back

 FINAL REPORT

on Limited-Term Faculty 

Submitted to the Faculty Senate

By the University Planning Council

John Richardson, Chair

May 20, 2003

Charge to the UPC:

           The Faculty Senate directed the University Planning Council to “investigate the status of, and offer clarification of handbook language regarding the status of limited term and part-time faculty” (see Appendix A). In early consideration of the charge, it was emphasized that the primary concern of the Senate was limited term faculty [LTF].  As shown in Appendix B, Lecturers (the preponderant number of LTF) have grown considerably over the past decade as a percent of the total faculty.  Accordingly, the focus of attention and discussion by the Council was concentrated on this population. 

            This Report addresses the four issues pertaining to Limited Term Faculty as given in the Senate’s Charge:

How should the University evaluate limited-term faculty for merit raises?  Current Handbook language suggests that limited-term faculty should be evaluated for merit raises based on teaching, scholarship and service but limited term faculty are often hired for specific duties such as teaching.

 

·       University Level:

The Faculty Handbook specifies the criteria and procedures for the evaluation of probationary, tenure-track faculty, and for permanent, tenured faculty (Section 1, Part V, B and C).   For routine evaluation of limited-term faculty, Handbook language states (V.B.1):

“all limited-term faculty shall be evaluated annually by the department in a manner established by the department and dean”.

For general merit, Handbook language states (X.E.1(c):

“Limited-term faculty are not eligible for general merit during their first six quarters of service.  Limited-term faculty who have served at a .5 FTE appointment or more for six quarters shall be reviewed for eligibility for general merit by their college/departmental peers through a formal process.  Subsequent reviews shall occur after nine additional quarters of service at .5 FTE or more.  All reviews of limited-term faculty shall be conducted as part of the normal college/department

review process of faculty for general merit eligibility.  Limited-term faculty at less than .5 FTE appointment are not eligible for general merit." 

            Summary:

1.                  Potential Salary Disparity by FTE.  As it is stated, faculty with an FTE less than .5 are both not eligible for general merit review, and may, as a consequence, fall behind LTF at a .5 or higher FTE.  Two individuals who differ only by FTE (i.e., have same prior experiences, begin at the same time, and at the same salary), may have different salaries after a few years, for LTF at less than .5 get only cost of living (COL).  For example:*

                           Yr 1                     Yr 2 COL 1%; GM 3%           Yr 3 COL 1.5%; GM 3%

Fac 1 @ .333            $10,000             $10,100                                 $10,252

* Source: Esther Harris, College of Arts and Sciences.

College Level:

·       Criteria and procedures for the evaluation of LFT are either directly specified or suggested in the Unit Evaluation Plans of three of the six colleges: Arts and Sciences, Fine and Performing Arts, and Fairhaven, as well as the University Libraries.  There is no specific reference found in the Plans for Woodring College, CBE, or Huxley College.  The language is given below:

Arts and Sciences:  Limited-term faculty are not eligible for general merit during their first six quarters of service.  Limited-term faculty who have served at a .5 appointment or more for six quarters shall be reviewed for eligibility for general merit by their college/departmental peers through a formal process. Subsequent reviews shall occur after nine additional quarters of service at .5 FTE or more.  All reviews of limited-term faculty shall be conducted as part of the normal college/departmental review process of faculty for general merit eligibility.  Limited-term faculty at a less than .5 appointment are not eligible for general merit.

CFPA: The time line for evaluation shall be established by the Executive Committee and dean.  Limited term faculty members shall be evaluated annually by the department chair.  The evaluation shall focus on the faculty member’s teaching role and any related assigned responsibilities.  Limited term faculty members shall submit to the department chair student course evaluations for every course taught. The department chair shall invite evaluation comments from all tenured faculty. The evaluation of the department chair and synthesis of faculty comments shall be communicated to the faculty members in writing. Where appropriate, the department chair shall meet with the faculty member to review the evaluation.

