|
|
|
Negotiations about the academic calendar and workload under the semester system began on July 31, 2009. Sessions are scheduled for nearly every Friday for the foreseeable future.
Importantly, AAUP-WSU welcomes comments and concerns from our members regarding these negotiations. See below for a roster of our negotiating team and our officers page for members of our Executive Committee.
The workload aspects of these negotiations are governed by the March 2, 2009 “Memo of Understanding Concerning Workload and Conversion to Semesters”.
A very basic description of the academic calendar under semesters is already specified in the July 7, 2009 “Agreement Concerning a Semester Calendar”. The core content of this agreement -- that each semester will feature fourteen weeks of instruction (almost exactly 70 instructional days) plus one week of final examinations -- was determined by results of a May, 2009 poll of our Regular Chapter Members (Bargaining Unit Faculty who have joined AAUP-WSU).
Our negotiating team is as follows:
| Name | Office location | phone | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rudy Fichtenbaum, Chief Negotiator | 208K Rike Hall | rudy.fichtenbaum@wright.edu | x3085 |
| Travis Doom | 331 Russ Engineering Center | travis.doom@wright.edu | x5105 |
| Doris Johnson | 337 Allyn Hall | doris.johnson@wright.edu | x2994 |
| Barry Milligan | 445 Millett Hall | barry.milligan@wright.edu | x4805 |
| Jim Vance | 120F MM Building | jvance@math.wright.edu | x2206 |
The administration’s Chief Negotiator is the Associate Provost, Dr. Bill Rickert, and their team also includes Deans (or their representatives) from the colleges and schools with Bargaining Unit Faculty.
Below, we post session-by-session reports on these negotiations, most recent first.
As was the case the previous week, the sole topic at this session was workload.
The administration began by reporting that it had inquired with the Deans regarding their progress in formulating draft teaching load proposals for their colleges, and they were encouraged to speed up. All the Deans agreed to complete their drafts by Tuesday, November 10; the administration (the Provost in particular), wishing to understand the assumptions underlying the Deans’ proposals, intends to discuss those proposals with the Deans by Tuesday, November 17, and expects to pass along those proposals to AAUP shortly thereafter.
The parties agreed that they have made substantial progress in outlining the non-teaching aspects of workload.
They also agreed that when the calendar changes from quarters to semesters, no Bargaining Unit Faculty will have been required to bear higher-than-standard teaching loads due to low scholarly productivity; however, the parties understand that some Bargaining Unit Faculty may request higher-than-standard teaching loads; also, those with low scholarly productivity who also fail to engage in scholarly activity that could lead in a timely fashion to scholarly products could receive higher-than-standard teaching loads. In this context, our negotiating team reminded the administration that we expect Bargaining Unit Faculty with higher-than-standard teaching loads will be offset by others with lower-than-standard teaching loads -- presumably those with high scholarly productivity. Further, our team pointed out the importance of the level -- department, college, or university -- at which this balance would be achieved. For example, a small department with several research stars meriting teaching load reductions might be unable to fulfill its teaching mission without more Bargaining Unit Faculty or undue reliance on adjuncts, etc. The administration acknowledged that the parties needed to develop criteria for those who would merit teaching load reductions and to apply them consistently university-wide.
At the administration’s request, the parties then turned to the March 2, 2009 “Memo of Understanding Concerning Workload and Conversion to Semesters”, in particular to objectives 1 a-e listed there (please see). With regard to 1d, the administration again asked if the parties could agree that two classes with very small enrollment might be regarded as the equivalent of one “ordinary” class. As a sample context, the administration noted that some upper-level undergraduate classes required for students majoring in certain modern foreign languages ran at very small section sizes. Our team reminded the administration that this is but one of many examples showing that the cost of running undergraduate major programs varies widely from one discipline to another, according not only to the number of majors and class size, but also factors such as the need for laboratories, faculty salaries that vary by discipline, state subsidy (now in a state of flux) that at least once varied by discipline, and so forth. With regard to 1a, our team asked the administration what cost savings it projected under semesters for various bureaucratic functions that would need to be done twice per academic year rather than three times (e.g., registration, room assignments, billing for tuition and fees, financial aid, etc.). We also pointed out that a growing student body and a shrinking Bargaining Unit (which is anticipated due to the current Separation Incentive) would reduce the share of instruction borne by Bargaining Unit Faculty, or increase the average class size taught by Bargaining Unit Faculty, or otherwise reduce the cost of instruction.
