Credit: Barbara Kinney
Foothill College in Los Altos Hills is in the Foothill-De Anza Community College District in Santa Clara County.

California’s community colleges do not employ enough full-time faculty and in some cases districts are misspending state funds allocated for those faculty instead on too many part-time adjuncts, according to a newly released report from California’s state auditor.

The audit, ordered last year by state lawmakers, probed hiring practices for full-time faculty at four community college districts: Foothill-De Anza, Kern, Los Rios and San Diego. Auditors also reviewed how those districts have spent state dollars, including $100 million provided by the Legislature in 2021 to help districts hire more full-time faculty.

California has had a longstanding goal that 75% of community college classes should be taught by full-time faculty, but the audit found that the districts are falling well short of that. At the San Diego district, just 50% of instruction is taught by full-time faculty. The district with the highest share, Sacramento-based Los Rios, was still only at 63%.

The auditors say the chancellor’s office should provide more oversight when it comes to how districts are spending state dollars allocated for full-time faculty. One of the districts reviewed by the auditors, Foothill-De Anza, spent those dollars on part-time faculty, according to the audit. The other districts left money unspent or couldn’t prove they were spending it on full-time faculty.

Evan Hawkins, executive director of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges, said in an interview Friday that the audit findings were “unfortunately what we expected.” The faculty association had originally called for the audit.

“We did the audit for a reason. We had heard from our local members that the full-time faculty funding that had been allocated was not actually going to full-time faculty hiring. And that’s what the audit showed,” Hawkins said.

The state’s system of 116 community colleges for years has relied heavily on part-time faculty, who are less expensive for districts to hire than full-time faculty. There are nearly 37,000 of them across the college system, accounting for two-thirds of instructors. An EdSource investigation last year found that in 35 of the state’s 73 community college districts, part-timers make up 70% or more of teaching ranks.

The audit further found that the colleges aren’t doing enough to hire racially and ethnically diverse faculty and urges the chancellor’s office to work harder to verify that districts are using best practices in their hiring, such as implementing equal employment opportunity practices.

Just 18% of faculty identify as Hispanic, compared with 47% of community college students, according to the audit. The share of Black faculty, however, is representative of the student body: 5.9% of all faculty, while Black students are 5.4% of the student body.

The audit was published as the state chancellor’s office got a new leader. Sonya Christian, chancellor of the Kern Community College District, one of the districts reviewed by the audit, was selected Thursday as the 11th permanent chancellor of the college system. She starts in the statewide role on June 1.

In a letter to the state auditor, the chancellor’s office said the audit places too much fault for its findings on the chancellor’s office and argued that districts are responsible for ensuring they hire full-time faculty.

“The draft audit report presents a misleading picture of California’s community college governance and the role of the Chancellor’s Office — both by minimizing the responsibility of districts to comply with laws that are directed toward their own hiring practices and by implying that the Chancellor’s Office is governed only by its own discretion,” wrote Daisy Gonzales, interim chancellor of the system.

As a result, the chancellor’s office maintains that it won’t be able to adhere to several of the auditor’s recommendations. Hawkins said the faculty group, however, believes the chancellor’s office does have the authority to follow the auditor’s recommendations and that his organization may consider pushing for new legislation to force the chancellor’s hand.

In a statement to EdSource, Gonzales defended the college system’s efforts to diversify faculty across the colleges. She said the board of governors is a nationally recognized leader in seeking racial equity in recruiting and retaining faculty and in student success. 

More than 30 years ago, state lawmakers established a goal that 75% of instruction at the community colleges should be taught by full-time faculty. Relying on the chancellor’s office definition of full-time faculty, the audit determined that only 18 districts have ever achieved that goal, and no district has maintained the 75% benchmark for more than a few years.

Auditors determined that part of the blame lies with the statewide chancellor’s office and the office’s calculation of full-time faculty. The chancellor’s office calculation includes full-time faculty who provide no classroom instruction, such as librarians and counselors, according to the audit. The audit calls on the chancellor’s office to come up with a new metric for measuring full-time faculty by next year and do more to verify that districts are hiring enough full-time faculty.

The percentage of full-time faculty is even lower when using a calculation that the auditors believe is more appropriate, one that only counts full-time faculty who teach, and not librarians, counselors or others who don’t. According to the state auditor’s definition, full-time faculty make up 50% of instruction at the San Diego district, 52% at Foothill-De Anza, 56% at Kern and 63% at Los Rios.

By February 2024, the chancellor’s office should develop and implement a new metric that accurately calculates instruction hours taught by full-time and part-time faculty, auditors said. The state auditor also said the chancellor’s office should set increasing annual benchmarks for the amount of instruction taught by full-time faculty and should “develop a mechanism to promote compliance” with those goals.

