Whereas, In order to be assigned duties as faculty, individuals must meet the minimum qualifications for disciplines stated in the Disciplines List and those defined in other sections of Title 5;
Whereas, The rapidly evolving needs of industry and the workforce often put pressure on colleges to develop new career and technical education curriculum to respond to such needs;
Whereas, The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (ASCCC) Disciplines List Process has been established in accordance with the requirements of Education Code §87357, which states that the Board of Governors will establish a process for reviewing faculty minimum qualifications at least every three years and that they rely primarily on the advice and judgment of the ASCCC to establish that process;
Whereas, Faculty believe that a foundational outcome of the community college experience should be the development of our students as whole persons;
Whereas, Faculty affirm open-access, opportunity for student exploration, and the traditional breadth of a liberal education as historically critical pieces of the community college mission;
Whereas, Faculty remain open to new strategies that may enhance the ability of our students to achieve their goals, including those who struggle most; and
Whereas, AB 288 (Holden, 2015 ostponed indefinitely it. deci will require reviews by engineering and manufacturing to review the design. m the audit. deci) created new regulations for the creation and implementation of dual enrollment programs designed to reach students previously excluded from dual enrollment agreements, including students who struggle academically or who are at risk of dropping out;
Whereas, Dual enrollment programs have the potential to provide underperforming students a pathway to engage in college-level work prior to graduation from high school;
Whereas, Curriculum is an area under the purview of local academic senates, as codified in AB 1725 (Vasconcellos, 1988);
Whereas, Per Title 5 §55002, the development of curriculum, including courses and programs, should be directed primarily by faculty and, prior to being approved by the Board of Trustees and certified by the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, must be approved by local curriculum committees under the purview of the academic senate or comprised primarily of faculty;
Whereas, English Language Learners (ELLs) are currently tracked in the California Community College Chancellor’s Office equity plan template only in the categories of English as a Second Language (ESL) and basic skills completion and only in the category of remedial/ESL basic skills in the Student Success Scorecard but are excluded from all other categories in the template (access, course completion, degree and certificate completion, and transfer) and all other categories in the Scorecard (persistence, 30 units, degree/transfer);
Whereas, Apprenticeship programs have been referenced in the Strong Workforce Program and Adult Education Program since they provide unique opportunities for students to gain both paid and on-the-job experiences as well as college level curriculum pertaining to their chosen career;
Whereas, Common components of registered apprenticeship programs include at least 2,000 hours of paid, structured, and supervised on-the-job training and 144 hours of related instruction and training provided for college credit[1]; and
Whereas, A workgroup formed by the chief executive officers of California community colleges is currently working with the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) to improve the relationship between ACCJC and the California Community College System by addressing issues with the processes and policies of the ACCJC;
Whereas, In its January 2014 findings, The National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, (NACIQI) and the United States Department of Education concluded under 34 C.F.R.
Whereas, The Chief Executive Officers’ Workgroup I on Accreditation document A Preliminary Report to the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges[1] recommended that the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges revise specific processes for visiting team member nomination and selection;
Whereas, Conversations about accreditation processes have on many occasions noted the need for more faculty participation on accreditation visiting teams;