DEAN STATEMENTS REGARDING STANDARD TEACHING LOADS IN THEIR COLLEGES RSCOB. April 2, Assumptions

Transcription

1 DEAN STATEMENTS REGARDING STANDARD TEACHING LOADS IN THEIR COLLEGES April 2, 2010 RSCOB Assumptions This report is based on the following assumptions: (1) a 3/2 teaching load for BUFMs, (2) a 4/3 teaching load for non- BUFMs, (3) the same student enrollment as prevailed during the academic year, (4) the same number of full- time faculty that were in the College in , and (5) the projected schedules provided by each department chair after consulting with their department faculty. It should also be pointed out that this exercise grew out of a March 2, 2009 MOU between the University and the AAUP in which both parties agreed that conversion to a semester calendar should be made without increasing the per student cost to the university for providing instruction, without changing the quality of teaching and learning with reasonable student access to professorial faculty and appropriate class sizes, and leaving unchanged the overall amount of teaching per year by Bargaining Unit Faculty in any individual college. As the following analysis demonstrates, achieving all of the March 2, 2009 requirements simultaneously with a 3/2 teaching load is impossible especially when the additional burden of complying with AACSB standards is taken into account. In addition to the terms of the MOU, the College needs to consider the impact on our AACSB accreditation from changing the teaching load. AACSB requires that a minimum of 75% of the teaching in the College be carried out by participating (essentially full- time) faculty thus limiting the percentage of adjuncts to 25%. AACSB standards also limit the number of adjunct faculty in the sense that they are considered professionally qualified (PQ) rather than academically qualified (AQ). The standard is that AQ and PQ faculty must together be at least 90% of the total faculty employed and that a minimum of 50% of the total be AQ (more than 50% for faculty teaching in graduate programs). Department Analyses The Department of Accountancy prefers not to use many adjuncts for their program, arguing that qualified accounting instructors are difficult to find. In their projected schedule the department was able to make a 3/2 teaching load work only by increasing class sizes, for example, from 50 to 70 in the sophomore level Principles course, 50 to 65 in

2 the junior- level Intermediate Accounting course and 40 to 60 in the senior- level Tax II course. Increasing class sizes by the amounts suggested in the Accountancy schedule certainly raises the issue of leaving unchanged the quality of teaching and appropriate class sizes as called for in the March 2 MOU. The Department of Finance and Financial Services projected a schedule with larger section sizes and some reduction in the number of times a course is offered annually. For example, section sizes for the Personal Finance, Financial Management I and Financial Management II courses were increased from 40 to 57, 55, and 48 respectively so that other courses could be kept at their current size in order to use the Soin Trading Room facility which seats only 25. Graduate Finance courses in the MBA program were assumed to be offered less frequently and therefore enrollments are expected to increase, for example, from 30 to 46 in MBA 730 and from 28 to 56 in the International Finance course. With these assumptions and a 3/2 workload the number of sections taught by full- time faculty is 34 out of a total of 53 sections offered each academic year or 64% of the total which is below the minimum AACSB requirement of 75% required for the College. In order to achieve a 3/2 teaching load, the Department of Management and International Business projected increasing undergraduate class sizes, typically by 5 students per section, compared to the section sizes. For graduate courses the problem was more complex because of the number of courses the department teaches in the MBA program and the number of locations where the program is taught. Where there are comparable quarter and semester courses, section sizes for graduate courses typically increased to 40 from 30 or 35. For new courses where there is no quarter equivalent, a section size of 40 or 50 is assumed. Even with increases in section sizes virtually across the board, the department projects that 43 of the 109 sections or 39% of the total for each academic year will need to be staffed by adjunct faculty. Again this number is much higher than the 25% permitted by AACSB standards. The Department of Marketing faces a problem similar to Management. For the basic Principles of Marketing course the projection is for section sizes of 90 students from an average during of 55 thus permitting scheduling six sections per year instead of ten. The department faculty also agreed to eliminate an innovative new concentration in Sales that had previously been agreed to after discussions with the Provost and a prominent local business executive. With these changes the total number of courses taught by the department is projected to drop from 53 to 46 of which 32 can be taught by department faculty. Adjunct coverage will be required for 14 courses or 30% of the total. The Department of Information Systems and Operations Management has projected a 3/2 schedule that does not increase the use of adjuncts. They do this by assuming an average class size of 38 compared to an average of about 30 in The department also teaches a large section 250 limit of the MS 205 Statistics course which typically enrolls only about 130 so there was no need to add additional semester sections for this course. Also, the new MBA curriculum no longer requires an MIS course as the current program

