Doubiago,Hoelscher USF.facultyEmployment

7/28/2019 Doubiago,Hoelscher USF.facultyEmployment

1/9

1

Faculty Employment at USF: Conditions, Concerns, and SuggestionsBy Shawn Doubiago and Susanne Hoelscher

As an institution of higher education, USFs goal is to achieve excellent student learningoutcomes with high retention rates, enabling graduates to actively lead in their communities andas global citizens. Thisgoal depends on a highly skilled and engaged professorate.

Research conducted in recent decades demonstrates that over-reliance on contingent or non-tenure track faculty (NTTF), and particularly those employed part-time (PT), negatively affectsboth student learning outcomes and retention rates due to inadequate working conditions(Kezar xiii). At USF, PT faculty regularly teach the majority of general education requirements,and in certain departments account for by far most of the student contact hours (SCH). In itscurrent state, this over-reliance on PT instructors is a model that cannot sustain the universitysgoals for success. In order to achieve and maintain teaching excellence and student retention,change is needed that would lead to the professionalization of faculty (Kezar 2), allowing inparticular, part-time faculty to be more fully invested in all aspects of teaching.

Faculty employment conditions at USF are unique based on the fact that there are de facto two

separate faculty associations, one representing all full-time faculty (including term appointments,which fall into the category of NTTF), the other representing part-time faculty (all of whom are bydefinition NTTF). This division has inhibited the development of a system that would allow PTfaculty to be advanced to full-time (FT) status, a type of promotional opportunity that has beenimplemented at many universities (e.g. Santa Clara University) precisely as a response to theneed of providing the best possible education to students while recognizing increasing fiscalconstraints, and adhering to the principles of fair-employment practices.

As demonstrated below, the disparity between FT and PT faculty is significant and has led to aclear division at our university: 1) the army of adjuncts, as one FT faculty member put it, and 2)those with the privileges pertaining to full-time employment.1 The basic twofold division is alsorelevant as all data regarding student credit hours (SCH) are based on the distinction between

FT and PT faculty only; data reflecting the amount of SCH provided by tenure-track/tenuredfaculty versus those provided by all non-tenure-track faculty are not available so far, and woulddemonstrate a much higher reliance for teaching on NTTF than the distinction between FT andPT suggests.

This document serves to address the working conditions of contingent/non-tenure-track facultyat USF in general, and part-time faculty in particular, and to make recommendations that willbenefit the university, its students and professorate as a whole.2 Much of our research has beeninformed by the work of Adrianna Kezar, a professor at the Pullias Center for Higher Educationat the University of Southern California, and other contributors to The Delphi Project on theChanging Faculty and Student Success.As they explain in the document, Imperative forChange: Fostering Understanding of the Necessity of Changing Non-Tenure-Track Faculty

Policies and Practices, three major areas of concern are affected by current universitypractices: 1) The Student Learning Imperative; 2) The Equity Imperative; 3) The Risk

1Non tenure-track term faculty constitute approximately 20% of all full-time faculty at USF currently. They

work under almost the same conditions, promotional opportunities, salary scales, voting rights etc. astenure-track/tenured faculty. The major differences to their tenure-track colleagues are that they lack theopportunity for tenure, are not eligible for sabbaticals, and depend on a renewal of their contracts. 2

Beyond the publications listed at the end, our findings are based on a variety of public resources andstatistical data reflecting current or recent conditions at USF, which were obtained from USF websites andother internal sources like departmental and campus-wide offices.


2/9

2

Management Imperative. We have previously elaborated on these three aspects in an e-mailsent to USF administrators and faculty association presidents (dated February 7, 2013).

In the following, we explicitly or implicitly further address these issues by focusing on ten issuesidentified in Kezars et al. most recent publication, Embracing Non-Tenure Track Faculty:Changing Campuses for the New Faculty Majority(4-9), and relating these to current policies

and practices at our university as we are able to discern them.