The parties agreed that for the rest of November and December, they would hold bargaining sessions as needed.
The parties only discussed workload at this session.
Our negotiating team began by expression concerns over our not having received any teaching load proposals from the Deans. The parties can expect teaching loads to be the most difficult aspect of workload negotiations and have made at best slow progress on other, relatively easy issues; so, we need to proceed soon on teaching loads if we are to meet our self-imposed deadline of September 1, 2010 for finishing workload negotiations. We told the administration that we expect to have college-specific meetings with our Members after initial discussions of the Deans’ forthcoming proposals, which of course will add to the time the parties need to reach an agreement. We reminded the administration that the informal character of the workload negotiations should enable the administration to put forth proposals that were not binding on them nor otherwise set in stone. The administration replied that Deans are indeed working on their teaching load proposals and further that the Deans would be informed of our sense of urgency at a meeting set for Tuesday, November 3.
Our team also reported that our Members had told us that they understood the Deans, or a Dean, to have stated that the Bargaining Unit Faculty Members (BUFMs) would be segregated into two classes -- teaching faculty and research faculty. We told the administration that this would be unacceptable to us. Happily, the administration’s team replied that they did not know where this report came from and that this would be unacceptable to the administration, too.
Likewise, we reminded the administration that our Members had taken positions here with certain teaching load expectations. One had told us that if her teaching load were increased from the present two-courses-per-term to, say three courses one semester and two the other, that she would be looking for a position elsewhere.
We raised the issue of summer teaching. The administration had not yet discussed that aspect of semester conversion with the Deans and stated that it would prefer to postpone this issue until later. The administration also noted that this was one aspect of the overall negotiations to which the parties might turn, looking for an opportunity for one party to “gain” in one area and to “lose” by an equivalent amount in another.
In the remainder of the session, the parties briefly revisited the following issues.
The administration reported that the Deans were split on the matter of reading days: some favored the idea, some were opposed, and others were neutral. In light of this and concerns raised at the October 9 session, the parties agreed to include no reading days for either semester in the first semesters-based academic year, 2012-2013.
The administration stated that the parties should put in writing certain specifics of the academic calendar they had agreed upon: that semesters would feature almost exactly 70 days of instruction, and that three-semester-hour courses meeting three times a week [two times] would meet for 55 minutes per class [respectively 80 minutes per class]. Our negotiating team did not object to this notion.
The parties noted that the hardest task -- determining standard teaching loads for Bargaining Unit Faculty Members (BUFMs) on a college-by-college basis -- would not begin in earnest until they had received proposals from Deans (anticipated before the end of 2009).
Our team reported that we have not yet received the refined data about classroom utilization that we had requested previously.
Our team repeated our grave concern regarding the retroactive evaluation of scholarship specified in the administration's informal document "Tentative Outline for Semester-Based Workload Policy" it had circulated at the October 9 negotiating session; see the "Standard scholarship" provision under the heading "Standard Teaching, Scholarship, and Service" on page 2. Our team did not object in principle, however, to the broad idea of setting a level of scholarly performance below which a BUFM would have to do more than the standard amount of teaching or service. Our team noted that most BUFMs will bear a higher-than-normal service load in the next few years due to the massive work entailed in converting all curricula and courses to the semester calendar, and that this higher service load would be reflected in reductions in some other area, the prime candidates being scholarship or sleep. Our team also stated that the parties had always agreed to give BUFMs ample advance warning when changed criteria were to be applied, whether criteria for annual evaluation or for promotion and tenure.
