Lowering the bar

UPDATE: Heeding calls from faculty members, Regent Joe Arrascada pulled the proposal to delete Section 5 from Title 4, Chapter 3 of the handbook. A revised ARSA agenda was posted during the week of August 28.

ORIGINAL POST: The Nevada Board of Regents and the Nevada System of Higher Education maintain two sets of documents which, in theory, govern operations for the Board, the System, and all the institutions in NSHE. The Board of Regents Handbook has existed for decades. It contains the bylaws of the Board and codifies the policies passed by that body. On the other hand, the NSHE Procedures and Guidelines Manual, or P&GM for short, was established less than two decades ago. It outlines procedures, as the title implies, but also includes "guidelines" that may sometimes be confused for policies. 

Both documents are lengthy, as in hundreds of pages each. And, as might be expected in any complex organization with complicated sets of regulatory documents, there may be contradictory or redundant language between the two.

 Acting Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs and Community Colleges and Interim Chancellor-apparent Patty Charlton has submitted a proposal to the Academic, Research, and Student Affairs Committee (ARSA) of the Board of Regents to eliminate what she says is a small bit of redundancy in language in each of the documents. According to the ARSA Agenda, Charlton seeks to make a "technical amendment to Board policy" by removing Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 5 from the Board of Regents Handbook because, she claims, it is redundant with language in the P&GM Chapter 3, Section 3. Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 5, according to the agenda, is "no longer necessary."

Here's the problem: The two sections are not even related to one another, let alone redundant. Worse yet, elimination of Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 5 from the Handbook will substantially deteriorate academic quality in our community colleges.

To understand the distinction, you first must review Chapter 3, Section 3 in the P&GM.  Under the title "Community College Academic Salary Schedule," this section defines the credentials required for placement on a specific grade of the salary schedule, initial placement on the schedule (another problem, but that's for another post), movement on the schedule, and other salary considerations. Instructor credentials certainly play a role in the application of these procedures. 

Instructor credentials are also central to the language in  Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 5 from the Handbook, but for an entirely different reason. It's a very brief section, so I will post it in its entirety here: 

Section 5.  Credentials for Community College Faculty
A minimum of a master's degree is required for instruction in baccalaureate-level courses or an appropriate combination of education and experience. A bachelor's degree, or appropriate experience in lieu of a post-secondary education, is required for instruction in occupational courses. (B/R 12/89)

As you can see, this section has absolutely nothing to do with faculty salaries or placement on the schedule. It has everything to do with maintaining the bare minimum of well-established standards for instructor qualifications to teach university-transfer and baccalaureate courses. It also sets the standards for our CTE instructors. Eliminating this will eventually have serious negative consequences on the quality of transfer courses across the entire system. It is an incredible disservice to our students.

One has to wonder how administrators at NSHE could have conflated the two. I hesitate to say it was a misunderstanding of the language, because the language is pretty clear. Others have speculated that this may be a way to expand the already controversial dual-enrollment program by removing another potential set of barriers for high school instructors to teach university level curriculum to their students. At the very least, it appears to be willful ignorance. But whatever the reason, this action, if approved, will definitely lower the bar for what passes for quality instruction in our community colleges. 

To make matters worse, this item appears in the list of Consent items on the ARSA agenda, meaning that unless a Regent specifically "pulls" the item, it would probably pass in ARSA without a discussion before it reaches the full board the following day where committee items are usually passed without any, you guessed it, discussion. 

This is no way to run a system of higher education.

It would be tempting to let this run its course without intervention to see if anyone from NSHE, or from a campus presidency, or from the Board of Regents actually grasps the severity of this seemingly benign change and speaks out against it. Given past experience, I wouldn't count on it, and the stakes are too high for us to play something akin to policy chicken with the Board. 

Faculty need to speak out about this proposal and make the Regents, presidents, and NSHE administrators aware of our absolute opposition. This proposal will be considered on September 7 when the Board of Regents meets at the TMCC campus. It is an opportunity for our faculty to show up and speak out.

Here are the names and email addresses of the Regents on the ARSA Committee:

Joe Arrascada, Committee Chair: jarrascada@nshe.nevada.edu 
Carol Del Carlo: cdelcarlo@nshe.nevada.edu
Michelee Cruz-Crawford: mcrawford@nshe.nevada.edu
Stephanie Goodman: sgoodman@nshe.nevada.edu
Donald McMichael: dmcmichael@nshe.nevada.edu

Suffice it to say, if this proposal passes, restoring this language in the TMCC-NFA contract will become a top priority when negotiations commence in the next several months.