process described in Article 15, conform to provisions of AB 1725, Sections 87663 and 87664 of the Education Code, and Accreditation standards. (7.11)
Part-time faculty evaluations focus on the Excellence in Working with Students standard only.
SELF-EVALUATION
The criteria used to evaluate faculty that are outlined in the Faculty Contract (7.11) meet or exceed accreditation standards.
7C. Staff Development
7C.1 The institution provides appropriate opportunities to all categories of staff for continued professional development, consistent with the institutional mission.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
All full-time and part-time employees of LPC enjoy a variety of professional development opportunities. Faculty and classified can find Staff Development programs through publications such as the Faculty and Classified Handbooks, Staff Development newsletter, forms and flyers, and at meetings such as Faculty Orientation and the New Faculty Workshop series. (7.23-7.29) All new adjunct faculty participate each semester in an evening orientation, and starting in Fall 2001, all returning adjunct faculty are invited to a comprehensive adjunct faculty orientation meeting. College commitment to professional development is reflected in the collective bargaining agreements for both faculty and classified staff, in the institution's three-year Human Resource Development Plan, and in the Strategic Planning Values Statement and Principles of Excellence. (7.11, 7.13, 7.30) Twenty percent secretarial support is provided to the staff development committee.
AB1725 and the Telecommunication and Technology Infrastructure Program (TTIP) provide most of the funds for staff development. Additional funds are occasionally available through other sources. For example, the Vocational Technical Education Act (VTEA) has minimally supported staff development activities that meet VTEA funding parameters. Also, in Fall 2001-02, the President's office supplied College funds to support specific Staff Development Committee initiatives. (7.31and 7.32)
The Staff Development Committee, guided by its mission statement, (7.45) oversees the disbursement of funds through regular staff development proposals, mini-grant proposals and staff development initiatives. (7.30)
The Staff Development Program supports a wide range of professional, personal and organizational development activities. During the 2000-01, Staff Development supported offsite conferences, seminars, classes, research and retreats; technology training; department workshops; technical staff training; Classified and Faculty Flex Day workshops; Teachers Teaching Teachers Series; Great Teachers Seminar; Help-Desk-at-Your-Desk; California Community College Council for Staff Development (4C/SD) Regional and State Conferences; and the New Faculty Workshop Series. (7.33) The College also offered Summer Instructional Project Grants to full-time and part-time faculty. During 2001-02, the Summer Instructional Project Grant monies were shifted to fund training in developing distance education courses. Staff Development also provided professional resources such as software reference books, software licenses, the Teaching for Success Newsletter and computer support phone line stickers. (7.34)
The Staff Development Committee advertises opportunities and guidelines through flyers, newsletters, and announcements at Senate, division, and monthly, all-campus Town meetings, and via regular email.
The Staff Development Committee undergoes regular training to be effective professional developers through membership and participation in 4C/SD regional and state conferences. Interested committee members may receive copies of the 4C/SD Newsletter or participate in the 4C/SD list-serve.
SELF-EVALUATION
Within financial constraints, the Staff Development Committee is supportive in advertising and funding opportunities that encourage staff members to pursue the goal of staying current in their fields of expertise.
Survey results indicate that roughly 70 percent of all full-time faculty, part-time faculty, classified staff and administrators agree that "all categories of personnel are provided sufficient opportunities to keep current in their fields." (7.7) Full-time faculty has the highest percentage of disagreement with the above statement. This may be due, in part, to factors such as limited financial resources to pay for attendance at conferences and limited library resources such as current academic journals and other publications.
Survey results indicate that nearly 80 percent of full-time faculty, part-time faculty, classified staff and administrators agree that "all categories of personnel are provided sufficient opportunities for continued professional development." (7.7) Part-time faculty has the highest percentage of disagreement with the above statement. This may be due to the transient nature of their positions, off campus work commitments and reduced eligibility for staff development funds. The strategic planning process has already begun to address problems associated with the transient nature of part-time teaching by having Academic Services host a well-attended orientation program for both new and veteran part-time faculty. The evaluations of this event are overwhelmingly positive. In addition, professional development workshops are scheduled to accommodate different teaching schedules.
