PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
The PPD work group identified five areas of major concern regarding the
professional development of faculty and leaders for California's public colleges
and universities.
California's tradition of providing high quality opportunities for higher education rests in large measure on the performance and talents of the faculty members employed in its public colleges and universities. During this decade, the faculties of these institutions will undergo dramatic changes that will have a significant impact on the nature and quality of higher education in California for the foreseeable future. An estimated 35,000 new faculty will need to be hired from 2000 to 2010 to respond to a projected student population growth of 714,000 and an unprecedented number of faculty retirements.[15] More specifically, California community colleges anticipate hiring about 18,000 full-time faculty; the CSU projects a need for 10,200 tenure track faculty; and the UC is planning for 7,000 new ladder-rank faculty. In addition, the state's independent colleges and universities indicate a need for about 6,000 tenure track faculty. California higher education has never faced such a hiring challenge, and it comes at a time when faculty shortages are projected throughout the nation.
At UC and CSU, a doctoral degree is typically required for faculty, whereas possession of a master’s degree is considered a minimum requirement for faculty at the community college level. About 22 percent of all CSU and UC faculty earned their degrees from UC, and the overwhelming majority, 78 percent, earned them from other institutions inside and outside of California. If the University of California is successful in increasing its current doctoral production by one-third to one-half over the next decade, it will increase the proportion of UC and CSU faculty with UC doctorates to 33 percent over time. While helpful, unfortunately these efforts will not alleviate the current shortage because: (1) it will take 5–8 years before a substantial increase in the number of doctoral graduates occurs; and (2) even the projected increase in the doctoral production will only have an impact on filling a maximum of under one-third of the 17,000 positions required by UC and CSU. The situation is less severe with regard to California Community Colleges. Many of their full-time faculty are hired from the part-time pool. Although the supply of graduates with master's degrees may partially fill the gap, there is still a need for additional full-time faculty.
Another major challenge facing all systems is the recruitment of diverse candidates. The lack of diversity among graduate students in California does not present a promising scenario. More aggressive recruitment from other states is warranted. However, about 40 percent of graduate students at CSU are people from underrepresented ethnic and racial groups. One avenue for increased diversity could be "pipeline" programs that tap in to the diversity of these graduate students and ensure they advance to doctoral programs.
Other factors mitigate California's ability to attract and retain quality faculty. California faculty salaries are below their comparison institutions and California’s high cost of living is a significant barrier. Inadequate office space and lack of on-going support for professional development further hinder recruitment as does relative high teaching loads in the CSU.
There are already signs of concern. Decline in the overall success rate of filling vacant positions in the CSU lends support to the concerns that California needs to be more competitive to attract a committed and quality faculty. The success rate in hiring tenure track faculty declined from 79.2 percent for fall 1996 to 75.1 percent for fall 2000. This situation occurred at the same time the number of searches increased from 506 to 937 tenure track positions.[16]
Faculty hiring in California is not keeping pace with the need for educators to teach the next generation of teachers and administrators. The shortage in qualified applicants for faculty positions in Education is due not only to the factors cited above but also the urgent need to increase the number of graduates from teacher education programs willing to accept employment in California’s public schools. In 2000, CSU conducted 192 faculty searches in Education and only 64.1 percent of them were filled. The average number of applications per position (11) was far below the average applications for all fields (27). Of special concern is the fact that 41 percent of all the searches in teacher education went unfilled.[17]
California colleges and universities have as their core responsibility the provision of comprehensive and high quality educational experiences that optimize student learning. Instructional quality is key to meeting this responsibility. Essential in this regard is faculty knowledge and understanding about instructional processes, the design and development of curriculum, the assessment of learning, and the identification of student needs. Further, faculty knowledge about teaching and learning in diverse classrooms and the appropriate integration of technology into teaching and the curriculum are critically important to the achievement of all students. In general, most doctoral programs do not incorporate preparation in these areas into their core curriculum.
Recent efforts to improve college teaching have sought to restructure the teaching role of faculty. On the whole, these initiatives have resulted in individual and groups of faculty members revising their approaches to teaching to promote student learning in individual courses and programs, but they have not resulted in systematic, campus-wide change. As a result, there is a need for new strategies that address systemic and cultural issues within the institution and, at the same time, provide “structural invitations and incentives” for faculty to participate in efforts to improve teaching and learning.[18] Of special importance in this regard is the exemplary work and strategies of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. In addition, several universities have developed comprehensive infrastructures that support the development of faculty as excellent teachers and facilitators of student learning.
