Amanda Gorman "The Hill We Climb." - FOOTHILL-DE ANZA FACULTY ASSOCIATION VOLUME 45 NUMBER 6
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
View this email in your browser
FOOTHILL-DE ANZA FACULTY ASSOCIATION
VOLUME 45 NUMBER 6
27 February 2021
Amanda Gorman "The Hill We Climb."
Amanda Gorman "The Hill We Climb."
President's Report
Covid Vaccination Update
Negotiations Update
Spotlight
Upcoming Deadlines
President's Report
February 2021
Shared Governance Debate Continues as District, College
Initiatives Move Forward
By Rich Hansen (Acting President)
After a tumultuous January—mainly in terms of national events that
demanded our attention and raised concerns for both US democracy and the
depth of racism in US society—we appeared to turn our attention inward in February to question the quality of our own
local shared governance and examine the role of racism and power differentials frustrating our efforts to achieve
genuine workplace democracy. The ink had barely dried on my January FA News article, in which I suggested the
California Community Colleges shared governance system might model genuine engagement in the workplace as an
antidote to the country’s malaise, before events on both campuses challenged that assertion.
When, at webinars on both campuses, the California Community College League and state Academic Senate
presenters reviewed the legacy of AB 1725, the legislation that provided the basis for the California Community
College shared (or participatory) governance, many participants didn’t like what they saw. The Zoom Chat feature was
open at the Foothill session, and a revealing moment came when the presenters referred to some official language
describing shared governance in terms of participants having an “effective voice” in decision-making. From the
responses in Chat, it was clear many did not feel their voices are being heard. At De Anza, where the Chat feature
was not open, it was impossible to know the audience’s immediate response. But at the College Council meeting on
February 25, a month after De Anza’s shared governance webinar, those in attendance heavily criticized the
presentation for focusing almost entirely on the faculty role in shared governance. Classified professionals were given
little attention, and when it came, it was very late in the program. Students were hardly mentioned at all.
Operating remotely, as we are, is clearly making it difficult to reap much benefit from these webinars. The
community has no doubt heard that, at both Foothill and De Anza, the webinars did nothing to quell the dissatisfaction
many feel with “shared governance” as it is practiced in our district. But there has not been sufficient opportunity for
discussion in the community that might lead to some improvement. However, that larger discussion may be getting
started.
Following closely on these webinars, De Anza’s on January 28 and Foothill’s on February 5,
came the all-day session of Districtwide Professional Development featuring Dr. Joy DeGruy, and again, there has
been little opportunity for the community to share impressions and take-aways from this event. There were, at least,
afternoon breakouts for group discussions, but the Zoom breakout rooms were much too large for the kind of deep
discussions Dr. DeGruy’s presentation requires.
Of course, Dr. DeGruy’s visit did not discuss shared governance, but it did address issues of racism and bias,
white privilege, power differentials, and more that no doubt frustrate our efforts to make shared governance work here
at Foothill and De Anza. But the upcoming April 16 session with Dr. DeGruy’s daughter, Bahia Overton, may provide
an opportunity to close the circle on individual self-reflection and analysis of institutional governance, as she is
expected to take us through an experience that will help turn Dr. DeGruy’s message into action. Topics are said to
include trainings in “Improvement Science” and “Empathy.”
In this atmosphere of uncertainty with regard to not only our institutions but also our individual socio-cultural
shortcomings, the work of the District goes on with a series of Informational Sessions on significant issues. The
Informational Session on Student and Employee Housing took place on February 23, and sessions on the Return to
Campus Planning and Campus Safety are scheduled in March. These will, no doubt, manifest the challenges we face
in district shared governance, so let’s examine the Student and Employee Housing session from earlier this week.
