The community college mission involves "the provision of high
quality, lower division instruction for students who wish to obtain
associate degrees, transfer to a baccalaureate institution, or
prepare for an occupation as well as the provision of remedial,
English as a Second Language (ESL) and literacy instruction to
all who require those services." A CSU president said, "Clarity
of mission has most suffered in the community colleges segment.
They are mature institutions with mismatches between the skills
of the unionized faculty and the current needs of the students
and their communities." A spokesperson for the independent sector
said, "Community colleges can't be effective until they decide
what they want to do. They are simply too divided among diverse
functions without any clear state voice about which of these is
more important and how success in performing the mission ought
to be measured."
Most of those we interviewed were positive about the performance
of the community colleges, but not about the efficacy of the structure
of the community college system. Most said that they do not think
that the community colleges could reasonably be described as a
system at all. A CSU faculty leader said, "The community college
system is not a system at all." A senior staff member of the statewide
Board of Governors told us that community colleges were never
set up to be a system, adding, "The system isn't broken; it was
never set up to work in the first place. It is better to think
of the community colleges as a federation." A CSU official said,
"Everyone knows that the governance structure for community colleges
is out of whack. The story going around about the vacancy for
the position of chancellor of the California Community Colleges
is a reprise of the Groucho Marx joke: anyone who wants the job
is unqualified." One participant said simply, "The system doesn't
work."
A community college president described the state chancellor's
office as "weak," and added, "To some degree, the presidents like
that. The state board flip-flops between governance and coordination.
Governance attempts are not very warmly welcomed." A second chief
executive officer (CEO) argued, "The governance process in its
present form traps colleges and [local] trustees. If local governance
is to be maintained, the chancellor's office must take a hard
line on such issues as the amount of resources to be devoted to
operation, maintenance, and technology as opposed to collective
bargaining agreements." A third president reported that local
boards were saying to district administrators, "We don't want
you spending time with the state board; they have just created
a lot of chaos and conflict."
Local resistance to leadership attempts by the state Board of
Governors contributes to the appearance of chaos. Those who are
most affected by the lack of distinction between the responsibilities
of the local boards and the state board are the CEOs at both the
state and local levels. During our study, the system chancellor
resigned after being subjected by a majority of the board to such
humiliations as a prohibition against out-of-state travel without
specific advance authorization. Several observers suggested that
the extensive turnover of CEOs in local districts during the last
two years were related to difficulties with the governance model.
A local trustee told us, "It's very difficult to fire a chancellor,
but board members can make his life miserable." He then described
a four-to-three vote in his district which barely averted a board-generated
memo describing the board as "pro-student and pro-faculty" and
therefore not disposed to pay much attention to administrative
recommendations.
There is no consensus among policy makers about how to deal with
governance issues. A senior CPEC staff member observed that every
legislator has at least one of the 107 colleges in his or her
district, then added, "Legislators believe that nothing works
as well as it should. There are constant calls for change but
no consensus about what the nature of those changes should be."
An influential assemblyman thinks that community colleges are
doing a great job but he doesn't feel that their governance system
is functioning very well.
The combination of high partisan interest and lack of confidence
in governance leads to frequent legislative intervention. A member
of the state Board of Governors cited an instance where CPEC told
a district they could not start a campus so a bill was introduced
in the Legislature to authorize one. Recently the Board of Governors
denied a request by a community college district to place funds
in high-risk investments. The Legislature passed a bill granting
such authority. Others told us that Legislators emphasize local
control when they want to be perceived as district supporters,
and they focus on the chancellor's office when they want to get
something done
The Legislature is often seen as the arena for granting requests
or resolving disputes regarding the community colleges. Community
college CEOs, local trustees, community college administrators,
students, and classified staff all have statewide organizations
that come together under the umbrella of the Community College
League of California to develop lobbying strategies. Faculty members
are represented in Sacramento by their respective unions as well
as by the statewide Academic Senate. Beyond these collective agencies,
a president told us that regional organizations and presidents
are beginning to hire their own lobbyists as well.
The budget process begins in the chancellor's office with the
collection of information from local districts related to enrollment
growth, inflation and other indicators of fiscal need. From this
information the Board of Governors determines the full cost of
operating the community college system and submits this estimate
to the Department of Finance in late August or September in the
form of a Budget Change Proposal (BCP). The Department of Finance
uses the BCP in negotiations with the Board of Governors' staff
to develop a budget that is defended during a November meeting
with the Governor. The budget process is largely incremental since
the amount of funding for enrollments is capped. Tuition and fees
are set by the state, which is a different arrangement than for
UC and CSU.
According to the 1960 Master Plan, community colleges were to
be located throughout the state but to remain locally governed
and financed. In 1977-78, just prior to the passage of Proposition
13, community colleges received 39.6 percent of their funding
from the state and 60.3 percent from local revenue. A year later,
the funding mix was 69.2 percent from the state and 28.9 percent
from local sources. From a high of 80.6 percent in 1979-80, state
funding as a percentage of overall budgets has dropped to 37.6
percent in 1993-94, recovering to about 44 percent in 1995-96.