1. Regularized HiringCurrent Situation:

Lack of specific regulations or clear policies for creating new positions or for recognizingdepartmental or programmatic needs. Positions that have been opened by the Provost areallocated based on decisions by the Deans.

Lack of clear procedures or requirements for hiring PT faculty, or for promoting PT to FTfaculty when a teaching position is needed in a Program or Department. The decision forhiring is made by the Deans, with input from Department Chairs and Program Coordinators.

Suggestions:

Develop clear rules for the opening of new positions, based on programmatic needs, includinga prioritization in case not all needs can be met.

Establish a standing Hiring Committee for each college that allocates positions toDepartments/Programs and oversees hiring processes based on these rules.

Create a procedure for eliciting requests from Departments and Programs for new positionsbased on established rules and regulations.

Example: Santa Clara University adopted new policies in February 2011, clearly outliningprocedures that establish full-time teaching appointments as "Lecturer" (renewable-term) and"Senior Lecturer" (continuing) based on persistent programmatic need and filled byincumbent adjunct faculty (see Faculty Handbook. Non Tenure-Track Faculty AppointmentPolicies).

2. A Systematic Socialization ProcessCurrent Situation of Part-Time Faculty:

Lack of inclusion in official orientation events.Lack of regularized orientation or mentoring procedures.No procedures for official introduction to existing departmental faculty.Limited interaction between PT and FT faculty due to location of office space and lack of

common forum.Lack of systematic inclusion that leads to a sense of invisibility and low morale.Suggestions:

Include new PT faculty in orientation events at beginning of semester and/or academic year.Establish regulations providing mentorship for PT by FT faculty. Introduce new PT faculty at the first department meeting each semester.Provide more incentives for PT faculty to participate in departmental meetings and events

(see 8. Participation in Governance).Regulate sharing of FT faculty office spaces (see 10. Appropriate Office Space).3. Multi-Year Renewable ContractsCurrent Situation:


3/9

3

No multi-year contracts for PT faculty; contracts are on a semester-to-semester basis with nojob security.

No clear regulations for the length of contracts for FT term faculty.New FT term and tenure-track positions are mostly filled based on national searches, but this

is not stipulated in any contract agreements, and the deans have the discretion to make theseappointments on a case-by-case basis.

Suggestions:

Develop and implement clear, consistent policies for new hiring and promotional opportunitiesfor PT faculty, including opportunities for gaining FT employment with multi-year contracts.

Develop and implement clear, consistent policies for new hiring and promotional opportunitiesfor FT term faculty, including length of contracts and possibilities for advancement to tenure-track status.

4. Equitable Compensation and BenefitsPer unit (p.u.) income of 2008 and 2013, based on figures in USFFA and PTFA CollectiveBargaining Agreements:Current Situation:

Full-TimeAssistant Prof. Step 6:2008 - $72,459 = $2,425 p.u.2012 - $79,482 = $2,649 p.u. = $224 = 9.2% increase in 4 years2011-12 increase = 3%

Associate Prof. Step 6:2008 - $89,919 = $2,997 p.u.2012 - $98,634 = $3,288 p.u. = 9.7% increase in 4 years2011-12 increase = 3%

Full Professor Step 6:2008 - $112,217 = $3,740 p.u.2012 - $123,093 = $4,103 p.u. = 9.7% increase in 4 years2011-12 increase = 3%

Part-TimeNon-PHP:2008 - $1,547 p.u.2012 - $1,668 p.u. = $121 = 7.8% increase in 4 years2011-12 increase: 2.5%

PHP:2008 - $1874 p.u.2012 - $2020 p.u. in PHP = $146 = 7.8% increase in 4 years2011-12 increase: 2.4%Comparisons of salaries:

2012 FT per unit compensation in comparison to non-PHP PT pay:Assist. Prof.: 59% moreAssoc. Prof.: 97% moreFull Prof.: 146% more


4/9

4

2012 FT per unit compensation in comparison to PHP PT pay:Assist. Prof.: 31% moreAssoc. Prof.: 63% moreFull Prof.: 103% more

Per unit actualpay in creasesfrom 2008 to 2012:

Non-PHP PT: $121PHP PT: $146Assist. Prof. Step 6: $224Assoc. Prof. Step 6: $291Full Prof. Step 6: $363

Health Insurance:Part-time

Limited spots for health insurance with Kaiser for PHP.No dental insurance.Higher premiums paid by PT than FT for Kaiser.