3 does so three or four sections a year were eliminated from this source. ISOM is able to schedule a 3/2 teaching load primarily because they have the lowest ratio of Student Credit Hours per Bargaining Unit Faculty in the College at 648 per year, 17% below the College average of 778 and therefore are able to increase class limits in existing sections. Finally, the Department of Economics was able to achieve a 3/2 workload by not scheduling elective courses as often and increasing their size when they are offered. For example EC4010 is projected to be offered only once over the two- year cycle but assumes an enrollment of 36 instead of the typical enrollment of when offered once every year. The department also assumes that there will be 11% fewer non- business students enrolling in the General Education courses (EC 200 and EC 290), an assumption that also reduces the number of sections needed. Finally, the department assumes increases in class sizes of other courses by 6.7%. With these assumptions in place the number of adjuncts employed by the department remains at about 22% of all sections offered. The ability of the Department of Economics to achieve a 3/2 teaching load when others could not without adverse consequences stems from the unique nature of the department s offerings where relatively large numbers of elective courses with small enrollments (15-25 students) were traditionally offered and by assuming that enrollment in their GE courses will drop. From the above analysis it appears that two departments Economics and Information Systems and Operations Management can adjust to a 3/2 teaching schedule with relatively minor changes to class size and course offerings. Even with major changes, as shown above, four departments Accountancy, Finance, Management and Marketing cannot adjust to a 3/2 teaching load without impacting the quality of instruction or the cost to the University or without jeopardizing the College s AACSB accreditation. It is important to note the changes in full- time faculty positions that have occurred since the academic year because these changes further muddy the teaching workload waters. First of all, the College gave up three teaching faculty positions as part of the College s budget reductions Matt Ingram (Finance), Vince Yen (ISOM), Ann Wendt (Management) as well as a faculty member serving as Associate Dean. The chairs semester projections assumed these faculty members would still be here in 2012 since they were here in the base year. In addition three other faculty members, two from the Department of Management and one from the Department of Accountancy have either retired or announced their retirement by the end of These faculty members were also assumed to be available for classes in 2012 since they were here during the base year. Consequently, the College faculty census is already reduced by six from If they are not all replaced by 2012, the possibility of going to a 3/2 workload is even less likely than in the scenarios projected by the chairs. In order for the College to implement a 3/2 teaching workload the following conditions need to apply: (1) increases in average class size along with reductions in course offerings must occur, (2) replacing the six faculty members who have left is necessary just to return to the status quo, and (3) the College needs to hire three new faculty two in Management and one in Marketing. The combined impact of these changes will allow the

4 College to comply with AACSB standards and will preserve the quality of instruction albeit at a higher cost to the University. Without these conditions in place, the Raj Soin College of Business will need to require a 3/3 teaching load for BUFMs and a 4/4 teaching load for Instructors and Lecturers. CECS This document proposes a standard semester teaching load for CECS faculty meeting standard workload expectations, but is intended to provide flexibility at the department level. The CECS semester curriculum will generally include a combination of 3 hour and 4 hour (lecture + lab) courses, although a small number of 1 hour and 2 hour courses (primarily stand- alone lab courses) are also expected. In addition, CECS faculty are expected to engage in a variety of activities which are classified as teaching in departmental bylaws. These include undergraduate project advising (senior design teams, design competition teams, undergraduate honors theses, etc.), M.S. thesis advising and Ph.D. dissertation advising. In order to account for the above combination of teaching activities, the CECS standard teaching load will be based on the equivalent of 16 semester hours, including a normal course load of 2/2. In general, faculty will be teaching a combination of 3 and 4 credit hour courses, for which the standard course load of 2/2 will result in somewhere between 12 and 16 credit hours. It is further recognized that student enrollment may vary significantly from course to course. In order to reach the 16 hour equivalent, any remaining hours will be accounted for by some combination of the following activities: Teaching larger size classes Teaching an additional course Undergraduate project advising (senior design teams, design competition teams, undergraduate honors theses, etc.) M.S. thesis advising (with expected completion rates) Ph.D. dissertation advising (with expected completion rates) Other activities classified as teaching in departmental bylaws The exact distribution of the above activities which results in an equivalent of 16 semester hours of teaching will be determined at the department level. Among other things, the department's ability to maintain an equitable distribution of student credit hours generated per faculty member will be a consideration.

