2018 BOARD OF TRUSTEES ELECTION UPDATE #2 - Sonny Williams Unopposed in District 1; Two Candidates Vie for District 7

With the Feb. 16 filing deadline having passed, the shape of the 2018 DCCCD Board of Trustees races in District 1 and District 7 has been determined.

Incumbent District 1 Trustee Sonny Williams is unopposed in seeking a third term to the seat.

In District 7, incumbent trustee Charletta Rogers Compton will face Micheal Jackson.

Compton has served as Board chair since 2014. Jackson previously served as vice president of instruction at El Centro College.

Filing documents for all three candidates can be found on this link on the DCCCD Board of Trustees web site.

Faculty Council discusses Student Progress Reporting Survey Results with Academic VPs and District Leaders

The Faculty Council received 526 responses on the Student Progress Reporting Survey conducted Feb. 1-15, of which 338 were from full-time faculty, representing over one-third of the DCCCD full-time faculty. An executive summary of the survey results is linked here. (Previous Advance Blog posts on this evolving discussion can be found at this link.) In addition to the quantitative results, many respondents provided comments, which broadly can be summarized as follows:

1. Many respondents noted that progress reporting is an activity they are already engaged in by keeping the grade center up-to-date; they are, therefore, resistant to further reporting in eConnect.

2. Many comments also indicated that faculty widely assumed that the grade center in eCampus was used by all faculty in the same fashion regardless of course and subject area, i.e., frequently updated, kept current and available to students.

3. A number of faculty viewed progress reporting as means of removing more responsibility on the part of students. Some comments indicated that many faculty believe students are responsible for the monitoring of their own progress.

4. Some faculty expressed concern that progress reporting would result in an increased workload for both faculty and student services staff.

5. There is a clear split in preference, among those who want the ability to project an estimated letter grade (ABCDF), and those who prefer to record that the student is making Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory progress.

6. There is a strong preference for the ability to provide comments, including the ability to write custom comments in addition to having preset comments available to select.

In addition, the following observations were noted by those who analyzed the survey data and have been involved on the Student Progress Reporting task force:

1. The problem that Student Progress Reporting is designed to solve is that not all DCCCD students are consistently and equitably receiving information about their progress in the course.

2. Assumptions about the use of eCampus grade center do not reflect the diverse practices of all full-time, adjunct, and dual credit faculty, across a diverse array of learning environments, and the assessment practices they opt to incorporate in their courses. More specifically, even faculty who use eCampus grade center use it in a variety of ways. Many faculty provide their students with assignment and assessment grades in publisher-provided or industry-specific learning environments. A discussion about the consistent use of eCampus generally and eCampus grade center specifically is outside the scope of the Student Progress Reporting project.

3. Addressing the faculty role in Student Progress Reporting is only one step in what is envisioned as a multi-stage, multi-faceted, and complex activity designed that among other things will include intrusive interventions designed to address student challenges that go beyond the scope of what is happening in the classroom (and therefore is outside of the ability of faculty to address). This therefore requires input and participation by a broad array of stakeholders (including student services, business services, and information technology support services, and even outside social service partners), which in turn requires prototyping and collection of data from faculty and students to ensure long-term success.

WHERE ARE WE NOW:

Consequently, the Faculty Council has achieved consensus regarding the following recommendations:

1. Student Progress Reporting will be implemented in the DCCCD beginning in the 2018-2019 academic year.

2. Fall 2018 and Spring 2019 will serve as testing periods for the Student Progress Reporting prototype. The review of data and outcomes will begin as soon as possible, starting in late fall and continuing throughout the spring.

3. The approval of a general LOCAL Board policy on Student Progress Reporting is supported, but REGULATION language (that requires Chancellors Staff approval, but not Board approval) that specifies in detail a Student Progress Reporting approach, should be paused until the end of the prototyping activity (with a view to such policy being developed in early 2019 for the 2019-2020 academic year).

4. Student Progress Reporting is but one step - but the crucial first step - in an intrusive intervention strategy that will involve student services reaching out to students to help them with challenges that faculty are not equipped to address, even as faculty do work with students who are struggling academically with the specific course material.

5. A senior level administrator should be assigned to serve as the accountability lead for the prototype period and implementation of Student Progress Reporting.

6. There will be a single Student Progress Reporting interval for each section - the survey findings indicate that this should occur at between the 25% and 50% point of a section.