Full-time

Choice of Health Care ProviderDental InsuranceLower premiums paid by FT than PT faculty for Kaiser.

Retirement and other benefits:Not yet investigated.

Summary of current conditions:The significant disparity between PT and FT faculty income per unit has been increasing due tosmaller percentage-based increases for PT salaries, and the gap between theper unitpay forPT versus FT faculty has been widening drastically. Considering that many, if not most, PTfaculty enter employment at USF with qualifications similar to those of FT hires (Ph.D. or otherterminal degree), and that the majority have been teaching at USF for many years, thisdiscrepancy is cause for concern at a university that espouses social justice as one of its mainpillars. This inequity is exacerbated by the fact that PT salaries include no compensation forservice, something that is often done unofficially as it is expected for a full investment inteaching (advising of students, committee-work, curricula and program development,participation in departmental affairs etc.). Furthermore, PT, just as FT term faculty, do not havethe benefit of sabbaticals, and even lose their health insurance when taking an unpaid leave ofabsence instead.

Another significant imbalance is evident in the 2013 fiscal year budget, which lists the totalsalary and benefits expenses as 74.5 million for FT, and only 19.5 million for PT faculty, whileaccording to university records the number of FT faculty (tenured, tenure-track, and term)amounted to 406 and that of PT faculty to 580. Taking into account that the greatest revenue forthe university is generated through students' tuition, and that more than one half of the studentcredit hours in the College of Arts and Sciences (and much more in some departments) areprovided by PT faculty, this figure is extraordinarily disproportionate (see "Operating Budget forFiscal Year 2013" and university statistics on SCH).

Suggestions:We recognize the administration's fiscal constraints for the long-term financial viability of our


5/9

5

institution, and we find that a shift in current employment practices is not only necessary, butalso feasible. As has been done at other universities, like Santa Clara, a new category of FTappointments could be established, which are preferably filled by incumbent PT faculty basedon clearly defined guidelines such as programmatic needs and teaching excellence (see theSCUs Faculty Handbook, Policies, and Procedures - Non-tenure-track Faculty AppointmentPolicies).

Faculty in these positions could be designated as "Lecturers" and "Senior Lecturers" as isalready common at many institutions of higher education. Basing the salaries on current PHP 2compensation would make this model fiscally feasible.Possible conditions for Lecturers might be:

The candidate holdsaPhD or other terminal degree.The yearly workload consists of 24 units teaching plus 6 units service.The per unit compensation is equivalent to that for PT faculty in PHP 2, resulting in a

beginning yearly salary of:Teaching $ 2,424 x 24 units = $ 58,176Service $ 2,424 x 6 units = $ 14,544Total $ 2,424 x 30 units = $ 72,720

Promotional opportunities and salary increases at a lower rate than those of the currentsalary scale in the USFFA CBA are negotiable.

Contracts are of increasing length for Lecturers and continuing for Senior Lecturers.Health and retirement benefits are similar to those currently available to PT faculty with the

addition of dental insurance.Faculty without a terminal degree are hired as "Instructors" as defined in the currentCBA.

5. Clear Role DefinitionsCurrent Situation:

Roles within Departments and Programs for PT and FT working in different capacities are notclearly defined.

Suggestion:

Roles and responsibilities for different positions should be clearly defined and contractuallyagreed upon, based on consensus between unions and administration.

