DOCUMENT RESUME JC 940 465, ED 373 816 Flanigan, Patricia K. AUTHOR California Community Colleges Faculty Role in Shared TITLE Governance. PUB DATE 94 30p.; Printed on colored paper. NOTE Research/Technical (143) Reports PUB TYPE Tests /Evaluation Instruments (160) MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. EDRS PRICE *College Governing Councils; Community Colleges; DESCRIPTORS *Governance; Governing Boards; Two Year Colleges *California Community Colleges; *Shared Governance IDENTIFIERS ABSTRACT In November 1993, the chief executive officers (CEO's) and academic senate presidents at all 107 California community colleges were surveyed regarding faculty members' role in shared governance. Study findings, based on an 84% response rate, (1) the CEO's and senate presidents agreed included the following: that faculty were greatly involved in the decision-making process in the areas of academic and professional matters, and were generally satisfied with current levels of faculty involvement in these areas; (2) senate presidents were less satisfied that CEO's with the level of faculty involvement in institutional planning, budget development, (3) both groups and district and college governance structures; agreed that personal agendas and "we/they" mentality, distrust between faculty and trustees, budgetary constraints, legal accountability remaining with the board and administration, and lack of faculty understanding and interest impeded the strengthening of (4) senate the faculty role in academic and professional matters; presidents indicated that faculty were relied upon in decision making in matters of curriculum, grading policies, and degree and certificate requirements, but felt that processes for institutional planning and budgeting were still under administrative control; and (5) both groups perceived recent increases in faculty involvement. The survey instruments are included. Based on study findings, recommendations were developed for managing the evolutionary process of shared governance more effectively. (KP) **********************************************mc*********************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** California Community College System Faculty Role in Shared Governance. Patricia K. Flanigan or -PERMISSION TO US 01EPANTMENT EDUATION REPRODUCE THIS Ofhce MATERIAL HAS rn Educehonat Aaseatch and iCmphaveent BEEN GRANTED BY RESOURCES EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION CENTER tERIc) P. Flanigan KTh.s document Pas been ,eoroduced as ,ecahved from the oe,son or 0,0anyzah0n ohgthilihQ $1 C Mai 0t changes have been made 10 ohp3va ,110,0400.0h Quail ly TO THE Po.ntsot new ol dan.OASSialeCIIn"..SCK" EDUCATIONAL mnt do rbt neC RESOURCES essaniv ,edtesent INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)." 0041 pos.t.on ot 001,CY 2 Kg COPY AVAILABLE California Community Colleges FACULTY ROLE IN SHARED GOVERNANCE PRELIMINARY REPORT The responses to the Shared Governance Survey, distributed to the Chief Executive Officers and Academic Senate Presidents of all 107 California Community Colleges in the fall of 1993, are hased on a high return rate. The overall response rate was 84 percent; 86 percent of the college presidents and 82 percent of the senate presidents returned surveys. RATINGS OF CHANGE DUE TO ASSEMBLY BILL 1725 Respondents generally agreed that As.,ctnb/y Bill 1725 had led to positive change at their colleges. They noted some improvement in the level of faculty involvement on pertinent institutional committees, cross-institutional representation of faculty on these committees, and the quality of final insCtutional committee reports and recommendations to their Board. As the graph below shows, Academic Senate Presidents tended to indicate that the level of cooperation, mutual trust, and shared values between faculty and administration was slightly worse. Respondents from both samples were less positive about changes in the quality of institutional committee meetings. MEAN RESPONSES RATING CHANGE DUE TO ASSEMBLY BILL 1725 Faculty on institutional committees Cross-institutional representation -- . monirmirl Cooperation, trust, & shared values Quality: committee meetings Quality: reports & recommendations 111=.-r-r-r-r- 1111 1-111 4 5 2 3 0 CEO's II Senate Presidents 1 =much worse; 5=much hetter Scale: 1 3 FACULTY INVOLVEMENT The Chief Executive Officers and Academic Senate Presidents agreed that faculty are greatly involved in the decision-making process in areas of academic and Responses indicate that the Chief Executive Officers see professional matters. faculty as more involved than they are seen by Academic Senate Presidents. The following graph shows the average rankings of faculty involvement by sample. MEAN RESPONSES RATING FACULTY INVOLVEMENT IN AREAS OF ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL MATTERS Curriculum Degree and certificate requirements Grading policies L Educational program development Student preparation and success Governance structures Accreditation Faculty professional development Program review Institutional planning and budgeting 1111 Senate Presidents CEO's 1=very little extent; 5=very great extent Scale: 4 2 FACULTY INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES Respondents were generally satisfied with current levels of faculty involvement in decision -mc king processes in areas of academic