The parties engaged in a long (nearly three hours), somewhat aimless discussion of various issues intertwined with this issue -- how to set a standard scholarship expectation and how to fairly and uniformly assess whether individual BUFMs had or had not met this expectation. The administration stated that for consistency, the office of the Provost would have to review all workload plans for 2012-2013 (the first academic year under semesters) developed in winter-spring 2012. Our team floated the idea of using a comparison to annual evaluation criteria (e.g., setting the standard at a "1" or higher in scholarship) for the first five years, and then switching to criteria more squarely based on tangible scholarly products -- e.g., meeting a certain fraction of the scholarship required for tenure in the previous five years. [Note that some departments have annual evaluation criteria for scholarship that award a "1" or higher for (roughly speaking) just submitting papers or grant proposals and the like.] Our team floated another idea: having each BUFM bear the standard teaching load for their unit, unless the individual BUFM or the chair had "applied" for a changed teaching load for the individual; e.g., a chair who viewed a BUFM as failing to meet [or far exceeding] the standard scholarship expectation could ask that the BUFM be assigned a higher- [respectively lower-] than-standard teaching load. Our team suggested that the uniformity and fairness that the parties seek might be achieved by broadly publicizing the teaching loads borne by, and the productivity in scholarship and service attained by, each individual BUFM. Finally, the parties returned to an idea first proposed by the administration: along with the annual activity report for the previous calendar year, each BUFM would include a request, or a proposal, for his or her workload for the upcoming academic year (for many BUFMs, this might be done with a simple checkmark on a standard for corresponding to "standard teaching, scholarship, and service"); the chair would then approve or amend the BUFM's proposal; and in the latter case a dissatisfied BUFM could appeal to the Dean, and then to an internal appeals panel with 50-50 administration-union representation; and then could ask the union to take the matter to binding external arbitration.
The parties returned to a calendar topic first discussed on September 25, namely reading days. It was noted that if two (say) reading days are added to a semester by starting classes on a Thursday (ending classes on a Wednesday, and having Thursday and Friday for reading days), then this would disrupt instruction in certain courses with labs; and if instead they are held on a Monday and Tuesday following the last class day the previous Friday, then final exams would end in mid-week, postponing commencement by a full week. Thus, the parties are not likely to adopt reading days, though no final decision has been made.
The first workload topic concerned the classroom utilization data that the administration had provided AAUP. We reported that our initial examination of the data shows that our classrooms are used at about 50% of capacity (though of course some sections run in totally filled classrooms, and oppositely some run in rooms with only a fraction of the available seats in use). In previous correspondence about this classroom utilization data, we had also pointed out that some of the data is missing, or wrong (e.g., classes with enrollment far in excess of room capacity), or misleading (e.g., we need grand total enrollments for the various "meets-with" sections [sections meeting in the same room at the same time]); and we requested refined data to address those problems.
Classroom utilization data is relevant since the parties may consider increasing some class sizes as one means of meeting their twin objectives: not to increase teaching loads borne by Bargaining Unit Faculty, nor to increase the university's per-student cost of providing instruction (see Memo of Understanding Concerning Workload and Conversion to Semesters for details regarding these objectives).
Much of the rest of the day's negotiations pertained to an informal document "Tentative Outline for Semester-Based Workload Policy" circulated by the administration. Please refer to this "Tentative Outline" as you read below.
With regard to item 1 under the heading "Setting Workloads" on page 1, the administration noted that the request regarding workload submitted by a Bargaining Unit Faculty Member (BUFM) could be made via a form that would have checkmarks for requesting "standard" teaching, standard service, and standard scholarship.
Our negotiating team expressed reservations about items 5 and 6 under the heading "Setting Workloads" on page 1. We argued that when a BUFM disagreed with the workload assigned by the chair, the burden of appealing and making a case should not fall on the BUFM, but on the chair.
