How shall the issue of faculty load be handled?

-- Anonymous, March 05, 1999

Answers

What follows is a copy of an e-mail message I sent to Garry Gordon regarding, mostly, how we might handle the knotty issue of faculty load and distribution of resources. I would appreciate any feedback on my ideas--are they unrealistic? silly? good? whatever. It is my opinion that we are not facing this issue in an open manner. Do others have that impression? Perhaps I am wrong. Anyways:

Hi Garry. Thanks very much for your March 3, 1999 Progress Report. I appreciate your attempt to keep the faculty up to date on the many very tough, but very important, issues we are all grappling with. You ask for our help in creating viable solutions regarding faculty load, and Id like to share with you some of my concerns and suggestions. I will share them with you at an upcoming open meeting, if I am able to attend. I will also share these comments with my faculty colleagues via the AAUP Web Page. Lastly, I will share a copy of these comments with all the Division Heads, since I believe it is you and the Division Heads, together, who are at the center of most of these issues.

I strongly suggest that faculty load issues be handled by making decisions at each level, and then letting each level handle it from there on down. Specifically, YOU decide, with input from faculty and, mainly, Division Heads, how many faculty slots per Division, and what your expectations are from that Division (e.g., number of Junior Seminar courses offered per semester, averaged over x number of years, etc.). The reasons for that decision should be out in the open, so that we all understand the rationale for the decisions, even if some of us disagree (which will be inevitable). The Division Heads then, with the input of faculty and, mainly, Conveners, will decide how many faculty slots per Discipline. Finally, the Disciplines, under the leadership of the Conveners, will decide how to use the slots they have. Again, for such a plan to be successful, the rationale for all decisions need to be out in the open, and those making decisions must be accountable. Currently, things are vague. Worse, no one is being held accountable for decisions which must and will be made no matter what.

These decisions which I am suggesting be made at various levels never have to be set in stone, but the current status and the rationale for that status should always be out in the open. For example, after some study and input from others, you may decide to shift one faculty slot from Science to Education (perhaps you have strong evidence that Education will be carrying a larger percentage of the Junior Seminars and Science will be carrying a smaller percentage of the Junior Seminars than initially anticipated). Then you notify the Science and Education faculty that you are shifting these faculty slots in this way because..., and that your expectations from each Division have shifted in such-and-such a way because... Furthermore, you could specify how the shift is to happen (for example, the next retirement or tenure-track person who leaves in Science will not be replaced, and a new position will be added to Education next year, or whatever). It would then be up to the Science Division Head to decide, with appropriate input, how to handle the change.

The reason why I think this plan is good is that YOU only have to worry about: What part of the schools total responsibility is each Division carrying, or planning to carry? The Division Head only has to worry about: What part of the Divisions total responsibility is each Discipline carrying, or planning to carry? Note that there is plenty of room for communication and change in this system--all rationales are right out in the open for everyone to see, and someone takes responsibility for every decision. Furthermore, Conveners have plenty of opportunity for input into Division Head decisions, and Division Heads have plenty of opportunity for input into VPAA decisions. I know that sometimes the faculty seem like a bunch of complainers who cant agree amongst themselves about anything, but who are quick to jump on an administrator for some unpopular decision, but I really believe that, if everything is out in the open, we faculty can and will rise above that kind of behavior and pitch in constructively towards the goals we all share. I want to remind you how frustrating it is to, for example, be planning to teach a Junior Seminar in a year without knowing whether or not it has to be done as an overload. As another example, recall how demoralizing it is to try to creatively plan our curriculum to adjust to the new challenges of the LSP when, if one of our faculty leaves or moves into the administration, we have no assurance that that faculty line is still ours, nor do we know when we will find out. Wouldnt it be better to say, right away: as of now, this faculty line is still yours because ..., or: this faculty line is now being cut because ...

A few more comments. You give many numbers comparing average class sizes and faculty loads between 1984 and the present. What are we to do with that information? I am not the average of all faculty, I am a member of a discipline whos challenges are unique to that discipline, and that is true for ALL disciplines. You also say we will continue to base faculty load on a 12 credit hour standard ...take into account the depth to which faculty are involved with students, both within and outside the classroom. With this approach teaching involvement can be flexible, meeting the differing needs and pedagogy of faculty. Taking all those statements together, they kind of cancel each other; a 12 credit hour standard is pretty clear, and depth to which faculty are involved with students is pretty vague. The message I get is: there really is no rationale and no standard, and no one is willing to take responsibility for decisions regarding load. Please dont misunderstand me, issues involving depth of involvement SHOULD be a major part of our discussions and decision making, but they must be made at the Division and Discipline Level. This is exactly what would happen if we followed the structure I suggested above.

Lastly, in reporting data for comparison between years, you cite numbers like 35.40 students per class versus 28.73 students per class, and 29.15 students per class versus 25.58 students per class. What kind of standard deviations are we talking here? Are all four digits of each of these numbers really significant? A little care before presenting raw data would go a long way toward building a solid assessment culture that everyone can respect and get behind.

Again, I appreciate your efforts, and know that you have a very hard job. Please know that the faculty, even us grumbly faculty, are behind you, and share the same goals.

-- Anonymous, March 05, 1999