State lawmakers in 2018 provided $50 million in annual dollars to the colleges to increase full-time faculty ranks and then upped that in 2021 to $150 million annually. But the audit found that the chancellor’s office doesn’t require districts to track or report how that money is spent, sometimes leading to misuse of the funds.

In 2021, the Foothill-De Anza district spent $2.6 million, its entire portion of the additional dollars approved by the Legislature that year, on part-time faculty expenses, which auditors determined was improper. At San Diego, about $4 million in funds dedicated to full-time faculty have been left unspent over the past four fiscal years, the audit found. The other two districts didn’t track how the dollars were spent and couldn’t demonstrate that they were used on full-time faculty.

To ensure that districts appropriately spend their funds from now on, the chancellor’s office beginning this year should require them to report on the number of full-time faculty positions that have been filled with that money, the audit says.

In the letter to the auditor, interim chancellor Gonzales said that creating a new definition of full-time faculty would require a regulatory change. That would be a lengthy process, would need to be proposed by the system’s board of governors and would be subject to the approval of the state’s Department of Finance. “Ultimately, the Chancellor’s Office does not have control over final regulatory proposals or the timeline for adoption,” she said.

When it comes to tracking state dollars meant for full-time faculty, there is no state requirement for districts to track and report on those funds, Gonzales said, adding that districts “may not have this information readily available.”

The state auditor also asked the chancellor’s office to do more to hold districts accountable when it comes to hiring diverse faculty.

The districts probed in the audit told the auditors that hiring diverse faculty is challenging because of the limited availability of diverse candidates in their applicant pools. However, they may not be following a state law that directs districts to review the composition of their initial pool of applicants compared to the pool of applicants considered qualified.

“Just one of the four districts we reviewed conducted this analysis; the remaining three districts did not do so, and the Chancellor’s Office did not provide oversight to ensure that they met this requirement,” states the audit.

Gonzales said in her letter to the auditor that the chancellor’s office will develop procedures for reviewing districts’ equal employment opportunity plans.

To get more reports like this one, click here to sign up for EdSource’s no-cost daily email on latest developments in education.

Share Article

Comments (10)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * *

Comments Policy

We welcome your comments. All comments are moderated for civility, relevance and other considerations. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.

  1. Brian 3 weeks ago3 weeks ago

    @Chris - I agree the $45,000 figure in the report is circumspect. For one, part-time faculty in California are prohibited from working full-time (i.e. teaching 15 credits). Instead, by the law is they can work 67% of a full load. Therefore the scenario described is illegal (and in my experience largely adhered to). I wonder if the $45,000 amount is is the average of someone working 67% of a full-load earns, and if you extrapolated … Read More

    @Chris – I agree the $45,000 figure in the report is circumspect. For one, part-time faculty in California are prohibited from working full-time (i.e. teaching 15 credits). Instead, by the law is they can work 67% of a full load. Therefore the scenario described is illegal (and in my experience largely adhered to). I wonder if the $45,000 amount is is the average of someone working 67% of a full-load earns, and if you extrapolated out to 100% the amount is ~$67,000. Still not a lot for California, but more plausible than the lower amount.

    In any case, I agree with you that this comparison deserves more attention in the article and clarification in the report itself.

  2. Robert Waldren 4 weeks ago4 weeks ago

    It’s worth noting that, while this article states multiple times that Counselors and Librarians do not provide classroom instruction, that is not necessarily true. In many districts, Counselors and Librarians teach classes in essential subjects such as career and life planning, interpersonal skills, research methods, and more. Many of these are credit classes, and many also transfer to universities and/or fulfill General Education requirements.

  3. Skye Knight Dent 4 weeks ago4 weeks ago

    After teaching full time within the University of North Carolina system, I moved to Bakersfield. The only teaching positions at the local community college offered were adjunct. Even worse, adjuncts were not allowed to have office hours even though office hours are where one helps students the most. I even offered to provide office hours for free. The college refused. I quit. I didn't want to shortchange the students. If only … Read More

    After teaching full time within the University of North Carolina system, I moved to Bakersfield. The only teaching positions at the local community college offered were adjunct. Even worse, adjuncts were not allowed to have office hours even though office hours are where one helps students the most. I even offered to provide office hours for free. The college refused. I quit. I didn’t want to shortchange the students. If only the community college felt the same. Or is that considered old school.