6. Promotional Opportunities and EvaluationCurrent Situation:

After admission to the Preferred Hiring Pool (PHP), PT instructors have no consistentopportunity for promotion (PHP 2 includes only a salary increase, is currently onlyimplemented by the College of Arts and Sciences, and the positions are limited as determinedby the Deans; therefore it is not yet a true promotion).

There is no consistent evaluation process in place; an over-reliance on student teachingevaluations determines placement into PHP and PHP 2.

All decisions are ultimately based on the Deans discretion; there are no clearly definedcriteria, and no explanations for denial of advancement.

Suggestions:

Opportunities for PT faculty promotions, including promotion to FT status, should be clearlydefined in contracts and consistently implemented.


6/9

6

A transparent and comprehensive evaluation system should be applied equitably to PT andFT faculty.

All new hires and promotions, including those for PT instructors, should be reviewed by facultyelectedcommittees.

7. Professional DevelopmentCurrent Situation:

While opportunities for on-campus professional development are open to PT faculty, there areno incentives for participation beyond personal interest; there is no compensation, andprofessional development is not tied to promotional opportunities and evaluations.

Participation in off-campus workshops and conferences may be funded through the TeachingDevelopment Fund (TDF), but the funding is often not secured before the events, so that PThave to pay for all expenses out of their own pocket first, in the hope that reimbursement willbe granted retroactively.

Resources for the TDF are limited and full funding is often denied. This is apparently not anissue for FT.

Suggestions:A system needs to be implemented that secures reimbursement from the TDF in sufficienttime before an event to allow PT to register and make travel arrangements.

A comprehensive evaluation system needs to be implemented (see above, #6) and directlytied to promotion and development.

8. Participation in GovernanceCurrent Situation(limited to MCL):

The approximately 40 PT faculty members in MCL are invited to department meetings and areable to express their opinions, but have no vote in any affairs; all decisions are made by the13 FT faculty.

Within the different programs, PT faculty have varying input in curricular development or otherdecision-making processes; this usually depends on the size of the program and the FTinvolved (N.B. Most input is done without financial compensation).

Further research is needed to determine overall PT faculty involvement at the university level.Suggestions:

Given the high impact of PT faculty on teaching, involvement in decision-making processesand voting rights are essential in order to foster personal investment, commitment to theuniversity, greater teaching effectiveness, and accountability.

Clear regulations regarding participation in governance need to be developed andimplemented across programs, departments, and colleges.

9. Academic FreedomAcademic freedom is tied to governance and voting rights (see above, #8). It should include theopportunity to participate in curricular and other decision-making processes directly related toinstruction.

10. Appropriate Office SpaceCurrent Situation:

Most PT faculty from the College of Arts and Sciences are assigned to a large shared officespace on 4th floor Gleeson.


7/9

7

This communal office space is not adequate for student advising, class preparation, or otherteaching related tasks.

The difference between FT and PT office spaces conveys the clear impression to studentsthat their faculty is divided into two groups with distinctly different statuses and importance.

Suggestions:

Fourth floor Gleeson should be redesigned to create more adequate, separate office spacesfor both PT and FT faculty from specific departments - this could be a great project for anarchitecture class!

Emphasis should be given to the sharing of individual offices currently held by FT faculty; aspecific formula could be developed, e.g. making the office available one or two days perweek.

ConclusionOur university, as most institutions in Higher Education, has been facing considerableorganizational and fiscal challenges, as poignantly expressed by Father Privett in his recentTown Hall address and public letter. As a consequence, the new normal has also led to

increasing inequities in faculty employment practices, which need to be resolved with innovativeapproaches. Simply adding new full-time appointments at current conditions is financiallyprohibitive when striving to significantly change the over-reliance on part-time employment inthe education of our students.

Embracing our universitys Mission and Values Statementand its motto, Change the Worldfrom Here, we believe that a profound shift from existing paradigms is needed, a shift thataccounts for fiscal limitations while benefitting our students and promoting greater social justicewithin our own ranks.

