Search News


Browse Archives

News

Better Contracts for Full-Time Adjuncts

March 31, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Many people used to use "part timer" as a synonym for "adjunct." Increasingly, the two words can't be assumed to be interchangeable, as one of the fastest growing job categories in higher education is the full-time instructor off the tenure track. With that in mind, faculty unions are talking more about the need to include specific provisions in contracts to help this subset of the professorial work force.

Most contracts say relatively little about the circumstances of employment for full-time non-tenure-track faculty members, largely lumping them with others off the tenure track, said speakers Saturday at a joint conference of the higher education divisions of the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association.

On the issue of benefits, many full-time adjuncts fare relatively well, said Christine Maitland, an organizational specialist with the NEA's Pacific Regional Office. Maitland said that many colleges and universities tie benefits to a simple test of how many hours someone works, so full-time contingent faculty members tend to be eligible for participation in health insurance and other benefits. On salaries, the successes that unions have had generally have tied the percentage increase in full timers' salaries to the percentage increase going to those on the tenure track. While this has assured some raises, Maitland noted that the gap in the base pay means that inequities only grow.

Gary Rhoades, director of the University of Arizona Center for the Study of Higher Education, said that the area where full-time faculty members have specific needs, largely ignored in contracts, is conditions of employment. That would include how hiring, contract renewal, evaluations and terminations are handled. The "arbitrariness" of the way many of these questions are handled is a major motivating factor in non-tenure-track professors' unionizeing efforts, Rhoades said. For full timers, many of whom work long term at their colleges and universities, these sorts of policies create particular vulnerabilities.

While Rhoades characterized the overall contract picture as inadequate in this area, he pointed to a series of contract provisions that he said are the sort that unions should push for and that colleges and universities should adopt. (Rhoades and Maitland completed a study of such contract provisions for inclusion in the NEA's Almanac of Higher Education.)

Among provisions he cited:

  • California State University's new contract with lecturers, which creates a specific path for full timers to gain three-year contracts.
  • Connecticut State University's contract, which states that full-time, non-tenure track instructors will be evaluated by procedures developed by the Faculty Senate and in ways that involve faculty members, not just administrators.
  • Jacksonville (Florida) Community College's provisions that administrators evaluating full-time instructors must consider student evaluations and peer evaluations, not just their own impressions.
  • Northampton (Pennsylvania) Community College's provisions that require academic departments to be consulted in all hiring of full-time faculty members, even off the tenure track.
  • Many provisions that require "just cause" for termination.

Rhoades read from one contract at a college he declined to identify that specified that renewals of full-time appointments off the tenure track were "an option of the university, at its sole discretion." While spelling out that right may seem particularly upsetting, he said that when there is no language at all in the contract (which is common), it can have the same impact.

Ultimately, he said, the contract efforts are about bringing full-time adjuncts "into academic governance" where professors are doing the evaluating and decision-making. Ultimately, academic freedom depends on peer evaluation, Rhoades said, so these changes are about creating an environment where the full-time professoriate can teach with the full protections of academic freedom, not just about advancing their economic status.

Kirsten Herold, chief negotiator of the Lecturers' Employee Organization of the University of Michigan, an AFT affiliate, said that many of her union's full-time, non-tenure-track faculty members have been teaching for a decade or more, much of the time with minimal job security. The union won contract provisions that allow for three-year contracts after four years of work. She said that the key to the union's success has been appealing to university administrators who had come up through departments that treated full-time adjuncts well. Many departments realize that it is to their advantage to do so, she said, noting that the needs for many of these positions are quite stable, allowing institutions to offer longer term contracts.

"The need to teach composition and languages is always there," she said.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Better Contracts for Full-Time Adjuncts

  • Posted by Anon on March 31, 2008 at 6:55am EDT
  • In the Fall of 2006, faculty at Wheaton College in MA, working closely with administration, evolved model legislation which ensures contingent faculty involvement in governance, sets up formats for continual peer evaluation, creates visible pathways to contract renewals, and brings contingent faculty, both full-timers and part-timers, boldly and surely into the Wheaton community. While some elements of this legislation are still evolving, both the process and outcome of the work done by faculty, the provost, and president at Wheaton present an inspiring model for similar legislation elsewhere.

  • Re: "Better Contracts..."
  • Posted by Gerald Davey, Ph. D. , Instructor on March 31, 2008 at 9:15am EDT
  • A key problem with this approach - which emphasizes only full-time adjunct faculty - is that it further motivates administrators to not be willing to hire full-time adjuncts. At our system, full-time adjuncts have all but disappeared precisely of increased pay and benefits. There is an absolute determination to fill all positions with only part-time adjuncts. Hence, the issue becomes mute. by separating full-time adjuncts from part-time adjuncts in our deliberations, we are serving neither for it will be used to the detriment of both.

