Faculty Council Names Standing Committee Chairs; Adopts Strategic Approach to Advocate for Current Emerging Faculty Concerns in One College Environment

The DCCFA Faculty Council met via video conference Thursday, June 4, 2020, to inaugurate the new Council term and to discuss a number of pressing issues that faculty across the District have raised in recent days and hours. The June 4 meeting minutes are located at this link.

DCCFA Standing Committee Chairs Named

In order to take a strategic approach to issues that are shared by faculty at many or all of the seven colleges, and in accordance with the DCCFA Bylaws, the Council prioritized the naming of its members as ex officio chairs to the seven standing committees of the DCCFA, as follows:

Budget & Finance: Keith Baker (North Lake)

Communications: Wade Hyde (El Centro)

Convention Planning: Ryan Pettengill (Mountain View)

Instructional Goals and Academic Freedom: Jennifer Hudson-Allen (Brookhaven)

Membership: Tommy Thompson (Cedar Valley)

Political Information: Matt Hinckley (Eastfield)

Welfare and Benefits: Carlos Martinez (Richland)

The Council members all agreed to submit to the respective committee chairs, the names of the members from their respective campuses, who have been elected to serve on these seven DCCFA committees.

Council Approach to Instruction in the One College Model

In past years, the Faculty Council met monthly with the seven academic vice presidents, in a group called The Instructional Leadership Team (TILT). Over time TILT also included several District Office personnel who helped to manage curriculum and other instructional issues at the District level. In Spring 2020, the instructional vice presidents indicated they wished to disband TILT, as instruction for the combined Dallas College would soon be supported by a Provost supervising seven Vice Provosts, each of whom would support a “School of” organized around a particular Guided Pathway. The dissolving of TILT therefore has left a gap in the structural means by which the Council effectively can represent faculty interests in discussions about instructional matters across the District. Consequently, the Council today agreed that it intends to establish a precedent to meet with the current Interim Provost, Dr. Linda Braddy, and continue that practice when the new Provost is named. President Ryan Pettengill agreed to take the initiative to that effect. In the meantime, though, the Council is aware of the numerous issues and concerns that are being raised by our members all across the District.

Enrollment Management Practices

The Council agrees that it supports a District-wide approach to enrollment management practices, particularly during a time when we are all teaching online and campus distinctions are, by necessity, in many cases becoming less apparent. However, the Council also believes that “one size fits all” approaches are not appropriate. For instance, the Council takes very seriously faculty concerns over decisions that are being made to combine sections, stack/bundle sections (or not), and/or cancel and move students to sections offered by other instructors at other campuses. The Council also agrees that not all academic disciplines – or even courses within a given discipline – should have the same enrollment thresholds to “make.” Certain courses in certain disciplines, such as studio art courses, some journalism courses, private music lessons, and co-ops and internships, among many others, need to be handled more like many CTE courses, where individualized instruction is the foundation of the particular student experience. In addition, different courses in various CTE disciplines also are different, where lab safety and industry accreditation concerns must prevail. Likewise, developmental studies and ESOL courses must consider that students need additional individual attention. In all cases, therefore, the Council maintains that faculty subject matter experts must be consulted before deans or the current academic vice presidents, make unilateral decisions to cancel or combine sections.

Because these enrollment management decisions are being made absent faculty subject matter expert input in many programs and disciplines across the District, the Council agreed to address this on a District-wide, systemic basis. First, President Ryan Pettengill intends to engage with District senior leadership to make the case for additional faculty empowerment in enrollment management decisions. Second, the entire Council will press these concerns when we next meet with the Chancellor on June 12. Third, the two Council members on the Rapid Response Team, Carlos Martinez and Wade Hyde, will continue to articulate these concerns with the Provost during the numerous times the RRT meets each week.

