|
To learn more about
part-timers preferences and work history, the Washington
Federation of Teachers surveyed faculty at 14 of the institutions
at which it is the bargaining representative. Surveys were given
to union representatives to distribute to all part-timers on
their campuses. Five hundred fifty five separate surveys were
returned. While the method of distribution and collection leaves
open the probability of sample bias, these surveys provide a
legitimate basis to draw conclusions when appropriate
qualifications are noted. Statistical results must be regarded
as suggestive, not as precise population estimates.
In anticipation of the
survey results, it is helpful to examine potential sources of
bias. Surveys were distributed through campus mailboxes.
However, some part-timers do not have mailboxes, while others do
not teach at the central campus of their institution and may not
have been reached. Although campus leaders at some colleges made
a concerted effort to exhort their part-timers to return the
surveys, at other campuses surveys were returned on a more casual
basis.
It is important to
determine whether the returned surveys constitute a
representative cross section of faculty at the colleges. In
Table 3, we can see that some of the 8 major disciplinary
categories used by the State Board to define subject area, such
as Basic Skills and Humanities, are significantly
over-represented. Responses in the Sciences and Social
Sciences, however, more closely reflect the distribution of
faculty by those areas. Given the varied response rates, it is
probable that the survey as a whole is biased toward faculty more
aggrieved by part-time issues. Thus, results are best
interpreted as indicating the direction of change of employment
concerns as specific variables change.
Table 2
Number and Percentage of Returns from Washington State Community
Colleges
|
College*
|
Prime1
Affiliation
|
%
|
Headcount2
|
Total3
|
%
|
|
Centralia
|
14
|
11%
|
128
|
21
|
16%
|
|
Edmonds
|
81
|
28%
|
294
|
106
|
36%
|
|
Everett
|
32
|
16%
|
196
|
39
|
20%
|
|
Peninsula
|
25
|
17%
|
149
|
26
|
17%
|
|
Pierce
County
|
28
|
8%
|
343
|
34
|
10%
|
|
Seattle
Central
|
44
|
13%
|
328
|
57
|
17%
|
|
Seattle
North
|
31
|
10%
|
303
|
48
|
16%
|
|
Seattle
South
|
23
|
9%
|
267
|
34
|
13%
|
|
Shoreline
|
65
|
22%
|
294
|
93
|
32%
|
|
Skagit
Valley
|
37
|
19%
|
195
|
48
|
25%
|
|
South
Puget
|
38
|
24%
|
160
|
47
|
29%
|
|
Tacoma
College
|
35
|
13%
|
269
|
49
|
18%
|
|
Whatcom
|
45
|
29%
|
157
|
47
|
30%
|
|
Yakima
Valley
|
25
|
14%
|
182
|
26
|
14%
|
|
Overall
|
523
|
16%
|
3265
|
675
|
21%
|
1Faculty assigned to schools according to
their stated primary affiliation
2Percentages are calculated using state
data for Fall 1999 as shown. These data are for all Part-time
faculty, including those on contract funding, teaching at night
or on other campuses.
3Calculated using all data from faculty who
taught at school, regardless whether they identified this is
primary affiliation. It is appropriate to group responses by
college when looking for college wide information but because
some faculty taught at more than one campus, both the state's
total of 3265 faculty and the survey total of 675 involve double
counts.
*Only colleges with total response rate in
excess of 10% included.
The survey was designed
to provide information on two primary concerns. First the survey
intended to gage whether part-time faculty prefer greater levels
of employment. Second, the survey was designed to permit an
investigation into categories that might help us understand those
preferences.
Table 3
Distribution of Faculty by Academic Field of
Employment
Clearly, not all
part-timers desire full-time employment. However, the WFT survey
indicates that 50% did, while an additional 18% said they wanted
more work than they have presently secured through their
community college jobs. The percentage of those reporting
dissatisfaction is thus very large.
Table 4 indicates that
the majority of faculty reported they were either the only wage
earner in their family, or that that teaching was the primary
source of their income. Fully 59% (n=505) of the individuals
surveyed reported that part-time teaching was the primary source
of their personal income. Additionally, 34% (n=174) reported
that their earnings were the only source of income in their
household. Within the 27% (n=136) of respondents who reported
their community college teaching as both the only source of
income in their household and as their primary source of income,
nearly 84% said they wanted more work (n=21) or full-time work
(n=114). Preferences for full time work were also higher when
individuals were the only breadwinners in their household (63%
compared to 50% among all survey respondents), and also when
earnings from teaching were the primary source of individual
income (also 63%). Thus a sizable group indicated that community
college income contributed significantly to their livelihood and,
among these, the majority indicated a desire for additional
employment.
