In response to concerns raised by the Mission College Business faculty and the Academic Senate for Mission College, the Chancellor and President requested an analysis of the current Contract Education situation as articulated in the complaints and resolutions. Specifically, the college president has been asked to "provide assurance that the quality of Mission College offerings through Contract Education are not compromised in quality." In response to this request, the president requested that an objective investigation and analysis be performed by the Dean of Instruction with support from the Dean of Workforce Development and Matriculation Services.

This report provides an analysis of the issues and existing situation that led to the concerns about Contract Education and the Business Degree Program at National Semiconductor. Further, recommendations for solution are provided for consideration by the Chancellor and other appropriate persons or groups.

BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

Contract Education has a long history at Mission. Due to the very nature of the responsibilities inherent in offering instructional services to entities outside the traditional campus environment, there have been a wide variety of issues that have needed to be addressed since the inception of the Contract Education program. Many of these difficulties have been discussed and solutions devised. Others remain and continue to cause problems.

Historically, many problems have revolved around communication and location. Given the physical location of Mission College in the heart of Silicon Valley's industrial/business community, it seemed logical to initially begin Contract Education at Mission College and to market predominately Mission's academic courses and programs to the business community. Consequently, a portable building was placed on the campus, a director (reporting to the chief instructional officer), hired and with the assistance of existing faculty in a variety of disciplines, contracts were negotiated to provide educational services to external entities. At the time, very few internal structures were written. Instructors were involved but largely to provide faculty, full-time or associate, to teach at the off-campus sites and little, if any, attempt was made to incorporate the college administratively or instructionally into the process of acquiring sites, planning offerings, etc. The original "selling" of Contract Education to the faculty at Mission was done mainly with budgetary incentives, and in an era of budget cutbacks throughout the district, those departments that ventured into Contract Education were, to a certain extent, shielded from many of the reductions by funding from Contract Education.

In the following years, as increasing demands were placed on both colleges by state and local entities to expand available offerings, and as the district/colleges tried to deal with the impact of shrinking revenues from the state, Contract Education gradually changed. In an effort to provide a more consistent level of service to the community, the program was administratively linked to a newly-developed District entity called Economic Development Institute (EDI). The intent was to not only increase the involvement of West Valley College but also to provide a level of coordination that had previously not existed, nor did it necessarily have to exist, when the outreach to the business community came from only one of the two colleges in the District. At the same time that these changes were instituted, the financial crises throughout the district resulted in requiring that Contract Education become self-sufficient which affected the monetary tie to the individual disciplines and to the colleges. Unfortunately, the timing of these two events could not have been worse. In hindsight, what occurred was that as the demand for services was spiraling upward, and as the need for close communication between the faculty at the colleges and Contract Education was escalating, the incentives for faculty were being reduced and the administration of the overall program was made even more disparate from college participation.

Consequently, although the marketing of college curriculum to the external community has continued, the ability of the program managers in Contract Education to respond appropriately appears to have diminished, as they have had to address the concerns raised by faculty who have seen increased demands on their time occur contiguous with decreased revenue flow from Contract Education(both of which have an overall negative impact on individual departments). In addition, as the management of Contract Education has been modified to a more "global" outlook, their ability to respond to the educational concerns of the college has been more superficial. Consequently, the quality and integrity of the educational offerings, especially those offered for credit/no credit, are now perceived to be at risk.

SUMMARY OF ARTICULATED CONCERNS

In the following three sections, issues associated with the the Mission College business degree at National Semiconductor, the Academic Senateís responses and concerns, and Contract Educationís response to those concerns are outlined.

Mission College Business Degree at National Semiconductor

In January 1994, the West Valley-Mission Community College District on behalf of Mission College and National Semiconductor Corporation, entered into a contractual agreement for the offering of an accelerated degree program (see appendix 1). Mission College would provide:

• a minimum of 68 units of transferable credit in courses designed to satisfy the general education and associate degree requirements of Mission College
• textbooks and course materials
• laboratory facilities for science classes
• program coordination (scheduling, staffing, and registration)
• sufficient notice of materials required and information needed for purchase in order to ensure materials are available in a timely fashion..