While the Staff Development program has been greatly expanded since the last accreditation, insufficient financial and physical resources continue to impede the growth and overall effectiveness of the program. State staff development funds and thus, the AB1725 allocation for LPC have remained flat for several years, due to static state support, while staff at LPC has increased at least 30 percent in the last two years.
There are no longer sufficient funds to keep pace with the increased demand and cost of conference and travel expenses. When part-time faculty attend workshops on campus, they are eligible to receive a nominal stipend. In Spring 2001, Staff Development increased its standard for this stipend from $12.00 to $16.00 per hour. Despite this increase, the amount only represents approximately one third of their regular part-time pay rate.
Insufficient physical resources at LPC make it difficult to provide space where staff members can continue professional development. For example, personnel in the PDC who do not have their own office and computer now occupy two of the nine computers in the center, thus limiting the number of computers available for staff training.
Time constraints, workloads and institutional culture at LPC make it difficult for all staff members to fully partake in professional development opportunities. For example, some classified staff find it difficult to attend workshops and flex days because they do not receive release time. No system exists to cover their commitments and job responsibilities while they attend staff development. For this reason, some administrators are often reluctant and sometimes refuse to allow classified staff to participate.
7C.2 Planning and evaluation of staff development programs include the participation of staff that participate in, or are affected, by the programs.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The Staff Development Committee is composed of faculty, classified staff, and administrators from various areas of the campus. The committee uses needs assessment surveys, Town Meetings, past participation rates, and shared governance input to help prioritize and budget Staff Development activities. Participants of Staff Development-sponsored workshops or activities complete an evaluation form or report that is used for review, planning and budgeting purposes. These reports are also used to increase awareness of the kinds of activities funded by Staff Development.
SELF-EVALUATION
The Staff Development Committee prides itself on its open door policy. All faculty and staff are encouraged to approach the committee with new staff development ideas and suggestions.
Survey results indicate that full-time faculty, part-time faculty, classified staff and administrators overwhelmingly (84%) agree that "the planning and evaluation of staff development activities include the staff who participate in, or are affected by, the activity." (7.7)
Survey results indicate that full-time faculty, part-time faculty, classified staff and administrators overwhelmingly (86%) agree that "procedures to receive staff development funds are clearly stated and equitably applied." (7.7) Part-time faculty, however, have the highest percentage of disagreement with the above statements. This may be due to the lack of continuity of part-time faculty representation on the Committee.
These strong numbers demonstrate the Staff Development Committee's reputation for fairness, effective communications and commitment to the shared governance process.
7D. General Personnel Provisions
7D.1 The institution has and adheres to written policies ensuring fairness in all employment procedures.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The CLPCCD has in its Board Policy Manual written policies covering all employment procedures that fall within the Education Code as well as State and Federal employment laws. (7.17) The written policies pertain to hiring, job announcements, grievances, workloads, evaluations, discrimination, sexual harassment, and privacy of personnel files. The College Diversity and Equity Plan was revised about five years ago. When the voters of the state passed Proposition 209, the Chancellor did not submit the revised Diversity and Equity Policy to the Board for approval. (7.35)
Written policies ensuring fairness in employment procedures are contained in the bargaining agreements between the CLPCCD and the unions of Faculty/Adjunct and Classified Staff. They are also contained in the Faculty and Adjunct Faculty Handbooks and the Classified Staff Handbook. (7.23-7.25)
Copies of the CLPCCD Board Policy Manual are available in most major campus offices, the LRC, as well as the District office. Additionally, all Board policies are available on the campus computer network. Revisions to Board policy are forwarded to all recipients of Board Policy Manuals. Faculty, Administration, and Classified Staff Handbooks are also available in most offices, and on the campus computer network. Collective bargaining contract agreements are available in the Division offices, the LRC and are distributed to staff.
In accordance with District hiring policies, search committees are trained by the College Diversity and Equity Officer or designee in selection and interviewing techniques, relevant legal issues, and institutional diversity and equity goals and policies. The Diversity and Equity Officer or designee approves each screening component of the selection process and monitors the process for any noncompliance of Federal and State employment laws and Board policy. Faculty and staff members who have been trained as diversity and equity representatives are asked to participate in the hiring process to ensure that guidelines are followed. Screening and rating materials are directly related to the job announcements and descriptions. (7.36)
Classified contract and State law regulate workloads for classified staff. Duties and responsibilities are written in the bargaining contract, in the Board Policy Manual, in the job Descriptive Summary and in the Classified Staff Handbook. Changes in duties and responsibilities within the position must fall within the contract agreement. If a circumstance such as reorganization occurs, employees can petition for reclassification of their position to assure appropriate compensation.
