Survey Available Feb. 1-15, 2018, for Faculty to Provide Input on Progress Reporting System to Take Effect Fall 2018

Dear Faculty,

Responding to a variety of concerns regarding both student success and completion, the DCCCD administration has charged our instructional leaders to create a consistent, district-wide systematic approach for all faculty to report on student progress in courses during each academic term, beginning in Fall 2018.  This effort at student progress reporting is intended to help students better understand their status in a given course early enough for students to take action to improve that status and for intrusive interventions to be provided, if needed, in order to improve retention and completion. Further background information on the evolution of this process is available at this January 18 post on the DCCFA Advance Blog.

Instructional leaders, including the academic vice presidents and the DCCFA faculty council, believe that it is crucial to gather faculty input, so as to guide the design of a student progress reporting system approach. At present, the plan is to use the eConnect interface for progress reporting.  Specific elements of the design will be determined later, taking into consideration feedback obtained from faculty in a variety of ways, beginning here.

We respect your academic freedom and the institutional responsibility to provide quality teaching and learning experiences for our students, so rest assured that:

• No aspect of this reporting system will expect, encourage or require you to change or adjust any aspect of your teaching, evaluation or assessment strategies,
• The design of this system will take into account our many and diverse types of courses, and
• A primary goal of this system is to provide effective reporting while not being a burdensome or time-consuming activity.

All faculty – full-time and adjunct faculty – are invested in student success and therefore are invited and encouraged to participate in this survey. The survey is being made available between Feb. 1 and Feb. 15, 2018. Please review this “Supplemental Information” document and then complete the survey at this link: https://goo.gl/forms/Sb6I9yDXWhndySoI2

DCCCD Considering New Student Progress Reporting System; Faculty Council Working to Ensure a Reasonable Timeline and Stakeholder Input on Policy and Procedure

Background:

At a meeting of The Instructional Leadership Team (TILT) on 9/18/17, the Faculty Council was presented with a draft of a revised Board policy on attendance as well as a proposal—developed by the Academic Vice Presidents and Associate Vice Chancellor Anna Mays, at the behest of Chancellor May—for a daily attendance tracking system, which was to be set up in eConnect and implemented for Fall 2018. The system would have required faculty to maintain and report daily attendance records for all classes. We were informed that this was created to address safety concerns, in the wake of incidents at El Centro and North Lake colleges, as well as to monitor student success.

The Faculty Council argued strenuously against this system, noting that it would not provide an accurate accounting of the number of people in a building, and thus not adequately address safety concerns, and that it would not be a useful means of gauging student progress or achievement. Given the increased attention to student persistence and completion (locally and nationally), the Faculty Council understands the desire and need for more periodic reporting on student success. The Council, therefore, suggested that a progress reporting system be considered; this would work better for tracking student success and would allow for intrusive advising if students fall behind in classes. Matt Henry and Matt Hinckley volunteered to serve on a subcommittee to explore the development of such a system.

A preliminary meeting was held at the LeCroy Center on 10/6/17 to discuss ideas. Subcommittee members at that point were: faculty members Matt Henry (RLC) and Matt Hinckley (EFC); Vice Presidents Audra Barrett (CVC) and Greg Morris (ECC); and Executive Dean Terri DiPaolo (LeCroy). This was, in effect, a brainstorming session in which the committee reviewed current policies on attendance and grading and discussed the potential uses of eConnect, the eCampus gradebook, and district software such as Starfish as potential reporting mechanisms. The highlights of this conversation were shared with member of the TILT group at its next meeting (on 10/16/17), at which the Faculty Council continued to press the point that concerns over safety must be decoupled from concerns about student success.

On 11/3/17, Associate Vice Chancellor Mays confirmed (via email) that these concerns would be separated and discussed by two distinct groups. The first group, led by Commissioner Lauretta Hill and legal counsel Tricia-Anne Horatio, would explore the possibility of an employee and student identification badge policy, involving appropriate college personnel. The second group, comprised of the preliminary subcommittee and staff from the District Office, would explore strategies for a progress and/or grade reporting policy, which would involve the recording of student performance at intervals during the term, in order to more frequently and consistently document and communicate to students about their academic participation, progress and success.

