CPFA FAQ’s on the 60 80 Law change Martin M Goldstein Robert Yoshioka Sandra Baringer The effort to change “The 60 La by paperboy

VIEWS: 21 PAGES: 2

									                           CPFA FAQ’s on
                       the 60-80% Law change
                      Martin M. Goldstein, Robert Yoshioka & Sandra Baringer

The effort to change “The 60% Law” has aroused its fair share of discussion and debate statewide.
Among the most frequently asked questions are:

Won’t raising the teaching load from 60% to 80% for part-time faculty jeopardize tenure?

How? Allowing Part-Time instructors to teach an additional course in a particular college is certainly not
intended to attack tenure, and is rather foreseen as an initial step towards full professionalization of PTers
-- which very much includes due-process rehire rights, one of the privileges of tenure. In truth it’s not
tenure that’s in jeopardy, but rather the Full-Time jobs which have it -- which usually leads to the next
question:

What about 75/25?

Full-Time tenure-track hiring is an issue that can only be resolved district level, unless the Chancellor’s
office decides to take measures to enforce the 75% ratio mandated by AB 1725, and/or the legislature
decides to earmark money specifically for Full-Time hires, neither of which seems likely at the moment.
Given that this provision of 1988’sAB 1725 has been around for almost twenty years, and overall
changed the ratio of Full-Time to Part-Time teaching hours about percentage point in the wrong direction,
from 62% to around 61%, the problem of overuse of PTers remains unsolved, and relatively unaffected by
this proposed change. But do note that the exploitation of PTers started because of the 60% law in the
first place, and we who are seeking to change it are very much aware of what it did. See FACCC’s
History of the 60% Law elsewhere in this issue.

Who will benefit from this change?

Part Time faculty, Full-Time faculty, faculty unions, local and statewide faculty Senates, district
administrations (especially Human Resource departments) departmental and campus-wide committees,
statewide faculty organizations and most importantly OUR STUDENTS will benefit from this
adjustment of teaching load. The ability to teach more classes on fewer campuses will allow part-time
faculty to become more integrated into campus life and will allow them to participate more fully in shared
governance, Senate and union committees, and other campus activities, all of which will result in higher
rates of student success.

How many people would this affect?

Our best estimates, based on the 2003 CPEC study as well as a 2005 survey done in 2005 in LACCD, are
that somewhere between 25-50%of the 38,000 PTers in the system would want more classes on the same
campus or in the same district, but the actual use of the change in the law by the individual departments of
the individual colleges is difficult to predict. Even at 60% the implementation of the current law is
absurdly inconstant. The Contra Costa and San Francisco Districts allow their temporary part-time
faculty to work over 60% during every third semester, thus avoiding the three out six semester
rule that would trigger the tenure process. At Santa Monica, hundreds of part-timers are allowed
to work up to 60%, but never any more, even if needed. Other districts draw the line at 59%,
50% or even 40% -- or the ultimate educational absurdity, two teachers each teach one five-unit
class, and then each teaches half of a third class, as in Glendale. With the change, a ssuming a
standard 15-credit hour load per term, a part-timer teaching 5-credit classes could teach 2 instead of 1
(66% FTE). A part-timer teaching 4-credit classes could teach 3 instead of 2 (80% FTE), and a part-timer
teaching 3-credit classes could teach 4 classes instead of 3 (80% FTE). In all case, this change could
help, both by cutting down unnecessary commuting, and by increasing the quality of education
the teacher is able to offer.

Will this change in teaching load mean an increase in part-time benefit costs?

Benefits for faculty (both full time and part time) are negotiated at the local level between union
representatives and district administration, with some small statewide pots of money for health benefits,
maybe. Virtually all benefits for PTers kick in at 50% load or less, so changing the upper limit from 60%
to 80% should involve no futher cost, and it’s possible, through consolidation of jobs, some benefits
money might actually be saved. A benefit hard to compute but still quite important is the social benefit of
less commuting, less use of fossil fuels, fewer greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere. It will cut down on a
lot of freeway flying, and that helps all of us.

Even at 80%, at Part-Time salary rates, PTers still won’t be making enough to live on working at one
district, so how will this help?

Working at two districts is better than working at three or four, as many now do. Those who can now only
teach one course per district, say a 5 unit French course, now could teach two in the same college, for
example, and two more at another college in the same district, and thus cut the freeway flying enormously
-- and serve the students better by being able to continue with them for another class.

But if some part-time faculty members are raised to 80% FTE, won’t other part-timers in that district
will lose jobs?

In the end, we’re not creating more work here -- though the increase in student population should do that.
But while a teaching load going from 60% to 80%, for example, might be taking the class of a PTer with
one 20% class (or it might be a new class) -- that PTer might be going from 60% to 80% on another
campus where s/he teaches. With something like 25% turnover in PTers each year, the most likely
outcome of the change in the short run is that the better teachers will get more classes on the same campus
or in the same district.

How much will this change cost?

Nothing. There is no expense associated with the bill.

What’s it called again?

SB 847 (Ducheny)

								
To top