The parties discussed at length the question of whether a BUFM could grieve (appeal) a particular teaching assignment (e.g., section 3 of AG123, and section 17 of AG792) in the sense of item 6.
The parties agreed that the appeals process anticipated in item 6 should apply uniform standards campus-wide.
Our team objected strenuously to the retroactive nature of the "Standard scholarship" provision under the heading "Standard Teaching, Scholarship, and Service" on page 2. Note for example that those provisions would entail consequences for BUFMs in fall 2012 for work already done, as far back as fall 2007. Our team also noted that the next-to-final sentence in that same paragraph could penalize a BUFM who, for example, wrote a substantial scholarly book, if the relevant bylaws did not "count" such work and the BUFMs and Dean did not agree; do we really want to declare such a BUFM as meriting a higher teaching load? The administration reacted favorably to this latter objection; however, it repeated the position that for this purpose -- determining whether a BUFM was performing up to a standard in scholarship -- the determination should be based on tangible scholarly products (e.g., published or accepted papers, funded grant proposals) rather than effort (submitted papers, pending grant proposals).
With regard to the paragraph "Variations of Standard Loads" at the top of page 3 -- "... must be agreed to by the University" -- the administration acknowledged that it must be consistent across the University in so agreeing.
About the first sentence on page 4, the administration explained that its intent was for a "realistic plan" to be first submitted in Winter 2012 and to apply for the upcoming academic year. Our negotiating team asked how external service would count in this regard? For example, we stated that if the University agreed to give a reduced teaching load to one BUFM who edited a major national journal, then it would have to do likewise for BUFMs elsewhere in the University.
Our team stated emphatically that we wanted no BUFMs to bear a higher-than-standard teaching load during the academic year 2012-2013 (the first under the semester calendar), to give our members tangible proof that the switch to semesters had not been accomplished via higher teaching loads borne by the Bargaining Unit.
The parties discussed the possible inclusion of "reading days" for fall and spring semesters -- meaning one or two (say) extra days between the end of classes and the start of final exams during which students could prepare for their exams. If reading days are adopted at all, they would begin no sooner than the second term under semesters, Spring Semester 2013. Further, reading days will not be adopted without appropriate opportunity for input by Bargaining Unit Faculty.
The administration stated that it was preparing an outline of the whole workload policy; it would include the expected three components -- scholarship, teaching, and service -- plus an additional component "administrative responsibilities" that would apply to some Bargaining Unit Faculty and that might entail a reduction in other duties (e.g., reduced teaching load). The administration stated that this fourth category could include release time specified in our Collective Bargaining Agreement for AAUP officers and negotiating team members.
The parties discussed a process whereby "workload assignments" might be made. One possible process, to occur in the spring semester, would entail the department chair providing the annual evaluation to a Bargaining Unit Faculty Member (BUFM) for the previous calendar year, and then meeting with the BUFM to set the workload for the upcoming academic year. In a second possibility, the chair would send the BUFM a proposed workload assignment (rather than meeting with the BUFM); a meeting would be needed only if the BUFM disagreed with the assignment. Both parties liked the idea that a BUFM's annual activity report -- a key to the chair's annual evaluation -- could include a proposed workload assignment for the upcoming academic year.
The parties discussed what should happen if a BUFM does not agree with the workload assigned by the chair. The administration initially stated that the BUFM should, in effect, initiate an appeal. Our team took the opposite position: the chair should have to appeal. The administration then stated that an appeal process would begin automatically if the chair and BUFM do not agree.
The parties agreed that transparency is essential: all BUFMs should know about the workload assignments of all other BUFMs in (say) the same department.
The administration proposed that "standard scholarship" -- i.e., acceptable productivity in scholarship -- could be defined as having produced half of the requirements for tenure in the previous five years; but that certain substantive refereed scholarly products that do not count toward requirements for tenure could be counted for this purpose.