The tremendous number of faculty to be hired in all higher education segments over the next 10 years provides an unprecedented opportunity to influence the quality of teaching and learning in California for the next several decades. Policies and strategies must be suited to local contexts and specific segments. Within this context, change will be facilitated by modifying doctoral and master's programs to place increased emphasis on developing knowledge and skill in teaching in the disciplines, thus having an impact on the teaching-related sophistication among new hires. It will also be facilitated by increased emphasis on candidates' expertise in teaching and learning during the hiring process and providing for a continuum of professional development throughout a faculty member's career. Important to the process will be the expansion of means for intellectual exchange and growth of the knowledge base about teaching and learning.
The patterns of faculty hiring have changed in recent decades. The proportion of temporary, non-tenure track faculty has increased dramatically. Part-timers (temporary faculty hired in less than full-time positions) have escalated from about 22 percent of all faculty (headcount) in the early 1970s, to 33 percent in the mid-1980s to 38 percent in the early 1990s.[19] In fact, the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) estimated that 43 percent of all faculty in the US were employed part-time in fall 1998 and may be approaching 50 percent. Of these faculty, about one quarter held doctorates, one half had master’s degrees or their equivalents and one-quarter bachelor’s degree or lower (NCES). Adding to this situation is the large number of full-time appointments that are term limited (probationary and fixed contract), further reducing the proportion of full-time, tenure-track faculty at colleges and universities. [20]
Part-time faculty members offer benefits to colleges and universities. They often bring real-life experiences and practical skills to students and add to the diversity of faculty in many different ways. At the same time, they allow more flexibility in instructional resources and at lower costs to the institutions than tenure track, full-time faculty. In short, part-time faculty members are a valued part of the higher education landscape. The growing concern about them is not related to the areas of their contributions but rather how their growing numbers impact the ability of institutions to carry out the full range of activities necessary to fulfilling their missions. Part-time faculty members usually do not participate in curriculum review and development, personnel hiring, promotion and tenure review; student admissions, major advisement and retention initiatives; and other important faculty responsibilities. These activities comprise an essential part of the academic and student affairs of a campus. Further, part-time faculty members are less available to interact with students out-of-class and engage in student mentoring and advising. Nationally, these responsibilities are falling to a declining proportion of full-time faculty members. This situation has resulted in concerns about appropriate staffing for the full range of institutional responsibilities and functions.
Recognizing the need for a better balance between part-time and full-time faculty in community colleges, in 1987 the Legislature passed AB 1725 (Vasconcellos, Ch 973/88) which sought to reduce the number of part-time faculty. While it has not achieved its goals, some progress has been made. Recently, the CSU Senate issued a report expressing concern about the overuse of part-time faculty.[21] Last year, a coalition of 25 academic societies drew national attention to this segment of higher education faculty.[22] The concern regarding the balance is apparent. More information is needed about this important matter especially regarding the impact of patterns of faculty hiring on academic functioning of institutions.
The 2000 report of the Community College Leadership Development Initiative documented some of the leadership challenges facing California community colleges.[23] In particular, the report noted that political factions sometimes prevent campuses from making important decisions; the frequent turnover of executive officers, and low campus morale has contributed to a deterioration of institutional effectiveness. With regard to leadership positions, the average length of tenure for a community college chief executive officer is 4.4 years in California compared to an average of 7.5 years nationally. Further, smaller numbers of well-qualified people are seeking administrative leadership roles due not only to the leadership challenges, but also to the lack of retreat rights to tenured faculty positions and competitive job salaries. This situation exists at a time when in the next ten years California will need an estimated 360 new community college academic administrators. [24]
Today’s community colleges must address the academic achievement of all students. The dramatic demographic changes in the cultural and linguistic diversity of students challenge these institutions to modify their curricula and instructional strategies to better meet the needs of diverse learners. Community college leaders need to be equipped with the knowledge, understandings and skills to develop and implement comprehensive programs to assure the success of all students. The University of California and CSU have important roles in this arena and are considering new and expanded programs to support the development of community college leaders and strengthen this vital segment of higher education. Of particular importance is the need for data-driven accountability mechanisms that inform policymakers about the quality of these programs.
Many studies have documented the critical importance of school site and
district leadership to student performance. These jobs are becoming increasingly
demanding and complex, and there is high turnover in them. Further, many of the
responsibilities that historically had been those of the superintendent (the
traditional Ed.D. seeker) have shifted to the school principal. Advanced
graduate training can provide much of the knowledge, skills and understandings
to be successful in educational leadership positions in the changing, diverse
and challenging environments that exist in our communities today.
California public and private colleges and universities currently do not offer sufficient numbers of doctorate programs to K–12 and community college personnel who want to seek this degree to better meet the needs of their students and institutions, as well as satisfy their desire to be well educated and current in their field. California relies on private, independent colleges and universities for about 70 percent of its doctorate-holders in K–12 education.[25] Of particular concern is California's lack of investment to current and future leaders’ access to high quality, affordable and applied education doctorate programs which would enhance their performance and, in turn, that of their institutions and students. It should be noted that program quality review by the CTC does not include doctoral level programs. However, some national accrediting bodies have this review authority, and the California Postsecondary Education Commission reviews new programs. The recent agreement between the University of California and the California State University to offer more joint doctoral programs to prepare K–12 and community college leaders is an encouraging step forward to increase the number of quality education doctoral programs. However, in order to ensure success, the agreement must address strategies for implementation, and establish timelines and accountability mechanisms.
