Forum on Workload, Faculty Voice, and Quality in Higher Education
First published in April 2012 edition of The Bullhorn. The original publication can be found here.
The increasing pressures on faculty in a multifaceted university demanded an unprecedented event: Faculty Forum: Workload, Faculty Voice and Quality in Higher Education. Set in the Terrace at SUNY New Paltz on April 3rd, the event attracted over 75 campus employees. The first half was a lecture by Professor Gary Rhoades, followed by a question and answer session. This was open to union and non-UUP members. The second half, exclusively for UUP members, consisted of table discussions on the lecture and steps faculty can take to alleviate issues of workload, faculty voice and quality in SUNY New Paltz.
Chapter President Peter Brown opened the event stressing the forum’s novelty on the New Paltz campus and its necessity due to growing campus and national issues of workload, faculty voice and quality education. Workload is an especially difficult issue because the concept is elusive. Brown likened it to “comparing apples and oranges and raisins… it’s not so easy.”
A scholar on restructuring academic institutions, science and technology policy, Gary Rhoades served from 2009-2011 as General Secretary of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in Washington D.C. For twelve years prior to that, he was Director of the Center for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Arizona. His extensive published work includes Academic Capitalism and the New Economy (with Shelia Slaughter), several copies of which were given as door prizes. His most recent study is Closing the Door, Increasing the Gap: Who’s not going to (community) college? It is published by the Center for the Future of Higher Education, a virtual think tank, and downloadable here: http://futureofhighered.org/uploads/ClosingTheDoorFINAL_ALL32812.pdf
Gary Rhoades began proposing a general path towards improving higher education: to study and improve the “intersection between the workload of faculty and professionals.” By having a union, SUNY New Paltz is on the right track; what is needed is understanding national and SUNY academic agendas and how to break away from the structural flaws.
The National Agenda
The national agenda, Rhoades stated, is driven by three factors reminiscent of an unsettling business model: productivity, efficiency, and completion. This is a small part of the flawed national agenda. The Obama Administration set a goal to educate 50% more of the American population with a college degree by 2020, but did not significantly increase resources. The National Governors Association Completion Agenda pays attention to students who will succeed in the current system, instead of changing the institutional structure to allow less advantaged students to succeed. The Increase Output Agenda pushes for larger class sizes to deliver more bachelor’s degrees in a shorter time. Quantity, rather than quality, is the focus of the national agenda.
Instead of restructuring ideas of higher education, the nation blames flawed institutions for not carrying out their projected goals. Jane Wellman and the Delta Project on Postsecondary Education Costs argued against wasteful budgeting in institutions, overpaid faculty and little use of technology with bountiful data to the contrary. The inevitable conclusion is that there is no productivity problem, but a disinvestment problem. What is often ignored is the fact that resources and restructuring are the keys to success.
The SUNY Situation and Agenda
Earlier, Rhoades admitted that New York State recognizes the need to invest in public higher education and avoid skyrocketing tuition increases by agreeing to a “maintenance of effort” in state support, for five years, in return for a limit on tuition increases. After student campaigns in Albany against increased tuition and cuts in faculty and programs, the gradual efforts to relieve tuition inflation sounded reasonable when discussed at a President’s Cabinet meeting in the fall. The agreement is not enough to affect faculty workload and certainly does not solve the rising tuition rates, but it is good for future development.
The biggest problem is increased enrollment in the SUNY system outpacing hires in faculty. From 2005 to 2011, there was a 13.3% increase in students but only a 9% increase in faculty, with more being part-time faculty and full-time faculty decreasing from 71.17% in 1996 to 60.3% in 2011. Combined with the increasing tuition rates, the result is evident: students are paying more for less.
Just as the national agenda does not understand faculty and professional needs, proposals offered by the Chancellor demonstrate the need for an organized faculty voice to express concern. The proposals include allocation of resources based on discipline, accountability and performance, reminiscent of the troubling business model.
Redefinition of terms by the faculty can turn the Chancellor’s suggestions into positive goals. Performance and workload can be redefined to evaluate the amount of time and dedication towards work. Professors who actively engage classes in group discussion, paper-writing, special projects and other time-intensive activities, have made a much greater impact on my educational experience. When other students are asked, at student panels or in casual conversation, they reply that engaging professors who connect with their students and are passionate about their work are the most memorable. The experience can be compromised if the amount of work, dedication, and performance necessary to engage students is not recognized. If the more rigorous course meets fewer times a week, it counts as less credit, the professor is pressured to take on more courses, and days are swamped because of the disproportionate measure of workload.