Many students, faculty, and classified professionals became ardent supporters of either on- or off-campus district
housing during the Measure G campaign. From the beginning, housing has been a prominent component of the
Measure G project list, and the FA-PAC and its student interns, inspired by the prospect of housing on campus, played
a significant role in securing the passage of Measure G. However, until the February 23 meeting, these advocates had
little information about deliberations on this issue; they all appeared to have been conducted only in closed session
Trustee meetings. As a result, housing advocates felt shared governance was breaking down, and concerns rose that
the option of on-campus housing had already been eliminated from consideration.
As February 23 approached, these advocates asked for the Informational Session to be interactive rather than just
informational, and it was. Answers to questions from the audience unfortunately confirmed that the on-campus option,
while still alive, was handicapped by a long list of concerns ranging from the responsibilities the District would have to
shoulder local civic groups' opposition to the presence of on-campus housing in communities.
The housing advocates fear that these obstacles are being accepted as determinative without any evidence, and
they call for unbiased studies of both the on- and off-campus housing options. Other concerns raised during the
February 23 session included the lack of input from those who might benefit from the housing and a too rapid
capitulation to community opposition before adequately exploring ways in which the housing would actually be
beneficial to these communities.
This debate will continue at the upcoming Chancellor’s Advisory Council (CAC) meeting on March 12, and most
agree that it will not be settled until Spring when Measure G expenditures will be identified and a housing plan of
some kind may be initiated. Unfortunately, the November 23 discussion suggested that the initial decision on pursuing
student and/or staff housing, whether it will be on- or off-campus, and its location will not be a matter of shared
governance. It will be made by the administration at the direction of the Board of Trustees, but once it is made, the
design details will be opened to shared governance venues. Meanwhile, the housing advocates will not give up in
their efforts to secure on- or off-campus housing with on-campus the preferred alternative. Maybe what has happened
on the housing issue is an example of how shared governance works or doesn’t, depending on your point of view.
FA will continue to engage in shared governance on all issues, and looking to the future, the FA Equity Task Force
will engage on the two big self-reflective fronts: improving district shared governance and pursuing Diversity, Equity,
and Inclusion throughout the district. This group has already successfully contributed to Foothill’s Equity Strategic
Plan (also known as Equity Plan 2.0) and is very appreciative of the plan authors’ willingness to review and
incorporate FA’s suggestions.
The overall goal of the FA Equity Task Force is to determine what FA can do to assist faculty in their equity efforts.
The group wants to hear from faculty to be able to support them not only in their promotion of equity in their
classrooms and other activities, but also when they experience equity concerns in their work spaces. Looking
internally, the goal will be to promote an FA “self-study” from an equity lens in which the first step will be the drafting
and eventual adoption of an FA equity document/statement addressing our own issues of Diversity, Equity, and
Inclusion.
At present, the Foothill-De Anza community lives in an atmosphere of uncertainty, under criticisms of institutional
structures that once were considered models for the community colleges. Over this, hovers uncertainty about our own
individual motivations and socio-cultural deficiencies. But, out of this may come evidence that our institution and
community remain models for the state because we are willing to take on the difficult task of self-examination and
reform.
The task falls to FA’s Equity Task Force to point the way forward to that genuine democratic governance
envisioned in AB 1725, the 1988 landmark legislation that moved the community colleges from their status as K-12’s
stepchildren into their mature role as a valuable component of higher education under California’s Master Plan. More
than 30 years later, FA has not given up on making this optimistic goal a reality.
Covid Vaccination
Update
By Tim Shively (In Absentia)
Information about eligibility for Covid-19 vaccinations,
where vaccinations may be had and, often frustratingly,
how to secure an appointment for a vaccination continues
to be extremely varied and variable, so FA is providing this
brief update. Currently, we have a hodgepodge of federal,
county and individual healthcare providers (even some
pharmacies are slated) cobbling together a range of
vaccination sites and processes. The following information
is thus not meant to be "official," but we are passing on
what seems to be the most reliable info for FHDA
employees gathered from our own research and
experience as well as updates from our colleagues. While
what follows is the latest at the time the FA News went to
print, it isn't entirely pretty.