Working across the District with Colleagues in our Disciplines

The Council agrees that, along with enrollment management decisions, many other issues require the attention of faculty subject matter experts. As such, the Council strongly advises all DCCCD faculty – not just the individual campus curriculum committee reps, but all faculty in a given program or discipline – to engage with their colleagues in the same discipline/program at the other campuses. There are many issues where consistency and uniformity is appropriate, and in those cases the Council believes the faculty subject matter experts must make those determinations. At the same time, there are instances where the same course is used by different programs at different campuses serving different cohorts of students to be trained for different jobs or careers in different industries. Again, in those cases, it is faculty subject matter experts who need to articulate the reasons for those differences. The greater the cooperation and agreement within disciplines and programs across the District, the easier it is for the Faculty Council to represent those interests broadly when we advocate on our members’ collective behalf.

Faculty Professional Development

The Council agrees with previous work done by previous Councils, specifically, that faculty professional development is, first, separate and different from training required by federal, state, or local laws (such as FERPA, ADA, Title IX, etc.), and second, consists of two broad categories: advancing pedagogy and/or advancing or maintaining subject matter expertise and/or professional certification or licensure. The Council also agrees with the principle that professional development that improves us as teachers and/or advances our subject matter expertise, ought to count toward advancement on the faculty salary range scale, from Range 1 to 2 and from Range 2 to 3. The Council intends to continue to make these arguments as task forces and advisory committees are formed regarding faculty professional development.

Dual Credit

The Council also agrees that a District-wide, systemic approach is needed to deal with Dual Credit issues and concerns, in keeping with the recommendations issued in the faculty-generated Dual Credit Report that the Council delivered to Dr. May earlier this year. Until all dual credit operations and reporting relationships are centralized under one leader at District Office, we anticipate that issues and concerns will continue to arise. Consequently, the Council agreed that Jennifer Hudson-Allen, who both will chair the DCCFA Instructional Goals and Academic Freedom Committee and also serves on numerous District-wide dual credit committees, would represent the Council in advancing faculty concerns about Dual Credit at the District level. As such, Jennifer is representing emerging faculty concerns regarding the “dual credit facilitators” that have been requested to be added to many summer courses. Jennifer will investigate this particular request in more detail and report back to the Council.

Committee and Task Force Membership

The Council discussed the ongoing concern that many faculty feel they are being left out of conversations that are culminating in decisions that affect teaching and learning. Many faculty have expertise in particular areas, often outside of their teaching field, and are willing to help the District advance our shared interest in these areas. Recognizing that the District is moving at a quicker pace than even in recent years, and especially compared to a decade ago, the Council agreed to prepare and maintain a shared spreadsheet of areas where we anticipate work needing to be done, and within each a list of faculty who have particular experiences or expertise in those areas. Therefore, the Council encourages members who have an interest in a particular area, to reach out to their respective faculty association president, to say, “I’d like to serve on a task force or committee that might be formed on (this issue).”

Communications

The Council also discussed the desire for all faculty at all campuses to have equal access to information. Consequently, the Council agreed that, while Jennifer Hudson-Allen would take Council meeting minutes in her capacity as Secretary, and while Wade Hyde would take the lead on overall Communications strategies as the chair of the DCCFA Communications committee, Matt Hinckley would take the lead in writing posts to publish to the Advance Blog, that the respective Council members could also separately send to their members via email. Until a new DCCFA.org web site is published, and as faculty still become accustomed to the Faculty One Stop site on SharePoint, the Advance Blog will be the primary means by which the Council broadly communicates its work with the membership at large.

What's Ahead

The Council next plans to meet at 12 noon Friday, June 12, before its monthly meeting with Chancellor May at 2 p.m. The Council also remains in constant contact with one another via email and group text messaging, ensuring that we are able to respond as quickly and thoroughly as possible to emerging concerns, while leveraging and sharing the diverse array of expertise, experiences, and interests that each of us individually brings to the Council.

2020-2021 Faculty Council Takes Office; New Officers Elected

The 2020-2021 Dallas Community College Faculty Association (DCCFA) Faculty Council assumed office on Monday, June 1, 2020.

