1 Faculty Employment at USF: Conditions, Concerns, and Suggestions

Faculty Employment at USF: Conditions, Concerns, and Suggestions
By Shawn Doubiago and Susanne Hoelscher
As an institution of higher education, USF’s goal is to achieve excellent student learning
outcomes with high retention rates, enabling graduates to actively lead in their communities and
as global citizens. This goal depends on a highly skilled and engaged professorate.
Research conducted in recent decades demonstrates that over-reliance on contingent or nontenure track faculty (NTTF), and particularly those employed part-time (PT), negatively affects
both 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 its current
state, this over-reliance on PT instructors is a model that cannot sustain the university’s goals
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 in particular,
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 by
definition NTTF). This division has inhibited the development of a system that would allow PT
faculty to be advanced to full-time (FT) status, a type of promotional opportunity that has been
implemented at many universities (e.g. Santa Clara University) precisely as a response to the
need of providing the best possible education to students while recognizing increasing fiscal
constraints, 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 a
clear 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 also
relevant 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/tenured
faculty versus those provided by all non-tenure-track faculty are not available so far, and would
demonstrate a much higher reliance for teaching on NTTF than the distinction between FT and
PT suggests.
This document serves to address the working conditions of contingent/non-tenure-track faculty
at USF in general, and part-time faculty in particular, and to make recommendations that will
benefit the university, its students and professorate as a whole.2 Much of our research has been
informed by the work of Adrianna Kezar, a professor at the Pullias Center for Higher Education
at the University of Southern California, and other contributors to The Delphi Project on the
Changing Faculty and Student Success. As they explain in the document, “Imperative for
Change: Fostering Understanding of the Necessity of Changing Non-Tenure-Track Faculty
1
Non 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. as
tenure-track/tenured faculty. The major differences to their tenure-track colleagues are that they lack the
opportunity 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 and
statistical data reflecting current or recent conditions at USF, which were obtained from USF websites and
other internal sources like departmental and campus-wide offices.
1
Policies and Practices,” three major areas of concern are affected by current university
practices: 1) The Student Learning Imperative; 2) The Equity Imperative; 3) The Risk
Management Imperative. We have previously elaborated on these three aspects in an e-mail
sent 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 issues
identified in Kezar’s 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 Hiring
Current Situation:
• Lack of specific regulations or clear policies for creating new positions or for recognizing
departmental or programmatic needs. Positions that have been opened by the Provost are
allocated based on decisions by the Deans.
• Lack of clear procedures or requirements for hiring PT faculty, or for promoting PT to FT
faculty when a teaching position is needed in a Program or Department. The decision for
hiring 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, including
a prioritization in case not all needs can be met.
• Establish a standing Hiring Committee for each college that allocates positions to
Departments/Programs and oversees hiring processes based on these rules.
• Create a procedure for eliciting requests from Departments and Programs for new positions
based on established rules and regulations.
• Example: Santa Clara University adopted new policies in February 2011, clearly outlining
procedures that establish full-time teaching appointments as "Lecturer" (renewable-term) and
"Senior Lecturer" (continuing) based on “persistent programmatic need” and filled by
incumbent adjunct faculty (see Faculty Handbook. Non Tenure-Track Faculty Appointment
Policies).
2. A Systematic Socialization Process
Current 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).
2
• Regulate sharing of FT faculty office spaces (see 10. Appropriate Office Space).
3. Multi-Year Renewable Contracts
Current Situation:
• No multi-year contracts for PT faculty; contracts are on a semester-to-semester basis with no
job 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 these
appointments on a case-by-case basis.
Suggestions:
• Develop and implement clear, consistent policies for new hiring and promotional opportunities
for PT faculty, including opportunities for gaining FT employment with multi-year contracts.
• Develop and implement clear, consistent policies for new hiring and promotional opportunities
for FT term faculty, including length of contracts and possibilities for advancement to tenuretrack status.
4. Equitable Compensation and Benefits
Per unit (p.u.) income of 2008 and 2013, based on figures in USFFA and PTFA Collective
Bargaining Agreements:
Current Situation:
Full-Time
Assistant Prof. Step 6:
2008 - $72,459 = $2,425 p.u.
2012 - $79,482 = $2,649 p.u. = $224 = 9.2% increase in 4 years
2011-12 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 years
2011-12 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 years
2011-12 increase = 3%
Part-Time
Non-PHP:
2008 - $1,547 p.u.
2012 - $1,668 p.u. = $121 = 7.8% increase in 4 years
2011-12 increase: 2.5%
PHP:
2008 - $1874 p.u.