and professional matters. Chief Executive Officers, however, were more satisfied than Academic Senate Presidents. The graph below shows the average rankings of satisfaction with faculty involvement in the decision-making processes in these areas. Note that Academic Senate Presidents were less satisfied with the level of involvement in institutional planning and budget development and district and college governance structures MEAN RESPONSES RATING SATISFACTION WITII CURRENT LEVELS OF FACULTY INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES Curriculum Degree and certificate requirements Grading policies Educational program development Student preparation and success 4 5 2 3 1 Governance structures Accreditation Faculty professional development Program review Institutional planning and budgeting 5 CEO's Senate Presidents IIII Scale: 1=very dissatisfied; 5=very satisfied 5 3 FACTORS IMPEDING STRENGTHENING OF FACULTY'S ROLE IN ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL MATTERS Academic Senate Presidents were more likely than Chief Executive Officers to view factors as impediments to strengthening the faculty role relative to academic and professional matters at their colleges. The graph below details the mean responses Both groups agreed that personal agendas and we /they of the two samples. mentality, distrust between faculty and administration, distrust between faculty and board of trustees, budgetary constraints, legal accountability remaining with the governing board and administration, and lack of faculty understanding and interest were impediments. Academic Senate Presidents also saw lack of commitment of administrators to share the decision-making process with faculty, the lack of faculty release time or pay compensation to serve on pertinent institutional committees, and poor communication between faculty and administrators vs impeding a stronger faculty role in shared governance. MEAN RESPONSES RATING FACTORS IMPEDING STRENGTHENING OF FACULTY'S ROLE IN ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL MATTERS Distrust: faculty & administration Distrust: faculty & board Administrators' lack commitment Administrative/faculty balance Budgetary constraints Board/Admin have legal authority Role of classified staff & students 0 3 4 5 2 1 Faculty lack release time/pay Faculty lack training/understanding Faculty lack interest Poor communication (fac/admin) Personal agendas "We/they" mentality 4 0 5 2 3 1 II Senate Presidents ri.3 CEO's little extent; 5 =very great extent Scale: 0=very 4 6 FACULTY ROLE IN SHARED GOVERNANCE Only Academic Senate Presidents were asked to identify the decision-making methods used to consult collegially about 10 academic topics. The following graph shows the percentages who responded according to the three response categories: rely primarily upon, mutual agreement, and administrative control. Rely primarily upon played the largest role in matters of curriculum, grading policies, and degree and certificate requirements. PERCENTAGES OF ACADEMIC SENATE PRESIDENTS IDENTIFYING DECISION-MAKING METHODS USED, BY ACADEMIC TOPIC I Curriculum Degree/certificate requirements Grading policies Educational program development Preparation/success standards 10 70 20 30 40 50 60 College governance structures Faculty in accreditation process Professional development policies Program review processes L Planning/budget development NEE Till Till , 111,1 30 20 50 40 70 60 10 0 PERCENT Rely Primarily Upon Mutual Agreement Administative Control 5 RESPONDENTS The respondents varied according to years of experience and gender, and their colleges varied according to location, student enrollment and fiscal condition. The senate presidents tended to have been their current colleges longer than the campus presidents. The majority of the CEO's had been in their current positions at their present institutions for 5 or less years. Many had apparently been the president of another institution before their current assignment, since the average CEO had been a chief executive 3 to 10 years. The Academic Senate Presidents tended to have been at their colleges for 11 or more years, but they had only been in the senate for 3 to 5 years. The majority of the respondents in each sample were men. 71.7% of the CEO's were male. 59.1% of the Academic Senate Presidents were men. Respondents were almost evenly representative of Northern and Southern California schools and urban, suburban, rural campuses. 52.3% of the CEO's were from community colleges in Northern California. 56% of the Academic Senate Presidents were from Southern California colleges. Although the urban, suburban, rural split was almost evenly divided, there were slightly more Academic Senate Presidents from urban campuses and CEO's from suburban colleges. Respondents tended to be at campuses with less than 10,000 credit students. 51.1% of the Academic Senate Presidents and 45.7% of the chief executives were from colleges with under 10,000 credit students. Respondents tended to agree that their colleges were not in good fiscal condition. The CEO's were slightly more pessimistic than presidents of Academic Senates. 9.8% of the chief executives and 14.8% of the Academic Senate Presidents indicated that their colleges were in good or very good fiscal condition. 41.3% of the CEO's and 39.8% cf the Academic Senate Presidents noted that their colleges were in fair condition. 