Focus on New Paltz
New Paltz stands out with a strong graduation rate, meaning our institution has a stronger baseline for future changes. Rhoades emphasizes focusing on contingents, as well as on the EOP program, which echoes the concern to not simply focus on those most likely to succeed, but to improve the institutional structure to let more students succeed, regardless of economic or social background.
Second, he directed attention to the number of students professors advise, a key factor in workload. The pie concept was introduced by Peter Brown in his introduction: if one area of the pie increases, others must decrease to maintain the same size pie. If areas increase without others decreasing, faculty is overworked and quality is sacrificed to meet demands. When professors have to advise large numbers of students, individual assistance is compromised. I hardly go to my advisor because I do not feel I get individual assistance, which is perfectly understandable with the workload. I am simply afraid that the same compromise will become increasingly evident in my discussion-based and writing-oriented classes.
Applying Faculty Voice: What can we do?
Rhoades praised the constructive conversation in this Faculty Forum as the first step towards change. Faculty need to push for quality-oriented discussions within the institution and explain the inherent flaws in quantitative definitions of workload to administration, because they are in a unique position to raise these concerns. They are personally affected by these definitions and enrollment increases.
Rhoades also said that faculty voice is most important “to exercise responsibility… for students and community.” Faculty members directly affect a student’s education and their preparation as productive members of society. A bachelor’s degree means nothing if quality education is abandoned.
Rhoades proposed several measures faculty can take to improve current conditions. First, he emphasized continuing conversations on workload, quality education, and graduation among faculty and between faculty and administration. Second, he suggested faculty involvement in collecting data. Data that supports the faculty concerns on workload and quality education would inform change in discussions with administration. Third, faculty should push for reallocation of resources from administration to instruction/students, and monitor its progress, utilizing data-gathering and administrative conversations for support.
Rhoades also suggested applying for a Lumina Foundation grant as an external funding source for educational restructuring. The private, independent foundation sets out to increase the number of Americans with higher education degrees by providing financial support to colleges and universities across the country to restructure their institutions for change.
Questions on Preparation and Action
A brief question and answer session commenced. The first questioner asked about the issue of spending a large portion of institutional money on preparing students for college education, since many are unprepared when they reach the university. Rhoades addressed the issue as part of the structural failures in the whole public education system. Before higher education, students are “victims of K-12 education NCLB’d to death,” a reference to the federal law No Child Left Behind. They are being taught to the test, rather than prepared for a diverse higher education course load. Similarly, when community colleges close their doors due to caps, disadvantaged students (those of color, lower income, first generation, or immigrants), who need the institutions as a stepping stone to four-year colleges, are denied education. Rhoades stated that faculty needs “to be the voice that calls this stuff out” in order to bring about institutional change.
Another individual asked about the role of organized labor. Rhoades stated that movements similar to the Occupy movement will be needed to restructure higher education institutions. It did not consist of a large group of people, and it was not even organized, but it put the disenfranchised 99% on the national agenda. Similarly, SUNY New Paltz joined the larger SUNY campaign to educate students about upcoming budget cuts, and many went to Albany to speak to legislators. Organized labor movements will make change.
Applying National and SUNY Concerns to New Paltz
After the question and answer session, non-union members left and very organized discussion sessions commenced. Nancy Schniedewind (Humanistic/Multicultural Education), Alison Nash and Maryalice Citera (both Psychology) presented the goals of the table discussions: to share experiences and concerns related to workload, quality education, and faculty voice across departmental lines, to look for areas of common concern, and to suggest steps that faculty, staff, and the union can take to improve conditions. Individuals were then randomly assigned to different table groups using colored name tags. The groups took ten minutes for each task proposed in the table discussion overview.
I observed diverse passionate discussions about concerns raised in the lecture and what they mean inside and outside the classroom. Many saw the corporate, quantitative model imposed on education. Students are herded into larger classrooms and pushed to graduate, which can be counterproductive to quality education. An example is the heavily-overworked history department; the caps have increased to 43 in G.E. classes, 36 in upper-division classes, and 19 for 400-level courses. They cannot teach the way they used to: quizzes and lectures replace discussions, and essays swamp faculty. Others were concerned that research and scholarship, activities of passionate interest and importance, are pushed aside due to increased classroom demands. One professor pointed out that research enhances the quality of her education in the classroom. A professor from the theater department discussed constant pressure to add more and more work, in light of new, innovative ideas, but never taking away existing demands.