The next meeting of the Student Progress subcommittee took place on 11/21/17. In attendance were Anna Mays, Audra Barrett, Greg Morris, Matt Henry, Matt Hinckley, Becky Witherspoon, Jamie Templeton, Tricia Horatio, and Terry DiPaolo. This meeting focused primarily on discussing the merits of various reporting intervals (e.g., at midterm or more frequently) and the value of using letter grades, a pass/fail notification, or open-ended comments to report on student status. At a subsequent meeting, held on 12/13/17, the committee was presented with a draft of a new Board policy on progress reporting. At that point, members of the Faculty Council (Henry and Hinckley) noted that this was progressing a bit too fast, likely in deference to the target implementation date of Fall 2018. The Council members then requested that the committee pause to develop a clear rationale for the student progress reporting system to present to faculty, as well as to gather relevant data on the use and success of such systems at other institutions. Members of the committee were charged with doing this research.

Current Status:

On 1/16/18, the Student Progress subcommittee met at the District Office. Unfortunately, once again, the first agenda item was the draft of a new Board policy. Vice Chancellor Mays stressed that both Vice Chancellor Lonon and Chancellor May expect the new policy to be in effect for Fall 2018. Matt Henry and Matt Hinckley reiterated that this was all moving too fast, pointing out that the necessary research had not yet been done and that adequate time was needed to both inform faculty about these pending changes and to solicit feedback from them before further action was taken. This successfully moved the conversation moved away from policy document language and onto the overall timeline and interim steps to be taken during the spring semester.

On behalf of the Faculty Council, Matt Henry and Matt Hinckley will develop a survey instrument to send to faculty to solicit feedback on the Student Progress Reporting System plan. It will contain links to relevant research and include both open- and closed-ended questions. The Faculty Council expects to have this ready and available at the beginning of February.

At the next TILT meeting (scheduled for Monday, January 22), the Council will discuss with the Academic Vice Presidents a communication strategy for disseminating information to all impacted stakeholders and gathering input from faculty. Faculty who wish to know more should speak with their Faculty Association representative or their college Vice President. We will keep faculty informed of all developments on this issue as they occur.

Faculty Council Seeks Members to Serve on WORK GROUP DELTA to Discuss Performance Metrics

The Faculty Council is attempting to be proactive to develop contingency plans for a number of different scenarios that may (or may not) affect DCCCD faculty in the future.

One such concern is a sentiment, previously expressed among some DCCCD Board of Trustees members, that all DCCCD employees – including faculty – be evaluated and/or even compensated based on performance metrics. Indeed, this marks the first year in which Chancellor May and his direct reports will be evaluated based in part on performance metrics.

It is important to note that the Faculty Council has not been told that a performance metrics based evaluation or compensation system for faculty is imminent or planned. Nevertheless, in an environment where we increasingly are expected to be accountable to various local, state, and federal entities, it is imperative that we faculty be prepared for any eventuality.

The Faculty Council has grave doubts about the efficacy or equity of an evaluation or compensation system based on performance metrics. However, the Faculty Council also recognizes that the Board of Trustees at any time could direct the chancellor to implement faculty evaluation or compensation systems based on performance metrics. If so, in the spirit of shared governance, the Faculty Council believes that faculty should be trusted and empowered to identify and select appropriate performance metrics for evaluation and/or compensation, rather than abdicate that responsibility to non-instructional officers of the DCCCD, or outside consultants.

Therefore, the Faculty Council will convene an ad hoc committee, called WORK GROUP DELTA, to study the issue of performance metrics, and identify the kinds of indicators that conceivably could be among numerous options on a menu of performance metrics that would be appropriate for faculty evaluation or compensation.

El Centro College Faculty Association President Pam Crawford will serve as ex officio chair of this group. Each DCCCD college faculty association president is being charged to recommend a colleague from his/her college to serve on WORK GROUP DELTA.