Recommendation 10.0: Increase the capability of California colleges and universities to attract and hire qualified faculty members by:
Recommendation 11.0: California colleges and universities should develop an infrastructure to support the ongoing professional development of faculty in order to improve the quality of teaching and promote student learning. The components of this infrastructure include: (1) the integration of teaching and learning curricula into master’s and doctoral programs, (2) the inclusion of teaching expertise and experience when hiring decisions are made, (3) continuous faculty development support throughout faculty careers, including at least one year of focused support upon appointment as a faculty member, (4) the development of an organizational structure that supports and rewards teaching excellence and the scholarship of teaching throughout a faculty member’s career, (5) sustained efforts to make teaching and the scholarship of teaching more highly valued aspects of faculty culture, (6) the expansion and dissemination of the knowledge base about college teaching and learning, including the establishment of a statewide center on teaching and learning, and (7) the preparation of experts in the field of teaching and learning.
Recommendation 11.1: The state should provide significant financial support to develop the infrastructure in California colleges and universities to improve teaching and learning.
Recommendation 11.2: To assure the development, implementation, and effectiveness of the infrastructure for the improvement of college teaching and learning, the following entities and individuals should be responsible and accountable:
State Policymakers: Assure that policies to facilitate the development and implementation of the infrastructure are in place and resources are allocated to build and maintain the system.
Governing Boards: Assure that policies support the development and implementation of the infrastructure and review the effectiveness of faculty development programs. Hold the system and campus CEO’s responsible for the appropriate functioning of their programs.
Intersegmental councils: Provide avenues for exchange of ideas regarding best practices as well as challenges and solutions regarding the improvement of teaching and learning.
System offices: Provide to their respective governing boards regular reports that summarize and comment on campus and systemwide faculty instructional development activities, including evaluative information. System CEOs should include consideration of campus success in faculty development in their annual reviews of campus presidents.
Campus leadership: Be responsible for the development and implementation of faculty development programs on their respective campuses. They should provide yearly reports of the planning, implementation, and evaluation of programs designed to increase faculty capacity to promote student learning, including campus objectives, needs, and expenditures in this area. Campus leaders should assure that recruitment procedures and support for new faculty place an emphasis on teaching ability and development.
Faculty: Participate actively in the design, implementation, and evaluation of faculty development programs.
Accrediting agencies. As part of its accreditation process, ascertain the extent to which faculty members are engaged in reflection on and improvement of their teaching practices and the extent to which members of their diverse student body benefit from the instruction they receive.
Recommendation 12.0: Commission a study to evaluate the impact of the increasing utilization of temporary faculty (part-time and full-time) that examines: (1) the depth of the preparation of temporary faculty in teaching strategies/student learning; (2) the impact of temporary faculty on student outcomes and advisement; and (3) the impact of temporary faculty on the ability of tenure track faculty to fulfill all other responsibilities and expectations.
Recommendation 13.0: The state should take steps to ensure qualified leadership for California community colleges.
Recommendation 13.1: Develop and offer preparation and ongoing professional development programs for community college leadership at the University of California and the California State University. Community college leaders should be involved in the development and implementation of these programs.
Recommendation 13.2: Establish state funded fellowship programs to support talented individuals to pursue graduate studies in community college leadership.
Recommendation 13.3: Establish a state or campus-based research and policy center devoted to community college professional development and leadership issues.
Recommendation 13.4: Ensure improved terms and conditions of employment in community colleges, including competitive salaries for its leadership positions and authorization to offer qualified administrators retreat rights to tenured faculty positions
Recommendation 13.5: UC and CSU, in conjunction with the California Postsecondary Education Commission and the Community College Chancellor’s Office, should consider developing accountability mechanisms and issuing regular reports on the preparation and professional development programs for community college leaders.
Recommendation 13.6: The Community Colleges Office of the
Chancellor should consider issuing yearly reports related to the recruitment and
retention of community college leaders.
Recommendation 14.0: Develop
new and expanded education doctorate programs in the public sector in
collaboration with K–12 educational leaders and community colleges that
are:
Recommendation 14.1: The UC and CSU should report yearly on education doctorate progress, timelines and other accountability mechanisms such as number of students served, student satisfaction, and accreditation status.
| Table of Contents | |||
| Summary | Introduction | K-12 | Responses |
| Recommendations | Colleges | References | Members |