Table 5 indicates that
faculty prepared in traditional disciplines within the arts and
sciences rely more heavily upon their part-time teaching income,
at least as indicated by their relative preference for full-time
or increased work. Thus, survey results show that 85% of social
science, 76% of humanities, and 74% of science faculty prefer
more work than they presently have. By contrast, those serving
in non-traditional academic areas, such as Public Service or
Business, are somewhat less likely to seek greater teaching
employment. Mathematicians, curiously, appear to fall outside
the expectations for traditional arts and science
faculty.
Table
4
Sources of Household Income
Source: WFT Survey
Responses were to the
following questions:
1) Is this your primary
source of income? 2)
Is yours the only source
of income in your household?
The final point to note
is that many of the faculty appear to have adjusted to this
system as best they can. Those faculty who want to work
full-time reported that they taught an average of 3.33 classes in
the Fall quarter of 1999. Within this group, those who
identified themselves as depending primarily upon their community
college earnings averaged 3.46 classes per quarter. By contrast,
those who indicated that they were satisfied with their teaching
load reported an average of 2.17 class per quarter. The SBCTC,
on the other hand, reports that average workloads are lower, and
that only 45% of part-time faculty taught more than one course in
fall 1997. While sample bias may account for some of this
difference, the SBCTC figures, too, are biased reflections of
overall teaching duties because they omit courses that were not
state funded or that were outside the community college system
altogether (SBCTC, Research Report 98-4).
There is interest in the
phenomenon known as the "freeway flyer," in which part-time
teachers work at more than one campus to make ends meet. Some
248 of survey respondents reported teaching at two or more
institutions. Among these, 90 said they taught at three or more
colleges. This finding is at odds with SBCTC data indicating only
27 persons statewide taught at three or more colleges. It also
casts doubt on the state's conclusion that only 291 faculty
systemwide taught at two campuses. The discrepancy may be
explained in two ways. First, the state's analysis was not
designed to verify employment at private institutions, nor at
four-year schools. Second, in addition to listing schools at
which they were currently teaching, individuals in the WFT survey
may have responded to the question by citing institutions at
which they had recently taught. The state board, by contrast,
using in-house date data could restrict its analysis to a single
quarter. Thus the State Board concludes that freeway flyers
constitute 13% of the part-time faculty, whereas the WFT survey
suggests that employment at multiple campuses is more common,
especially when considered over longer employment periods. The
WFT survey means the part-time faculty travels more, teaches
more, and spends more time job searching then is generally
appreciated. The educational consequences of these patterns have
not been adequately studied.
Table 5
Preference for
More Employment Teaching by Field
|
Employment
Field
|
Want Full
Time
|
Want More
Work
|
Content
|
% Want
More
|
|
Basic
Skills
|
54
(46%)
|
23
(20%)
|
37
(32%)
|
67%
|
|
Business,
Data etc
|
19
(36%)
|
14
(27%)
|
18
(35%)
|
63%
|
|
Humanities
|
97
(61%)
|
25
(16%)
|
33
(21%)
|
76%
|
|
Mathematics
|
21
(40%)
|
4
(8%)
|
26
(50%)
|
48%
|
|
Mechanics/Eng'rg
|
4
(50%)
|
1
(13%)
|
3
(37.5%)
|
63%
|
|
Public
Service
|
25
(33%)
|
19
(25%)
|
28
(37%)
|
58%
|
|
Science
|
20
(57%)
|
6
(17%)
|
8
(23%)
|
74%
|
|
Social
Science
|
20
(74%)
|
3
(11%)
|
4
(15%)
|
85%
|
Source:
WFT Survey
The main findings
derived from the WFT survey are not controversial. Clearly,
Washington State relies very heavily upon part-time faculty, and
officials themselves believe that this reliance is greater than
is educationally justifiable. In investigating the problem, the
State has reached the conclusion that it is important to reduce
this reliance. The WFT's data suggests that, if anything, the
State still underestimates the extent of the problem. From the
vantagepoint of the part-time faculty member there is much to be
gained by improving employment security. To the extent that
adverse employment and working conditions affect the community
colleges, a point which the State has conceded, the education
students receive at community colleges will be advanced by
converting some part-time faculty positions into full-time
position and by improving the compensation package for
part-timers.
Organizing
Part-timers in Washington
Policy in Washington
State has clearly been influenced by a number of campaigns on
behalf of part-time community college faculty. One result,
noted earlier, is that in opposition to the national trend
involving an increased reliance upon part-time faculty, in
Washington that trend has been ended. In addition, pay and
benefit conditions are being raised, albeit at an inadequate
pace. Much of the state's progress traces directly back to two
legislative decisions begun in 1995 and 1996. In 1995 the state
redefined its unemployment laws to establish the eligibility of
part-time faculty for unemployment compensation. Second, and
perhaps more important, the legislature inaugurated a Best
Practices Task Force regarding part-time
instruction.