Composition:
The Faculty Council consists of the Faculty Association Presidents elected from the seven campuses of the Dallas County Community College District. Five members are continuing, and two members are rotating on to succeed two others who are rotating off, as follows:

Brookhaven College: Jennifer Hudson-Allen, elected to a two-year term in 2020, succeeding Scott Sires

Cedar Valley College: Tommy Thompson, continuing, elected to a two-year term in 2019

El Centro College: Wade Hyde, continuing, elected to a two-year term in 2019

Eastfield College: Matt Hinckley, elected to a two-year term in 2020, succeeding Liz Nichols

Mountain View College: Ryan Pettengill, continuing, elected to a second two-year term in 2020

North Lake College: Keith Baker, continuing, elected to a two year term in 2019

Richland College: Carlos Martinez, continuing, elected to a second two-year term in 2020

New Officers:
The newly-seated Council met Monday morning, June 1, to elect new officers. The following officers were elected:

Ryan Pettengill, President

Tommy Thompson, Vice President

Jennifer Hudson-Allen, Secretary

Keith Baker, Treasurer

The entire Council looks forward to representing faculty interests at the District level during our consolidation into One College, amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Your Climate Survey Responses Pay Off; Return Week Meetings Modified Based on Faculty Input

The DCCFA Faculty Council takes seriously the input and suggestions received from all members.

One of the most recurring themes from direct input, as well as from answers to questions on the biennial faculty climate survey, is that Return Week leaves faculty feeling worn out rather than invigorated for the new academic year.

While it is extremely unlikely that the District will stop conducting Conference Day during Return Week, we do have some good news to bring to faculty. The annual Wednesday “curriculum workshop” that in recent years had convened at Richland College, for all program coordinators, lead faculty, and deans to attend, has been canceled. Indeed, faculty across the District have told the Council personally, and through the climate survey, that they thought the information presented at the "curriculum workshop" could be shared with faculty both more broadly and in a way that wouldn't require travel to another DCCCD college or location on a second day during Return Week.

Instead, the CTE and general education curriculum meetings will be conducted during the afternoon breakout sessions at the annual District Conference Day on Friday, August 24. Separate sessions tailored for new faculty, and for seasoned faculty, will be offered. In addition, discipline and program committees will be invited to schedule lunch meetings during District Conference Day, for which tables will be reserved and for which faculty may register during the Conference Day registration process.

While the faculty council still will continue pushing for Conference Day to be scheduled on Monday rather than Friday - if it must be scheduled during Return Week at all - we still believe that condensing the curriculum workshop into Conference Day is a much more efficient and effective use of faculty time.

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.

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.

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

DCCFA Offers Two Upcoming Opportunities for Faculty to Provide Input

The Faculty Council plans two initiatives specifically designed to gather input from faculty. 

Student Progress Reporting Survey

From Feb. 1 through Feb. 15, a survey will be made available for faculty to provide both structured and open-ended input on the issue of student progress reporting. Details about that evolving conversation can be found in this post from Jan. 18. All faculty are invited and encouraged to provide input. Messages will be sent by each college’s faculty association president, and academic vice president, when this survey is live. Results gathered from this survey – which will be completely anonymous – will be analyzed in detail by the Faculty Council in order to craft the best possible student progress reporting system to serve our diverse student population while not imposing excessive and unproductive labor burdens on the faculty. These findings will then be shared with The Instructional Leadership Team, which includes the district and college instructional leaders, for implementation.

Part 2, Biennial Faculty Climate Survey

From Feb. 19 through March 2, Part 2 of the biennial Faculty Climate Survey will be administered. Part 1 was administered in Fall 2017, and a selection of results are available at this post on the Advance Blog, in which are links to raw data from each of the seven colleges. Whereas Part 1 of the Faculty Climate Survey gathered faculty input on issues of compensation and shared governance, Part 2 includes questions that are designed to gauge faculty attitudes on the overall climate within the various college chapters of DCCFA, the colleges, and the District. Results gathered from this survey also will be completely individually anonymous, and only aggregated results by college will be reported and shared with the college presidents.

The Faculty Council encourages all members to participate in both the Student Progress Reporting survey, and the DCCFA Biennial Faculty Climate Survey.