Faculty Workload Model Per Semester 3[3 + (3 x 2)] = 27 hours 9 hours 4 hours 1 C 3 + + Base Teaching Expectation Citizenship Expectation Variable Component Some Examples: Research Project Publication Chair, Major Committee Conference Organizer New Course Development Honors or Similar Program Major Grant Writing Performances or One Course Three Course Sections Administrative Reduction Department Char Program Director Labs? Ensembles? Choirs? Some Examples: Committee Membership College Task Force Department Committee Volunteerism Community Service Student Advisement Professional Development Academic Advisement

The Process Introduced the model to the faculty Held forums to obtain faculty input (6 were held) Obtain more input through a general faculty discussion at a faculty meeting Hold retreat (deans, VPAA, AVPGS) Modify the model and Task Force Report as indicated Develop training and implementation plan with guidelines and forms.

More Process Present to Senior Staff for approval Return to faculty for endorsement Implement the model according to target timelines

Phases of Implementation Why phases? Funds Space Hiring

(3-4 teaching/administration load) Phase I Target Give full-time faculty members one option per academic year for a scholarly, civic engagement, or “other” approved activity (Variable Component). (3-4 teaching/administration load)

Phase I: Objectives Adjust faculty members’ workloads, based on the standards established by the workload model (to achieve fair and reasonable workloads) (2007-2008) Grant a limited number of reassignments for high priority projects or required accreditation activities.(2007-2008) Assess the number of new part-time faculty needed for this phase Determine schedule of hiring of additional part-time faculty based on financial resources Hire an adequate number of full and/or part-time faculty to achieve target of one option per academic year. (2008-2010)

(3-3 teaching/administration load) Phase II Target Each faculty member will receive two options per academic year to engage in scholarly, civic engagement, or “other” approved activity. (3-3 teaching/administration load)

Phase II: Objectives Conduct analysis to determine # of faculty members needed to achieve Phase II target Determine schedule for hiring new faculty based on financial resources of the College Hire new faculty based on department needs and resources

Concerns

Concerns Salaries may be frozen if model is implemented May be inflexible when an unexpected opportunity arises A change in the role of the chair; extra work and decision making burden The effect of the model on tenure and promotion Penalty for choosing the teaching option Could devalue teaching at Nazareth

Concerns Untenured chairs may have difficulty making decisions involving tenured faculty “Collegial” could imply that all decisions must be accepted without complaint or grievance Collegial: “characterized by the collective responsibilities shared by each of the colleagues” (Random House Dictionary) Possibility of abuse in decision making process Favoring one project or faculty member over another

Concerns Lose sight of student needs as we focus on faculty Could increase the demand for research Could confuse unity and uniformity

Concerns Could end up compromising quality of instruction by reassigning faculty to other activities Reliability among department chairs/deans could be a problem

Questions

Questions Should there be other options such as teaching one course in Summer I and only 3 in Fall or Spring semesters? What fits into the “variable” component? Are faculty doing things that others could be doing? What do program directors do? Are they all the same? Why do some get as much reassigned time as chairs?

More Questions What guarantees fairness? Is there a line of appeal? Will Chairs be given some compensation for the additional work? Who assures fairness/reasonableness? Is their currently a fund for research/scholarly activity?

Comments

Comments Faculty need to understand that they are not guaranteed one non-teaching component per year, rather they may propose a non-teaching component. Assessment is very important; must have measurable outcome goals and accountability. Chair training is mandatory if this is to succeed; guidelines with forms would help.

Cont. Comments Some appointments (e.g. theater design) are more like 40 hr. weeks rather than typical class times. Transparency is very important: The more we understand what our colleagues do in their positions, the more we can understand and accept the reassignments.