48.9% of the chief executive officers and 45.5% of the presidents of the Academic Senates responded that their colleges' fiscal condition was either bad or very bad. 6 8 Executive Summary CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM FACULTY ROLE IN SHARED GOVERNANCE prepared by Patricia K. Flanigan, Professor Mt. San Antonio College March 14, 1994 INTRODUCTION In November of 1993, a survey on the faculty role in shared governance was distributed to the Chief Executive Officers and Academic Senate Presidents of 107 California Community Colleges. The overall response rate was 84 percent; 86 percent of the CEOs and 82 percent of the senate presidents returned surveys. The purpose of this report is to summarize the survey results and, based upon these results, provide implications and recommendations for consideration within the community college system. SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS This survey measured perceptions regarding: (1) the statewide faculty governance role since AB 1725 and (2) the impact and barriers of this reform relative to academic and professional matters. According to the results of this survey; within the community college system, faculty have become more involved in the governance process in both the traditional areas such as curriculum, grading policies, and graduatior requirements and nontraditional areas such as governance structures and institutional planning and budgeting relative to academic and professional matters. Most college districts use either "rely primarily upon" or "mutual agreement" to consult collegially. However, in processes for institutional planning and budget development, administrative control is still perceived by Academic Senate Presidents to be strong (almost 40 percent). Respondents are generally satisfied with current levels of faculty involvement in academic and professional matters, except for the areas of governance structures and institutional planning and budgeting. In these two nontraditional areas, faculty are less satisfied and appear to want a higher level of involvement. In terms of impact, both CEOs and Academic Senate Presidents indicate that faculty Despite this increased involvement on institutional committees has increased. involvement, both also agree that the levels of cooperation, trust, and shared values, quality of committee meetings, and quality of committee reports and recommendations to the Board of Trustees have not changed much with shared governance. Academic Senate Presidents see distrust between faculty and administration and the lack of faculty release time and faculty interest as three key barriers to the strengthening of the faculty role in shared governance. Both CEOs and Academic Senate Presidents agree that personal agendas and "we/they" mentality represent additional major impediments. 9 _ - IMPLICATIONS Since the implementation of Assembly Bill 1725 in 1988, the shared governance process has evolved to varying degrees within the community college system. While this evolution is continuous, its direction in the individual districts and colleges is enhanced and altered by the college leadership and participation of its administration, faculty, classified staff, and students. The results of this survey imply that the faculty role in shared governance has increased in both the traditional and nontraditional areas of academic and professional matters. These results also indicate that despite increased faculty involvement, the level of trust between faculty and administration/ Board of Trustees and the committee meetings and reports and recommendations to local Boards are not perceived to have changed much. There appear to be two elements that adversely affect the successful implementation of faculty governance within local college districts. They are: (1) the 'balkanization" of the decision-making process whereby shared governance slows down and fails to meet the immediate needs of a rapidly changing environment and (2) special interest groups of administrators, faculty, and classified staff which have a tendency to focus more on their needs than on the global needs of the college community. RECOMMENDATIONS In order to more effectively manage the evolutionary process of shared governance, the Board of Governors and local college districts might want to consider the following: consolidating the various parties of interest into a single, institutional (1) Faculty would be joined by shared governance or advisory council. administrators, classified staff and students to comprise a single body which would make final recommendations regarding shared governance issues to the CEO and Board of Trustees. limiting institutional committees to no more than ten members which (2) include appropriate balance and representation of committee members from administrators, faculty, classified staff, and students. Groups larger than ten are inclined to divide into subgroups and become unmanageable. developing and implementing professional development activities to (3) enhance team facilitation, conflict management, decision-making, and leadership skills on all campus-wide committees, including the institutional advisory council and academic and classified senates. This training process would focus on creating team cohesiveness by building group trust, identity, mutual cooperation, and shared values. i0