Dep epart rtmen ental C Cultures res a and Par art-Ti Time F Facul ulty: Peralt lta Community ty Colle llege ge Distr trict By Cynthia Mahabir, Part-Time Faculty Representative, Peralta Federation of Teachers Data collected in Fall 2015
Introduction This questionnaire was designed as a self-assessment tool for non-tenure track and part-time/ contingent faculty by Adrianna Kezar and her associates at the University of Southern California. In the survey, respondents were asked to circle one answer for each survey statement that best described their experiences and perceptions of working as part-time, non- tenure-track faculty members in their primary departments in the Peralta Community College District. Their responses were given anonymously. I received 136 survey responses. For independent analysis of the survey results by readers, I have included an adapted summary of Kezar’s four departmental cultures following the presentation of the data charts.
Survey Responses Q.1 . At Peralta, I w ork prim arily as a: 91.9 % 3.7 % 0.7 % 2.9 % 0.7 % Part-time Non-Tenure- Part-time Non-Tenure- Part-time Non-Tenure- Part-Time Non-Tenure- Other (please specify) Track Faculty - Instructor Track Faculty - Counselor Track Faculty - Track Faculty - Librarian N=136 The vast majority of the respondents were part-time, non-tenure track instructors .
Q.2 . I teach courses: 83.0 % 3.0 % 7.4 % 6.7 % Primarily on campus Primarily online Approximately equally on Other (please specify) campus and online The vast majority were teaching face-to-face classes. N= 1 3 5
Q.3 . At Peralta, I w ork at: 18.4 % 14.7 % 44.1 % 18.4 % 4.4 % Berkeley City College College of Alameda Laney College Merritt College Other (please specify) N= 136 Most of the respondents were from Laney College .
Q.4 . I have been em ployed at this institution ( PCCD) for: 11.0 % 14.7 % 30.9 % 43.4 % 2 years or fewer 3-5 years 6-10 years More than 10 years N= 136 A majority of the respondents were long-term part-time faculty.
Q.5 . Tenured/ Tenure-track colleagues in the departm ent treat m e: 7.6 % 17.4 % 49.2 % 25.8 % disrespectfully like I am invisible respectfully and as if I am valuable to inclusively the overall learning environment N=132 Most reported favorable treatment but a quarter reported marginalization and disrespect.
Q.6 . I n term s of participation in faculty m eetings, I am : 3.0 % 28.4 % 29.9 % 38.8 % prohibited from attending allowed to attend faculty invited to attend faculty encouraged to attend faculty meetings meetings meetings meetings and asked for inout on departmental matters Most were either encouraged or invited to attend meetings; N=134 about one-third were merely allowed or blocked .
Q.7 . I am considered by m y colleagues to be: 16.9 % 8.5 % 13.8 % 60.8 % a hired hand to teach a nobody; I am ignored or a professional, but largely an academic professional I go unnoticed in another profession or with educational job (for example, law, expertise engineering) A majority (61%) reported professional recognition by colleagues N=134 but a quarter felt treated like ‘nobodies’ or hired hands.
Q.8 . My salary and pay are : 40.6 % 35.2 % 12.5 % 11.7 % grossly inequitable inequitable compared to marginally inequitable close to equitable or compared to tenure- tenure-track faculty compared to tenure- attempts are made to track faculty track faculty make it equitable N= 1 2 8 For three quarters of the respondents compensation was inequitable; for 41%, grossly so.
Q.9 . Part-tim e faculty hiring practices in m y departm ent are : 11.9 % 9.6 % 34.8 % 30.4 % 13.3 % haphazard and occasionally not widely mostly intentional and always conducted random intentional but also communicated to all in organized with care in order to often random department, kept identify the best fit for hidden the departmental needs around academic issues N=135 Departmental hiring practices were favorable for 44% but problematic for most (56%).
Q.1 0 . During m y tim e in this departm ent, m y rehiring occurs: 10.5 % 9.8 % 33.1 % 46.6 % always at the last sometimes at the typically before well before classes minute last minute classes begin begin and I am consulted about my teaching/work preferences and teaching/work schedules at other institutions (if applicable) N=133 Rehiring practices were favorable for most respondents but deficient for about 20%.