Workload assignments for contract, regular and temporary faculty are written in the faculty contract. Schedule hours are specified in the contract for teaching faculty, counseling faculty, and librarians. Maximum workloads for adjunct faculty are specified in the contract. Faculty assigned additional responsibilities are either given release time from teaching assignments or may be assigned the position of Coordinator or Coach and be compensated appropriately for the assignment. Regular faculty can also bank hours accumulated over the regular teaching load and use them in a later semester or accumulate enough load for a semester leave.
Workloads for administrative staff are stated in the Board Policy Manual.
SELF-EVALUATION
LPC follows Board policies, State and Federal employment laws and adheres to classified staff and faculty contract agreements ensuring fairness in all employment procedures. LPC staff respond positively in favor of College adherence to written policies ensuring fairness in all employment procedures in the Accreditation Survey wherein 20 percent strongly agree, 71 percent agree, and nine percent disagree. (7.7)
The College follows District procedures in the selection process. Committees are formed through consultation and approval of Faculty and Classified Staff Senates, the administration, and the Diversity and Equity Officer. The College Diversity and Equity Officer does appropriate training and monitors the entire process. Appropriate sign-offs and documentation exist at every level.
7D.2 The institution regularly assesses and reports its achievement of its employment equity objectives, consistent with the institutional mission.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The District does not have formal employment equity objectives, but is committed to staff diversity and gender equity. To accomplish this goal, the District Human Resource Officer advertises for applicants in the State Chancellor's Office Registry, Chronicle of Higher Education, Community College Week, Asian Week, Hispanic Outlook in Higher Ed, Black Issues in Higher Ed, Job Bank Registry, and the California Job Journal. (7.37) Job announcements are distributed through staff and are posted on the LPC website through a link to the District website. The District does not account for the number of hits to the job announcement site.
The District Human Resources office annually prepares a Faculty and Staff Diversity Expenditure Report that documents diversity recruitment expenditures and reflects District efforts to increase the number of qualified minority applicants for employment. The Chancellor and Board of Trustees review the report and include it in a district-wide summary submitted to the State Chancellor's Office. (7.38) In order to diversify its recruitment efforts, the Human Resources office may want to expand the source list to include colleges attended by underrepresented groups.
SELF-EVALUATION
Although LPC does not have formal employment equity objectives, the College is committed to maintaining as well as increasing the diversity and gender equity it has already achieved among its faculty and staff. As of August 2001, from data collected by the Director of Research and Planning, employee gender percentages are 45 percent male and 55 percent female in comparison to August 1995, that was 41 percent male and 59 percent female. (7.2) The District should establish guidelines and procedures for the formal writing of employment equity objectives, and strengthen hiring committee members' understanding of the importance of employment equity objectives and committee members' responsibility for assisting LPC to achieve them.
The College
has increased in staff diversity by a small percentage over a five-year
period, August 1995 to August 2001. In comparison, over the same
period of time, student diversity percentage increase is fairly consistent
with LPC staff. (7.2)
Table
4: Staff Diversity for Fall 1995 and Fall 2001.
Fall
1995 |
Fall
2001 |
||||
| Race | Number | Percent | Race | Number | Percent |
| Asian | 18 | 6.3 | Asian | 30 | 7.4 |
| Black | 9 | 3.1 | Black | 8 | 2.0 |
| Filipino | 2 | 0.7 | Filipino | 5 | 1.2 |
| Hispanic | 18 | 6.3 | Hispanic | 19 | 4.7 |
| Native | 4 | 1.4 | Native | 5 | 1.2 |
| White | 226 | 79.0 | White | 319 | 79.6 |
| Other | 0 | 0.0 | Other | 1 | 0.2 |
| Unknown | 9 | 3.1 | Unknown | 14 | 3.5 |
| Total | 286 | 100.0 | Total | 401 | 100.0 |
Source: (7.2)
7D.3 Personnel policies and procedures affecting all categories of staff are systematically developed, clear, equitably administered, and available for information and review.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
LPC personnel policies and procedures can be found in the Faculty Contract (7.11), and the Classified Contract. (7.13) They are also in the Faculty Handbook (7.23), and the Classified Handbook. (7.25) There is a systematic process for the development of personnel policies that can be found in the CCLPCD Board Policy Manual. (7.40) Any Board established policy could be amended, revised, suspended, or revoked by a vote of the majority of the entire Board of Trustees. Most revisions are initiated by changes in bargaining contracts or in the State Education Code.