  4. Cynthia Mahabir 4 weeks ago4 weeks ago

    It is gratifying to see this article on the long-lingering problem of deep faculty inequality – mostly hidden from plain sight, highlighting some of the State Auditor's findings. What is obvious to many contingent faculty members but not mentioned in your article is the complete failure of the 75/25 (AB 1725) law, passed in 1988. It is necessary to acknowledge the illusion in that idea at this time and set about introducing a one-faculty … Read More

    It is gratifying to see this article on the long-lingering problem of deep faculty inequality – mostly hidden from plain sight, highlighting some of the State Auditor’s findings. What is obvious to many contingent faculty members but not mentioned in your article is the complete failure of the 75/25 (AB 1725) law, passed in 1988. It is necessary to acknowledge the illusion in that idea at this time and set about introducing a one-faculty structure based on equality in compensation, benefits, and job security, proportionate to employment. There are examples to consider just awaiting our attention.

  5. John Govsky 4 weeks ago4 weeks ago

    The more important question is not "Why we are not making progress on the 75/25 goal?" The real question, which this article does not address, is "Why is the goal 75/25 in the first place?" The goal of 75/25 made its way into the landmark Vasconcellos bill from a goal statement of the system's board of governors 10 years earlier. And, if this round figure sounds like is was arbitrarily plucked from thin air, it's because, … Read More

    The more important question is not “Why we are not making progress on the 75/25 goal?” The real question, which this article does not address, is “Why is the goal 75/25 in the first place?”

    The goal of 75/25 made its way into the landmark Vasconcellos bill from a goal statement of the system’s board of governors 10 years earlier. And, if this round figure sounds like is was arbitrarily plucked from thin air, it’s because, well, it was. There is no research on why this is an optimum ratio; it is completely arbitrary. Why not 50/50, or 90/10, or 100/0?

    We all know it is wrong to run the system on the backs of exploited contingent faculty. So, yes, reducing the number of those exploited is a good step in the right direction, but I can’t embrace the goal of simply having a smaller underclass. This is not an ethical goal or a vision for me. This is why the idea of transitioning to a one-tier system is gaining traction in California.

    For those of us looking for an alternative to the current rigid system of academic apartheid, the “Vancouver Model” has become a rallying cry. Under the terms of the faculty contract at the Vancouver Community College in Canada, all faculty are paid on one salary schedule, with the same duties proportional to load. But we don’t have to look that far away to see other models of a 1-tier system; a typical K-12 system, while not perfect, is not the kind of 2-tier system we have in the community colleges.

    The California Federation of Teachers is forming a task force to develop a longterm strategic plan to transition the CA community colleges to a 1-tier system. Other CA educational organizations are also having these discussions. Perhaps EdSource could report on this growing movement to rethink the goal of 75/25 in California, and look at possible alternatives to what we all know is a broken system that shortchanges students and faculty alike.

    For more information, see:
    https://contingentworld.com/index.php#vancouvermodel

    John Govsky
    Cabrillo College associate faculty

  6. Rebecca Wu 4 weeks ago4 weeks ago

    It’s about time the Legislature, the state auditor, chancellor's office and others start talking about the elephant in the room and circumventing the truth. It’s the majority that suffer who are part-time adjunct in an illegal unethical two salary system with one not getting regular pay for equal work side by side contracted tenure teachers. No law allowing this arbitrary classification to exist or not addressing it should be allowed to stand. Instead let … Read More

    It’s about time the Legislature, the state auditor, chancellor’s office and others start talking about the elephant in the room and circumventing the truth. It’s the majority that suffer who are part-time adjunct in an illegal unethical two salary system with one not getting regular pay for equal work side by side contracted tenure teachers.

    No law allowing this arbitrary classification to exist or not addressing it should be allowed to stand. Instead let a few do temporary work and have to sign off and waive their rights if they have other full-time jobs or expertise or dare say are members of the legislature that do adjunct work.

    But anyone who wants work in the colleges have regular classification as probationary and tenure like they did most of last century and in history prior to 1967. We need to go back to what is proper and right for the kids and for those in public service.

  7. Chris Stampolis 4 weeks ago4 weeks ago

    Michael Burke, Readers desperately need you to fact check the following statement from the Auditor's report: "In 2021 the Chancellor’s Office estimated that the average cost for compensation and benefits of a full-time faculty member was about $131,000, whereas the average cost of a part-time faculty member who teaches a full load of 15 credits, but generally would not receive benefits, was about $45,000." I clicked the link in your article and simply copied and pasted above from page 7. If the … Read More

    Michael Burke,

    Readers desperately need you to fact check the following statement from the Auditor’s report:

    “In 2021 the Chancellor’s Office estimated that the average cost for compensation and
    benefits of a full-time faculty member was about $131,000, whereas the average cost
    of a part-time faculty member who teaches a full load of 15 credits, but generally
    would not receive benefits, was about $45,000.”