National would provide:

• and/or approve of each group of twenty to thirty qualified employees (total numbers determined by mutual consent) who have completed the Touchstone program or who have qualified for direct placement into the accelerated program
• classroom facilities and learning environments, standard audiovisual equipment found in classrooms at National, and limited access to duplicating services for instructors teaching on-site.
• textbooks and any course materials required by instructors, and make them available to students by the first meeting of each class. Instructor copies will also be provided upon request.
• quarterly notification of the class size.
• $300 per participant for Math C for Jan 94 groups only
• $9840 per participant for the accelerated degree program
• lab fees for natural science courses
• registration fees in effect at time of registration

instructional materials required for the class

The remainder of the agreement included correspondence contacts for each agency, reimbursement, and non-discrimination and independent contractor clauses. It was signed on May 16, 17, and 18, 1994 by the following individuals:

• Keith Westberg, National Semiconductor Career Development Manager
• Kathleen Elliott, Director of Contract Education and Economic Development
• Nancy Renkiewicz, Administrative Dean, Academic Affairs
• Floyd M. Hogue, President of Mission College

In preparation for setting up a contract with National Semiconductor, Ingrid Thomson, Program Manager for Contract Education, consulted with counseling faculty (i.e., Laurie Collins and Don Cordero) regarding what courses were needed to enable students to obtain a Liberal Studies (now called General Studies) associates degree and then be able to transfer into the Business/Management program at USF. Specifically, Don Cordero assisted in designating a sequence of courses that would do this and pointed out that in the process the student could alternatively acquire an Associate in Arts degree in Business (in lieu of a Liberal Studies degree) from Mission College. He also recommended that in the categories where students have a range of options, specific courses be designated. For example, a number of courses satisfy the humanities requirement. A designation of Speech 12 for this accelerated degree was suggested but would not preclude a student from coming to Mission and taking any course that would satisfy the humanities option. Also, transcripts of National employees could be evaluated to determine if courses taken at another community college or university would satisfy the humanities category. Don Cordero also noted that a substitution of the suggested math course with trigonometry and pre-calculus could lead to the Computer Science and Engineering pathways for transfer. Therefore, the student would ultimately have three possible paths and options for degree completion: Business, Computer Science, and Engineering.

General education courses were offered starting September 1996, with the first Business course scheduled (see appendix 2) to be offered in June 1998. Contract Education staff indicated there was no consistent contact or communication with the business department until Fall 1997 because no business courses were being offered. Contract Education staff and faculty offered differing recollections regarding whether the Business Department was actually involved in the initial establishment of the program. Contract Education staff stated that the department and division chairs were consulted and that the problem in communication lies between the chairs and the department faculty. The faculty, including the department and division chairs, said that the consultation was informally passed by them as an idea, and not formally proposed as courses that would be offered (see appendix 4).

Upon learning about the impending offering of a Mission College Associate in Arts in Business degree, the Business Department Chair invited the Chancellor and the Mission College administration to address the department faculty concerns. The discussions expanded to include the Mission College Academic Senate, the Workforce Development Committee, the Division Chairs Council, and the Administrative Council, as well as various department meetings, and small group meetings called specifically to address the issues (see appendix 5). A list of concerns excerpted from memos, e-mail messages, and group discussions follow.

• The existing structure provides an avenue for the academic processes and organizational structure to be circumvented, thereby compromising the quality of the learning experience.
• Revenue sources should not be pursued with credit education at the expense of the quality of the program. However, "sell-for-a-fee" non-credit employee training is acceptable.
• Instruction is currently being offered by non-educators/subcontractor employees and lay-persons in unsupervised, restricted access locations.
• The current arrangement provides for the district to pursue revenue enhancement purchased at the price of Mission Collegeís educational standards, debased faculty pay, and potential loss of accreditation.
• The current arrangement creates the need for the Business Department to fight to keep business curricula degrees, faculty, and students under the purview of the Business Department, and within the program at Mission College.
• The current arrangement does not provide for the faculty of the department to certify quality compliance of instruction.
• The current arrangement does not provide for the president of the college to certify the program.
• The existing processes for Contract Education do not reflect the Mission College Academic Senate position as included in the West Valley-Mission College Community College District Academic Senate Position Paper on Contract Education (May 1995).
• The existing arrangement lacks a process for the full involvement of the department in the courses and/or programs being offered through Contract Education.