This task force was the
legislature's response to agitation by part-timers that dates
back, at least, to the early eighties. It wasn't until 1990s,
under Susan Levy's leadership, that the Washington Federation of
Teachers, seriously began to champion the part-time cause. This
transition became even more pronounced when the WFT employed
Wendy Rader-Konofalski, a former part-timer, as the WFT
legislative representative in Olympia. Working through the
union, Rader-Konofalski succeeded in getting legislative priority
for the issue. In significant measure the WFT was spurred on by
Keith Hoeller and the Washington Association of Part-Time Faculty
[WAPFAC]. This advocacy group worked independently, creating a
second fulcrum upon which to pry open state policy. Through
direct lobbying and publicity WAPFAC maintained pressure on both
the legislature and the WFT, ensuring that the part-time issue
did not die in intramural union politics. Together
Rader-Konofalski and Hoeller--perhaps unwittingly--created an
inside/outside strategy that kept everyone on their toes.
Although disagreements have at times surfaced, WFT and WAPFAC's
successor, the Washington Part-Time Faculty Association have
worked more closely in recent years to good effect.
The two organizations
have succeeded in forging alliances with the Worker Center, King
County's Labor Council, Seattle Union Now, the University of
Washington's Labor Center, and the Center for a Changing
Workplace. Together, these groups create visibility for the
permatemp and contingent labor force issue. Over the long haul,
it has been the efforts of rank and file part-timers that
successfully muscled the state into appointing its Best Practices
Task Force. The Task Force established a foundation for
continued legislative action by officially recognizing the abuses
inherent in the part-time system and acknowledging that these
abuses arose as the consequence of financial pressures. While
the limited use of part-timers could be justified in low demand
disciplines, in fields were scarce expertise is needed, or even
when colleges can not flexibly respond to scheduling needs with
their existing full-time faculty, the Task Force acknowledged
that part-time staffing had gone beyond these
rationales.
The Task Force found
fault with a the part-time employment system because it provided
virtually no incentive for faculty to commit themselves to the
classroom, to provide needed service to the campus, department or
community, and because the system utilized poor selection,
recruitment and development tools. To remedy these problems the
Task Force made several recommendations. First, academic
departments should develop a written policy on the appropriate
use of part-timers to guide their actions. Second they should
improve the recruitment process to ensure quality part-time hires
while improving and smoothing opportunities for transfer from
part to full time positions. Third, the Task Force recommended
that administrators should provide written and early employment
commitments for part-time faculty. It also encouraged multiple
quarter contracts, rather than quarter by quarter renewals.
Other best practices involving evaluation, development,
communication, support and recognition were also put on the
table.
To make earnest its
support for the task force recommendations Earl Hale, Executive
Director of the SBCTC, announced that the State Board would seek
twenty million dollars over the 1997 to 1999 biennium to address
faculty issues, including part-time salary and benefit
inequities. Ultimately the state authorized a maximum of 7.7
million dollars to address part-time issues. Following this, a
number of specific initiatives were taken that, cumulatively,
have begun to make a difference for part-timers. Most
significantly, in 1996 the WFT drafted and secured legislation to
ensure that part-timers that work at least 50% receive the
medical benefits to which they were entitled. A clear method of
calculating percentages of employment time was established to
prevent the state from denying those claims. Summer benefits
have remained a point of contention and are one of the subjects
in a major court challenge now underway. On a more positive
note, the most direct indication that the state takes the problem
seriously was the legislature's decision, in 1999, to dedicate
twenty million dollars to adjust part-time pay upwards. In doing
so, the legislature abandoned language that would have settled
for the SBCTC's goal for part-timers--76% of full time pay--and
appears to have adopted the WFT's goal of 100% parity. The pay
adjustments achieved to this date still leave part-timers far
from either goal, but state actions stand in stark contrast to
years of previous neglect. In June 2001, despite a very
difficult session the legislature voted another 7.5 million
dollars for pay equity.
As a percentage FTE
instruction, the use of part-timers has not expanded in any
appreciable degree since 1995, but neither has it been reduced.
After discussions with the union, the SBCTC created plans to
change the part-time/full-time faculty mix by adding some 360
full positions statewide in the current biennium. However, that
plan appears to have been abandoned in the light of current
budget difficulties. Hope for conversions must now rely upon
success in achieving pay equity, which will act to minimize the
demand for part-timers for purely economic reasons. The cost of
providing benefits may begin to tip incentives away from
part-time hires even without 100% pay equity.
Conclusions
Despite real
accomplishments, ominous clouds continue to mark the sky. As
always, money is extremely tight in the state capitol, Olympia,
and the part-time situation has been complicated by new state
initiatives, one limiting taxes and another increasing pay for
teachers from kindergarten through community college. In this
fiscal environment nothing is certain.