    I clicked the link in your article and simply copied and pasted above from page 7.

    If the State Auditor’s report is accurate that the total compensation for a 15-unit community college faculty instructor is $45,000 a year, that is less than what a full-time worker at Panera Bread, In ‘N Out or even McD is offered. This week in the Bay Area, the going rate for fast food jobs is between $18 and $21 an hour. Pick any city in the entire Bay Area and drive for 15 minutes on a main road; one will find at least ten fast food restaurants desperately posting signs for hiring at the rates I listed above.

    Multiply by 2000 hours a year – not including benefits – and the sum is $36,000 to $42,000 in W-2 income, not counting healthcare and/or academic benefits. To work as an adjunct professor at a Community College, one must have a Bachelor’s and at least a Master’s Degree. Can the State Auditor fairly claim the $45,000 amount?

    Please Mr. Burke, follow up on this plea and write a follow-up article or post.

    Thank you,
    Chris Stampolis
    Santa Clara

    Replies

    • Rebecca Wu 3 weeks ago3 weeks ago

      I agree. My sister worked for about minimum wage at community college at five hours of work for one hour of pay (instruction hour) in a two-pay system that is totally illegal. Unions won't fight. The People must fight in court that it's illegal and unconstitutional. See this. It is time to fight. Uncle Robert Yoshioka orchestrated a part time rally for adjunct decades ago at the Capitol and now it's time to … Read More

      I agree.

      My sister worked for about minimum wage at community college at five hours of work for one hour of pay (instruction hour) in a two-pay system that is totally illegal. Unions won’t fight. The People must fight in court that it’s illegal and unconstitutional. See this.

      It is time to fight. Uncle Robert Yoshioka orchestrated a part time rally for adjunct decades ago at the Capitol and now it’s time to do it again. Email me: rebeccadawnwu@yahoo.com.

      I am working on a documentary as well. It’s time. I have fought in court and we must all work together to make change when the legislature does not want to make change and only circumvent rights.

  8. Richard Emmet 4 weeks ago4 weeks ago

    I am currently attending DeAnza College. I am a student in the Paralegal program. The instruction I am getting has been oustanding. Most of my teachers have been part-time. The angle of this story - too many part-time instructors at our community colleges - is that this is somehow a bad thing. I don't know about that. These part-time instructors I've had have been just great. One of my instructors was a legal administrator at … Read More

    I am currently attending DeAnza College. I am a student in the Paralegal program. The instruction I am getting has been oustanding. Most of my teachers have been part-time. The angle of this story – too many part-time instructors at our community colleges – is that this is somehow a bad thing. I don’t know about that. These part-time instructors I’ve had have been just great.

    One of my instructors was a legal administrator at a big high tech law firm, a firm that represents Apple, Google and all these big high tech companies. This instructor, I should mention, organizes an annual hiring event for students that all these employers attend looking for new hires (he, along with others, stage the event to help us students get jobs). I had another instructor who worked for the San Jose City Attorney’s office. Another instructor – my favorite of all the instructors I had – was a retired FBI agent who also operates a successful law enforcement-related consulting business.

    These part time instructors I’ve had at DeAnza, I noticed, had real world experience. I did not get the sense, at all, they were teaching for the money – they already had big full-time jobs. Because these instructors had these big jobs, of course, they were well positioned to teach us students, and to give us some idea if what we might expect when we got our entry level jobs.

    As I student I think I was better served by these instructors, given their backgrounds, than I would have been if I was taught by a full-time instructor who got a BA, an MA, and then talked their way into a full-time tenure track job, which is the way they hired at community colleges in the old days.

    So I think the thesis of this story – that community colleges somehow become “better” when we have more permanent instructors – is incorrect. Part time-instructors, who have big jobs in the day, instructors with real-world experience, who also teach at night, can make the college better. This, I think, may be some of the reason why community colleges are not in any big hurry to hand out permanent jobs.

    Replies

    • Rebecca Wu 3 weeks ago3 weeks ago

      True Richard, many part-time instructors are amazing and they should be able to continue as part time or hours they have or want if they are working full time other jobs and or careers with real world experience. However, they should have the option to accept less pay or not be tenured. Ask them, the ones who are not working in the court system, and only live on adjunct faculty wages working 67% but … Read More

      True Richard, many part-time instructors are amazing and they should be able to continue as part time or hours they have or want if they are working full time other jobs and or careers with real world experience. However, they should have the option to accept less pay or not be tenured. Ask them, the ones who are not working in the court system, and only live on adjunct faculty wages working 67% but not getting good pay with benefits. They are not temporary, but the loophole allows it until one of them fights it in court as the unions won’t. Anyone who wants reelection won’t fight the big unions.