7. Student Progress Reporting will be allow faculty to report a letter grade (ABCDF) or Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory (S/U) progress. Should faculty choose to report progress using the Unsatisfactory label or a D or F letter grate, they will also need to supply at least one comment, either selected from a pull-down menu of pre-written comments, or writing their own comment in a text-entry box.


The Council shared these recommendations with The Instructional Leadership Team (TILT), and the Student Progress Reporting Task Force, on Monday, Feb. 19.

NEXT STEPS:

The Council is still gathering stakeholder input on the preferred system(s) for generating Student Progress Reports. There are advantages and disadvantages to both eCampus/Blackboard and eConnect/Colleague. Among the considerations are the extent to which each system is used by faculty, the extent to which each system is user-friendly, the extent to which training would be required on each system, the extent to which each system can be configured to do what Student Progress Reporting is designed to do, and the extent to which each of these issues can be resolved in time for the beginning of the prototype cycle that will commence with the Fall 2018 semester.

As further information is gathered, conversations will continue with the Student Progress Reporting committee, academic vice presidents, and District officials.

Faculty Climate Survey, Part 2

The second half of the the biennial DCCFA Faculty Climate Survey is now being administered. As a reminder, this half of our survey is designed to gauge faculty perceptions of District upper-level leadership (Chancellor and Vice Chancellors), Campus upper-level leadership (President and Vice Presidents), and the District Faculty Association leadership (DCCFA Council). 

Part 2 of the survey is relatively brief and should not take long to complete.  The Faculty Council encourages all members to participate in the Climate Survey, as faculty feedback is of vital importance. As before, your feedback will remain completely anonymous. The results of the survey will be shared with faculty, the seven college presidents, and the chancellor.

Part 2 of the survey will be open until Monday, March 5, 2018.

You can access the survey at: http://webteched.com/FacultyEvaluation2018Part2.aspx

Thank you for your ongoing participation. 

KERA: ICE officials make more arrests in Dallas than any other US city

According to KERA, officials from the US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) made more arrests in the Dallas area than any other municipality in the country in 2017.

See this linked story for more information.

The Faculty Council has encouraged the DCCCD legal office to send specific instructions to all DCCCD employees, including faculty, regarding what to do in the event that ICE attempts to arrest DCCCD students on our campuses or in our classrooms.

2018 BOARD OF TRUSTEES ELECTION UPDATE #1 - Filing deadline looms for candidates to file for DCCCD Board of Trustees seats in District 1 and District 7

The deadline for candidates to file to seek election to the Board of Trustees in DCCCD Distict 1 and District 7 is this Friday, Feb. 16.

This map shows the locations of all seven DCCCD Board Districts. This link can be used to find voting precinct information, and DCCCD District, for all residents of Dallas County.

District 1 has been represented by JL Sonny Williams since 2006.

District 7 has been represented by Charletta Rogers Compton since 2000. Trustee Compton also has served as Chair of the Board since June 2014.

Provided more than one candidate files to run, elections will be conducted Saturday, May 5, 2018. Should no candidate win a majority in the regular election, a runoff election would be conducted on Saturday, June 16.

Drawing for ballot position occurs at 10 a.m., Friday, Feb. 23.

Monday, April 23 is the first day of early voting. Tuesday, May 1, is the last day of early voting.

Tuesday, April 24, is the last day applications for early voting by mail are accepted by the Dallas County elections department.

You can obtain a voter registration application at this link.


The DCCFA Political Information Committee will provide all members with election information via the Advance Blog, much as was done during the 2016 Board elections.

Faculty Council working with District Talent Development to offer new “Academic Dean Academy”

For several years, the Faculty Council has encouraged Chancellor May and other District officials to re-inaugurate a “dean training academy,” given the ongoing turnover in the instructional dean positions at some colleges, as well as the increasing number of retirements or promotions of experienced deans at other colleges.

The Council is pleased to report that District Talent Development has heard our concerns, and following a May 2017 Compression Planning session on the topic, in recent weeks has invited DCCFA President Bill Hammerschlag, in consultation with the Faculty Council, to be involved in the writing of a training curriculum for new and prospective instructional deans.

It is envisioned that the training program, titled "Academic Dean Academy," will include elements from the “Instructional Administration Career Institute” program that the District offered some years ago, including and especially training in how properly to conduct the faculty evaluation process.

DCCFA members who wish to provide input are encouraged to contact their respective college faculty association president.

FLRG Report #9: Faculty Council meets with Boston Consulting Group to discuss May 2017 FLRG report and additional context

The Faculty Council met Friday, Feb. 9, with members of the Boston Consulting Group, to discuss recommendations generated from the Faculty Load Review Group (FLRG) during the 2016-2017 academic year.