Fairhaven: Adjunct and visiting faculty receive a summary of the student comments and a written evaluation from the Dean each year. This evaluation becomes part of the faculty’s permanent record that is reviewed by the Faculty Appointments and Affairs Committee when reappointments are considered.

Summary:

1.                  Specific language pertaining to the evaluation of LTF is not found in all Unit Evaluation Plans.  Moreover, only the College of Arts and Sciences specifies the eligibility of LTF for general merit – consistent with the university level language.

2.                  Within a college there may be inconsistency.  Example: The College of Arts and Sciences states:

“For limited-term faculty with an annual appointment of less than .5000 FTE, the Chair provides an evaluation or letter of recommendation at the request of the faculty member.” 

Thus, while the language for the university level clearly provides  that all limited-term faculty “shall be evaluated annually,” for LTF below a .5000 FTE, this may be fulfilled only if requested by the faculty member. 

·       As shown in Appendix D, there is variation across departments as to “access to resources” and “voting rights” – two indicators and means of faculty development.  As these (limited) responses reveal, there is a close link between the two: the right to vote on departmental matters is complemented by access to resources for one’s professional development.

	What type of contracts should LTF receive?  How can we improve job security for semi-permanent faculty?

 

·       Given the annual evaluation of LTF, and because a new PA must be submitted each year, nearly all contracts are annual appointments. More substantively, there is a degree of inconsistency between the Handbook language defining the categories of tenured/tenure-track faculty and the categories for “faculty without rank”.

The former comprises the traditional ranks of assistant, associate and professor ranks (with the additional references to instructor and emeritus faculty). Faculty contracts for tenured/tenure track faculty can be formulated with more consistent language that reflects university level expectations. In contrast, for faculty  “without rank,” the categories are greater in number and more diverse in expectation. The categories comprise: lecturer, special appointment, affiliated teaching faculty, research associate, visiting faculty, and adjunct professor.  Moreover, within Visiting Faculty there may be appointments as visiting instructor, visiting assistant professor, visiting associate professor, or visiting professor – adding four additional categories.  In short, references to Limited Term or Semi-permanent faculty disguise the heterogeneity of these ranks. 

Summary: The diversity among LTF may complicate the formulation of Handbook language that defines the “types of contract” in more uniform ways.   Insofar as the needs and forces that promote the appointment of LTF arise from within departments, the types of contract will and ought to be defined at the department level.  The contrast between a more uniform Handbook language that seeks to define university level expectations and a more diverse population of LTF can obscure tensions that may impede the improvement of “job security.”  Specifically, as the standards and procedures for the evaluation of tenured/tenure track faculty increase, this in turn impacts the evaluation of LTF. As for all faculty, expanded evaluation can raise expectations for greater rights and rewards.  For tenured/tenure track faculty, this is a source of lowered morale.  For LTF, it can be more: a source of lowered morale plus threatened job security. 

Ironically, attempts to define the procedures for appointing and evaluating LTF in Handbook language that is more uniform or consistent with tenure/tenure track faculty may undermine their sense of job security.  This is suggested in the AAUP position that favors multiple models: “Multiple models for faculty, developed around the kinds of work they do for their institutions, will better serve both the profession and the institution” (see Appendix E). 

What other issues do LTF want us to address?

 

·       While important to assess, this is not a Handbook issue.  This may best be addressed by monitoring the opinions and attitudes of LTF on a routine basis.  Such monitoring of opinions/attitudes can yield important information about job security and professional development.  Linking this kind of monitoring to routinely gathered statistics would help meet the “major positions” of AAUP as well (see Appendix E). 

RECOMMENDATIONS

1.                  Amend the Faculty Handbook to specify that all evaluations of LTF should be closely linked to the expectations defined in letters of appointment. 

Rationale:   The actual faculty title and expectations are established at the department level, and in concert with the Dean of the college.  Annual evaluation and general merit evaluation of LTF should accordingly be conducted with clear reference to the terms of the appointment.  [This is under consideration by the Salary Task Force committee].