2012 - $2020 p.u. in PHP = $146 = 7.8% increase in 4 years
2011-12 increase: 2.4%
3
Comparisons of salaries:
2012 FT per unit compensation in comparison to non-PHP PT pay:
Assist. Prof.: 59% more
Assoc. Prof.: 97% more
Full Prof.: 146% more
2012 FT per unit compensation in comparison to PHP PT pay:
Assist. Prof.: 31% more
Assoc. Prof.: 63% more
Full Prof.: 103% more
Per unit actual pay increases from 2008 to 2012:
Non-PHP PT:
$121
PHP PT:
$146
Assist. Prof. Step 6: $224
Assoc. Prof. Step 6: $291
Full Prof. Step 6:
$363
USF per Unit Salaries from 2008-­2012 $4,500.00 $4,000.00 $3,500.00 $3,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $-­‐ 2008 2012 Non-­‐PHP PHP I Asst Assoc Full Adjunct Adjunct Professor Prof Step Professor Step 6 6 Step 6 Health Insurance:
Part-time
• Limited spots for health insurance with Kaiser for PHP (currently 110).
• No dental insurance.
• Higher premiums paid by PT than FT for Kaiser.
Full-time
• Choice of Health Care Provider
• Dental Insurance
• Lower premiums paid by FT than PT faculty for Kaiser.
Retirement and other benefits:
Not yet investigated.
4
Summary of current conditions:
The significant disparity between PT and FT faculty income per unit has been increasing due to
smaller percentage-based increases for PT salaries, and the gap between the per unit pay for
PT versus FT faculty has been widening drastically. Considering that many, if not most, PT
faculty enter employment at USF with qualifications similar to those of FT hires (Ph.D. or other
terminal degree), and that the majority have been teaching at USF for many years, this
discrepancy is cause for concern at a university that espouses social justice as one of its main
pillars. This inequity is exacerbated by the fact that PT salaries include no compensation for
service, something that is often done unofficially as it is expected for a full investment in
teaching (advising of students, committee-work, curricula and program development,
participation in departmental affairs etc.). Furthermore, PT, just as FT term faculty, do not have
the benefit of sabbaticals, and even lose their health insurance when taking an unpaid leave of
absence instead.
Another significant imbalance is evident in the 2013 fiscal year budget, which lists the total
salary and benefits expenses as 74.5 million for FT, and only 19.5 million for PT faculty, while
according 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 for
the university is generated through students' tuition, and that more than one half of the student
credit hours in the College of Arts and Sciences (and much more in some departments) are
provided by PT faculty, this figure is extraordinarily disproportionate (see "Operating Budget for
Fiscal Year 2013" and university statistics on SCH).
Suggestions:
We recognize the administration's fiscal constraints for the long-term financial viability of our
institution, and we find that a shift in current employment practices is not only necessary, but
also feasible. As has been done at other universities, like Santa Clara, a new category of FT
appointments could be established, which are preferably filled by incumbent PT faculty based
on clearly defined guidelines such as programmatic needs and teaching excellence (see the
SCU’s Faculty Handbook, Policies, and Procedures - Non-tenure-track Faculty Appointment
Policies).
Faculty in these positions could be designated as "Lecturers" and "Senior Lecturers" as is
already common at many institutions of higher education. Basing the salaries on current PHP 2
compensation would make this model fiscally feasible.
Possible conditions for Lecturers might be:
• The candidate holds a PhD 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 = $ 58,176
Service $ 2,424 x 6 units = $ 14,544
Total
$ 2,424 x 30 units = $ 72,720
• Promotional opportunities and salary increases at a lower rate than those of the current
salary 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 current CBA.
5
5. Clear Role Definitions
Current Situation:
• Roles within Departments and Programs for PT and FT working in different capacities are not
clearly defined.
Suggestion:
• Roles and responsibilities for different positions should be clearly defined and contractually
agreed upon, based on consensus between unions and administration.
6. Promotional Opportunities and Evaluation
Current Situation:
• After admission to the Preferred Hiring Pool (PHP), PT instructors have no consistent
opportunity for promotion (PHP 2 includes only a salary increase, is currently only
implemented by the College of Arts and Sciences, and the positions are limited as determined
by the Deans; therefore it is not yet a true promotion).
• There is no consistent evaluation process in place; an over-reliance on student teaching
evaluations determines placement into PHP and PHP 2.
• All decisions are ultimately based on the Deans’ discretion; there are no clearly defined
criteria, and no explanations for denial of advancement.
Suggestions:
• Opportunities for PT faculty promotions, including promotion to FT status, should be clearly
defined in contracts and consistently implemented.
• A transparent and comprehensive evaluation system should be applied equitably to PT and
FT faculty.
• All new hires and promotions, including those for PT instructors, should be reviewed by faculty
elected committees.
7. Professional Development
Current Situation:
• While opportunities for on-campus professional development are open to PT faculty, there are
no incentives for participation beyond personal interest; there is no compensation, and
professional development is not tied to promotional opportunities and evaluations.
• Participation in off-campus workshops and conferences may be funded through the Teaching
Development Fund (TDF), but the funding is often not secured before the events, so that PT
have to pay for all expenses out of their own pocket first, in the hope that reimbursement will
be granted retroactively.
• Resources for the TDF are limited and full funding is often denied. This is apparently not an
issue for FT.
