Dear DCCFA Colleagues:
As we all know, the DCCCD Board of Trustees has approved a
plan to seek accreditation from the Southern Association of Colleges and
Schools – Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC), as a single institution. This is
but one step in the ongoing process of consolidation from seven colleges into
one. Key steps that have been taken to date:
- In June 2019, the Board of Trustees asked for recommendations to address gaps in meeting the needs of students, the community, and businesses.
- In August 2019, having identified that our present organizational structure has been an impediment to student success the Board approved a resolution with the charge to address those gaps by becoming “One College.”
- At the August 23, 2019, DCCCD Conference Day, Chancellor May spoke publicly about the coming consolidation being designed to remove roadblocks to student success. At the same event, DCCCD Board of Trustees Chair Diana Flores said, “The Board fully supports the Chancellor as he moves the organization forward in these areas because…he is doing what the Board has asked him to do.”
- Finally, having reviewed the Jan. 17, 2020 “One College” work session presentation, the Board subsequently decided on Feb. 4, 2020, to name the single college, Dallas College, which was voted on at the Mar. 3, 2020, board meeting.
The DCCFA council (council) understands that some faculty
believes that things are moving very fast. The council further understands that
the speed is causing anxiety and raises many legitimate and important questions
among faculty. That said, there are some important considerations that
are driving the current timeline. First, the Board of Trustees supports
the current timeline. Second, according to Danielle Valle of Brookhaven
College, who is the lead writer of the prospectus for SACSCOC, the current
timeline is due to the type of substantive change required for the
consolidation and the level change necessary for the early childhood education
baccalaureate program. She further noted that “there are some very specific
rules and if/then scenarios with SACSCOC that caused our executive leadership
to move forward with the SACSCOC leadership’s recommendation that we submit
both changes at the same time.” Valle said that the details surrounding this
are “somewhat tedious, but they are not a secret,” and offered to talk with
faculty regarding the technical details. Third, according to Valle,
SACSCOC itself advised the DCCCD that the path of least resistance, and of
least risk to the 2023 regular reaffirmation, is to combine and complete both
the Level change (to allow the baccalaureate program), and the consolidation, within
the same significant substantive change application process, before undertaking
the regular 2023 regular reaffirmation process.
The prospectus that outlines the plan to consolidate into a
single college, and to convert into an institution that can offer baccalaureate
degrees, is due to SACSCOC on March 15, 2020. SACSCOC would then review the
prospectus and issue its approval, potentially with recommendations, in June.
Then, SACSCOC would visit Dallas College in Fall 2020 to ascertain the extent
to which we are accomplishing the consolidation and level change. All of this
means that whatever is submitted on March 15, is not cast into concrete.
According to Valle, what we submit “is our good faith
statement of how we plan to move forward as of March 15, 2020. There are MANY
operational details that we will be continuing to work through for the next
several months and years. SACSCOC is fully aware and even expects that we will
modify some of the plans submitted in the prospectus. It would be unrealistic to
expect that we have everything figured out at this point. Submitting plans in
the prospectus is not the end of any conversation.”
In other words, even as a prospectus plan is submitted on
March 15, stakeholders will still be giving input and plans and proposed
organizational charts are likely to change based on that input. According to
Valle, “it’s not so much an issue of showing a certain number of levels. It’s
more that we need to give a detailed enough picture to the reviewers so they
can see how we intend to operate and can feel comfortable that we’ll maintain
our accreditation standards.”
All of that considered, then, the Faculty Council agrees
that we should continue to collaborate with the Chancellor and the Board of
Trustees to accomplish these changes, rather than attempt to stop or slow them.
The application to SACSCOC for single accreditation must
include – among many other parts – a proposed organizational structure for the
academic operations of the consolidated Dallas College. As part of this
consolidation plan, and based on input from stakeholders, Chancellor May
unveiled the top three levels of the proposed Dallas College organizational
structure to the Board of Trustees in executive session on Friday, Jan. 17, and
to the DCCCD community on Friday, Jan. 24.
The Faculty Council recommended that the creation of a
strong Provost role, to support the entire learning enterprise of Dallas
College, which fulfills a years-long vision of many former and current Council
members. It should be noted that, in particular, CVCFA president Tommy Thompson
has been an indefatigable proponent of a strong Provost, and all faculty owe
Tommy a debt of gratitude for his advocacy to this effect. The Council also
believes that the new organizational structure is a major win for faculty, in
that faculty now have a direct and unfettered line straight to the Chancellor,
through the Provost. The Faculty Council also believes that locating
non-instructional support services such as Human Resources, Finance, and Legal,
under the leadership of Executive Vice Chancellor Justin Lonon, also is to the
benefit of instructional concerns generally and faculty in particular, as Lonon
has been an indispensable ally in the advancement of instructional and faculty
interests. The Council also believes that the creation of a central dual
credit/ECHS office within the consolidated administrative structure is a major
win for faculty and students, as it was one of the principal recommendations of
the DCCFA Dual Credit/ECHS report that the Council delivered to Dr. May in
early February 2020.