  • de-tenurization
  • Posted by Barbara on March 31, 2008 at 10:40am EDT
  • Maybe the horses left the barn a long time ago, but it seems to be a way of making non-tenure-track permanent positions the norm and give people to whom the institution makes a minimal commitment all the "governance" work without any of the benefits of tenure (not just for individuals but for the mission of academic life). Call me a romantic, but I still value the institution of tenure and the academic freedom that's part of it.

    I am sympathetic to those who are already permanently impermanent, but this makes "better than nothing" as if nothing is our only other option.

  • Define Better, Please
  • Posted by Sam Rosenthal on March 31, 2008 at 11:05am EDT
  • First of all, we need to examine the source of the information. It was disseminated at a conference of the AFT and NEA. This is not to say the organizations are incapable of conducting unbiased research, quite the contrary. However, the timing of the "finding" is suspect considering that both organizations are involved in a major national legislative push to create "full-time jobs," primarily for tenure-track faculty and secondarily for per course part-time faculty in the form of full-time temporary lecturerships. Dr. Sandra Schroeder, president of the Washington Federation of Teachers, testified in favor of the full-time lecturer strategy in front of the Washington State Legislature.

    Next, by virtue of the definition of the word, "contract," we have the implication of an agreement between two parties that benefits both equally (one hopes). With a tip of the cap to Ms. Maitland who points this out, of course, neither the AFT nor NEA has significantly closed the pay gap between full-time tenure-line and non-tenure line faculty, in some instances after 30 years of union representation.

    As for researcher Gary Rhodes (and writer Scott Jaschik), he obviously did not read the contract between the California State University system and its lecturers. Had he done so, he would have come across section 12.30. With that clause, to which the union representatives agreed in 2002, the university officials may terminate those same three-year contracts at any time during the contract in order to provide employment for or hire new tenure-line faculty. In essence, thanks to that clause, the three-year contract option, which Mr. Rhodes holds up as an example, provides no more protection to the CSU lecturers (who comprise one-half of the California Faculty Association's membership) than a semester-to-semester appointment.

    Rather than look to any such a renewal clause as it applies to the lecturers represented by the California Faculty Association, one should look cautiously to the LEO contract. It contains no such termination clause (yet). One should, however, note that reappointments of University of Michigan lecturers are based on performance evaluations, and university officials have been painfully slow in completing those evaluations, in some instances.

    Further, Lecturer I faculty (over 400 of LEO's members) must be CONSECUTIVELY employed Fall and Winter semesters for three years before being eligible for performance review and any long-term contract. As any per course part-timer knows, it's much too easy to find oneself without classes for a semester. At that point, LEO I lecturers would have to start over completely, and work again toward their three years of consecutive employment. A good follow-up question for Ms. Herold would be to tell us how many Lecturer I faculty have moved into the Lecturer II category over the course of LEO's contract.

    This notion of consecutive year employment before the implementation of multi-year contracts (and formal evaluations) presents university officials with a much-too-convenient mechanism to limit the number of LEO lecturers who may move toward evaluation and the reward of multi-year contracts. Only time (and union grievances) will tell us if University of Michigan administrators use the consecutive employment clause to their advantage, to save money and, ultimately, to thwart the intention of the contract.

  • At-Will Hiring for Adjuncts: A Defense
  • Posted by Rod Bell , Adjunct Professor at College of DuPage on March 31, 2008 at 6:10pm EDT
  • This respectfully submitted comment is rather lengthy; I hope its content justifies its length.

    Arguably, there is a latent demand for more at-will positions for non-tenure-track (NTT) teachers which, if recognized and intelligently exploited, would serve a broad range of interests.

    By “at will” NTT positions, I mean a) no expectation for NTTs to migrate to tenure-track based on exemplary performance, and b)no implied job security. An NTT can be terminated at the end of the year for any reason, which need not be explained or justified (though I don’t mean to argue against common courtesy).

    The potential benefit for tenure-track and tenured faculty would be to enhance their ability to maintain their department’s offerings and reputation under economic circumstances that cannot support a program based entirely on the tenure system. This potential benefit is obscured if we conflate part-time and NTT.

    I am arguing for, not against, continuing the tenure-track system at institutions where faculty quality is a good-faith objective. Obviously this applies to prestige institutions, whether research-oriented or teaching-oriented, or both. Such faculties need to protect their earned reputations, and tenure is an indispensable tool of the faculty, who rightly protect their control, or at least influence, over the process. But the argument also applies to numerous faculties throughout academia who have worked hard to develop and maintain quality programs informed by their own criteria, and which they would defend as important implementations, so to speak, of academia, or professional preparation, or whatever their self-understanding may be. Community colleges, non-elite state universities, private colleges, and even for-profit professional schools, may have such faculties--or not; it depends.

