After speaking with a number of faculty and hearing faculty members express themselves very eloquently on the floor of the Faculty Senate, I have to conclude that faculty morale is the lowest I've seen it in my twenty years at the institution.
Sure, there are a number of factors external to MSU that might have an impact on the general mood on campus, but most of the faculty who have taken the time to speak me with me have expressed concerns about the large number of initiatives under way at the present time.
For example, at a recent Senate meeting, it became apparent that there is a great deal of uncertainly about the exact status of faculty evaluation and PBSI for 2008 (and it's late October). At the Senate Executive Council meeting last week, the Provost urged the Senate to adopt a standard teaching evaluation instrument (for this semester) since such ongoing evaluations are important for the SACS study. I stated in that meeting, as I have stated at other times, that I was dismayed that we dropped the IDEA form before creating or otherwise designating a replacement. I continue to be disturbed that the IDEA form was dropped simply by administrative fiat and without meaningful input from the faculty. (Technically, the Evaluation Committee of the Faculty Senate should approve the adoption or discontinuance of a student evaluation instrument.)
And this pattern of administrative fiat is continuing. For example, currently there are ad hoc committees addressing faculty workload and faculty evaluation. These processes are the responsibility of the Faculty Senate, yet these initiatives have been initiated outside of the Faculty Senate governance structure. General education revision, which is specifically listed in the Constitution of the Faculty Senate as being under control of that body, is being conducted independent of the Faculty Senate. Although the Senate insisted upon the formation of the General Education Advisory Council (made up of representatives from each department on campus), there is continued conflict about who will ultimately ratify a new general education framework (even though it is usual practice across the country to put such matters to a faculty vote). And there is talk about changing tenure and promotion standards and processes.
And then there's the curriculum audit process . . . . While I actually do think the basic process was a good idea, the wholesale reorganization of large parts of the university is not justified by the report. To choose just one example, the B.A. program in English was marked for "enhancement." But why, then, does the report recommend combining English and parts of Communication into one gigantic department that would be virtually impossible to administer--especially given the major differences in teaching strategies and research agendas in these already-diverse departments? And I know many of you are facing similar sorts of recommendations that simply are not justified by the audit, and you are deeply concerned about how these changes will affect you and your colleagues and your students.
No wonder faculty feel powerless. Why shouldn't we? If you're like me, you're struggling to keep up with the heavy teaching load at MSU and trying to do some meaningful research and service on the side. But meanwhile just about every significant process involving faculty--faculty evaluation, general education, the evaluation of the curriculum, and on and on--is up in the air. What is even more frustrating is that no clear answers seem to be coming from the administration. I have tried to get a fairly simple answer to the question posed by the faculty member below, but no answers seem to be forthcoming.
I would love to hear from more of you. If you think I am way off base here, please let me know. If others agree, please let me know that, too. If I'm going to represent you, I need to know where you stand.
Ron
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Update on Workload Question
It is a busy time of the semester, and I have had a hard time getting quick answers to the question posed by an anonymous reader concerning faculty workload. But at last I can report a tiny bit of progress.
I wrote to Provost Hughes about the matter--apparently at the same time that at least one other faculty member asked her about it. She wrote me back with the following reply:
"I am looking into the PAc-29 information and the guidelines for overload. I understand that there is some history not recorded in the PAc that precedes both the President and me. We are looking into the issues that you raise. I will get back to you as soon as I can."
The original question has also been sent to Jane Fitzpatrick, the University Attorney, who can also comment on the legal status of the PAc (and all others).
My institutional memory stretches back a ways, but there is considerable murkiness on this issue. As I remember it, the two Provosts before Dr. Hughes worked to reduce or eliminate overload pay--and thus faculty overloads of any kind were discouraged. But certain matters are still unclear.
Under what circumstances are faculty required to teach an overload?
Will faculty be compensated for overloads?
Is the University consistent in how it handles workload issues involving graduate courses, labs, private lessons, thesis direction, etc.?
Discussions are underway regarding "differentiated loads" for faculty (more about this later in a separate post). In my opinion, we need to clarify some of our current policies and make them consistent before we get too far into these discussions.
I'll keep you informed as to what I learn. I would appreciate hearing your comments on this issue.
Ron
I wrote to Provost Hughes about the matter--apparently at the same time that at least one other faculty member asked her about it. She wrote me back with the following reply:
"I am looking into the PAc-29 information and the guidelines for overload. I understand that there is some history not recorded in the PAc that precedes both the President and me. We are looking into the issues that you raise. I will get back to you as soon as I can."
The original question has also been sent to Jane Fitzpatrick, the University Attorney, who can also comment on the legal status of the PAc (and all others).
My institutional memory stretches back a ways, but there is considerable murkiness on this issue. As I remember it, the two Provosts before Dr. Hughes worked to reduce or eliminate overload pay--and thus faculty overloads of any kind were discouraged. But certain matters are still unclear.
Under what circumstances are faculty required to teach an overload?
Will faculty be compensated for overloads?
Is the University consistent in how it handles workload issues involving graduate courses, labs, private lessons, thesis direction, etc.?
Discussions are underway regarding "differentiated loads" for faculty (more about this later in a separate post). In my opinion, we need to clarify some of our current policies and make them consistent before we get too far into these discussions.
I'll keep you informed as to what I learn. I would appreciate hearing your comments on this issue.