The largest issue was that the quantitative focus is diminishing educational quality. A few groups discussed grade inflation as a product of the quantitative focus. Smaller class sizes allow for reflective thinking and classroom discussion, especially in introductory courses. This would help undeclared students to better consider possible majors. However, introductory courses tend toward larger class sizes, which in turn results in less engagement with students and lower quality. The same trend is found in scholarship; the emphasis on more and more publications results in diminished quality of research.
When the groups reconvened for a report-out and closure session, I heard recommendations to address some of the key issues. They included:
Each step is hard and requires time, effort, and risk that can further impact workload. However, the cliché that “things must get worse in order to get better” never rang more true. The event organizers followed up with other efforts, such as surveys on workload currently in circulation, which will move the discussion ahead. The success of the dialogue echoes Peter Brown’s earlier hope that this forum “is not the last.”
Student Perspective
When I was asked to write about this innovative, unprecedented forum, I was worried my student perspective would leave me in the dark. As informed as I could be, through research or student knowledge on the issues, I am not behind the scenes of department discussions or involved in the dialogue between academics and administration. Increased work demands, lack of voice, and striving for quality in a quantity-oriented environment are heavy burdens on faculty. All I recognize are larger classes, reduced course offerings, and altered syllabi.
Despite my non-faculty status, it was easier than expected to relate to the faculty issues during the forum. As a student representative, I can speak for many that we would much rather have smaller class sizes and focus on discussion and the interactive experience, rather than droning lectures. The national focus on productivity does not focus on learning but on producing degrees, and I doubt that students want to burden their parents with the steep price of education just to twiddle their thumbs.
Faculty and students both want the same thing in the end: quality. I gained insight into the faculty experience and would love to have other students be more informed. Rhoades told me that students have the power: they can go to Albany and make change in the education system. It is our education that is affected. We are the ones being prepared for our future professions. We can only gain quality by giving the faculty what it needs to deliver quality. If there is a way to include student voice in faculty voice, changes can happen.
Jaime Burns is a sophomore in the Honors Program with a major in English and a minor in Political Science. She is the first SUNY student to intern at a UUP chapter.
Chapter President Peter Brown opened the event stressing the forum’s novelty on the New Paltz campus and its necessity due to growing campus and national issues of workload, faculty voice and quality education. Workload is an especially difficult issue because the concept is elusive. Brown likened it to “comparing apples and oranges and raisins… it’s not so easy.”
A scholar on restructuring academic institutions, science and technology policy, Gary Rhoades served from 2009-2011 as General Secretary of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in Washington D.C. For twelve years prior to that, he was Director of the Center for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Arizona. His extensive published work includes Academic Capitalism and the New Economy (with Shelia Slaughter), several copies of which were given as door prizes. His most recent study is Closing the Door, Increasing the Gap: Who’s not going to (community) college? It is published by the Center for the Future of Higher Education, a virtual think tank, and downloadable here: http://futureofhighered.org/uploads/ClosingTheDoorFINAL_ALL32812.pdf
Gary Rhoades began proposing a general path towards improving higher education: to study and improve the “intersection between the workload of faculty and professionals.” By having a union, SUNY New Paltz is on the right track; what is needed is understanding national and SUNY academic agendas and how to break away from the structural flaws.
The National Agenda
The national agenda, Rhoades stated, is driven by three factors reminiscent of an unsettling business model: productivity, efficiency, and completion. This is a small part of the flawed national agenda. The Obama Administration set a goal to educate 50% more of the American population with a college degree by 2020, but did not significantly increase resources. The National Governors Association Completion Agenda pays attention to students who will succeed in the current system, instead of changing the institutional structure to allow less advantaged students to succeed. The Increase Output Agenda pushes for larger class sizes to deliver more bachelor’s degrees in a shorter time. Quantity, rather than quality, is the focus of the national agenda.
Instead of restructuring ideas of higher education, the nation blames flawed institutions for not carrying out their projected goals. Jane Wellman and the Delta Project on Postsecondary Education Costs argued against wasteful budgeting in institutions, overpaid faculty and little use of technology with bountiful data to the contrary. The inevitable conclusion is that there is no productivity problem, but a disinvestment problem. What is often ignored is the fact that resources and restructuring are the keys to success.