Academic Senate Position Paper

Adopted in 1995 and revised in 1996, the Academic Senate Contract Education Position paper was written to address faculty issues with Contract Education. The problem statement of the paper acknowledges that the ì...recent growth of Contract Education in community colleges through the state has created a challenge to the community college faculty and administration to maintain the integrity of the educational offerings.î The senate called on the district to develop policies on Contract Education that assure the integrity of the collegesí names and legal compliance with the intent of the law.

The senate addressed:

• curriculum development and approval,
• hiring processes,
• communication with departments,
• faculty qualifications,
• evaluation,
• load, and
• use of fees.

Recommendations were made in each of the areas. A faculty Contract Education liaison was also proposed (see appendix 6).

Academic Senate Resolutions

The Mission College Academic Senate held discussions on the Contract Education issue on a number of occasions with some resulting resolutions. The resolutions were subsequently supported by other governance and operational groups, as well as by the West Valley College Academic Senate. At its September 16, 1997 meeting, the West Valley College Academic Senate received a report on workforce development in which West Valley Collegeís need for access to Contract Education was discussed (see appendix 7).

At the September 18, 1997 meeting, the Mission College Academic Senate unanimously passed a resolution which called for the return of Contract Education and Community Education programs to their former status and for the administration of the programs to be at the college level (see appendix 8). The Academic Senate President indicated that, central to the rationale for this resolution was a need to address academic program quality control. The resolution also called for equitable compensation for departments and services and called for full-time load to be available for participating faculty. The resolution ended with a final resolve affirming the 1995 Academic Senate position in the Contract Education Position Paper. The resolution was supported by Mission College Division Chairs in September 1997, West Valley College Academic Senate in October 1997, and was reviewed by Mission College Governance Council in October 1997. On October 16, 1997 the Mission College Academic Senate again discussed concerns regarding EDI and Contract Education (see appendix 9).

The Contract Education staff were introduced to the Senate at the October 23, 1997 Mission College Academic Senate meeting. The meeting continued with a discussion regarding the Mission College Business Degree being offered by Contract Education through the National Semiconductor University. The faculty discussed concerns regarding hiring, department supervision, accreditation, the distinction between credit and noncredit courses, and other issues that the faculty believe affect the integrity of their programs. There was agreement that guidelines and procedures are needed to ensure that curriculum approval, instructor approval, instructor evaluation, etc., originate from within the college, thus assuring quality control over classes being offered under the banner of Mission College.

To address the particular concerns of the Business Department, the Mission College Academic Senate passed a motion ì....that the Mission College Academic Senate recommends that there be no business classes offered through Contract Education without the written consent of the Business Department." According to the October 23, 1997 Mission College Academic Senate minutes "...A subcommittee was formed to develop a process reflecting the District Academic Senateís position paper on Contract Education and then to meet with the ACE President to discuss the inclusion of an article on Contract Education for the ACE contract and to collaborate on areas that are negotiable (see appendix 10)."

According to the minutes of the December 4, 1997 Mission College Academic Senate meeting, the Mission College Academic Senate subcommittee proposed policies and procedures relative to Contract Education, asked the senate president to attend the first EDI Advisory Board, and reiterated its recommendation of October 1997, that Mission College Contract Education and Community Education classes should report through the Mission College Office of Instruction (see appendix 11). A copy of the proposal was not available at the time of the printing of this report.

Contract Educationís Response to the Articulated Concerns

Subsequent to concerns raised by the department faculty and the Mission College Academic Senate, the following activities occurred.

1. Contract Education staff met with department faculty, the Dean of Instruction, the Dean of Workforce Development, and the Academic Senate at each college.

2. An extensive information session was held at each college by EDI staff in an attempt to help alleviate concerns about Contract Education and other EDI units.

