|
STAFF DEVELOPMENT NEWS |
 by Elizabeth Fremgen, Staff Development Officer
Staff
Development Funding Faces Elimination From a 4C/SD position paper (March 2002) responding to
the governor's proposed 2002-2003 budget The elimination of all funds in the Faculty and Staff Development Fund (AB
1725) and the training funds in the Telecommunications and Technology (TTIP)
in the governor's proposed budget triggered the need for this position
paper for 2002-03. The California Community College Council for
Staff and Organizational Development (4C/SD), on behalf of faculty and
staff development coordinators and programs, respectfully submits this
position paper, providing accurate information so that the wisest
decisions possible can be made in a time of fiscal constraints. Beginning in January 1987, the Faculty and Staff Development Fund (AB 1725)
was funded at $5.2 million, approximately one-half of one percent of its
recommended two percent of the community colleges' There is no question that well-trained faculty, administrators, and The California community colleges educate and train 1.5 million students,
the largest single source of California's well-trained employees who
support that economy. It is imperative that faculty stay current in
their disciplines and in teaching/learning strategies if they are to
continue to educate and train students. It also is imperative that
administrators and classified staff stay current in their fields.
Restored AB 1725 and TTIP training funds will allow faculty,
administrators, and staff to maintain their excellence through
on-campus, off-campus, and on-line programs. Student population is projected to continue its increase. During the With these categorically funded programs, California community colleges
planned, implemented and evaluated a wide variety of programs that met
the priority training and development needs of faculty, administrators,
and classified staff. In recent years, these programs focused on
four areas of need: diversity, new employee skill-building
/orientation/mentoring, technology, and learning assessment and/or
outcomes. Many examples of the kind of programs that were planned,
implemented and assessed are included in this paper. What faculty and staff are expected to know and do has increased in amount
and complexity. Faculty now need to stay current in quickly changing
subject matter, skills, and attitudes, as well as teaching and learning
strategies to meet the needs of one of the most diverse student
populations in the country. Administrators and staff need to stay
current in their understanding of the cultural and psychological factors
that affect student learning and success. For all employees,
training in the continued use of technology as a tool to provide
teaching and support services effectively and efficiently is
critical. Training and orientation to the diverse and special needs
of community college students is critical to avoid costly litigation
resulting from inadequately trained faculty and staff. None of this can be accomplished without an on-going, comprehensive and
systematic faculty and staff and development program. It demands
long-range planning, diversity of approach and experiential learning. It
has been suggested that faculty and staff development needs can be met
with Partnership for Excellence or general funds. At least four facts
refute this notion: (1) Small colleges: Without categorical funding, faculty and staff
development programs at small colleges likely will completely disappear.
Many of these programs are totally funded with AB 1725 and TTIP. (2) Competition: Without categorical funding, limited funds at all colleges will make it
difficult, if not impossible, to compete against other needs, including
part-time faculty salaries and office hours, which usually are set aside
in the collective bargaining arena. (3) Seed money: Categorical funding, both AB 1725 and TTIP, have provided "seed"
money for many new and innovative programs that then went on to attract
other sources of internal or external funding. Without this funding,
there will be fewer new and innovative programs. (4) Statewide priority: The total elimination of AB 1725 and TTIP training funds
makes a statement that is not justified on any rational ground: that
training California community college employees is not an essential
function of the state. This is a strange statement for the largest
system of higher education on the planet to make, especially given the
huge and positive impact of community colleges on the economy. It has
been suggested that faculty and staff development programs can be
decentralized at each college, that they do not require central
coordination. This suggestion is naive, based on a lack of
understanding of what campus-based coordination and state and national
networking among faculty and staff development officers has
accomplished. Recently, the Joint Committee to Develop a Master Plan for
Education, 2002, stated that California colleges should develop an
infrastructure to support the on-going professional development to
improve the quality of teaching and promote student learning. At the
community college level, the infrastructure already exists; it is now
in danger of disappearing! RECOMMENDATION: |