The SUNY Situation and Agenda
Earlier, Rhoades admitted that New York State recognizes the need to invest in public higher education and avoid skyrocketing tuition increases by agreeing to a “maintenance of effort” in state support, for five years, in return for a limit on tuition increases. After student campaigns in Albany against increased tuition and cuts in faculty and programs, the gradual efforts to relieve tuition inflation sounded reasonable when discussed at a President’s Cabinet meeting in the fall. The agreement is not enough to affect faculty workload and certainly does not solve the rising tuition rates, but it is good for future development.
The biggest problem is increased enrollment in the SUNY system outpacing hires in faculty. From 2005 to 2011, there was a 13.3% increase in students but only a 9% increase in faculty, with more being part-time faculty and full-time faculty decreasing from 71.17% in 1996 to 60.3% in 2011. Combined with the increasing tuition rates, the result is evident: students are paying more for less.
Just as the national agenda does not understand faculty and professional needs, proposals offered by the Chancellor demonstrate the need for an organized faculty voice to express concern. The proposals include allocation of resources based on discipline, accountability and performance, reminiscent of the troubling business model.
Redefinition of terms by the faculty can turn the Chancellor’s suggestions into positive goals. Performance and workload can be redefined to evaluate the amount of time and dedication towards work. Professors who actively engage classes in group discussion, paper-writing, special projects and other time-intensive activities, have made a much greater impact on my educational experience. When other students are asked, at student panels or in casual conversation, they reply that engaging professors who connect with their students and are passionate about their work are the most memorable. The experience can be compromised if the amount of work, dedication, and performance necessary to engage students is not recognized. If the more rigorous course meets fewer times a week, it counts as less credit, the professor is pressured to take on more courses, and days are swamped because of the disproportionate measure of workload.
Focus on New Paltz
New Paltz stands out with a strong graduation rate, meaning our institution has a stronger baseline for future changes. Rhoades emphasizes focusing on contingents, as well as on the EOP program, which echoes the concern to not simply focus on those most likely to succeed, but to improve the institutional structure to let more students succeed, regardless of economic or social background.
Second, he directed attention to the number of students professors advise, a key factor in workload. The pie concept was introduced by Peter Brown in his introduction: if one area of the pie increases, others must decrease to maintain the same size pie. If areas increase without others decreasing, faculty is overworked and quality is sacrificed to meet demands. When professors have to advise large numbers of students, individual assistance is compromised. I hardly go to my advisor because I do not feel I get individual assistance, which is perfectly understandable with the workload. I am simply afraid that the same compromise will become increasingly evident in my discussion-based and writing-oriented classes.
Applying Faculty Voice: What can we do?
Rhoades praised the constructive conversation in this Faculty Forum as the first step towards change. Faculty need to push for quality-oriented discussions within the institution and explain the inherent flaws in quantitative definitions of workload to administration, because they are in a unique position to raise these concerns. They are personally affected by these definitions and enrollment increases.
Rhoades also said that faculty voice is most important “to exercise responsibility… for students and community.” Faculty members directly affect a student’s education and their preparation as productive members of society. A bachelor’s degree means nothing if quality education is abandoned.
Rhoades proposed several measures faculty can take to improve current conditions. First, he emphasized continuing conversations on workload, quality education, and graduation among faculty and between faculty and administration. Second, he suggested faculty involvement in collecting data. Data that supports the faculty concerns on workload and quality education would inform change in discussions with administration. Third, faculty should push for reallocation of resources from administration to instruction/students, and monitor its progress, utilizing data-gathering and administrative conversations for support.
Rhoades also suggested applying for a Lumina Foundation grant as an external funding source for educational restructuring. The private, independent foundation sets out to increase the number of Americans with higher education degrees by providing financial support to colleges and universities across the country to restructure their institutions for change.
Questions on Preparation and Action
A brief question and answer session commenced. The first questioner asked about the issue of spending a large portion of institutional money on preparing students for college education, since many are unprepared when they reach the university. Rhoades addressed the issue as part of the structural failures in the whole public education system. Before higher education, students are “victims of K-12 education NCLB’d to death,” a reference to the federal law No Child Left Behind. They are being taught to the test, rather than prepared for a diverse higher education course load. Similarly, when community colleges close their doors due to caps, disadvantaged students (those of color, lower income, first generation, or immigrants), who need the institutions as a stepping stone to four-year colleges, are denied education. Rhoades stated that faculty needs “to be the voice that calls this stuff out” in order to bring about institutional change.