Both the state money and the local funding are appropriated through
the state, leading some to describe "local property tax" as a
misnomer since there is little local control over it.
By 1993-94, community colleges were receiving slightly more than
$3,000 in average revenues for a full-time-equivalent student
for instruction-related activities. This figure compared with
$9,220 for the California State University and $12,388 for the
University of California. A former UC regent said, "Community
colleges have three important missions but I don't know how the
hell they can do them given the financial resources they are provided."
Community colleges are required to submit facilities' plans and
master plans to the chancellor's office. While capital projects
are funded through general obligation or revenue bonds, rather
than the general fund, they must still be approved by the Governor.
It is a source of concern to community college advocates that
their institutions serve over one half of all students, but get
only about one-third of the funding for facilities. The state
also has about 20 categorical programs, including services for
disabled students, economic development programs, and programs
to increase transfer rates. Together these programs represent
from 10 to 15 percent of the total appropriation. Categorical
programs are subject to cuts in the budget process, however, and
are particularly vulnerable to the political process.
Legislators cannot be certain that monies appropriated for a specific
purpose will be used for that purpose. The problem is apparent
at both system and local levels. In 1993, the state identified
$90 million for enrollment increases in the community college
budget. The chancellor, however, used the money to fill in gaps
in community college funding rather than to fund enrollment increases.
The money the Legislature thought it was appropriating for enrollment
increases went to collective bargaining agreements and other purposes,
an arrangement that created a furor when it was pointed out to
legislators.
Program review, like budget development, reflects the fissures and cracks in community college governance. Districts can offer courses without approval of the Board of Governors, but they must have board approval for new programs. The chancellor's office did not review a gay and lesbian program started by the Community College of San Francisco. When legislators criticized this program, it became apparent that the college had simply put some courses together and given them a name. This type of arrangement is not covered by the program review process. In approving programs, the chancellor's office looks only at duplication with the offerings at nearby community colleges and does not consider the impact on other parts of California higher education.
Because local board members negotiate collective bargaining agreements
but are not responsible for levying the taxes to pay for them,
employees spend money and time to ensure those favorable to their
interests are elected. A faculty union representative noted that
in the Los Angeles district, the union typically contributes about
$100,000 to the candidates it backs in board races, and that this
amounts to more money than anyone else has-which is one reason
why union candidates usually win. But, he argued, "You don't buy
them; you don't even rent them for very long."
Throughout our interviews, many respondents complained about one-sided
collective bargaining agreements negotiated by boards to favor
faculty who helped them get elected. One district CEO asked rhetorically,
"Is there a conflict of interest in the development of public
policy by people who are captives of special interests?" A CSU
faculty leader told us that in his system the budget process helps
to counter-balance the effects of faculty senates and unions working
together. He added, "There is no similar counter-balance for community
colleges."
Faculty dominance of local governance through the combination
of collective bargaining, the election of faculty-friendly local
trustees, and the confusion surrounding shared governance has
real consequences for the California Community Colleges and those
they serve. Several current and former chancellors told us that
sound academic planning at the local district is the rare exception.
One added, "Curricular changes in general come from retirement."
The same chancellor described program review as "nonexistent."
We were also told that community colleges are almost entirely
"provider-driven in that faculty fill in when and what they want
to teach, not what students want or when they are available to
take classes." A trustee described the problems administrators
encountered in his district developing a board-mandated program-review
process. When asked if the process might lead to any program closures,
his response was, "I hope so." (His board was searching for a
chancellor and a president during our study.) In a different district,
a former administrator said, "The power of unions has cannibalized
the educational program." A superintendent and president decried
the adverse impact of faculty resistance to entrepreneurial activity,
noting that his district has experienced no real curriculum development
in 16 years.
Some faculty leaders see the situation differently. According
to one faculty member, shared governance has allowed the faculty
"to take back the curriculum" from administrators, and it has
made the Academic Senate "a player at the table" with regard to
campus budget decisions. Some faculty see administrators as being
at the heart of the problem. One faculty member noted, "Shared
governance will work but there must be buy-in from the top. .
. . It won't work if the CEO doesn't want it to work." Another
faculty leader argued, "If you have a CEO who really believes
in faculty primacy in academic and professional matters, then
it [shared governance] works pretty well."
Within the Los Angeles District, everyone is unionized except
for the chancellor, presidents, and vice chancellors. One observer
described the president of the district faculty union as "arguably
one of the most powerful people in California's community colleges."
A trustee told us that state law and negotiated agreements prevent
the district from moving quickly to respond to changing demands.
At one campus built in the wake of the Watts riots, an enrollment
that was 98 or 99 percent African-American is now approaching
50 percent Latino, heavily drawn from an immigrant population.