Recall from previous Advance Blog posts that faculty predominated both on FLRG and on the three FLRG sub-groups (ALPHA, BRAVO, and CHARLIE), and FLRG ordered its work on the basis of both longstanding faculty concerns about inequities in the calculation of full-time faculty load, and solicited and incorporated robust faculty input on those issues.

Summarized briefly, FLRG made three broad recommendations to increase equity and consistency in faculty load. First, lab and lecture instruction should be compensated equally in full-time load calculation. Second, discipline committee recommendations on class sizes should be adopted District-wide. Third, compensation for coordinator/chair duties should be made more equitable across the District. The Faculty Council agreed with these priorities based on repeated, consistent input from members. Upon receiving the FLRG recommendations, Chancellor May said he agreed that the recommendations would enhance equity and consistency. However, the recommendations would also increase costs to the District. Therefore, the chancellor sought and secured approval from the Board of Trustees in Fall 2017 for the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) to study the FLRG recommendations (as well as other recommendations pertinent to faculty hiring processes and diversity concerns) and issue its own independent recommendations to the District. The Council asked, and Dr. May agreed, that the Council should meet with BCG representatives during their study

Four representatives from BCG, all of whom are based at their Dallas office, on Feb. 9, 2018, met with the seven members of the Faculty Council. Rather than giving a report of their unfinished work, the BCG team directly solicited the Council’s feedback with open-ended questions and seemed genuinely interested in what the Council had to say. They asked about what was working well in the DCCCD, as well as what needed improvement.

A robust, wide-ranging discussion ensued, in which the Council provided both ample broad philosophical justification and poignant specific examples to support the adoption of the FLRG recommendations. The Council also explained in detail why the current Board policy regarding extra service teaching works well in giving the colleges and programs flexibility to meet student and community educational needs.

The Council also explained that the DCCFA endorses the hiring of additional full-time faculty throughout the District, particularly to meet currently unmet community educational needs given recent and projected growth in enrollment and program diversity and complexity, including and especially the dual credit collegiate academies.

Finally, the Council articulated that the DCCFA wants to diversify faculty ranks, but that structural issues like salary compression for those hired between 1981 and 2012, and lack of a coordinated recruitment effort, have prevented the District from significantly increasing the percentage of faculty from historically underrepresented groups. (Specifically, the Council shared with BCG that both the Chancellor’s Faculty Fellows Task Force, and the Faculty Hiring Process Task Force, in 2017 recommended that District Talent Central hire a full-time recruiter to help recruit candidates from historically underrepresented backgrounds to apply for DCCCD faculty vacancies.)

The BCG team members took copious notes throughout the conversation, and asked thoughtful follow-up questions both to clarify their understanding of the issues and to gather additional supporting information. As a result, the Council remains hopeful that the conversations with BCG were productive and will culminate in BCG recommending the District adopt all of the FLRG recommendations as soon as possible.

Clarification on Conflict of Commitment Board Policy

Faculty throughout the District recently have expressed concern and asked questions about DCCCD Board Policy DBD(LOCAL), which was updated on 12/20/2017, upon approval by the Board of Trustees on 12/5/2017. The policy generally speaks to issues related to conflict of interest and conflict of commitment.

The most recent changes were sparked to respond to instances of District employees using District resources, such as computers and email, to do work for other entities or run businesses, on District time either on District premises or while at home on a purported telecommuting arrangement.

Chancellor May has repeatedly assured faculty that the policy language is not designed to prohibit employees from teaching as adjunct faculty for other colleges, or to prohibit employees from working in the private sector. Indeed, the Chancellor even said that it is beneficial for faculty to teach at transfer institutions or work in industry as a means to help them stay current in their respective teaching fields.

After a number of DCCFA members raised concerns, members of the Faculty Council met Friday, Jan. 26, with Frank Hill, of Hill-Gilstrap, who has represented many DCCFA members over the years, and is unmatched in higher education labor law. He advised us as follows:

• The District indeed can prohibit faculty (or any employee) from simultaneously holding two full-time positions at two separate educational institutions. 
• Some of the language regarding conflict of commitment may be problematic, given its vagueness.

Regarding the second item, DCCFA President Bill Hammerschlag asked Mr. Hill to join us in reaching out to District officials in an effort to correct problematic and confusing language, both in DBD(LOCAL) and other DCCCD Board Policy documents.