Note that the consolidation plan also calls for
instructional programs to be grouped into “Schools.” Each School is to be
aligned with one of the seven Guided Pathways. It is important to note that
while the Schools may have support offices located at one or more physical
campuses, each School is likely to have some instructional programs or
disciplines at all seven main campuses (and many of the various satellite
campuses). Each School will be supported by a Vice Provost. With Level 1
(Chancellor), Level 2 (Provost) and Level 3 (Vice Provosts) having been
identified, faculty have understandably wondered about their own immediate
reporting relationships. Because similar questions exist regarding reporting
relationships under the Vice Provost of Student Services, on Thursday, Feb. 13,
Vice Chancellor Justin Lonon convened a cross-functional team consisting of
employees from both student services and instruction. Representing instruction
were several vice presidents, several deans, and five faculty members: Wade
Hyde, Keith Baker, Sharon Jackson, Sharon Manna, and Matt Hinckley. This group
discussed ideas, options, and scenarios for possible administrative structures
for both student services and instruction. No decisions were made, and the
assembled faculty members agreed that it would be important to solicit
stakeholder feedback.
Based on the invitation to that Feb. 13 meeting, DCCFA Faculty Council
members Wade Hyde (El Centro) and Keith Baker (North Lake) began consolidating
a possible response presented to the DCCFA and other faculty in attendance
during a strategy session on Feb. 12. This included assembled preliminary
conducted research into alternative models for instructional administration,
and thereafter shared – in real time – the results of their research, to
various DCCCD college faculty association meetings, such as at the MVCFA
meeting on Feb. 19, the RLCFA and NLCFA meetings on Feb. 25, and the BHCFA
meeting on Feb. 26. Hyde and Baker also shared their growing body of research
with Lonon’s cross-functional team on Monday, Feb. 24. After that meeting,
Chancellor May personally asked Hyde and Baker to share their research with him
on Thursday, Feb. 27.
One model for the levels below the Vice Provosts was offered
by the instructional vice presidents. Their plan proposes a Level 4 (dean) and
a Level 5 (associate deans) that are heavy with administrators. Hyde and Baker,
on the other hand, have envisioned a model where the current dean and associate
dean position would be eliminated. In their place, a system of faculty chairs
would provide leadership and support to disciplines/programs, or clusters of
related disciplines/programs, at Level 4 (reporting directly to the Vice
Provost of the particular School). In the case of a very large discipline, such
as English, there would be a District-wide Chair of English. Then, each campus
would have a Coordinator of English, to coordinate adjunct instruction. Smaller
related disciplines, such as Psychology, Sociology, and Anthropology, might be
led and supported by a Chair of Social Science, with a Coordinator at each
campus. Related small CTE programs might all be aligned under a particular
Chair drawn from one of those programs. There may even be situations where
related academic disciplines and CTE/CE programs might be aligned with a Chair.
All the Chairs would be drawn from among the Faculty in that discipline/program
or cluster of related discipline/clusters.
Parallel to the Chairs on Level 4, within each of the seven
Schools would be a set of one to six deans, each of whom would be responsible
for providing project management support to one of more of the six areas that
SACS-COC identifies as within the purview of faculty. These six areas are
teaching, assessment, institutional service and professional development,
research or creative activities, advising, and curriculum. It is envisioned
that within a given School, for instance, as dean of assessment could work to
support and assist the Chair in convening faculty in the discipline/program or
discipline/program cluster, to develop a common assessment plan and cycle.
According to Valle, “the submission of the prospectus does
not end the work on the structure or planning. March 15th is not the deadline
for decision-making. It’s the deadline for the submission of the current draft
of our plan.” Valle also advises “faculty who are feeling like they’re not part
of the process,” to please “send their concerns and questions to OneCollege@DCCCD.edu.” Valle even has
offered that those who want to remain anonymous may send their concerns
directly to her, and she will forward those concerns with no identifying
information.
Whatever proposed instructional administrative model the
chancellor chooses to include in the prospectus – the model envisioned by the
instructional VPs, the model envisioned by Hyde and Baker, a hybrid of both, or
a separate model entirely – there will still be ample opportunity to faculty to
play a role in the ongoing conversations to design, implement, and refine
whatever model ultimately is adopted. The Council also will continue to engage
with the membership directly through surveys of all members, and through the
existing campus faculty associations. Members should feel free to share their
concerns with their respective college faculty association presidents.
Finally, while the speed of these processes is bewildering,
this is also a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to be engaged in the
conversations that will shape the next 50 years of our District. The influence
of the DCCFA already has been strong, and we are making major gains for
faculty. To sideline ourselves now, because the process or timeline is not to
our ideal preferences, would be to abdicate our responsibility to advocate for
the interests of teaching and learning, for faculty and for students.
No comments:
Post a Comment