The new students need ESL courses and have packed board meeting
rooms on a number of occasions to press their demands. Adding
the necessary number of ESL courses has not been possible with
a faculty resistant to retraining and heavily oriented toward
teaching liberal arts. A campus president in the same district
said that faculty workload remains unexamined because faculty
members don't want it examined. He continued, "Administration
and the board have given up on workload and offered benefits that
are so generous as to be almost absurd. There is a guaranteed
no take-back and no layoffs. The board has offered up governance,
leaving them with no power."
In 1990, the Los Angeles board bought a building for $12 million
to use as the district office, despite the opposition of the chancellor.
The building was never occupied and may now be worth, according
to the Los Angeles Times, about $4 million. More recently, the Western Association of
Schools and Colleges deferred re-accreditation for Pierce College,
one of the district colleges, partly as a result of faculty irritation
at irregular personnel actions taken by the president. During
our study, the district chancellor was fired. He did not choose
to go gracefully, a circumstance that seemed to evoke little concern
from union leadership who, according to an informed district administrator,
don't believe that administrative leadership makes much difference.
Lack of respect from faculty leaders causes bitterness among administrators
as well as concern about the capacity of the district to attract
a qualified replacement for the departing chancellor. A chancellor
from one of California's other "big city districts" suggested
that unless the Los Angeles board is willing to make philosophical
changes, their choice of a replacement would be limited to a CEO
who makes survival an "art form."
A legislative attempt in 1988 to reform community college governance
through Assembly Bill 1725 is widely credited with making matters
worse. Local boards feel overwhelmed by the requirements for consultation.
Every decision goes through a torturous process. A member of the
state Board of Governors told us the consultative process needs
to be revised to require all stakeholders to negotiate at the
same table at the same time. The board member criticized the length
of time it takes for recommendations to surface and suggested
that the consultative process serves to deaden-rather than enhance-institutional
vision.
The degree to which boards rely on faculty in academic decision-making
in a collective bargaining environment leaves CEOs in a difficult
position. About five years ago, administrators working with faculty
created a plan to reform physical education requirements at City
College in the San Diego Community College District. A faculty
member who would have had to change his teaching schedule accepted
an incentive to retire early. After 18 months in Australia, the
faculty member came back and sued, stating that he had been forced
out. A judgment of $450,000, now on appeal, was lodged against
the District. No member of the senate or the union that had participated
in developing the retirement agreement would testify in its behalf
during the lawsuit.
Most efforts at collaboration with the UC and CSU systems occur
at the local level. Relationships are better with CSU. One chancellor
described his largely unsuccessful efforts to work with the local
UC campus: "The chancellor [of the UC campus] is up against the
wall with his faculty. They do not want any collaborative activity
with community college." At the same time, UC has strong influence
over what core courses need to look like not only for community
colleges but for CSU as well. Articulation agreements are developed
between individual campuses and faculty at the CSU campuses. A
community college trustee, also a CSU faculty member, told us
that his colleagues tend to be more flexible when they need students,
as at present. Despite some concerns about "curricular creep"
where sophomore courses taken by community college students are
not recognized as lower division courses by UC and CSU, transfer
is generally regarded as the most effectively performed mission,
especially when judged by the proportion of CSU graduates who
have previously had some community college experience.
There have also been some significant efforts at regional cooperation
and collaboration. An organization meets monthly that is comprised
of community college CEOs of the two-county area surrounding San
Diego. These sessions are attended by representatives of UC, CSU,
and independent colleges. There are sub-organizations of the vocational
deans, deans of instruction, registrars and admission officers,
and student personnel staff, as well as an annual meeting of local
trustees.
Despite governance problems, most of those we interviewed provided
positive assessments of community college performance. A UC regent
told us that community college transfers do very well and that
community colleges are the best bargain for taxpayers. A senior
UC staff member echoed this assessment, noting that 88 percent
of the system's transfer students are not initially UC-eligible.
A member of the state Board of Governors described the California
Community Colleges as "the sole savior for California." He added
that community colleges are also taking on California economic
needs and doing so very successfully. A legislative aide described
the community college system as a real strength because it provides
the opportunity always to have a second chance. The outgoing system
chancellor lauded community colleges for doing a good job with
the resources they received during recessionary years, working
hard to retrain the work force, and to satisfy other needs despite
the fiscal constraints they faced. A former UC regent described
community colleges as "almost the opportunity of last resort."
Many who praised community colleges for their positive contributions were worried about the future. A trustee from an urban district told us that the funding and governance problems in community colleges will inhibit effectiveness unless they are fixed fast enough to prevent decline. He added, "We may be teaching smaller numbers of students as well, or we may be teaching the same number much less well." Another observer said, "We are probably more efficient than we are effective, partly because we are open-access. We do more with $3,500 per student than some of the other segments with double and sometimes triple that amount of money." A state senator echoed the concern about access, describing the "hemorrhaging of students during the past five years mostly from community colleges." And a district CEO who described diversity among faculty and students as a strength noted it was also a weakness because the diversity had not been integrated into the curriculum.
[ DOWNLOAD | CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT ]
[ HOME | REPORTS | CROSSTALK | RESOURCES | ORDER ]