“When Did We Decide That?”: Delineation of the 10+1 in Local Governance Documents

ASCCC North Representative

As part of standards published by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, institutions need to demonstrate that “The institution regularly reviews institutional policies, procedures, and publications to assure integrity in all representations of its mission, programs, and services” (ACCJC Standard I.C.5). Many California community college districts have set various calendars and processes for how a local senate and faculty participate in this review. This fact is especially true for any policy that impacts academic and professional matters as outlined in Title 5 §53200, colloquially known as the "10 +1".

According to Title 5 §53200 (d), “collegial consultation” is defined and further bifurcated to be either “relies primarily” on the advice and judgment of the academic senate or reaching “mutual agreement” as it relates to academic and professional matters as listed in Title 5 §53200 (c). In past years, the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges has provided many presentations and publications outlining the historical creation of academic senates and their purview that has been codified in law. The recently updated ASCCC Local Senates Handbook is a great resource to share with new faculty or for those who would like a refresher on that history. [1]

In the Yuba Community College District, according to local board policy (BP) on “Participation in Local Decision-Making,” the 10+1 items numbered one through three are considered “rely primarily” and numbered items four through ten are “mutual agreement.” During a routine and scheduled review that raised this BP for a perfunctory review, participants posed what seemed to be a simple question: When did the college decide which of the 10+1 are "rely primarily" and which are "mutual agreement"? As the participants began to realize that they did not have the institutional history to answer this question, one began a local quest to find it. He sought assistance from district staff to find historical records, leading to many scanned documents that were originally developed on a typewriter and filed in a cabinet. He then reacquainted himself to the historical context for the establishment of these requirements, which included a review of the original text for the Community College Reform Act (AB 1725, Vasconcellos, 1988) and other support documents that were shared at the time with local districts to help implement the new reforms. Ultimately, he determined that when the district established this new required policy, the delineation was set and has been the status quo for roughly 35 years since. Many other districts likely share similar histories.

A recent systematic review of board policies from districts around the community college system revealed the various ways in which academic and professional matters are delineated at different institutions. The chart below summarizes the number of districts that have identified the delineation of collegial consultation with a percentage from the entire review of 73 college district policies.

Summary of California Community Colleges Delineation of the 10+1

Area of Academic and Professional Matters Rely Primarily Mutual Agreement Not Delineated
1. Curriculum, including establishing prerequisites and placing courses within disciplines 53 73% 6 8% 14 19%
2. Degree and certificate requirements 53 73% 5 7% 14 19%
3. Grading Policies 53 73% 6 8% 14 19%
4. Educational program development 30 41% 29 40% 14 19%
5. Standards or policies regarding student preparation and success 41 56% 18 25% 14 19%
6. District governance structures, as related to faculty roles 24 33% 35 48% 14 19%
7. Faculty roles and involvement in accreditation processes, including self-study and annual reports 29 40% 30 41% 14 19%
8. Polices for faculty professional development activities 41 56% 18 25% 14 19%
9. Processes for program review 23 32% 36 49% 14 19%
10. Process for institutional planning and budget development 19 26% 40 55% 14 19%

Initial observations from this data include the following: 14 college districts did not offer any delineation of collegial consultation. For the other 59 districts, one can see the distribution of “rely primarily” and “mutual agreement” for the areas of academic and professional matters. One district offered an explicit split of both “rely primarily” and “mutual agreement” for the area of degree and certificate requirements. In this one unique district, a further delineation existed for general education and program specifics that it would be “rely primarily,” but on recommendations involving the topic of “units of degrees” this conversation would move to a “mutual agreement.” Additionally, 17 college districts elected “rely primarily” for all 10 of the 10+1, and four college districts indicated “mutual agreement” for all 10.

This information might help districts to consider their own policies on consultation and the delineation of primarily rely and mutually agree areas. Current policies and structures may be historical and entrenched, and changing them might be difficult, as it would involve local governing board approval. Indeed, some districts may be very happy with their policies and may not need to explore changes. However, such policies can be discussed and challenged, and such discussion might be a healthy activity before a district and a faculty simply accept existing policy as unchangeable.

1. The Local Senates Handbook Handbook can be accessed at https://asccc.org/sites/default/files/publications/Local_Senates_Handbook_2020_v2.pdf.