Suggestions:
• A system needs to be implemented that secures reimbursement from the TDF in sufficient
time before an event to allow PT to register and make travel arrangements.
• A comprehensive evaluation system needs to be implemented (see above, #6) and directly
tied to promotion and development.
8. Participation in Governance
6
Current Situation (limited to MCL):
• The approximately 40 PT faculty members in MCL are invited to department meetings and are
able to express their opinions, but have no vote in any affairs; all decisions are made by the
13 FT faculty.
• Within the different programs, PT faculty have varying input in curricular development or other
decision-making processes; this usually depends on the size of the program and the FT
involved (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 processes
and voting rights are essential in order to foster personal investment, commitment to the
university, greater teaching effectiveness, and accountability.
• Clear regulations regarding participation in governance need to be developed and
implemented across programs, departments, and colleges.
9. Academic Freedom
Academic freedom is tied to governance and voting rights (see above, #8). It should include the
opportunity to participate in curricular and other decision-making processes directly related to
instruction.
10. Appropriate Office Space
Current Situation:
• Most PT faculty from the College of Arts and Sciences are assigned to a large shared office
space on 4th floor Gleeson.
• This communal office space is not adequate for student advising, class preparation, or other
teaching related tasks.
• The difference between FT and PT office spaces conveys the clear impression to students
that 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 spaces
for both PT and FT faculty from specific departments - this could be a great project for an
architecture class!
• Emphasis should be given to the sharing of individual offices currently held by FT faculty; a
specific formula could be developed, e.g. making the office available one or two days per
week.
Conclusion
Our university, as most institutions in Higher Education, has been facing considerable
organizational and fiscal challenges, as poignantly expressed by Father Privett in his recent
Town 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 innovative
approaches. Simply adding new full-time appointments at current conditions is financially
prohibitive when striving to significantly change the over-reliance on part-time employment in the
education of our students.
7
Embracing our university’s Mission and Value’s Statement and its motto, Change the World
from Here, we believe that a profound shift from existing paradigms is needed, a shift that
accounts for fiscal limitations while benefitting our students and promoting greater social justice
within our own ranks.
As illustrated above, and based on models already implemented at other universities, we
envision the establishment of a new line of full-time appointments, which are primarily given to
qualified and committed incumbent part-time faculty. These positions would arguably not require
many more resources than currently expended for part-time positions, particularly when
considering the fact that this new model of full-time employment would provide more teaching
hours per instructor to the university, thus cutting down on the overall number of faculty and the
expenses for health care and other benefits. Another cost reducing factor would be savings in
administrative as well as actual costs since extra compensation for directed studies and other
services that are currently paid to part-timers would be minimized. A more important effect
would be the improvements to faculty morale, a fairer distribution of service obligations, and an
enfranchised collegiate that can truly collaborate towards strengthening courses, programs, and
departments.
In this context, we would like to address the opinion that all full-time employment should be
subject to a national search. It is a known fact that every full-time job listing nowadays
generates dozens, if not hundreds of applications, particularly for universities in desirable cities
like San Francisco, and highly regarded institutions like USF. It is therefore likely that outside
applicants would have more impressive Curriculum Vitae or other attributes, which might make
them more marketable than incumbent PT faculty. We maintain, however, that the continuity of
a Program and a Department are much better served by expanding the opportunities of those
who have proven themselves to contribute convincingly to USF’s mission and values, to be
highly regarded colleagues, and effective teachers. Hiring new faculty based on national
searches that may take over positions now filled by incumbent PT faculty would not serve to
remedy current inequities. Furthermore, the enormous amounts of time, energy, and
administrative 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 are
convinced that implementing a system that offers advancement to full-time status based on
demonstrated performance will not only be fair and equitable to those who have dedicated much
of 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 the
advancement of PT faculty to FT status would effectively strengthen the overall quality of
education at USF. Increasing the percentage of fully invested, full-time faculty members would
benefit students, departments, and existing FT faculty alike. Alternatively, PT faculty who have
no interest in, or have not been promoted to full-time employment, should still have a voice in
curricula and governance, and, as all other faculty, should be part of a system of comprehensive
evaluations that is directly linked to improvements in instruction.
We hope that the evidence compiled here provides enough substantiation to all parties involved
to 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 new
approaches. We see this as an opportunity to be at the forefront of a nation-wide shift in faculty
equity. Ultimately, it is in all of our interests to promote a “best practices” policy, with the
8
objective of creating a new university model grounded in professional standards that promote
suitable conditions for “optimizing faculty members’ contributions to student success” (“The
Delphi Project”).
Works Cited
Committee on Contingent Labor in the Profession. Modern Language Association. 7 December
2012. Web. 28 April, 2013. http://www.mla.org/committee_contingent.
Faculty Handbook. Non Tenure-Track Faculty Appointment Policies. Santa Clara University
Provost’s Office. 1 February, 2011. Web. 28 April, 2013.
http://www.scu.edu/provost/policy/handbook/
Kendzior, Sarah. “Academia’s 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-FORCHANGE_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-continuesto-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.
9