Now that vaccinator websites are (being) updated to reflect the latest information, you can avoid the hours long muzak sessions
which accompany waiting on hold on the phone. However, while previously Levi Stadium, Oakland Coliseum and other joint
federal/state partnerships had been scheduling appointments for those "at risk of exposure to COVID-19 through their work in
Education and Childcare," now they appear to be restricting vaccinations based on where the facility is located. The Levi
Stadium website (https://vax.sccgov.org/levis) now stipulates that potential vaccinees must be residents of Santa Clara County,
and when I went to the state's "My Turn" website (https://myturn.ca.gov) to check into Oakland Coliseum, I was pronounced
ineligible, until I switched my county of residence to Alameda. I have spoken directly (today) with one FHDA employee who was
turned away after showing up for her appointment at Levi Stadium because she resides in Santa Cruz County, and heard from a
reliable source of another who lives in Santa Cruz and was successful in getting her vaccination.
While I can't verify this information, it appears that a recent large shipment of vaccines was missed, and that at least Santa Clara
County is unsure whether they can keep up the same scheduling plan, and that a decision on extending vaccinations to
educators working in but residing outside the county would likely be made Monday based on that morning's shipment. So don't
delete that appointment from your calendar just yet, even if you may ultimately have to schedule a subsequent one depending on
how the die is cast. And by all means, have your documentation ready, including "a government-issued photo ID showing
residence and date of birth, badge from your work a paystub, or documentation from your employer. Other forms of
documentation may be acceptable to prove eligibility." While I'm not entirely sure what that last sentence entails, since I possess
one of the old school District ID's without any date, a blurry (at best) photo and an actual chunk of plastic missing, I will be going
overkill: current paystub and December's showing my yearly earnings, April 4, 2000 letter signed by Martha Kanter confirming my
employment by the District, and I know that document establishing tenure is around here somewhere...
Even FHDA employees who do reside in Santa Clara may have difficulty getting appointments, and need to be flexible. The Levi
Stadium website today indicated that there were no appointments available, but that I should check back tomorrow. And I have
been advised from another faculty member, that even if you were unable to get an appointment on a given day, that more
appointment slots for the same dates are released at 6am each day. In short, it is still conceivable to get an appointment in early
March, though you may have to try, try again. Vaccine supply may also play a role here, so caveat curandas. If getting stabbed
in a Football stadium conjures images of Pinochet, you can check for other locations at https://vax.sccgov.org/home. Among
those listed were the Santa Clara County Fairgrounds (which did have appointments), the Mountain View Community Center
(which did not) and various Santa Clara Valley Medical facilities stretching as far south as Gilroy.
Also, of note was a listing for Gilroy High School, which got me to thinking, if they can set up a vaccination site at an educational
facility in Gilroy, why the hell can't they do it in the heart of Silicon Valley? While there had been talk of repurposing our mostly
vacant parking lots as drive through vaccination sites even as recently as fall quarter, District administration has provided no
guidance on this opportunity, which might have enabled all District employees to be vaccinated as well as (potentially) students
and community members, including possibly other school districts. So, I will be conferring with faculty union leaders from the
other two community college districts in Santa Clara, West Valley-Mission and San Jose-Evergreen to see if we can marshal
some sort of regional faculty union vaccination coalition to get the ball rolling for educators.
Time would seem to be, if not of the essence, a significant factor in moving towards some sort of normal. State
Assemblymember Marc Berman, who represents part of our District, recently sent out an email in which he noted (among other
Covid related news) that today, February 26, "the California Department of Public Health will authorize youth sports to restart in
counties that are in the purple and red tiers [a metric which correlates to the number of ICU beds available] including San Mateo
and Santa Clara Counties." West Valley-Mission is already pushing strongly in this direction with a return to on campus, outdoor
conditioning and drills with "weekly testing daily temperature checks, physical distancing and mask wearing." Our District should
follow suit instead of watching athletes in other Bay Area CCD Districts prepare for an eventual return to competition. Hopefully,
information will be forthcoming in the District's March 4th "Return to Campus Planning Informational Session." At least more
information than we're currently getting.