    The tenure system is at risk under current economic conditions, which probably will continue into the foreseeable future. Tenured faculty need to protect and maintain their integrity by using the tenure system, but they also need to protect and maintain their overall programs; they don't need a pyrrhic victory. Over-reliance upon adjunct faculty, under current assumptions about adjuncts as part-timers, threatens to vitiate rather than protect the tenured faculty program. Students feel cheated, and the collegial atmosphere of the department is degraded. –And the adjuncts feel screwed.

    To illustrate the approach I am advocating, I will put myself forward as a case in point (with due apologies for personalizing my argument).

    I am a very high-functioning political scientist, with broad expertise in related disciplines. If at-will NTT hiring were an accepted practice, I could make a fine case for my candidacy at many institutions. Some would say Wow, let’s give it a try; others would say Not for us. But where the fit was right for a given tenured faculty, I would be a valued colleague who positively maintained, even contributed to, the faculty’s reputation and quality among their students and other stakeholders. Moreover, I would be much less expensive and much, much less of a risk than any alternative hire, since my employment is at-risk.

    Now, the important point is this: There are a lot of candidates like me, and more to come in the next couple of decades. In the past, we would have been “retirees,” but that fit isn’t very good today and in the coming decades, because a) retirement benefits are rapidly losing value, if they are available at all (cf. the SS crisis) and b) the traditional retirement age is just too young for more and more of us. We are, or want to be, still engaged with our disciplines. And just as the economic crunch of the 1970s helped society to discover the obvious benefits of employing vastly more women (who were just as productive and less expensive), so does the current crunch suggest a better use of older workers.

    Yes, many older academics will work for less for the same reasons that women did in the 1970s: We think it would be more satisfying than to be kept out of our preferred job market, and we could use the money, compared to our current options. But what about the effects of my proposal on a) the tenure system and b) the army of younger part-timers seeking reasonable job security?

    The tenure system would work better, more as it is intended to work. There would be less need to hire more TT professors than a reasonable evaluation process could be expected to promote. (Not every TT can expect tenure, but there should be a fair chance at tenure based on performance.) Moreover, the integrity of the faculty thus recruited could be maintained if the tenure process is not ransomed to a parallel process that discourages quality appointments.

    At the quite numerous institutions that operate on a different “business model,” so to speak, institutions that compete by offering education and degrees as a commodity, the reasonable recourse for teachers is to organize on a professional basis to demand and gain the best remuneration and protections the market can afford. But this is a volatile and perhaps unpredictable market in these times, because we don’t know—-the market doesn’t know—-how to measure the value of its own product, nor what are the most cost-effective means of delivering it. I’m afraid we’ll all just have stay tuned for the latest in that inchoate market. In the mean time, let tenured faculty recruit the best people they can for at-will NTT positions.

  • On tenure track, a new minority?
  • Posted by Manuel Gonzalez-Canche on April 1, 2008 at 7:20pm EDT
  • It seems clear to me that the American Higher Education System has been moving (I'm not sure if this movement could be labeled evolution) to a new phase in which a "Tenured" appointment is not anymore the only privileged position of the system. On the contrary, now a new minority is at least as desired because of the hope it gives to who holds it: "On tenure track." For instance, in 2003 of the entire portion of not tenured faculty (NSOPF, 2004) 75 percent were not even in the tenure track position and 46 percent were part-timers.
    What does this trend really mean for the American Higher Education System and more importantly for the quality of the college education that this society is receiving?
    Perhaps it would even be positive for the system not having tenured faculty, since the removal of uncommitted academics is much easier, but the risk of facing injustices is also higher. However, I argue that it would be too much better having a sort of “pre-tenure track” in which if faculty has demonstrated to be a positive factor in the academic department (measured in different ways) could gain entrance to the tenure track. I believe that it would motivate them to do a better job because of the hope of continue advancing in the academic profession.
    Anyway, what I thing is undeniably important is that Governance should embrace the academic work inside higher education institutions, in order to avoid arbitrariness and injustices in the manner in how academic contracts are offered and renewed.
    We have to think in actions that would lead to a better academic environment in which the commitment to the generation and transmission of knowledge should be supported for policies that in one way or another provide to academics security in their academic positions if they are doing things well. Although the ways for evaluating what is doing things well lead us to another issue. However I believe it is worth working and thinking in new possibilities.

  • Posted by Elizabeth Mack , part-time adjunct at University of Nebraska, Omaha on April 2, 2008 at 11:15am EDT
  • As a current part-time adjunct, I believe to separate full-time from part-time adjuncts would be problematic, to say the least. At my institution at one time, there was such a thing as 3/4 time with 3/4 benefits, which no longer exists. The majority of freshman composition classes are taught by part-time adjuncts, many of which have repeatedly applied for full-time openings when they exist. In the last year, three full-time/full-benefits positions have opened in our institution, with zero of the on-staff adjuncts being hired. This tells me that being an adjunct is more of a disadvantage than anything in gaining full-time employment, especially when the hiring committees are tenure-track faculty.