Deja Vu All Over Again:

Yet Another Study of ISU's Nontenure-Track Faculty

Nontenure-track faculty, or "temporary" professors, soon will be studied for the fourth time in the University's history. Although the number of noncontinuing faculty increased almost 70% since 1996 while the permanent faculty population has remained almost static, the

the University has yet to perform a complete salary survey, as it does for the other employees. Since the nontenure-track faculty were 40% of the total faculty last year, teaching 1/3 of all classes - and most likely in a similar position this year, the steadfast reluctance of administration after administration to make substantative meaningful changes is disheartening.

Last week, Provost Al Bowman announced the creation of the Committee of Nontenure Track Faculty "to investigate and make recommendations regarding a variety of topics related to nontenure track faculty at Illinois State University". Study topics for the committee will include hiring criteria, salary and teaching loads, evaluation processes, grievance procedures and multi-year contracts. In other words, these study topics look very much like those of the three earlier committees or task forces on nontenure-track faculty.

The Provost just forgot to mention that the Illinois Board of Higher Education (IBHE) mandated these study topics concerning nontenure-track faculty from all of our sister state universities and colleges. If you were trotting through the Bone Student Center in early April, you probably noticed a huge gathering of university administrators for the IBHE meeting at which the report in which this mandate appeared was accepted.

That report, entitled "All Faculty Matter!", was released in January 2002 but raised so many howls of protest from nontenure-track faculty around the state that the IBHE tabled the vote on its acceptance until April. Angry faculty renamed the report, "Don't Worry, You're Happy", because the IBHE concluded that most nontenure-track faculty in Illinois were happy with the status quo.

Provost Bowman also said in last week's press release, "Over the past several years, Illinois State has made important strides in addressing the needs and concerns of nontenure track faculty." He identified those strides as including minimum salary benchmarks, yearly evaluations, a teaching load policy and training opportunities.

He just forgot to mention that those "strides" affected less than half of nontenure-track faculty. The minimum salary benchmarks which became policy (but not necessarily practice) in 1999 and 2000 are for full-time nontenure-track faculty only. No policy exists which establishes how part-time salaries are calculated. Some part-timers are paid by the course; others by a percentage of the full-time salary. But there is no official minimum salary benchmark for these employees, and some full-time faculty still are paid less than the minimum rate. Having policies isn't enough; the University has to enforce them. The IBHE states that nontenure-track plans and policies should address the identification of criteria used in pay decisions.

The same can be said of yearly evaluations. According to the policy, yearly evaluations are required for full-time nontenure-track faculty only. And we all know that "required" doesn't always translate into a fait accompli. What, exactly, does a yearly evaluation consist of? Is it a visit to your classroom by the chair? Student evaluations? A teaching portfolio? The policy is vague. Again, the IBHE states that universities should address written performance evaluations for nontenure-track faculty.

According to the online policy handbook, there is no teaching load policy specifically for nontenure-track faculty although as a matter of practice nontenure-track faculty may teach up to seven (7) courses per semester. In fact, the policy for tenure-track/tenured faculty has been rarely been enforced. And as for training opportunities, the only change is that up to 25% of faculty who participate in the State Farm Technology summer program can be nontenure-track. By any measurement these do not appear to be "important strides in addressing the needs and concerns of nontenure-track faculty" - salary, access to health insurance, and timely notification of (re)hiring decisions.

Provost Bowman's selective amnesia even extends to his new-found enthusiasm for improving the lot of nontenure-track faculty. After all, this is the first study that involves Prof. Bowman despite his two-plus decades of service. He was not an active participant in the three earlier committees or task forces. Nontenure-track Senator Phyllis Feaster has the distinction of having served on the first as well as the current committee.

Until recently you could have examined the original study and progress reports of Provost Goldfarb's task force, but the current Provost's Office has removed the former and abridged the latter vigorously. Nor will you be able to rightly laud the tenured/tenure-track faculty on the task force who thoughtfully produced meaningful recommendations as their names have been expunged. Provost Urice's committee report never made it online.

Finally, we cannot fail to mention last spring's Faculty Affairs Committee report on nontenure-track faculty to the Academic Senate. The FAC report was a response to a charge in the Educating Illinois document focusing on the appropriate use of nontenure-track faculty - the only portion of the E.I. document that mentions 40% of the instructional faculty. The portion of the FAC report based on a chairperson survey portrayed nontenure-track faculty as lowering morale in Applied Computer Sciences, Mathematics, Music, MQM (Management), Philosophy, and Politics & Government.

Most disturbing was a statement in the FAC report that "NTT hiring does not appear to adversely affect the instructional quality with stated exceptions in Communications, Mathematics, Psychology, Applied Computer Sciences, Music; Finance, Insurance & Law, and MQM (Management)". Look closely at those double negatives; it's not a pretty sight. Since part-time nontenure-track faculty outnumber full-timers - and only full-timers are required to have yearly evaluations - on what criteria did the chairpersons base their conclusions? The Provost is now suggesting another chairperson survey.

Here's an idea: why not survey all of the nontenure-track faculty themselves instead? The IBHE did a random phone survey for its last report and won't release the number of faculty who participated in the survey nor what questions were asked. The ISU Nontenure-track Faculty Association-IEA/NEA had a written questionnaire last spring with good results. Fair compensation was the number-one concern.

So who's getting a raise this year? Not the permanent faculty, and certainly not most of the nontenure-track faculty. But the unionized employees will see more in their paychecks. The ISU Clericals (AFSCME) in year three of a six-year contract will enjoy a 3% across-the-board pay raise plus individual equity pay. Ideally, the Provost's latest committee will help prepare the administration for nontenure-track faculty's post-election contract negotiations.

To find ISU's official policies on nontenure-track faculty and other weighty matters, go to http://www.policy.ilstu.edu/. Look for the IBHE report at http://www.ibhe.state.il.us/, and the FAC report at http://www.academicsenate.ilstu.edu/. You also can find links from www.geocities.com/isufaculty.