Negotiations Update
February 2021
by Kathy Perino,
Chief Negotiator
At the negotiations session on February 10, FA made two major
proposals: one for equity driven class sizes and the other for additional
compensation to recognize the additional work required to deliver
instruction and student services from home.Maximum Class Size, Equity, and the Budget
Relationships. It’s all about relationships. That was the takeaway message from Dr. Joy DeGruy’s presentation at the
February 19 District-wide professional development day. It was a message that resonated with faculty, many of whom
are changing classroom strategies in an effort to develop relationships with and for students. Some faculty long for the
opportunity to authentically interact with every student. Unfortunately, larger class sizes make it more difficult for
faculty to envision a different pedagogical approach. Too often, the overriding question is “but how do I do that with 40
or 50 students in my class?” This is an understandable concern, given that faculty who teach class sizes of 50 may
have up to 500 student relationships to develop each year! The Foothill College Strategic Vision for Equity (2021-25),
recently presented to the Board of Trustees, offers this insight in response to developing culturally responsive
pedagogy:
We also recognize that curriculum redesign and the effective implementation at an institutional level of
culturally responsive pedagogy will require a reprioritization of resources and a review of institutional
policy, such as classroom size, to support instructional faculty with the added workload these efforts
require.
For these reasons, FA proposed that lecture courses with a maximum class size of 50 or more be reduced to a
maximum class size of 40, and, that lecture courses with a maximum class size of 40 be reduced to a maximum class
size of 35. In addition, FA opened discussions on how best to address the equity issues in the “double lecture with no
additional load” system that is in place for science courses with a required lab component. In these classes, the
lecture size is twice the lab size (two labs feed into one shared lecture), so most lectures are set between 56 and 64,
with no additional load. FA has proposed the need to address class size in an equitable manner, but details are still
under discussion.
FA recognizes that a reduction in class size alone will not close the equity gap. Rather, a change in class size will
help faculty envision and develop new classroom strategies that can facilitate closing the gap.
In addition to smaller class sizes, FA also proposed that a cap be placed on the number of students a faculty member
can add to a class. If we are setting class maximums with an eye on equity, we expect faculty to utilize the class sizes
to implement improved teaching strategies. In addition, restricting the number of students that can be added will
provide more stability in enrollment across all classes. We recognize that faculty add different numbers of students
based on historical attrition rates, yet some faculty add enough students to drive census enrollment to as much as
50% above the maximum class size. This practice can lead to educational stress and retention unpredictability. It is,
in fact, likely that students, faculty, and the college will be better served by faculty refocusing on retaining the
maximum number of students enrolled on day one. The Faculty Association believes in sound pedagogical practices
that support both fair teaching and learning environments; thus, we have opened negotiations to eliminate class over
enrollment.
FA believes the time is right to make a change in class sizes. Not only will it help with our equity goals, it is also a
fiscally responsible time to make this change.