2.                  Amend the Faculty Handbook to specify that LTF should have the logistical support necessary to carry out the expectations defined in letters of appointment (e.g. office space, phone, access to a computer in the office, mailbox).

Rationale:  There is language in the section on Probationary and Permanent faculty guaranteeing office space, but not for the LTF.  For LTF to provide high quality teaching, as they most frequently are asked to do, they need to have a place to meet students, contact students, and access key technology (like Blackboard).

3.                  Ensure that all colleges have explicit language that defines the procedures for the evaluation of LTF, and their rights to participate in general merit.

Rationale: While the Handbook language for evaluation stipulates that all LTF be evaluated annually, this may be abridged at the college level.  

4.                  Consider proposing that all LTF, regardless of FTE, be eligible for general merit. 

Rationale: As indicated in the text, a widening salary gap can/does develop between LTF who begin at the same time but at different FTE levels. 

5.                  Consider establishing ranks internal to the position of Lecturer. An advanced rank of Lecturer could entail a longer period of appointment, augmented voting rights and eligibility for general and special merit. 

Rationale:  The addition of a rank of “Senior Lecturer,” and/or “Principal Lecturer,” would increase job security and morale for faculty who have taught routinely, as well as provide stability within departments.  While LTF faculty are evaluated annually, they presently have no way to increase their status, which has led to low morale among those who have been teaching at Western the longest.  Increased morale will encourage greater productivity and higher quality teaching.  A model - and justification - for such change is provided by the recent “Report and Statement of Principles Subcommittee on Lecturer Status” at the University of Washington and in the “Lecturer Legislation” recently approved by that university’s Faculty Senate (see the links below):

http://www.washington.edu/faculty/facsenate/senate/legislation/classa/lecturer.htm

http://www.washington.edu/faculty/facsenate/councils/fcfa/lecturereport.htm

http://www.washington.edu/faculty/facsenate/councils/fciq/FCIQ-minutes/00-01/112900mins.htm). 

APPENDIX

A.                 Senate Charge to the University Planning Council: Approved 11/19/01.

General Issues:

We have several different types of limited term and part-time faculty.  How can we design policies that address the issues that develop from their differences?  How can we clarify the vocabulary used in the Faculty Handbook and develop clear policies?

Limited Term Faculty:

1.                  How should the University evaluate limited-term faculty for merit raises?  Current Handbook language suggests that limited-term faculty should be evaluated for merit raises based on teaching, scholarship and service but limited term faculty are often hired for specific duties such as teaching.

2.                  What type of faculty development should departments offer to limited term faculty?

3.                  What type of contracts should limited term faculty receive?  How can we improve job security for semi-permanent faculty, limited term faculty?  Should we consider offering long term contracts to select limited term faculty?

4.                  What other issues do limited term faculty want us to address?

Part Time Faculty:

1.                  How do we evaluate part-time tenure track faculty?  What standards of publication and service do we require?

2.                  How do we define part-time status?

3.                  Should we count time for service differently for tenure track part time faculty?  For example, if we used the methods stipulated on page 10 of the Faculty Handbook, a tenure track part time employee (.5) would not be eligible for a sabbatical for twelve years or required to be tenured for twelve years.  Should we reconsider that policy given the number of fractional appointments we now have?

B.          Full/Part-Time Lecturers as a Percent of the Total Faculty:

            Year                Headcount                 FTE

            2001                         33%                        22%

            2000                         32                           21

            1999                         28                           19

            1998                         25                           16

            1997                         26                           14

            1996                         27                           18

            1995                         28                           17

            1994                         25                           14

            1993                         22                           11

Limited Term Faculty as of Fall, 1997.

60.1% are female.

5.8% are minority.

Most of these hold less than the Ph.D.  In fact:

Degree Level                                Percent

Less than Bachelors                                2.9

Bachelors                                             20.3

Masters                                                55.8

Ph.D (and 1 J.D.)                                   21.0

_____________________________________

Number of Years Worked at Western (all NTT Faculty as of FALL, 1997)

FTE for Each Limited Term Faculty, Fall 1997, Categorized.