Another individual asked about the role of organized labor. Rhoades stated that movements similar to the Occupy movement will be needed to restructure higher education institutions. It did not consist of a large group of people, and it was not even organized, but it put the disenfranchised 99% on the national agenda. Similarly, SUNY New Paltz joined the larger SUNY campaign to educate students about upcoming budget cuts, and many went to Albany to speak to legislators. Organized labor movements will make change.
Applying National and SUNY Concerns to New Paltz
After the question and answer session, non-union members left and very organized discussion sessions commenced. Nancy Schniedewind (Humanistic/Multicultural Education), Alison Nash and Maryalice Citera (both Psychology) presented the goals of the table discussions: to share experiences and concerns related to workload, quality education, and faculty voice across departmental lines, to look for areas of common concern, and to suggest steps that faculty, staff, and the union can take to improve conditions. Individuals were then randomly assigned to different table groups using colored name tags. The groups took ten minutes for each task proposed in the table discussion overview.
I observed diverse passionate discussions about concerns raised in the lecture and what they mean inside and outside the classroom. Many saw the corporate, quantitative model imposed on education. Students are herded into larger classrooms and pushed to graduate, which can be counterproductive to quality education. An example is the heavily-overworked history department; the caps have increased to 43 in G.E. classes, 36 in upper-division classes, and 19 for 400-level courses. They cannot teach the way they used to: quizzes and lectures replace discussions, and essays swamp faculty. Others were concerned that research and scholarship, activities of passionate interest and importance, are pushed aside due to increased classroom demands. One professor pointed out that research enhances the quality of her education in the classroom. A professor from the theater department discussed constant pressure to add more and more work, in light of new, innovative ideas, but never taking away existing demands.
The largest issue was that the quantitative focus is diminishing educational quality. A few groups discussed grade inflation as a product of the quantitative focus. Smaller class sizes allow for reflective thinking and classroom discussion, especially in introductory courses. This would help undeclared students to better consider possible majors. However, introductory courses tend toward larger class sizes, which in turn results in less engagement with students and lower quality. The same trend is found in scholarship; the emphasis on more and more publications results in diminished quality of research.
When the groups reconvened for a report-out and closure session, I heard recommendations to address some of the key issues. They included:
- Faculty should assume responsibility for tracking and monitoring workload and its effects on quality education;
- Continue dialogue between faculty and administration on workload definitions;
- Ask the administration what parts of the equal pie should be reduced with additional teaching demands;
- Coordinate and increase collective union action and involvement from faculty;
- Collectively say “no” to pedagogically unsound increased workload demands.
Each step is hard and requires time, effort, and risk that can further impact workload. However, the cliché that “things must get worse in order to get better” never rang more true. The event organizers followed up with other efforts, such as surveys on workload currently in circulation, which will move the discussion ahead. The success of the dialogue echoes Peter Brown’s earlier hope that this forum “is not the last.”
Student Perspective
When I was asked to write about this innovative, unprecedented forum, I was worried my student perspective would leave me in the dark. As informed as I could be, through research or student knowledge on the issues, I am not behind the scenes of department discussions or involved in the dialogue between academics and administration. Increased work demands, lack of voice, and striving for quality in a quantity-oriented environment are heavy burdens on faculty. All I recognize are larger classes, reduced course offerings, and altered syllabi.
Despite my non-faculty status, it was easier than expected to relate to the faculty issues during the forum. As a student representative, I can speak for many that we would much rather have smaller class sizes and focus on discussion and the interactive experience, rather than droning lectures. The national focus on productivity does not focus on learning but on producing degrees, and I doubt that students want to burden their parents with the steep price of education just to twiddle their thumbs.
Faculty and students both want the same thing in the end: quality. I gained insight into the faculty experience and would love to have other students be more informed. Rhoades told me that students have the power: they can go to Albany and make change in the education system. It is our education that is affected. We are the ones being prepared for our future professions. We can only gain quality by giving the faculty what it needs to deliver quality. If there is a way to include student voice in faculty voice, changes can happen.
Jaime Burns is a sophomore in the Honors Program with a major in English and a minor in Political Science. She is the first SUNY student to intern at a UUP chapter.