Minimum qualifications for staff, faculty, and administrative positions are listed, along with job descriptions, in the job announcements for each position. These announcements are kept on campus for everyone who has been hired within the last 10 years. Personnel records are kept confidential and maintained at the District office, not at LPC. (7.43)
LPC has a systematic process for recommending policies and regulations, exclusive of collective bargaining issues, to the LPC President, the CLPCCD Chancellor, and the Board of Trustees. This process includes the Academic Senate, Classified Senate, IPC, administrative staff, and Student Senate. The process for recommendation of policies and regulations is open to faculty, classified staff, and administrators. Ample opportunity to offer suggestions, voice concerns, and share ideas on improving policies and procedures can occur in regularly scheduled meetings like Town Meetings, division meetings, union meetings, Board meetings, and Senate meetings. Administration maintains an open-door policy and allows staff members to express concerns at any time.
Collective
bargaining contract agreements for faculty and classified staff,
together with the District Board Policy Manual, Faculty Handbook
and Classified Handbook contain written policies describing the rights
and responsibilities of faculty and classified staff. These documents
also include evaluation procedures for all faculty and classified
staff and are distributed to all department Deans when a new contract
is ratified. They are available from the College Human Resources
office, the District Office of Human Resources, and in the LRC. In
addition, CLPCCD Board Policies can be found on the Chabot-Las Positas
Today Intranet Information Source web page for CLPCCD staff. (7.39) "Chabot-Las
Positas Today is an 'intranet' service that is aimed at an internal
audience and is only available on our campus and District office
networks." (7.39). The Faculty Handbook can be found on the
LRC web page. (7.42)
SELF EVAULATION
The College effectively maintains all personnel policies and procedures and makes them accessible for information and review with the assistance of a full-time support person.
7D.4 The institution makes provision for security and confidentiality of personnel records. Personnel records are private, accurate, complete and permanent.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
The College adheres to the security and confidentiality of personnel records as covered in the California Education Code 87031, in the Faculty Contract (7.11, Article #16, Personnel Records and Files) and the Classified Contract (7.11, Article #10, Personnel Records and Files). No separate written Board policy exists for this. The District Office of Human Resources keeps personnel files in a confidential manner as defined by the California Education Code. LPC complies with California and Federal statutes requiring that colleges and universities protect the privacy of staff records. The College follows stipulations described under the Federal Privacy Act regarding privacy of public records and releases public or directory information only to authorized individuals. The Federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) applies to all public and private colleges that receive Federal funds or whose students participate in federally sponsored financial aid programs. Contract agreements between the District and bargaining agents for faculty and classified staff also require that all personnel files be kept confidential. (7.44)
In accordance with District policies, the LPC Human Resources department maintains employment applications and all information related to screening and interviewing processes in strict confidence. Personal data files are kept current through employee submission of information forms available from the LPC Human Resources office and from the District office.
SELF-EVALUATION
Provisions for privacy of information have been ensured by the District and the College through strict observance of state and federal codes, as well as in agreements with local unions. Sufficient policies and procedures are in place, as well as practiced at the College to provide appropriate privacy of personnel records.
