Frequently Asked Questions on Implementing New Promotion
Transcription
Frequently Asked Questions on Implementing New Promotion
Frequently Asked Questions on Implementing New Promotion Practices for Part-time Faculty Please note: The following responses are based on findings outlined in the documents Faculty Employment at USF: Conditions, Concerns, and Suggestions and Calculation for a New Faculty Model, and are intended for further discussions. 1. Why should changes to current practices of adjunct employment be discussed? a. Studies demonstrate a direct link between institutions’ support for adjunct faculty (or their lack thereof) and said faculty’s ability to teach effectively. b. Adjuncts, who teach the majority of the student credit hours, are currently not given appropriate support to ensure teaching excellence and this may negatively affect student learning and retention. c. Current hiring and employment practices are unfair to adjuncts and ultimately untenable. d. The quality of instruction and the strength of programs is undermined by current practices. e. Collaboration and cohesion among faculty is undermined by current practices. f. The service to our students is undermined by current practices. g. The debate about the inequities in adjunct employment is receiving increasing publicity nationally and in main stream media, ultimately damaging the reputation of universities. h. USF explicitly espouses ethical values and social justice in its mission statement, and, hence, should be a leader in promoting social justice within its own institution. i. There is an increasingly growing movement among Jesuit universities to foster worker justice, including that of adjuncts. 2. When should a full-time position for an adjunct be allocated? The allocation of a full-time position should be based on a department’s demonstration of a consistent programmatic need for teaching faculty. 3. What should be the requirements and criteria for an adjunct's promotion to full time status? a. PHP Status or eligibility for PHP (the admittance of an adjunct to the “Preferred Hiring Pool” currently requires a minimum of 32 units of teaching at USF). b. Proof of teaching excellence and commitment to students and the university's mission. c. Recommendation by the department (based on a majority vote of faculty with full-time employment). d. Approval by the USFFA Peer Review Committee. 4. What is the advantage of adjunct promotion over national searches to fill full-time teaching positions? a. The promotion of adjuncts provides greater continuity within programs and departments, and benefits students. b. The promotion of adjuncts to full-time positions would only be granted based on already proven teaching excellence and commitment, which are arguably better indicators of actual performance than job interviews and CVs. c. "In-house" promotion constitutes significant savings in time and money over national searches. d. No other business does a job search before promoting a current employee to take on greater responsibilities. e. No promotional opportunities for full-time faculty, such as tenure, nor the renewal of term contracts are tied to a national search. f. National searches should still be conducted for filling tenure-track positions and the recruitment of outstanding researchers in the field. 5. Given the unregulated, and often ad-hoc hiring of many adjuncts, aren’t we foregoing the opportunity to find better qualified instructors for full-time positions through national searches? a. In order to disperse this concern, the current lack of procedures and requirements for hiring adjuncts should be addressed by establishing a standing Hiring Committee for each college that allocates positions to departments/programs and oversees hiring processes based on specific rules and regulations. b. Any adjunct faculty member who is considered qualified to be promoted to a full-time position will have undergone vigorous scrutiny; the promotion will be based on a long-term commitment to USF and its mission as well as evidence of consistent teaching effectiveness. 6. Would this new line of faculty employment change current conditions for term positions? Yes. Full-time term positions would be converted back to their original intent: the temporary replacement of tenure-track faculty who are on sabbatical or other leaves of absence. 7. What would happen to current term faculty? Current multi-year term positions should be “grandfathered” in with continuous contracts, or through transitions to tenured employment. 8. Wouldn't this new line create a two tier system among full-time faculty? a. We already have a two-tier system among full-time faculty since term faculty work under different conditions, e.g. they do not have job security, are not entitled to sabbaticals, and do not receive compensation for research. b. Currently, the large group of adjuncts (about 2/3 of all faculty) are not even considered in this paradigm; they work with no or limited benefits and most earn less than a living wage. c. Addressing the inequitable and ultimately unsustainable current employment practices by offering adjuncts the possibility of promotion to full-time status is a step toward redressing the inequities between faculty that are not officially recognized at this point. 9. Why should current full-time faculty support this proposal? a. Departments and programs would be strengthened by a greater number of fully invested instructors. b. The quality of instruction would improve due to less turnovers and new hires under more rigorous and consistent hiring practices and evaluation. c. Highly qualified current adjuncts would be able to take on more teaching assignments. d. Service assignments would be more evenly distributed among a greater number of full-time faculty. e. Time for interviewing, hiring, and mentoring new adjuncts would be reduced. 10. How would this new line of faculty impact tenure-track/tenured faculty a. The current service-load for all full-time faculty would be reduced. b. The research component of tenure-track appointments will be strengthened when more faculty are fully invested in teaching and service. c. The tenure system would be strengthened by a clear distinction between teaching and teaching/research positions. 11. What would be the benefits to the university? a. The overall quality of instruction would improve since fully employed instructors would be more invested in teaching, teaching development, and student services, potentially leading to better student retention. b. The overall quality of instruction would improve since the promotional opportunity will motivate adjuncts to deepen their engagement in their teaching, within their departments, and with their students. c. The overall quality of instruction would improve due to less turnover among instructors and a greater continuity within programs and departments. d. Wages and benefits for the new line of full-time instructors would be considerably less than current compensation for term faculty, thus allowing for an increase of fully employed faculty. e. Less national searches would save significant amounts of time and resources. f. USF could emerge as a leader for social change in the increasingly urgent and public debate over adjunct employment conditions. g. USF’s Mission and Values Statement would be better reflected in its own employment practices.