As illustrated above, and based on models already implemented at other universities, weenvision the establishment of a new line of full-time appointments, which are primarily given toqualified and committed incumbentpart-time faculty. These positions would arguably not requiremany more resources than currently expended for part-time positions, particularly whenconsidering the fact that this new model of full-time employment would provide more teachinghours per instructor to the university, thus cutting down on the overall number of faculty and theexpenses for health care and other benefits. Another cost reducing factor would be savings inadministrative as well as actual costs since extra compensation for directed studies and otherservices that are currently paid to part-timers would be minimized. A more important effectwould be the improvements to faculty morale, a fairer distribution of service obligations, and anenfranchised collegiate that can truly collaborate towards strengthening courses, programs, anddepartments.

In this context, we would like to address the opinion that all full-time employment should besubject to a national search. It is a known fact that every full-time job listing nowadaysgenerates dozens, if not hundreds of applications, particularly for universities in desirable citieslike San Francisco, and highly regarded institutions like USF. It is therefore likely that outsideapplicants would have more impressive Curriculum Vitae or other attributes, which might makethem more marketable than incumbent PT faculty. We maintain, however, that the continuity ofa Program and a Department are much better served by expanding the opportunities of thosewho have proven themselves to contribute convincingly to USFs mission and values, to behighly regarded colleagues, and effective teachers. Hiring new faculty based on nationalsearches that may take over positions now filled by incumbent PT faculty would not serve to


8/9

8

remedy current inequities. Furthermore, the enormous amounts of time, energy, andadministrative costs used to conduct national searches, particularly for one year term positions,are clearly prohibitive, and only add to the fiscal burden of such current practices. We areconvinced that implementing a system that offers advancement to full-time status based ondemonstrated performance will not only be fair and equitable to those who have dedicated muchof their professional life to this university, but will also provide incentives for enhanced

engagement and teaching development.

Improving the ratio of full-time to part-time faculty by developing clear regulations for theadvancement of PT faculty to FT status would effectively strengthen the overall quality ofeducation at USF. Increasing the percentage of fully invested, full-time faculty members wouldbenefit students, departments, and existing FT faculty alike. Alternatively, PT faculty who haveno interest in, or have not been promoted to full-time employment, should still have a voice incurricula and governance, and, as all other faculty, should be part of a system of comprehensiveevaluations that is directly linked to improvements in instruction.

We hope that the evidence compiled here provides enough substantiation to all parties involvedto recognize the necessity for change, as it has already been done at many other universities of

similar standing, and to encourage the resolve to tackle this challenge with profoundly newapproaches. We see this as an opportunity to be at the forefront of a nation-wide shift in facultyequity. Ultimately, it is in all of our interests to promote a best practices policy, with theobjective of creating a new university model grounded in professional standards that promotesuitable conditions for optimizing faculty members contributions to studentsuccess (TheDelphi Project).

Works Cited

Committee on Contingent Labor in the Profession. Modern Language Association. 7 December2012. Web. 28 April, 2013.http://www.mla.org/committee_contingent.

Faculty Handbook. Non Tenure-Track Faculty Appointment Policies. Santa Clara UniversityProvosts Office. 1 February, 2011. Web. 28 April, 2013.

http://www.scu.edu/provost/policy/handbook/Kendzior, Sarah. Academias Indentured Servants.Aljazeera. 11 April, 2013. Web. 28 April,

2013.http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/20134119156459616.html.Kezar, Adrianna, ed. Embracing Non-Tenure Track Faculty: Changing Campuses for the New

Faculty Majority. New York and London: Routledge, 2012. Print.Kezar, Adrianna, Daniel Maxey, and Lara Badke. The Imperative for Change: Fostering the