Based on the apportionment reports released by the State Chancellor’s office in September 2020, very little of our
state funding depends on Full-time Equivalent Student (FTES) stability. If our enrollment increases or decreases by a
few percentage points, our funding remains the same because of the hold harmless provision in the budget. This
provision is set to last through 2023-24. When and if the hold harmless provision expires (some are proposing itbecome permanent), current trends show that our local property taxes and fees will be enough to maintain funding at the current level. While this does not guarantee any sizeable level of funding above current levels, it does mean that we would no longer be beholden to productivity and maximizing student enrollment at all costs. Rather, we can actually make decisions based on quality of instruction and programmatic offerings. We can opt for quality over quantity. Making the change to lower class sizes now, provides three and a half years to develop an understanding of the implications of our proposed changes before hold harmless expires. Additional Work due to COVID (Spring 2020 through Spring 2021) Because the FA Agreement contains no overtime provisions, faculty have no automatic method for additional compensation when the time required to perform regular duties skyrockets. This isn’t surprising since I can’t think of a time when workload for faculty increased exponentially across almost every area. But during this pandemic under work from home orders, we have all spent more time designing courses for virtual delivery, recording videos, providing multiple methods for assignment completion, communicating with students, and learning new and ever-changing technology. Most faculty report spending an additional 10 to 40 hours per week working D.C. (during COVID) compared to B.C. (before COVID). In February, FA opened discussions with the District regarding the use of Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act and COVID Relief funding to compensate faculty for this additional work. FA proposed that all full-time faculty be paid a flat amount (amount TBD) for the additional work associated with the delivery of instruction and student services in Spring 2020 and the full 2020-21 Academic Year. Part-time faculty and full-time faculty on a reduced contract (or those on PDL) would receive a proportional amount, based on load, of the full-time faculty payment. While we won’t be able to negotiate an amount equal to even a $15/hr minimum wage for 10 hours per week over the course of the four quarters, FA hopes to reach agreement on an amount that will provide some relief and recognition for all faculty. In addition to the flat payment, FA also proposed additional compensation to recognize the herculean efforts made by the directors and coordinators of our health career programs. The return to campus planning and coordination, the work with students in hospitals and the community, and the excellent leadership provided by these faculty deserves recognition. Lastly, FA proposed the creation of an “Above and Beyond” recognition award. We know the workload increased for all faculty, but some faculty took on work well above the average faculty member. This includes many department chairs and schedulers, faculty who wrote course materials and shared across an entire department to ensure continuity for students, part-time faculty who took on curriculum leadership roles due to lack of full-time faculty in a department, and faculty who, because of the nature of their assignments, had to create many more new classes (preps) for distance delivery than the average faculty member. We are hoping to negotiate a process for identifying and recognizing the additional workload for faculty who have gone above and beyond the call of duty. FA is awaiting a response to both the class size proposal and the COVID relief proposal. The next negotiations session is set for early March. A sweeping change in maximum class sizes will be a long and involved negotiation. Feel free to contact your Executive Council representative if you have any feedback or questions regarding either of these issues.
Connect on Facebook
Spotlight
Kathy Perino: Chief Negotiator
The Chief Negotiator is selected by the FA Executive Council for a
three-year term, or until the contract is signed off, subject to
review each year. The Chief Negotiator shall have served on at
least one previous negotiations team. The FHDA Faculty
Association is lucky to have Kathy Perino advocating for us.
Responsibilities:
Chairs and acts as spokesperson for the negotiating team.
Participates on the District Budget Committee.
In consort with other members of the team, develops all proposals and establishes negotiation timetables.
Acts as primary contact person for faculty regarding negotiations.
Coordinates meetings with faculty/divisions for suggestions, proposals and problems regarding proposals.
Meets with pertinent committees (i.e., part-time, retirement, fringe, etc.) to obtain data and information necessary
for writing proposals.
Attends Executive Council meetings, when necessary, to inform Council on progress of negotiations.
Attends annual FA retreat.
Keeps a record of time spent on FA business on an annual basis for audit purposes.
Meets as scheduled with the Board's representatives to negotiate a contract.
Provides for the recording of all proceedings at negotiation meetings.Writes and publishes, as directed by the Executive Council, summaries of negotiation meetings, updates, and
timely communications with FA membership.
About Kathy Perino
Kathy joined the math department at Foothill
College right out of grad school at Eastern
Washington University, where she earned an
MS in math. She is a native Californian, and if
her time at Eastern taught her anything, it
was that snow is great to visit, so back to
California she came. That was Fall 1994, and
at the time, there were only two other women
in the full-time ranks in math at Foothill.
She joined the FA negotiating team in the
Spring of 1999, before she even had tenure!