3. An EDI advisory committee was formed and a first meeting was scheduled. The meeting was canceled due to lack of attendance of a majority of the members. The Mission College Academic Senate representative did attend. There are plans to reschedule.

4. The West Valley Community Education Director, Gary Hubbard, issued a written response to the Chancellor and the Mission College President about the issues raised by the business faculty memo (see appendix 12). The response included a reminder that EDI must be concerned with quality of learning or it would not survive the competition available to the industry in Silicon Valley. Other points addressing specific wording of the business faculty memo were made, establishing the legitimacy of the faculty that teach for Contract Education, stating the fact that the students of the business program at National Semiconductor are Mission College students, and acknowledging the right of National Semiconductor to set up training programs of their own without permission from the district or college. Hubbard also pointed to the benefit of a systematic outreach of valuable Mission College programs to the community that helps Contract Education fulfill the collegeís economic development requirements SB1840 and AB2421.

In 1995, Contract Educationís former Director, Kathleen Elliott, responded to the Academic Senateís position paper on Contract Education. In essence, the senate was referred to various procedure documents, informed that their information was ìdated,î and reminded that the overhead distribution system was abandoned in favor of one which provides department personnel payment for overhead services at the time services are rendered (see appendix 13).

REVIEW OF EXISTING PROCESSES

Although the Academic Senates at both Mission and West Valley Colleges wrote and approved a position paper on Contract Education in the spring of 1995, no timeline has been developed or communicated to address the issues identified. Presently, limited policies and procedures (especially any have been committed to paper) have been put in place that address how Contract Education functions and interacts with the colleges.

The most notable exception to this is the Contract Education faculty hiring procedures that were developed during the past academic year. These procedures were outlined by a subcommittee of the Division Chair Council and Contract Education staff. The results of their deliberations were shared with the academic community at Mission College. The attached flow chart was distributed (see appendix 14) has been implemented this semester. The main contact point to initiate the process is Contract Education notifying a Department Chair of the need for a specific course.

Other issues mentioned in the senateís position paper dealing with curriculum development, faculty qualifications, and use of fees have not yet been addressed. Initial discussions on topics such as linking Contract Education and the college through an advisory committee, faculty evaluation, and faculty load, have begun (see appendix 15).

The most frequently mentioned issue with Contract Education has been the lack of communication with the college community (although, as evidenced by the numerous documents attached, Contract Education has periodically met with a range of individuals and groups). No written policy/procedure has been developed to address core communication and functional needs. There have been periodic written communications (see appendix 16), however, lacking specific policies and procedures a climate of mistrust is evident based on interviews and review of communications.

In addition, the conclusion frequently drawn is that quality control over external course offerings is compromised. The present review of existing processes has demonstrated that determining the validity of perceptions associated with the quality and integrity of academic offerings is difficult. The primary explanation for this difficulty relates to the organizational disconnect between Contract Education and the collegeís academic administration.

REVIEW OF OPTIONS

To aid in considering options and possibilities to help remedy issues and concerns associated with the delivery of Contract Education, Ed>Netís Maximizing Your Impact in Contract Education was referenced.

Ed>Net recommends that Contract Education units be concerned with the building of support within the educational institution. In order to function effectively, Contract Education needs the flexibility and cooperation of a variety of other departments and programs. Some of the mechanisms for building support include:

• articulate benefits of Contract Education, making presentations to key faculty and staff groups,
• communicate individually with key opinion leaders,
• promise that the colleges standards and quality will never be compromised,
• create an advisory committee as a vehicle to discuss concerns and develop guidelines,
• contribute to the broader campus goals,
• compensate the faculty fairly and return tangible benefits to the academic divisions,
• recognize instructor relations as very important to Contract Education success, and
• provide periodic and annual reports.

After reviewing the wide array of documents in existence, discussing the concerns with a variety of faculty, administrators and staff, the following options and their anticipated effects follow.

1. Make no structural or procedural changes. Maintain the administration of Contract Education by the Economic Development Institute.

The compilation of various functions under one ìeconomic development umbrellaî is one of the structures included in the Ed>Net Maximizing Your Impact in Contract Education resource. The benefits include coordinated offerings to the external entities to ensure a single voice and source to the community.

