1. 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

2. 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.

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

4. Phases of Implementation
Why phases?
Funds
Space
Hiring

5. (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)

6. Phase I: Objectives
Adjust faculty members’ workloads, based on the standards established by the workload model (to achieve fair and reasonable workloads) ( )
Grant a limited number of reassignments for high priority projects or required accreditation activities.( )
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. ( )

7. (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)

8. 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

9. Concerns

10. 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

11. 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

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

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

14. Questions

15. 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?

16. 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?

17. Comments

18. 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.

19. 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.