5 CEHS We have reviewed the CEHS department chairs summaries of the teaching load assignments for BUFM s in their departments as we transition from Quarters to Semesters. Because teaching assignments in CEHS have always been assigned as the number of quarter hours taught, an exact conversion to a semester system would simply be two thirds of the quarter hours taught currently (i.e., 30 / 3 = 10; = 20 semester hours). However, we were asked to determine if teaching loads could be assigned on the basis of courses taught. Specifically, CEHS departments looked at the feasibility of a 5- course teaching load for semesters (3 2), which is actually lower than the standard teaching load in CEHS on the quarter system. Based on the analyses of the CEHS chairs, a 5- course load is feasible, roughly equivalent in numbers of student credit hours generated and, therefore, likely to be revenue neutral, IF every BUFM teaches larger class sizes (i.e., on average, enrollment in course sections taught by BUFM s would need to be 7 9 students larger than current enrollment on the quarter system see January 21, 2010, memo to you summarizing this approach). Because of classroom size limits and the limited number of majors in some programs, it will be essential that every semester course include more students on average to assure that the credit hour neutrality criterion is met. It must be noted that CEHS has always reduced the number of courses that faculty teach when they have responsibilities for accreditation review, licensure program coordination, p- 12 school liaison roles, student teaching supervision, partnership coordination, internship supervision, etc. A teaching load model that only considers the lower number of courses to be taught (e.g., 5) would not allow for such teaching load reductions to occur as we would already be at the minimum course load necessary to allow students a quality program and to make timely progress toward degree completion. Therefore, although a 3 2 standard teaching load is feasible, a 3 3 standard teaching load, as well as expressing the load as number of semester hours (18), would be more appropriate for CEHS, in that it would be more consistent with how CEHS departments currently assign teaching loads, allowing the opportunity for course load reductions for additional responsibilities and maintaining the quality of teaching and learning as well as the overall amount of teaching. COLA The recommended standard annual teaching load for bargaining unit faculty in CoLA is no fewer than fifteen and no more than eighteen semester hours (normally five or six 3-credit hour courses) or the equivalent.

6 CONH 20 units before overload which relates to course credit hours per year would be used to balance variation in credit hours lowest number of courses taught any quarter would be 2 and highest would be 3 not counting release for grants and administrative assignments The teaching releases would include 10% for Directors which is same % as in This teaching load applies when the faculty member is doing the standard service and scholarship. LAKE Using the student credit hour data supplied by Ms. Barbara Bullock and converting that data to semester credit hours, to achieve the goal of revenue neutrality requires that each BUFM generate 570 student credit hours per year on the semester calendar, or approximately 285 student credit hours per semester. Assuming the semester calendar will utilize a three- hour credit base, that means each BUFM would have to instruct 95 students per semester to reach the goals of 285 student credit hours per semester and 570 student credit hours per year. The overall student credit hours generated by Lake BUFMs during fall quarter 2009 ( as compiled by Ms. Bullock) are a bit inflated because of (a) overloads and (b) independent studies taught by the BUFMs. Thus, a more realistic goal, based upon regularly- scheduled curricular offerings would be 90 students per semester. This goal CAN be achieved by having faculty on a 3:3 teaching load, averaging 30 students per course throughout the year. Factoring in overloads and independent studies makes the achievement of that goal even easier. Additionally, since lab science courses will carry four hours of credit, the science faculty can hit the target by offering five classes per year. THEREFORE, IT IS PROPOSED THAT NON- SCIENCE LAKE FACULTY HAVE A 3:3 TEACHING LOAD, THAT SCIENCE FACULTY HAVE A 3:2 TEACHING LOAD, EFFECTIVE FALL 2012.

7 COSM The proposed standard teaching load for CoSM is 2-2, or equivalent, with the following qualifications. Qualifications: CoSM teaching involves a mix of teaching duties that is oft- times more complex than just modest sized didactic courses of 3 or more credit hours. For example, the complexities include large lecture sections, responsibilities for multiple lab sections associated with a large lecture, seminar courses, and independent undergraduate and graduate research. As such, chairs should continue to take such factors into consideration in determining equivalent teaching assignments as they do on quarters. Most of CoSM s departments have or have had one or more BUF who teach more (or do more service) in lieu of research. The proposed standard teaching load for CoSM assumes that this current practice may continue in CoSM. If this practice could be extended to departments where it has not occur, including Mathematics and Statistics for example, then I would feel highly confident that the proposed CoSM standard teaching load is sound. Chairs have on occasion provided a faculty member with a course reduction when appropriate, such as to write and submit a grant proposal. Chairs should be able to continue to exercise such discretion. There are some modest departmental variations on the proposed CoSM standard teaching load. For Biology, the proposed standard is 2 lab classes plus one seminar per year, or equivalent. For Chemistry, the proposed standard is 2-2 or equivalent on average, with the understanding that some BUF may teach more while others may teach less, consistent with past practice. For Psychology and EES, and perhaps also for Chemistry, it is possible that something between a 2-2 and a 2-1 teaching load will satisfy the three overarching goals from the March 2, 2009 MOU and set forth in the more recent Process for Determining Standard Teaching Loads document. If this proves to be the case for a department, then the dean should have the discretion to allow an appropriate reduction in the department s standard teaching load, by implementing an appropriate mix of 2-2 and 2-1 teaching loads over time. Preference may be given for example to faculty who are untenured or with greater research productivity and more involvement in student research supervision.

8 SUMMARY The dean s statements suggest standard teaching loads as follows: RSCOB CECS CEHS LAKE* COLA CONH COSM 5-6 courses per year; credit hours 4-5 courses per year; equivalent of 16 semester hours 5-6 courses per year; credit hours 5-6 courses per year in the sciences; 6-7 courses per year for non- science faculty 5-6 courses per year; credit hours or equivalent 20 units, including 2-3 courses per semester 4 courses per year or equivalent *The dean s recommendation was for 5 courses per year (sciences) and 6 courses per year for non- science faculty.