This option does not address the concerns raised. In addition, maintaining the existing structure may result in faculty increasingly withdrawing their support and eventually ceasing to see the purpose in participating or supporting Contract Education.

Concerns regarding the colleges responsibilities associated with the administration of credit-bearing course work remain. Consequently, this option is not recommended as a politically viable or academically sound alternative.

2. Maintain the present structure of Contract Education, but respond to the Academic Senateís concerns expressed in their position paper and create policies and procedures that can be implemented in concurrence with the senateís recommendations.

Some aspects of this option appear to be mutually exclusive of the Academic Senateís position. For example, the present structure does not provide for the administration of Contract Education at the college level. The Academic Senateís position paper calls for the program to be administered at the college level. In essence, the administrative responsibility would also remain static and many of the problems that revolve around fiscal issues are unlikely to be addressed by this option.

Concerns regarding the colleges responsibilities associated with the administration of credit-bearing course work remain. Consequently, this option is not recommended as a politically viable or academically sound alternative.

3. Maintain Contract Education under the auspices of EDI, but install a faculty liaison with administrative reassigned time to link the college community with Contract Education.

The mutual exclusivity of the Academic Senateís position and the EDI administrative structure is present in the first component of this model. The second component, advocating a faculty liaison, is consistent with the Academic Senateís position. This option may be a partial solution because having a faculty member on reassigned time to bridge the two entities should increase the level of trust and communication in both directions. However, the problem solving value of this approach is limited since concerns regarding the colleges responsibilities associated with the administration of credit-bearing course work would remain. In addition, although a faculty member on reassigned time can readily provide a communication link with other faculty, mundane managerial/administrative concerns related to the collegeís association with its surrounding business community may not be so easily addressed by this method. Consequently, this option alone is not recommended as a politically viable or academically sound alternative.

4. Return the administration of Contract Education soley to Mission College.

This option fails to offer the extension of services to the entire West Valley Mission Community College District region and is not recommended as a viable option.

5. Invert the existing fiscal and structural model of Contract Education. Modify the function of EDI to coordinate the marketing of Contract Education for the colleges. Have each college administer the external offerings of its academic programs, degrees and certificates.

This option addresses the primary issues associated with the collegesí responsibility for the integrity of its programs and maximizes the use of the resources of all entities (EDI, Contract Education and the colleges). The offering of Contract Education opportunities through one districtwide office has value; however, the question of whether a single source really matters remains in light of the many resources available to business and industry for meeting their training and educational needs. These resources, among others, include the University of California, Santa Cruz Extension, San Jose State University Extension and San Jose Evergreen Community Partnership Center.

Under this option, the colleges would be directly reimbursed for Contract Education services they provide. EDI should pursue another revenue generating entity such as developing the previously recommended Public-Nonprofit Education Collaborative (see appendix 17).

Recommendation

The responsibility for procedures in working with departments and faculty should be appropriately placed with the college Office of Instruction whether the academic programs are marketed and offered internally or externally. In that way, responsibility for assuring a timely response to the corporate client rests with the chief instructional officer who as a senior academic administrator is:

• charged with delegated responsibility and authority to insure minimum standards are met in academic quality of program and course offerings, teaching faculty and pedagogy.
• most familiar with college and organizational governance structures,
• most familiar with curriculum as a curriculum committee co-chair, and

in a position to utilize delegated authority to represent the academic program to corporate clients

The faculty have a primary role and responsibility for decision making on academic and professional matters in our colleges. The academic administration has responsibility for the administration of degree programs. Based on the college and its facultyís validation of the grades, the Board awards degrees in the name of the college. To that end, we recommend a combination of options. The faculty liaison component of option three should be combined with the option five and implemented with sufficient time to work out policies/procedures, and identify financing. The faculty liaison should be placed on 100% assigned time and appointed immediately. The faculty liaison would begin to work with Contract Education, the Academic Senates, and the collegesí academic administration at once with the goal of developing the framework for fully implementing option five by Fall, 1998.