Share This

Workload Task Force Interim Report 12/10/2008


JOINT SCCD-AFT SEATTLE WORKLOAD TASK FORCE

 

INTERIM REPORT

 

DECEMBER 10, 2008

 

 

As required by the 2007 – 2010 Agreement between the Seattle Community Colleges District and AFT Seattle Community Colleges, Local 1789, a Task Force was convened in May of 2008 to review faculty workload issues. The specific charges of the Task Force were as follows:

 

·         Examine workload issues across the District, including differences in workload by instructional categories and efficient capturing of FTE's.

·         Address ABE-ESL as a pilot project for workload equalization.

·         Address coding changes that could more accurately capture workload (e.g.: instructor-driven and instructor-assisted).

·         Submit recommendations to the District Chancellor and AFT-SCC President by December 2008.

 

 

The Task Force met seven times between May 2008 and December 2008. The following were members of the Task Force: Kathy Vedvick, SSCC; Alison Stevens, SCCC; Nancy Verheyden, SVI; Donna Miller-Parker, SSCC; Kim Chapman, NSCC; Wendy Rockhill, SCCC; Teresa Romaneschi, NSCC; Rebecca Tesdell, SCCC; Ed Ciok, SCCC and Jessie McDonald, SSCC.

 

 

INITIAL OBSERVATIONS

 

District Administration asked that the Task Force seek a fiscally neutral means to reduce workload for the affected disciplines.

 

AFT-SCC observed that increasing current workload of faculty with 15 weekly contact hours in order to achieve workload equalization would be counter productive and have negative pedagogical impact on those disciplines.

 

 

FINDINGS

 

The Task Force members agree upon the following:

 

v  An equitable workload is imperative to achieve fairness to all faculty and to make sure all students receive the same level of instruction and faculty attention. 

 

v  ESL, ABE, and GED instruction requires equal effort on the part of faculty compared with other language and math instruction and there is no conceptual justification for a higher workload (see attachment 1, TESOL Position Statement).  We believe this same discrepancy may exist in other programs, specifically but not limited to professional technical programs and American Sign Language.

 

v  Seven of eight comparable community colleges in the area have a full time weekly workload of 15 contact hours for ABE/ESL (see attachment 2, ESL Workload Survey).

 

v  Coding does not affect workload.

 

v  The current descriptors of workload defined in Article 11.3 of the 2007-2010 Agreement are outdated and inaccurate, affect workload and credit assignment, and warrant further study and revision.

 

v  There will be costs associated with equalizing workload; we could identify no fiscally neutral means that would be pedagogically sound.

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

v  The task force recommends continuing to meet.  The composition of the task force could be re-examined to include administrators from other programs such as professional technical programs as well as ESL/ABE programs.

 

v  Achieving equitable workloads in all programs is an appropriate goal.

§  Reviewing Instructional Modes (Article 11.3 of the 2007-2010 Agreement) for consideration in future negotiations is recommended.

§  Faculty input on in-class and outside class workload is needed.

§  Costs of implementation will need to be assessed.

 

v  A  detailed study of the costs of implementing a “pilot project” in ABE-ESL is recommended.  Factors influencing costs:

§  possible cuts in funding of ABE-ESL programs

§  budget reductions for the coming fiscal years

§  potential cuts in enrollment

§  additional part-time salaries to cover sections no longer taught by full-time faculty

§  additional part-time costs due to changes in workload calculation

§  potential increase in cost at SVI for clock-hour based instruction