WORK GROUP DELTA will meet and discuss concerns, and make recommendations, during the Spring 2018 semester. Any recommendations submitted to the Faculty Council from WORK GROUP DELTA will not be passed on to college or District leaders, or to DCCCD Board members, unless and until there is clear indication that performance metrics are recommended to become part of the evaluation or compensation system. In other words, the report that WORK GROUP DELTA prepares will be kept on file by the Faculty Council, in the hopes that it never will have to be proposed.

If you are interested in serving as your college faculty association’s representative on WORK GROUP DELTA, please contact your college’s faculty association president.

New Core Curriculum Review Committee Formed to Study Proposed Changes to 090 Component Area Option, and Proposal to Remove Non-Science Major Science Courses from the Associate of Science Degree

At the October 16 meeting of The Instructional Leadership Team (TILT), the Academic Vice Presidents and the Faculty Council agreed to re-convene the Core Curriculum Review Committee (CCRC) to study a proposal to revise the 090 Component Area Option of the Core Curriculum, and a proposal to remove “Non-Science Major” science courses from the Associate of Science degrees, in response to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board removing courses from the DCCCD Core beginning in Fall 2018.

Specifically, the THECB has expired Math 2342 and Math 2442 from the ACGM, and thus those courses must be removed. Second, and more significantly, the THECB has mandated that first year foreign language courses and sign language courses may not be included in the DCCCD Core Curriculum. This effectively means that, absent changes, students entering the DCCCD in Fall 2018 or thereafter would only be able to take a Speech class (SPCH 1311, 1315, or 1321) and a Physical Education course (PHED 1164), to complete the 090 Component Area Option of the DCCCD Core.   Of the 15,894 DCCCD college students who completed the Core Curriculum in 2014, 2015 and 2016 academic years, only 3,251 (20%) completed the Core with a Speech course—80% of the students took other courses that are now not able to be used to meet Core 2014 requirements in Fall, 2018 and later catalogs.  With the only option to complete the Core with Speech and Physical Education, it is projected that many fewer students would choose to complete the DCCCD Core and thus complete an Associate degree. Despite the data above, it could also mean that students will opt to compete the Core with us, using the only courses available to them in SPCH and PHED. This would push course need beyond our capacity.

Given these two possibilities, TILT agreed that the CCRC would be co-chaired by Shawnda Floyd, Vice President of Instruction at North Lake College, and Matt Hinckley, President of the Eastfield College Faculty Association. Floyd has served as a member of CCSST from 2014-2016 and has extensive experience working with the Guided Pathways initiative whose work will inform the CCRC. Hinckley co-chaired the Core Curriculum Steering Team from 2011 to 2014, and the Core Curriculum Review Committee from 2013 to 2015, and also has worked with Guided Pathways.

In keeping with the process and membership standards set by previous CCRCs, the CCRC will be composed of one faculty member from each of the nine Learning Categories of the DCCCD Core, plus one faculty member from each of the pre-Core disciplines of Learning Framework, Computer Literacy, ESOL, Developmental English, and Developmental Math. The CCRC will also add additional STEM, Allied Health, and CTE faculty to form a subcommittee to study the recommendation for the change to the AS degree. Faculty will be invited to participate by the co-chairs, and will be chosen to ensure a broad and diverse spectrum of perspectives, disciplines, longevity, ethnicities, and that all seven colleges, are represented. The co-chairs will use technology to ensure that faculty commitment to this initiative is not overly burdensome or time-consuming. To augment the knowledge base available to the CCRC, the CCRC will also include the following individuals: Nancy Faris, District Director of Academic and Student Records; Anna Mays, Associate Vice Chancellor for Educational Policy; Joyce Williams, Associate Vice Chancellor for Workforce Education, Meredithe Greer, District Director, Curriculum Management; Don Perry, Executive Director, Compliance & Policy Formation & THECB Liaison; a Core Objective Assessment expert from one college; and an instructional dean with significant Core Curriculum experience from one college. Executive Vice Chancellor Justin Lonon will serve as ex-officio to the CCRC.

