Two critical sets of federal regulations, AHEAD and AIM, signal a profound and existential shift in higher education policy that threatens the comprehensive mission of community colleges. Both of these regulations establish new punitive accountability metrics that judge institutions strictly by workforce-aligned return on investment (ROI) across all academic programs, not just Career and Technical Education (CTE). For faculty, these metrics are not abstract policy debates; they are a direct threat to job security, academic freedom, and the survival of programs that serve our communities' most vulnerable populations.

The weight of these regulations cannot be overstated. The AHEAD regulations rely on an inflexible "earnings premium" metric that will likely force the closure of programs in essential but chronically underpaid fields, specifically early childhood education, human services, and the visual and performing arts. Recent data from American University indicates that students in traditional transfer-oriented degree programs, specifically liberal arts and general studies, are also highly concentrated in the set of programs at risk of losing federal loan eligibility under these tests. Meanwhile, the upcoming AIM regulations will weaponize and fundamentally disrupt the accreditation process as we know it, stripping away historical peer evaluation models and mandating that accreditors enforce these same narrow ROI and program-level workforce outcomes.

In September 2025, the U.S. Department of Education announced the elimination of $350 million in funding for Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs), arguing that the grants are "discriminatory" because they restrict eligibility to institutions that meet “government-mandated racial quotas.” Months later, Congress passed, and President Trump later signed, a federal spending deal that maintains funding for Title V and Part A of Title III, the very programs that support HSIs. Yet rather than providing relief, this action has created significant confusion for California Community Colleges. 

This system-wide crisis placed more than 1 million California Community Colleges students and approximately $20 million in HSI funding at risk, as over 90% of California's 116 community colleges are designated HSIs. 

In 1988, AB 1725 (Vasconcellos) required that minimum qualifications be established for faculty at California’s community colleges.  The process for establishing the minimum qualifications must be jointly agreed upon by the academic senate and the governing board.  As early as the second edition of the Minimum Qualifications for Faculty and Administrators in California Community Colleges handbook (Jan. 1994), and perhaps earlier (I was unable to locate a copy of the first edition), the minimum qualifications for mathematics have included the option of a bachelor’s degree in mathematics or applied mathematics and a master’s degree in math education.  This year, faculty from Bakersfield and Saddleback Colleges requested a revision to the minimum qualifications for mathematics that would require those meeting these qualifications to also complete an additional 18 units of graduate-level mathematics.

Given that the master’s in mathematics education has long been included in the minimum qualifications handbook, and that the discipline itself has not changed significantly at the community college level, it is worth considering what professional organizations have to say on the matter and whether this proposed change is in the best interests of the discipline and our students. 

As artificial intelligence (AI) tools rapidly enter classrooms, colleges and universities are faced with a pressing question: how can AI be integrated in ways that support learning without undermining fairness, academic integrity, or skill development? To better understand student perspectives, a survey was conducted with 299 composition students at De Anza College during the Fall 2025 and Winter 2026 quarters.

The results challenge simplistic narratives that frame students as either enthusiastic adopters or resistant skeptics. Instead, De Anza students articulate a nuanced, values-driven position: they are open to AI as a learning aid, but not as a replacement for thinking, effort, or human judgment. 

The California Community College system recently entered into partnerships with Google, Microsoft, and Instructure, the parent company of Canvas. These partnerships have led to a suite of artificial intelligence (AI) tools being directly integrated into the Canvas Learning Management System. While these tools have the potential to enhance teaching and learning, their implementation also raises important questions about faculty workload, intellectual property rights, data privacy, and academic freedom. It’s imperative that faculty are aware of these issues and actively engage in discussions about them, including at the bargaining table.

Academic senates must address aspects of these AI tools through 10+1, particularly as they relate to student success, retention, and professional development. At the same time, it is essential not to overlook that these tools carry significant implications for faculty working conditions.

A new era of accountability has arrived in California higher education, and it comes down to a single question: How quickly can students recoup the cost of their education?

The Price-to-Earnings Premium (PEP) is a dominant measure of institutional value. This metric, prominently featured in the U.S. Department of Education's College Scorecard data, calculates the number of years it takes for a graduate's increased wages to offset the cost of their education. Divide a student's total net cost by their annual "earnings premium" compared to high school graduates, and you get a simple number that policymakers, accreditors, and funders increasingly use to judge which institutions offer the best return on investment (ROI). 

After over 30 years of attending my students' graduations, I recently had the profound honor of witnessing a commencement ceremony like no other. As my term as FACCC President was coming to an end, I was thrilled when the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office extended an invitation to attend the Rising Scholars graduation at the California Rehabilitation Center, celebrating the achievements of incarcerated students from Norco College and other community colleges across the state.

On the day of the ceremony, we arrived hours early, leaving our phones behind in our cars. As I waited to enter the enclosed yard where the outdoor event would be held, I met dedicated faculty who had made the long drive from colleges like Palo Verde to support their Rising Scholar students. 

A perspective I have adopted is a line from one of my favorite artists, Supaman, that “Everything traditional was once brand new”. Growing up, the thought of empowering California Community College faculty never crossed my mind, and if you had told me I would be doing so in the future, I likely would have laughed at you. Having no belief that I could one day attend college, I whole-heartedly posited that college was not for people like me. Although a few relatives of mine have attended four-year universities, neither of my parents have and I assumed that I would follow in their steps. As a teenager, I attended five different high schools and had no aspirations to pursue higher education, let alone earn my GED. Prior to enrolling at Sierra College, I worked as a night-shift caregiver and provided care to an in-home patient, often working over 100 hours a week. I am proud of the work I did and know that I made meaningful contributions to people’s livelihoods, but it came with a cost. 

I often slept only two hours a day and stayed up for 48-hour stretches. The implications of my work became increasingly more pronounced, leading me to question if it was sustainable. One morning after working a twelve-hour shift, I took my car into the shop to have it serviced. While waiting, I struck up a conversation with a man next to me. We discovered that we had the same name, were both Native American (although from different tribes), and had many common interests. We hit it off and soon became friends, having conversations often. In one of our exchanges, he mentioned he attended Sierra College and encouraged me to consider enrolling. I laughed and told him that college was not a place for people like us. Despite my skepticism, he insisted that I should look into attending, sharing that there was a support program for Native American students. Although unconvinced, I cared deeply about what he said and held on to his suggestion.

If you’re like me and enjoy spending winter break analyzing data from the state Chancellor’s office, then you might be interested in the effects of AB 705 on completion levels in math and English. 

AB 705 was legislation that prohibited, except under very narrow circumstances, colleges from requiring students to enroll in remedial math and English. The logic was that if not enough students were completing transfer-level math and English classes within a one-year timeframe because they were taking remedial classes, then if we eliminate remedial classes they will finish  faster, correct? The main data source is their Management Information Systems Data Mart. I was interested in looking at enrollment trends over the last several years, and, not surprisingly, we see a downward trend in enrollment. Below are the enrollment totals statewide and in General Math (TOP Code 170100) and English (TOP Code 150100)

 “It’s week one and I’m already tired.”
“I’m depressed because I can’t retire yet.”
“There’s so much to do that I don’t know where to start.”
“I just don’t know if I care anymore.”
“This job isn’t what I thought it was going to be.”

Sound familiar? The World Health Organization (2019) defines burnout as sustained workplace stress characterized by exhaustion, cynicism, and reduce efficacy. More and more faculty members report suffering from burnout, often to the point of at least considering leaving the profession.