The administration proposed that "standard service" could be defined as having an annual evaluation of at least meritorious.
The parties understand that defining standard teaching loads, presumably on a college-by-college basis (or in some cases at the departmental level), is a huge task that lies ahead.
The parties then discussed variations on a standard workload. For example, what sorts of service contributions could compensate for little or no scholarly productivity? Must such above-and-beyond service contributions be assigned by the administration? (The administration would say "yes".) Should not very high advising loads count in this regard? (Our team says "yes".)
At this juncture the parties discussed whether an untenured BUFM could ever be assigned a higher-than-standard teaching load, which would presumably undercut one's opportunity to earn tenure. The administration stated that such could not be done by a chair or even a dean; provost approval would be required.
The administration distributed a handout, clearly emphasizing that it was not a proposal, to help the parties discuss the service component of workload. The handout was in three parts. The first was an excerpt from the old Faculty Handbook, a description of the service undertaken by faculty; see the two paragraphs under the heading Service at http://www.wright.edu/academics/fhandbook/FacultyWorkload.html. The second was a list “Components of University Service Performed by BUFMs” excluding community and professional service. The third was excerpts from bylaws regarding annual evaluation criteria for service: the standards for adequate (a score of 1) and for meritorious (2) from one department in each college (the first department alphabetically).
The parties noted that the annual evaluation criteria for service varied from one department to another. This poses no problem for annual evaluation, the outcome of which impacts little aside from merit raises, since merit raises are a zero-sum game and tough (or easy) annual evaluation standards that result in lower (respectively higher) scores do not reduce (respectively increase) the merit raises going to the Bargaining Unit Faculty in the department. But this variation in criteria might indeed be a problem if annual evaluation criteria for service were used as a benchmark in setting standard service expectations in the workload policy.
Nevertheless, the parties engaged in extensive discussion about using annual evaluation criteria for service in this way. One member of the administration’s Negotiating Team reminded the parties that already, department chairs must evaluate each BUFM annually against the annual evaluation criteria in bylaws, and each untenured BUFM (and each tenured BUFM applying for promotion) against P&T criteria in bylaws; will the parties really require each BUFM’s service to be evaluated against a third set of criteria?
The parties discussed having an extremely brief description of expected service (or standard service, or routine service -- the parties have not yet established the terminology they use in discussions, much less what will appear in a workload policy), which in effect would postpone deciding what the standard is until the first cases arise in which certain individual BUFMs are “accused” (for lack of a better word) of not providing acceptable service. They also discussed using examples of expected service; or examples that fall short of the standard and others that more than meet the standard, allowing some “wiggle room” for the standard to be more precisely calibrated in light of individual cases.
The administration aired the notion that the service expectation in the workload policy could feature two lines (a description of two levels of performance): a lower line describing a level of service below which one’s teaching load might be subject to increase (absent compensating productivity in another arena); and a high line describing a level of service above which one’s teaching load might be subject to decrease. Importantly, the administration believes that high levels of service for which one might receive a reduced teaching load cannot be unilaterally elected by BUFMs but must be agreed upon by a BUFM and a chair (say) or dean.
The parties discussed the importance of implementing the workload policy in a uniform manner. They discussed means of reviewing cases in which BUFMs might be subject to increased teaching. Perhaps review should occur at the level of the Provost. Perhaps there should be an appeal panel, or a review board, akin to the Promotion and Tenure Appeals Committee established in the current Collective Bargaining Agreement (see section 13.14), or to the as-yet unused Evaluation Appeals Committee (section 11.7.2).
Members of both negotiating teams stated that the policy must not be viewed as punitive; that is, the parties should craft the policy in such a way as to not imply that teaching more is punishment.
The parties discussed how frequently faculty members whose service contributions are lacking are also (regarded as) weak teachers, persons who a chair or a dean would be loathe to assign to teach more.