 

Charges to the CCRC:

The CCRC will be charged to:

1.            De-emphasize concerns over individual disciplines, colleges, and enrollment patterns, in favor of a global and network approach focused on student success and preparing students to succeed in transfer and in the workforce, to take a broad view of the organic whole of the Core Curriculum to develop, and provide opportunities to assess the student attainment of, the six Core Objectives (critical thinking, communication, empirical and quantitative skills, teamwork, social responsibility, and personal responsibility);

2.            Review research materials provided by the District Office for Educational Policy, including 60x30 Goals, and the Guided Pathways initiatives;

3.            Review foundational, philosophical, and historical documents and perspectives for the 2009 and 2014 Core Curricula and Core Revision process, including relevant AAC&U principles for general education learning and assessment.

4.            Review THECB requirements for the Texas Core Curriculum and study emerging trends from the THECB and other public Texas community colleges and universities.

5.            Conduct information gathering efforts electronically from discipline committees and faculty at all seven colleges to obtain broad stakeholder input, and consider input from major Dallas County employers provided through the Office of Workforce Education;

6.            Provide a set of recommendations for the 090 Component Area Option, and the inclusion or exclusion of non-science major science courses from the AS degree prior to January 29, 2018, for the Vice Presidents Council and Chancellors Staff to review and approve in advance of submission to THECB for possible adoption in the 2018-2019 DCCCD catalog. The CCRC is not to recommend any changes to any of the Foundational Component Areas of the Core.

In the coming days, CCRC Co-chairs Shawnda Floyd and Matt Hinckley will work to identify and recruit a broad and representative sample of faculty, with no less than two and no more than four faculty from each college, to populate the CCRC. The CCRC tentatively will convene for a first meeting on or around December 1, 2017, and a second meeting on or around January 19, 2018. Stakeholder District discipline committees should expect to receive charges in early December. Questions can be directed to Anna Mays, Shawnda Floyd, or Matt Hinckley . Academic Vice Presidents also can provide background information to their respective faculty.

FLRG Report #8: Final Recommendations from the 2016-2017 Faculty Load Review Group

FLRG tri-chairs Ken Alfers, Zarina Blankenbaker, and Matt Hinckley, presented the Faculty Load Review Group (FLRG) recommendation report and supporting documentation (including the Work Group ALPHA, BRAVO, and CHARLIE recommendations) to Chancellor May, Vice Chancellor Lonon, and Chief Talent Officer Susan Hall, in May 2017. Specifically, the FLRG report recommended that lecture and lab instruction be equalized in the calculation of full-time faculty load, that class sizes be made more equitable by discipline and course across the District according to discipline committee recommendations, and that compensation for coordinator/chair duties be made more equitable across the District. Upon initial review, Dr. May agreed the recommendations, if implemented, would bring about greater equity and consistency in the calculation of full-time faculty load.

Dr. May also said he will have Boston Consulting Group review the FLRG recommendations (and the Faculty Hiring Process committee recommendations) in the context of efforts to increase faculty diversity as well as the likely need to increase the overall number of full-time faculty in the District and refine our compensation models to retain faculty. Therefore, it is likely that any final decisions to implement FLRG recommendations would take several months, depending on the time frame of the work of the Boston Consulting Group.

Both the FLRG tri-chairs, and the Faculty Council, have recommended to Dr. May that FLRG be recommissioned in 2017-2018 to help write the guideline documents to implement the recommendations (should they ultimately be accepted), and to study and recommend other ways to increase equity in overall faculty work load, particularly in non-teaching institutional service, differing telecommuting definitions and arrangements (particularly on-campus office hour and institutional service expectations for faculty who teach online for load), and professional development experiences to promote range advancement.

While we counsel continued patience as we wait for the Boston Consulting Group review to progress, we reiterate that Dr. May wants faculty and instructional leaders to avail themselves of forthcoming opportunities to engage with the Boston Consulting Group.

Previous Advance Blog posts on FLRG can be found at this link.