Survey on Part-Time Faculty Affairs Presented to the USC Academic - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Survey on Part-Time Faculty Affairs

Presented to the USC Academic Senate November 14, 2018 Part-Time Faculty Affairs Committee Chair (2017-18), Linda Hoffman, Psy.D., Rossier School of Education Co-Chair, Elisa Warford, Ph.D., Viterbi School of Engineering

The purpose of the survey was to gauge compliance with the 2016 Senate Resolution on part-time faculty affairs

• Employment profiles, benefits eligibility, and

compensation

• Evaluation, merit review and promotion
• Inclusion in departmental life and governance
• Support (will not discuss today)

Employment profiles, benefits, and compensation

Employment profiles: The percentage

• f “true adjuncts” was only 20%

36% 6% 6% 7% 10% 15% 20% Other employment profiles Less than 50% at USC with FT job elsewhere At least 50% at USC with PT, non-teaching job elsewhere At least 50% at USC, no other positions Less than 50% at USC with a PT, non-teaching job elsewhere Less than 50% at USC with FT and PT, non-teaching job Less than 50% at USC, no other job

Benefits eligibility: 45% of respondents reported being benefits-eligible

Between 78% and 90% of eligible part-time faculty are participating in benefits at any given time 33% of the those without other full-time employment had been offered by their schools to bring them up to half-time status

Compensation: Many part-time faculty members reported a discrepancy between the hours allotted in the contract and hours required to do the work

“The part time adjunct instructor pay is less than minimum wage after the hours it takes to grade student work on top of class prep and handling students via email/in person mentoring. My contract states 6 hours per week but I often spend 10-15 hours per week. Unacceptable.” “There are some weeks during each semester that I am employed considerably more than 20 hours on work for my class such as grading projects, lecture preparation, etc. Nevertheless, I am required to sign a statement each semester that says I have not exceeded the 50% limit. I sign it because it's expected.”

Evaluation, merit review, and promotion

Evaluation: Most respondents had been evaluated only by student evaluations

Evaluation method Percentage of part-time faculty evaluated by this method Student evaluations only

55

Faculty committee

31

Other methods beyond student evaluations

14

60% of respondents reported not having been informed of evaluation and merit review processes

“The three-year review process appears to be very opaque and have a positive or negative outcome. I was asked to submit a document for my review in the beginning

• f fall '17 and was told that I would be meeting with the Dean to go over the review. I

was looking forward to the review and the opportunity to discuss my plans with the

• Dean. However, I have not received any feedback regarding the review nor met any

school faculty or administrator.” “It would be helpful to know how student evaluations of courses can be used to improve instruction and what is defined as exemplary teaching and procedures for merit increases.” “[T]he Dept Chair noted that research shows that university students evaluate women instructors far more critically than male instructors who have identical credentials and skills. There was no attempt to provide any compensation for this known bias….The whole evaluation process seems highly questionable and unfair and I've had no contact with faculty to clarify it or explain.”

Promotion: 74% reported being unaware

• f promotion paths for PT faculty

“I think it would be very beneficial to have concrete information as to how you advance as a part-time lecturer. I have taught at USC for 5 years without a raise in pay or promotion. I do appreciate the flexibility the part time status has allowed but I would be very interested in how to move upwards or seek out pay increases, etc.” “It would be great to know how one can move from part time to full time. It seems to be very mysterious.”

Inclusion in departmental life and shared governance

Departmental meetings: Most part-time faculty had been invited to some departmental meetings

58% 8% 34%

Invited to meetings Unsure Not invited

Governance: Most part-time faculty were unaware that they may participate in governance activities

Percentage of part-time faculty NOT aware of their eligibility to participate in shared governance 58% Percentage of part-time faculty who have NEVER been involved in shared governance 74% Percentage of part-time faculty who “would” or “might” like to be involved 84%

Not all PT faculty were paid for their service activities

Only 22% of those who had attended departmental meetings were paid to do so. 14 of 34 faculty participating in governance had been or were being paid to do so.

Conclusions: Part-time faculty experiences vary widely across schools. However, the survey revealed issues shared broadly across the University:

Policy issues:

• Discrepancy between hours allotted in contract to perform work

and hours required to actually perform the work.

• Uneven implementation of policies on evaluation, merit review,

and promotion.

• Lack of inclusion in shared governance.
• Lack of pay for participation in shared governance or other

service activities, a clear violation of University policy. Communication issues about all these issues