Ron
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Question on Workload
An Anonymous Reader asks:
"Can you define the workload restrictions, if any, that apply across campus? Right now, because of staff reductions, almost half of our department teaches an overload (as defined by PAc-29, which is 24 hrs per academic year). No one will be compensated, and I came to learn that the PAc's serve only as guidelines and there is no consequence to the administration if they violate the PAc's. So what governs how much a faculty is asked to work? The whim of their supervisor? It's a system without accountability and now with positions unfilled it is starting to impact more and more faculty."
I do not have an answer for you at the present. I will attempt to get some clarification soon. On the issue of your specific load, it might be helpful to know a little more. Would you feel comfortable telling me your department? Do other readers share this problem and concern?
"Can you define the workload restrictions, if any, that apply across campus? Right now, because of staff reductions, almost half of our department teaches an overload (as defined by PAc-29, which is 24 hrs per academic year). No one will be compensated, and I came to learn that the PAc's serve only as guidelines and there is no consequence to the administration if they violate the PAc's. So what governs how much a faculty is asked to work? The whim of their supervisor? It's a system without accountability and now with positions unfilled it is starting to impact more and more faculty."
I do not have an answer for you at the present. I will attempt to get some clarification soon. On the issue of your specific load, it might be helpful to know a little more. Would you feel comfortable telling me your department? Do other readers share this problem and concern?
Question on Administrative Spending
An Anonymous Reader asks:
"Why is it that an academic program on campus can have a position suspended at the drop of a hat, despite a strong program review, whereas the Presidential Leadership Academy can have a $30,000 budget approved (only $20,000 this year!) without any review at all? I'm told that those who graduate value the experience greatly, but of course the same could be said for those who complete academic programs. We need more accountability for administrative spending, don't you think?"
I agree that we need more accountability for administrative spending, and indeed before the June meeting I want to get a much better handle on the University's budget. (It is at the June meeting when we pass the University's overall budget.) Please be aware that typically Regents do not get a chance to comment or suggest changes in individual budget lines. Right now I would rather focus my energies on academic positions and budget lines (than wading into a discussion of the merits of the President's Leadership Academy or other non-academic budget line). I will continue to hammer away at the simple point that we must support academic programs first and foremost.
But give me a little more time to understand the budget process a little more fully (it is a truly daunting task). If anyone wants specific information, I will try to obtain it. If you have specific concerns, please let me know. As I stated in an earlier entry, my first goal is to listen.
"Why is it that an academic program on campus can have a position suspended at the drop of a hat, despite a strong program review, whereas the Presidential Leadership Academy can have a $30,000 budget approved (only $20,000 this year!) without any review at all? I'm told that those who graduate value the experience greatly, but of course the same could be said for those who complete academic programs. We need more accountability for administrative spending, don't you think?"
I agree that we need more accountability for administrative spending, and indeed before the June meeting I want to get a much better handle on the University's budget. (It is at the June meeting when we pass the University's overall budget.) Please be aware that typically Regents do not get a chance to comment or suggest changes in individual budget lines. Right now I would rather focus my energies on academic positions and budget lines (than wading into a discussion of the merits of the President's Leadership Academy or other non-academic budget line). I will continue to hammer away at the simple point that we must support academic programs first and foremost.
But give me a little more time to understand the budget process a little more fully (it is a truly daunting task). If anyone wants specific information, I will try to obtain it. If you have specific concerns, please let me know. As I stated in an earlier entry, my first goal is to listen.
Question on Curriculum Audit
An anonymous question:
What is your current position on the curriculum audit recommendations by the Provost?
It may sound a little flip, but my position is less important than your position. I need to know more clearly how faculty are feeling about the recommendations so that I can represent these concerns to the Board of Regents. So please post some of your concerns on this page and encourage others to do so. My first rule as your Regent is to listen first.
That principle doesn't mean I don't have opinions, and I'm willing to share a basic response until I learn more from the faculty. First, as your Regent, I want to know that the process that the Regents approved last March (before I was elected, by the way) is being followed and that all faculty have had a chance to respond in appropriate and timely fashion. I also want to know that all departments have had a chance to meet with the Provost to discuss the recommendations of the audit. We have a reasonably clear response process in place, and I encourage you to participate fully in that process.
As a faculty member, I have to admit that I am somewhat disappointed in the recommendations. My primary concern is that I can't always see the connection between the program audit and the recommended structural changes at the University. Some of these structural changes seem to be motivated simply by economics, and indeed some of them don't make sense practically or in terms of curriculum design. But we have been given the opportunity to suggest alternative approaches--and we've even been given a bit more time for this process. For the time being, I have to trust in the process and see what happens.
What is your current position on the curriculum audit recommendations by the Provost?
It may sound a little flip, but my position is less important than your position. I need to know more clearly how faculty are feeling about the recommendations so that I can represent these concerns to the Board of Regents. So please post some of your concerns on this page and encourage others to do so. My first rule as your Regent is to listen first.
That principle doesn't mean I don't have opinions, and I'm willing to share a basic response until I learn more from the faculty. First, as your Regent, I want to know that the process that the Regents approved last March (before I was elected, by the way) is being followed and that all faculty have had a chance to respond in appropriate and timely fashion. I also want to know that all departments have had a chance to meet with the Provost to discuss the recommendations of the audit. We have a reasonably clear response process in place, and I encourage you to participate fully in that process.
As a faculty member, I have to admit that I am somewhat disappointed in the recommendations. My primary concern is that I can't always see the connection between the program audit and the recommended structural changes at the University. Some of these structural changes seem to be motivated simply by economics, and indeed some of them don't make sense practically or in terms of curriculum design. But we have been given the opportunity to suggest alternative approaches--and we've even been given a bit more time for this process. For the time being, I have to trust in the process and see what happens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