The parties seem to agree on the rather nebulous notion of an appropriate balance of contributions in scholarship, teaching, and service -- a balance that can (and already does) vary greatly from one individual to another. But how to describe such a widely varying array of acceptable-or-better productivity in a policy that will have real “teeth” is certainly not proving easy.
Responding to a question from our Negotiating Team, the administration confirmed that it had asked the Registrar to provide data we had requested for the current term: for each section of each class being taught, the number of students enrolled and the seating capacity of the room; and further that the Registrar would be able to provided the requested data. This data will, of course, enable the parties to determine the extent to which room capacity is an impediment to increasing certain class sizes.
The parties then engaged in a long, meandering discussion of workload, mostly concentrated on service. There were certainly no tangible outcomes of this discussion.
The administration’s view is that a description of “standard service” or “routine service” should not entail “bean-counting” nor be as detailed, or specific, as the annual evaluation criteria in bylaws. The administration offered to draft a description of standard service.
The administration stated that the standard service expectation stated in the eventual workload policy should be binding on Bargaining Unit Faculty at the outset of the semester system -- fall 2012 -- noting that this would be two years after the policy is adopted, assuming the parties are able to adhere to the schedule stated in the “Memo of Understanding Concerning Workload and Conversion to Semesters” (see item 5). This view presumably means that Bargaining Unit Faculty who fall short of the standard service expectation might be subject to a teaching load increase unless their productivity in other areas compensations for the shortfall in service.
However, the administration also repeated a previously voiced view: that faculty whose scholarship productivity is less that specified in the workload policy should be given an opportunity to develop and implement a plan to improve (or revitalize) their scholarly productivity before teaching load increases are considered.
Our Negotiating Team did not object to the quick implementation of service expectations nor the phase-in of scholarship expectations, though of course we reminded the negotiators that “the devil is in the details.”
The administration stated that it does not intend to use the transition to semesters as a vehicle for increasing the teaching load on Bargaining Unit Faculty. It repeated its believe that scholarship expectations need to be measured in tangible outcomes rather than efforts.
Following up on previous discussions about the possibility of having larger classes, our Negotiating Team distributed a handout showing the distribution of class sizes in the various colleges during fall quarter 2008. For example, more than 70% of the classes in the College of Liberal Arts had fewer than 30 students. Our team made it clear that we did not intend to give faculty more “credit” for teaching large classes; but, we did want to find a way to achieve one of the objectives agreed upon by the parties -- to preserve, to the extent possible, “the current per student cost to the University for providing instruction” -- and also to avoid teaching loads entailing a large number of three-semester-hour courses each term.
On the same matter, the administration team voiced its concern that it have clear authority to establish class size limits and to schedule classes. Our team agreed that such matters should be established cooperatively and collegially whenever possible -- e.g., in conversations between department chairs and Bargaining Unit Faculty -- but that ultimately such decisions were in the hands of the administration. The parties may formulate a written agreement to this effect.
Following through on the matter of release time -- about which see the final paragraph in our August 14 report below -- the administration distributed handouts detailing release time in the colleges of Education and Human Services, Liberal Arts, and Science and Mathematics, and it provided a verbal description of releases at the Lake Campus.
The parties outlined their objectives for the coming weeks and months:
Finally, the administration stated that it wanted the parties to agree upon a statement of principles, in large measure for the benefit of such external parties as the State of Ohio. Our Negotiating Team was receptive to this idea.
At the next session, set for Friday, September 11, the parties expect to focus on 2 and 3 above.
To begin this session, the parties agreed that they would undertake “informal” negotiations until either party declared its wish to proceed formally. Specifically, the parties are free to describe the negotiating sessions to their constituencies, but neither side will use anything said in these informal sessions should arbitration be necessary. Also, all members of both negotiating teams will be free to speak up without permission of the appropriate Chief Negotiator. However, the parties agreed that as needed they would undertake off-the-record negotiations, the results of which are kept tightly confidential by both sides.