On the other hand,
pressured by law suits, lobbying, and public relations campaigns,
Washington's SBCTC appears poised to resolve the situation, if
for no other reason than to avoid costly liability. The prospect
of an expensive court suit related to contingent work practices
has grown since December 12, 2000, when the Vincainzo Case
against Microsoft was settled. To resolve that suit, Microsoft
consented to a 97 million-dollar payment to permatemp workers who
claimed they were wrongfully denied benefits the company provided
to its other employees. At the behest of Keith Hoeller's WPTFA
the law firm that represented those plaintiffs, Bendich,
Staughbaugh and Strong, is now arguing in a separate case that
part-time community college faculty are being denied benefits
they rightfully deserve. One irony is that this suit would have
no little basis in law if the state had not acquiesced when the
WFPTA and the WFT pressed for, and secured, best-practice
legislation in the mid-nineties. The subsequent 1996 WFT bill
spelled out the method by which part-timer's eligibility to
participate in benefit plans was to be determined. The new
lawsuit seeks retroactive faculty benefits for up to twenty
years, during which time the state allegedly calculated hours
erroneously so as to deprive part-timers of their pension and
health benefits.
In an interim decision,
Judge Steven Scott has determined last year that faculty teaching
50% or more are entitled to summer health benefits if they work
at all at during that period. If complied with this interim
decision may conflict with another high priority part-time
concern: the ability to collect unemployment benefits. In
particular, many part-timers desire unemployment compensation
during summer and other times when colleges fail to provide them
with classes to teach. By securing summer benefits, the claim of
temporary employment may be weakened as part-timers begin to look
more like full time faculty, for whom a nine-month contract is
presumed to be full time yearly employment. Perhaps the ultimate
test of the success of the part-time movement in Washington State
will come when part-timers are treated well enough that they will
be able to choose between the reasonable assurance of
multi-quarter contracts with benefits and unemployment
compensation during quarters when they don't teach. In April of
2001 the WFT secured a victory that should ease unemployment
claims. The bill declares that part-time employment offers
contingent upon enrollment, funding, or scheduling does not
constitute reasonable assurance of employment.
In the meantime the law
firm of Frank and Rosen is pressing yet another case arguing that
the state's method of paying part-timers is seriously flawed.
Presently, not only does the state not provide reasonable
assurance of continued employment, the plaintiffs in this case
claim, instead, the state misstates the employment relationship
altogether. The plaintiffs argue that community because colleges
pay part-timers only for each class-contact hour, the state
violates its own minimum wage and overtime laws. Although the
case faces a variety of obstacles, it constitutes one more
pressure point toward the implementation of the best practices
that enumerated in 1996.
The state continues to
show modest incremental leadership in slowly tackling the worst
of the contingent labor practices in academia. Perhaps the
greatest danger on the horizon is degree to which different
elements of the education community are increasingly being pitted
against one another for sparse funds. The fact that the
legislature provided financial relief for part-time faculty, but
refused to pass enabling legislation for the teaching assistants
at the University, suggests something of the constrained choices
facing the higher education community.
Acknowledgement
Thanks to student
research assistants Art Boulton; Annetta La
Chance; and Steve Wong
and to the University of Washington's Tools for
Transformation grant
that made this work possible. My appreciation also
goes to the the
Washington Federation of Teachers and its Part-time
Caucus
for designing and
distributing the survey questionnaire. Finally, thanks
go
to Susan Levy, Keith
Hoeller and Wendy Rader-Konofalksi for reviewing and
commenting on the
manuscript. Despite all this excellent help, in this
effort I must bear sole
responsibility for any remaining errors.
Note
- A legislatively appointed Task Force reported that the use of
part-timers had increased 6 percentage points, from 42 to 48% of
FTE between 1990 and1995. It should be noted that the Task Force
Report apparently included full time faculty who moonlight
additional courses for extra income. Thus, 5% of these 48% are
not part-timers.
References
1998. State Board for
Community Colleges, Research Report 98-4, Part-time faculty in
Washington Community and Technical Colleges.
2000A, State Board for
Community Colleges, "Enrollments and Student Demographics," SBCTC
Webpage.
2000B, Budget Request,
State Board for Community Colleges, SBCTC Webpage
2000, National Center
for Educational Statistics, Instructional Faculty and Staff in
Public 2-Year Colleges), NCES 2000-192, May 2000.
1996, Best Practices
Task Force, Report: Adjunct Faculty Personnel
Administration.
About the Author
Daniel Jacoby
Email:
DJacoby@bothell.washington.edu
Daniel Jacoby is
Associate Professor in the Interdisciplinary Arts and
Sciences Program at the
University of Washington's Bothell campus where he
teaches economics. He
writes on labor, education, and economics and is the
author of
Laboring for Freedom: A New Look at the History of
American Labor (M.E.
Sharpe, Inc, 1998).
|
times since October 8, 2001