Q.1 1 . I n term s of professional developm ent, I : 1.5 % 25.0 % 55.3 % 18.2 % purposefully excluded not made aware of made aware of encouraged to grow and from professional professional development professional development opportunities are made development opportunities opportunities available with non-tenure N=132 opportunities track schedules in mind Only 18.2% found themselves actively included; a majority were ‘made aware’ but 27% excluded.
Q.1 2 . I n term s of resources to do m y w ork, I : 17.8 % 45.2 % 19.3 % 17.8 % lack basic office supplies have some basic office have basic office supplies am encouraged to seek and equipment supplies and equipment and equipment all the resources I need to make the best learning environment N=135 Respondents overwhelmingly reported the inadequacy of basic office supplies and equipment.
Q.1 3 . I n term s of m entoring, I : 27.7 % 46.2 % 23.8 % 2.3 % am provided no guidance am informally provided regularly receive guidance am formally part of a by any colleagues advice on occasion from other faculty (but not mentoring program in a formal mentoring program) N= 1 3 0 Formal mentoring was deficient for a vast majority of the respondents (74%).
Q.1 4 . I n term s of office space, I have: 22.4 % 4.5 % 17.9 % 55.2 % none, and no none, but there have been shared space with shared space with or near opportunities for space in occasional discussions of colleagues in a different colleagues in a similar the future the need for space department or field department field or my own office N=134 Most respondents had shared office space but 27% had none.
Q.1 5 . I n term s of orientation to the cam pus, I w as: 41.4 % 45.9 % 4.5 % 8.3 % provided no orientation provided informal provide with a formal provided with a formal informally or formally orientation from a orientation orientation and provided colleague, department staff informal support by or department chair colleagues N=134 For an overwhelming majority of the respondents (87%) there was no formal orientation.
Q.1 6 . I n term s of input on curriculum , I am : 4.5 % 23.9 % 26.1 % 29.9 % 15.7 % never allowed to occasionally allowed typically allowed to always allowed to Not applicable give input on course to give input on give input on course give input on course design (syllabus), course design design (syllabus), design (syllabus), textbooks or (syllabus), textbooks textbooks or textbooks or assignments or assignments assignments assignments For 30% of the respondents curriculum input was allowed N=13 but for a majority (55%) it was variable or non-existent. 4
Q.1 7 . I n term s of the learning goals/ curriculum of m y program , I : 19.2 % 34.6 % 28.5 % 17.7 % never have input into the occasionally have input typically have input into always have input into the development of learning into the development of the development of development of learning goals or curriculum learning goals or learning goals or goals or curriculum and I curriculum curriculum am seen as a central player with valued expertise Only about 18% reported regular input on learning goals; N=130 for a majority input was variable; but for 19.2% it was non-existent.
Q.1 8 . I n term s of evaluation, I am : 6.1 % 31.3 % 32.1 % 30.5 % never evaluated or occasionally provided typically provided formal always provided multiple provided feedback informal evaluation or evaluation through forms of evaluation and provided feedback student evaluations feedback such as peer evaluation, student evaluations, or portfolio review About 31% reported full evaluations; N=131 about a third, student evaluations; 31%, variable and informal.
Q.1 9 . I n m y departm ent, Faculty evaluations are done: 16.5 % 63.9 % 19.5 % infrequently and randomly frequently, that is, every three years Other (please specify) as required by the state Educational N=133 Code A majority of respondents (about 64%) reported frequent faculty evaluations by departments.
Q.20. The departm ent chair schedules m e to teach courses and: 15.2 % 12.9 % 30.3 % 31.8 % 9.8 % never asks for my occasionally asks typically asks about always checks in with Not applicable input or about my about my schedule my schedule and me before scheduling schedule and tries to accommodates and accommodates N=132 accommodate whenever possible my schedule A majority (62%) reported consultation for scheduling but for a significant 28% this was problematic.
Recommend
More recommend