Understanding of the Necessity of Changing Non-Tenure-Track Practices and Policies.Web. 28 April, 2013.http://www.uscrossier.org/pullias/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/IMPERATIVE-FOR-
http://www.mla.org/committee_contingenthttp://www.mla.org/committee_contingenthttp://www.mla.org/committee_contingenthttp://www.scu.edu/provost/policy/handbook/http://www.scu.edu/provost/policy/handbook/http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/20134119156459616.htmlhttp://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/20134119156459616.htmlhttp://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/20134119156459616.htmlhttp://www.uscrossier.org/pullias/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/IMPERATIVE-FOR-CHANGE_WEB.pdfhttp://www.uscrossier.org/pullias/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/IMPERATIVE-FOR-CHANGE_WEB.pdfhttp://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/20134119156459616.htmlhttp://www.scu.edu/provost/policy/handbook/http://www.mla.org/committee_contingent


9/9

9

CHANGE_WEB.pdf.Levin, Tamar. Gap Widens for Faculty at Colleges, Report Finds. New York Times. 8 April,

2013. Web. 28 April, 2013.http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/education/gap-in-university-faculty-pay-continues-to-grow-report-finds.html?_r=0.

The Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success. USC Rossier School of

Education, Pullias Center for Higher Education. Web. 28 April, 2013.http://www.thechangingfaculty.org.

The University of San Francisco Fact Book and Almanac 2012. Office of Institutional Research,January 2012. Web. 28 April, 2013.http://www.usfca.edu/uploadedFiles/Destinations/Offices_and_Services/Provost/Institutional_Research/docs/USFFactBookAlmanac2012.pdf.

USFFA. University of San Francisco Faculty Association, N.D. Web. 7 May, 2013.http://www.usffa.net/

USSFA Part-Time Faculty Association. N.D. Web. 7 May, 2013.https://sites.google.com/site/usffaparttimefaculty/home.
http://www.uscrossier.org/pullias/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/IMPERATIVE-FOR-CHANGE_WEB.pdfhttp://www.uscrossier.org/pullias/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/IMPERATIVE-FOR-CHANGE_WEB.pdfhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/education/gap-in-university-faculty-pay-continues-to-grow-report-finds.html?_r=0http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/education/gap-in-university-faculty-pay-continues-to-grow-report-finds.html?_r=0http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/education/gap-in-university-faculty-pay-continues-to-grow-report-finds.html?_r=0http://www.thechangingfaculty.org/http://www.thechangingfaculty.org/http://www.usfca.edu/uploadedFiles/Destinations/Offices_and_Services/Provost/Institutional_Research/docs/USFFactBookAlmanac2012.pdfhttp://www.usfca.edu/uploadedFiles/Destinations/Offices_and_Services/Provost/Institutional_Research/docs/USFFactBookAlmanac2012.pdfhttp://www.usfca.edu/uploadedFiles/Destinations/Offices_and_Services/Provost/Institutional_Research/docs/USFFactBookAlmanac2012.pdfhttp://www.usffa.net/http://www.usffa.net/https://sites.google.com/site/usffaparttimefaculty/homehttps://sites.google.com/site/usffaparttimefaculty/homehttps://sites.google.com/site/usffaparttimefaculty/homehttp://www.usffa.net/http://www.usfca.edu/uploadedFiles/Destinations/Offices_and_Services/Provost/Institutional_Research/docs/USFFactBookAlmanac2012.pdfhttp://www.usfca.edu/uploadedFiles/Destinations/Offices_and_Services/Provost/Institutional_Research/docs/USFFactBookAlmanac2012.pdfhttp://www.thechangingfaculty.org/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/education/gap-in-university-faculty-pay-continues-to-grow-report-finds.html?_r=0http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/education/gap-in-university-faculty-pay-continues-to-grow-report-finds.html?_r=0http://www.uscrossier.org/pullias/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/IMPERATIVE-FOR-CHANGE_WEB.pdf

Documents

Doubiago,Hoelscher USF.facultyEmployment