When will fall semester 2012 (the first term under the semester calendar) begin? The unanimous opinion around the table was again “on time” -- on Monday, August 27, 2012.
The parties undertook a very long (more than two hours) off-the-record discussion of workload and service in particular.
The parties noted their expectation, consistent with their July 31 discussions, to ...
The parties began workload negotiations in earnest.
The administration opened a general discussion, voicing the view that faculty workload should be measured by overall productivity -- things accomplished -- in teaching, research, and service. The administration’s Chief Negotiator confirmed that he personally views the collective, or overall, productivity of Bargaining Unit Faculty as being “fine”. Continuing with the position that the parties must look at not only teaching but also research and service to make the transition, the administration stated that looking beyond teaching was necessary because there is no absolute (or exact) correspondence between the currently predominant four-quarter-hour classes and the three-semester-hour classes that one expects to predominate after the transition.
Our team responded that we believe that the parties should examine the various parameters that impact teaching loads or teaching productivity, among them the number of classes, the number of contact hours, and class size. Thus, while we do not object to examining research and service, we do not want to do so now. We do not want to make the transition to semesters on the backs of the faculty, many of whom will be working harder anyway (as will many staff) just to make the transition. Any change in the expectations of BUFMs must be preceded by appropriate notification -- besides which current bylaws, and the performance criteria therein for annual evaluation and for promotion and tenure, were crafted against certain teaching load expectations. Thus we want to continue what we are doing now.
The parties discussed how one could measure teaching load. From the administration’s perspective, student credit hours is a significant factor. (See item 1c and especially 1d in the “Memo of Understanding Concerning Workload and Conversion to Semesters”, the latter of which entails the parties’ goal to preserve the “overall amount of teaching per year by Bargaining Unit Faculty in any individual college”.) Our team suggested looking at credit hours produced at the college level. Following a caucus, our team initiated a discussion set against the College of Liberal Arts, in which the current standard teaching load in most departments is seven four-quarter-hour courses per year (e.g., 3-2-2); the parties noted that a teaching load of five three-semester-hour courses per year (e.g., 3-2) accompanied by a 25% increase in class size would yield almost exactly the same credit hour production.
Next there came a discussion of what would be included in the workload policy the parties will eventually adopt.
Our team stated that the policy should have details at the college or even departmental level. The administration replied that in that case, the policy would have to include descriptions of research and service. Our team responded that the policy could acknowledge that the teaching described in the policy is set against research and service expectations that are, in effect, implied by bylaws. We also stated that the parties should first determine what teaching loads should be after the transition, and then decide what research and service expectations should be specified in the policy.
The parties discussed by what date they could determine appropriate teaching loads -- e.g., by the end of fall quarter 2009??
They also discussed whether the proposals brought by the parties should be regarded as formal proposals or as working documents, since there are significant consequences of this distinction should arbitration be needed to determine the workload policy (see item 5 in the “Memo of Understanding Concerning Workload and Conversion to Semesters”); roughly speaking, a party that has made a formal proposal on a given issue cannot expect to obtain a better outcome on that issue should arbitration be required. No agreement was reached on this matter. However, it seems likely that they will decide to proceed informally, i.e. with proposals viewed as working documents having essentially no bearing on arbitration, for the time being.
At the end of the session, our team asked about release time, or teaching load reductions, that various Bargaining Unit Faculty receive now. We asked if we could get information on that matter to accompany the “Quarter System Bargaining Unit Faculty Workloads” document the administration had provided the previous week. The administration replied that it would attempt to obtain this information in about two weeks.
At this opening session, the parties agreed to proceed somewhat less formally than in contract negotiations. In particular they decided to adopt no ground rules to govern the negotiations, but did decide that as needed they would go “off the record” for less constrained discussions.