She had served on the Academic Senate one
year and a few other shared governance
committees, but she often felt frustrated by
the lack of progress in those committees. It
seemed like, and here is a familiar complaint,
there was a lot of talk but little action. She
asked a colleague in math, Tom Strand (FA
conciliator and later, the grievance officer) for
some advice regarding how to survive
committee work, and he suggested
keeping FA in mind. About two years later, the
negotiating team was recruiting, and Tom
reminded her about their previous
conversation. She applied to join the team,
and, of course, FA chose her as a trainee.
She initially joined just hoping to find a place
to fit in, and that she did! With the exception of a two year break when her twins were born, she has been involved
with negotiations ever since.
When her predecessor, Anne Paye, first tried to recruit her as the next chief negotiator, the job seemed a bit
overwhelming. Kathy claims she is actually happiest analyzing spreadsheets behind the scenes, but when FA lost
Anne to cancer sooner than expected, Kathy stepped in out of necessity. Kathy has been the chief negotiator for the
Faculty Association since Fall 2013. Occasionally, she says, she is still overwhelmed by the tasks and
responsibilities, but she loves both the people she works with in FA and the faculty in this district, so it is easy to
represent them. In FA, she says, she is “surrounded by faculty who challenge [her] thinking and honestly debate the
issues facing faculty. [She] couldn’t do this job without all the voices in FA.” When the work gets stressful, she looks
for relief in laughing and doing silly things--like putting on a prairie dress and holding a chicken? For no reason at all.
Just to be silly. In spite of the seriousness of her job, Kathy has a great sense of humor!See more about the #TargetDressChallenge
Upcoming Deadlines
Mar. 1: Full-time faculty submit written initial request for Article 18 pre-retirement reduction in
contract to college president (18.8.2, Appendix W). See 18.9 to request percentage change in
subsequent years.
Mar. 5: Part-time faculty file intention to change salary column starting in the Spring Quarter
with campus Personnel Office (Appendix B.1, C, E, G).
Mar. 15: Board notification to probationary or other faculty whose contracts will not be renewed
(California Ed. Code).
Mar. 15: Article 19 faculty submit to District Human Resources the annual Early Retirement
Service Plan for the following academic year with all required signatures for second and
subsequent years of participation (19.6.2.2, Appendix U1). See 19.6.1 for initial year of
participation.
Apr. 1: Full-time faculty submit written request to return to full-time employment status from
Article 18 pre-retirement reduction in contract (18.4).
Apr. 2: Part-time faculty submit completion of requirements documentation for column change
starting in Spring Quarter to campus Personnel Office (Appendix B.1,C, E, G).
According to the Higher Ed article "Colleges Must Take a New
Approach to Systemic Racism," Colleges must "design
programs to include mandatory courses that discuss the
various intersections of oppression in different societies rather
than leave them as electives. [...] Mandatory courses,
Part of FA monthly dues goes to the FACCC Education especially those usually taken in the first two years in college,
Institute and 100% of this amount is a charitable deduction. as well as many liberal arts requirements, have to be fully
intellectually representative, including diverse experiences into
For full-time faculty who worked all three quarters of 2020 standard courses beyond the handful of notable
and are FA members, the tax deductible amount is representatives and events. We also have to address more
171.00 ($54 each in Winter and Spring and $63 in Fall.). For strategically how academic programs are designed and what
part-time faculty who worked all three quarters of 2020, the courses are required, and vastly limit the remaining electives.deduction is 51.00 ($15 each for Winter and Spring and $21 [...] Departments should not have to compete with each other
for Fall). over student enrollment for funding. Colleges and universities
should amend processes and policies for workload
assignments, teaching schedules, [and] departmental funding
allocations"
Join FA Today
FA News is normally published nine times during the academic year by the Foothill-De Anza Faculty Association, an independent
California corporation certified by the California Public Employment Relations Board as the exclusive employee representative for
the faculty of the Foothill-De Anza Community College District. Letters and articles from District faculty are invited.The Faculty Association Office is located at 12345 El Monte Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022. We can be reached by phone at 650.949.7544
Copyright © 2021 FHDA Faculty Association. All rights reserved.
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.You can also read