References for Standard Seven
| 7.1 | List of Faculty and Staff recognized for outstanding contributions to teaching. |
| 7.2 | Las Positas College Basic Employee Demographics for Fall 1995 and Fall 2001. Prepared by the LPC Office of Instructional Research and Planning September 2001. |
| 7.3 | Las Positas College Accreditation Report 1996 4A.1 |
| 7.4 | Las Positas College Accreditation Midterm Report, November 1999, Response to Major Recommendation 2.1 |
| 7.5 | Las Positas College Student Accreditation Survey Results Spring 2001(All) |
| 7.6 | Student Enrollment, Fall 2000, obtained from Student Services. |
| 7.7 | Las Positas College Staff Accreditation Survey Results Spring 2001. |
| 7.8 | California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office Report, Fall 1999 and Fall 2000. (91.7 FTE - 5.4 reassigned time = 86.3 FTE) |
| 7.9 | Las Positas College Organization Chart, Fall 2000, Administration DRM:MK 7/2000. |
| 7.10 | Office of the Vice President Academic Services Reassignment Report, 10/8/2001. |
| 7.11 | Faculty Contract - Agreement between the Chabot-Las Positas Community College District and the Chabot-Las Positas Faculty Association, July 1, 1997-June 30, 2000. |
| 7.12 | Las Positas College Adjunct Faculty Handbook, Fall 2001, Class Visits. |
| 7.13 | Classified Contract - Agreement between Chabot-Las Positas Community College District and United Public Employees Local 790 Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, July 1, 1997-June 30, 1999. |
| 7.14 | Classified Senate Survey, prepared and administered by Bill Dunn, |
| 7.15 | Chabot-Las Positas Community College District Board Policy 4120, Evaluation of Management Personnel. |
| 7.16 | Las Positas College, Administrator Handbook, Fall 2000 |
| 7.17 | Chabot-Las Positas Community College District Board Policy Administrative Rules and Procedures, 4120, Evaluation of Management Personnel. Issued January 21, 1997. |
| 7.18 | Phone Interview with Karen Halliday, Vice President of Student Services, Interim College President, January 23, 2002. |
| 7.19 | Las Positas College Report of Class Visit/Observation |
| 7.20 | Student Evaluation Form A |
| 7.21 | Student Evaluation Form B |
| 7.22 | Student Evaluation Form C |
| 7.23 | Las Positas College, Faculty Handbook |
| 7.24 | Las Positas College Adjunct Faculty Handbook, Fall 2001 |
| 7.25 | Las Positas College Classified Handbook, May 2000 |
| 7.26 | Staff Development Newsletter, Volume 3, Issue I, August 2001 |
| 7.27 | Staff Development Proposal Procedures, June 2001 |
| 7.28 | Staff Development Mini-Grant Proposal Procedures, June 2001 |
| 7.29 | New Faculty Workshop Series Flyer |
| 7.30 | Three Year Faculty & Staff Development Plan 2001-2004, June 2001 |
| 7.31 | Staff Development Budget Spreadsheets showing funding sources (2000-2001) |
| 7.32 | Staff Development Proposed Budget (2000-2001) |
| 7.33 | Sample Flyers: Help Desk, Great Teachers Seminars, Annex Training, New Faculty Workshop Series. |
| 7.34 | Sample of professional resources provided by Staff Development: Software Manuals, Teaching for Success Newsletter. |
| 7.35 | Chabot-Las Positas Community College District Board Policy, Affirmative Action Plan Draft |
| 7.36 | Chabot-Las Positas Community College District Instruction to the Selection Committee (Human Resources) |
| 7.37 | E-mail Sharon Trethan, Director of Human Resources |
| 7.38 | District Expenditure Report, 1999-2000 |
| 7.39 | "Board Policies." Chabot-Las Positas Today: The Intranet Information Source for CLPCCD Staff. Livermore, CA: Information Technology Services, n.d. 30 October 2001 http://today/district/policies/table.htm. |
| 7.40 | Chabot-Las Positas Community College District Board Policy |
| 7.41 | E-mail from Sharon Davidson, October 23, 2001 |
| 7.42 | "Las Positas College Full-Time Faculty Handbook: Academic Year 2000-2001". LPC Library Faculty Resources. Livermore, CA : Peggy Carter, Reference Librarian, 24 October 2001 http://lpc1.clpccd.cc.ca.us/lpc/fhb/. |
| 7.43 | Personal Interview with Martha Konrad in Building 100, LPC Campus, October 22, 2001 |
| 7.44 | Phone Interview with Lydia Escober at the District Office, October 19, 2001 |
| 7.45 | Three Year Faculty and Staff Development Plan, 2001-2004 |
Interviews for Standard Seven
Lydia
Escobar, District Offices
Sharon Davidson, College Administrative Assistant
Karen Halliday, Las Positas College President
Martha Konrad, Executive Assistant to the Vice President of Academic
Services
Sharon Trethan, District Director of Human Resources