The July 7, 2009 “Agreement Concerning a Semester Calendar” specifies that each semester will feature fourteen weeks of instruction (almost exactly 70 instructional days) plus one week of final examinations. Also, the parties are likely to agree that the summer session will last for twelve weeks, presumably divided into two six-week sessions analogous to the current five-week sessions A and B.
The consensus around the table was one week. In particular, the start of regular summer classes would not be delayed on behalf of an intersession, though there would be nothing to prevent short classes from being offered at the very beginning of summer (or at other times during the summer session). Our team reminded the administration team that eventually, the parties would have to determine compensation for such flexibly scheduled summer teaching, especially since the current CBA (section 23.6) specifies somewhat different compensation rules for those who teach in summer session C vs. A or B.
It was noted that one week of break between spring and summer will leave seven weeks in total to be allocated for breaks between summer and fall, and between fall and spring. [This is so since each semester will feature fourteen weeks of instruction punctuated by an additional week of break (a traditional spring break week during that semester, and approximately five days of break for Labor Day, Veterans’ Day, and Thanksgiving scattered through the fall semester) plus a week of final exams, for sixteen calendar weeks per semester or thirty-two calendar weeks for the academic year; this plus twelve weeks in summer totals forty-four weeks, which leaves eight weeks for breaks between the three terms.]
Four possibilities were discussed. First, we could make no provision for summer final exams, as is the case now. Second, we could extend the full summer session to thirteen weeks and each half-session to six and a half weeks. Third, we could schedule summer final exams on Fridays, when no instruction normally occurs. Fourth, we could schedule summer class periods slightly longer than would otherwise be needed to allow time for a final exam given on the last day of class.
The consensus around the table was for the fourth option. For example, a standard three-semester-hour course should entail approximately 2,250 minutes of class time (fifteen weeks of instruction with three meetings per week at 50 minutes per meeting: 15 x 3 x 50 = 2,250) plus time for a final exam; if a three-semester hour course taught in a six-week session were scheduled for four meetings per week at 100 minutes per meeting, this would yield 2,400 minutes of class time, enough to give a final exam during the last class without reducing time available for instruction, with a bit to spare.
Fall 2012 is expected to be Wright State’s first under the semester system. The consensus around the table was to start “on time” -- on Monday, August 27, 2012 -- despite the consequent short one-week break that would then occur between the end of summer 2012 (the last under the current calendar) and the beginning of fall classes.
The administration delivered a document “Quarter System Bargaining Unit Faculty Workloads” that describes the teaching loads currently borne by Bargaining Unit Faculty in each college and, in some cases, in individual departments.
Soon, AAUP-WSU will ask its members in the various academic units to comment on the pertinent part of this document; for, as the administration has, in effect, agreed, knowing what teaching loads are now is essential if the parties are to devise a workload policy that preserves the status quo -- an objective to which the parties agreed in the March 2, 2009 “Memo of Understanding Concerning Workload and Conversion to Semesters”. See especially item 1, where one reads, “...the parties will make a good faith reasonable effort to achieve a conversion to semesters so that the conversion itself leaves unchanged, to the extent possible, the current ... combined workload (productive teaching, scholarship, and service) of Bargaining Unit Faculty Members” and “The parties anticipate that the agreed-upon workload policy will, for the large majority of Bargaining Unit Faculty, result in no substantial change in teaching load.”
The administration voiced the view that that the workload policy that the parties have agreed to develop will need to be college-specific and, in some cases, department-specific.
Our negotiating team submitted drafts of three CBA articles that require modification under semesters:
Aside from minor edits made at the table, the pdf files to which the three links above point show our proposals. None generated much in the way of controversy. Indeed, our team voiced the view that the needed changes in these articles should largely be straightforward.
Return to the AAUP-WSU home page.
This page was last modified on Saturday, November 7, 2009. Corrections, comments, and suggestions are most welcome. Contact the webmaster for this page (Jim Vance) at jvance@math.wright.edu, telephone 937-775-2206.