Attached is a PowerPoint presentation that I created for a panel on adjunct issues at the San Diego Social Justice Conference held at San Diego City College in March. I got the idea for the presentation by trying to think of a way to illustrate an important difference between full and part-timers. I really wanted to focus on salary issues, but with the complexities of the salary schedules, it is difficult to figure out how to articulate such a comparison. The real breakthrough came when I decided to personalize things, and instead of trying to figure out how disadvantaged adjunct as a whole are compared to full-timers as a whole, I thought I would just focus on my particular circumstances. As I note in the presentation, I interviewed for a full-time position at Miramar in 2008. I didn’t get the position (I don’t think I would be blogging here if I had), but it set up a very interesting “What if?” scenario that served as the basis for my presentation. Since I have distributed this presentation to various groups, a number of issues have been raised, and I would like to address some of them. First, despite what some of my full-time colleagues seem to think, this presentation is not intended as an attack on full-timers. My goal is not to drag full-timers to the level of part-timers, but instead to raise part-timers to the level of full-timers, and then try to raise everyone higher. However, without a clear understanding of the issues ( which my presentation attempts to achieve) this would not be possible. Second, I don’t feel any resentment towards the person who did get that job. I work with that individual, and I have the highest respect for him as a professor. Furthermore, I think that one could argue that had I been given the job over this person, an injustice would have occurred. At the time I interviewed in 2008, I basically had no teaching experience at the Community College level. By contrast, the person who did get the job had been a long-time adjunct in the philosophy department at Miramar. I think this is what we ideally would like to see: full-time positions going to the adjuncts who have “put in their time” in the department in question, instead of bringing in outsiders simply because they have a fancy degree or something. Here is the presentation: SD SJC Presentation I hope you enjoy it, and if you have any questions or concerns please leave them in the comments or email me directly.
The following is an autobiographical narrative of a hard-working San Diego adjunct, Corinna Guenther. It is an excerpt from an email she posted in a thread that includes discussion between adjuncts and tenureds about how our union can represent the interests of both constituencies.
Our stories are our most powerful force for change. Corinna’s story is a powerful testimony.
My story is probably typical, so I will keep it brief: Teaching seven classes (and holding office hours) at various campuses– even when combined with my husband’s full time income– is barely cutting it for our family. Every semester I bite my nails to the nubs hoping that classes will be added at the last minute. We have no savings, so even just one semester with only three classes puts us back in debt and missing payments on things like student loans, car payments, legal fees, and medical bills, using our credit cards with the hopes of catching up on them next semester, when maybe more classes open up.
So, needless to say: The quality of life for me and my family would certainly improve if I could get a full time position: the idea of the same take home pay but only teach 5 classes at the same campus (instead of 7 classes at how ever many campuses all over the county) and have the time and compensation to participate in committees and clubs and campus life! It seems like a dream come true for me. I’d love to work on committees- not because I ‘have to’ as a full time faculty– but because I want to contribute to the campus and the student experience. I WANT TO be a part of the vibrant campus community, and I fully anticipated that as part of my career when I decided to become a teacher- I really believe I have something valuable to contribute!
Its just impossible for me right now given my schedule of classes, prep time, and driving time– not to mention arranging child care and trying to take care of my own health. And over the past several years, after applying for several full time positions, and never once getting a second interview, I have realized that the likelihood of gaining the full time position I believed I would have by now is very, very, very, slim, so now I feel the only chance for me is pay equity and job security. With my interdisciplinary master’s degree and 9 years of teaching experience, and all kinds of diverse faculty development and enrichment, I am fully qualified, but just not viewed as legitimate competition for applicants with PhDs. It is demoralizing to size up the competition for full time positions in my field.
Still, I consider myself a teacher first. It is my passion and my identity, and I will not give it up unless there is no other option. Adjuncts like me give a lot of our time and a lot of our soul with little or no compensation for those extra hours because we love what we do and we love our students and we love the process of learning and we believe in the value of education. I dont want to speak for everyone, but I assume that most of us want to be a bigger part of the union and the campus community! Its just really really hard to do on our pay and with so much uncertainty about our future employment.
Linda Nguyen covers NAWD for The Mesa Press: http://www.mesapress.com/staff/2015/03/10/national-adjunct-action-day/
In addition to the battle for paid adjunct office hours, part-time equity pay, and more full-time positions, perhaps the greatest concern has been over the issue of job security.
Understand that being an adjunct doesn’t simply mean being part-time, it means being considered an instructor being used, or rather hired, only as needed, with that notion of “needed” being not simply defined by the ups and downs of state budgets, but the whims and personalities of schedulers and administrators, from college presidents to department heads.
This of course is primarily an economic concern for adjuncts, who as a result must live their lives on a three-to-six month basis, even after teaching twenty or more years. An entire career can collapse in either a quarter or a semester.
Now, to the rare non-teacher who might read this blog, you might be saying to yourself: “So what? If I have a bad job performance review, or show up to work drunk, or insult my boss, I can get fired, so do I really have job security?”
Well, to be fair, no one does, or should have the kind of job security that allows them to be a crappy worker, and no, unions aren’t about protecting crappy workers. In fact, I get really pissed off when I perceive of an instructor failing to do their job, either because they ignore the needs of students, demean them, or are simply lazy. They make my job harder.
What unions are about is making sure that you don’t get fired when you are in fact doing your job, or that you don’t get fired off the mere accusation, without substantial proof, that you are doing your job badly.
Even if you’re a non-union worker, I assume that if you were doing your job, and your boss came up to one day, and said, “your fired”, and when you asked why, he/she simply said, “my prerogative,” you would feel it unjust, even if it is legal for him/her to do so.
The thing is, many adjuncts at colleges where there are no-hire rights face the above scenario. I have heard of adjuncts being told that they would not be rehired because they simply disagreed with or challenged a senior colleagues’ opinion and not necessarily in a confrontational manner or even public forum, but in a private conversation. Other times, no reason at all will be given.
What maybe adds a little icing on the cake to such injustice is when the adjunct in question may have good evaluations, and seniority over another adjunct who is retained. Some of these fired (or should I simply say, “left off the schedule”) adjuncts get the pleasure of later learning that their class will be taught be a shiny new adjunct with no previous teaching experience.
In fact, older adjuncts (those north of 50 years of age and 20 years experience) can be a popular target.
Now to be fair, while it may happen on occasion at my own institutions, I must say it is relatively rare (and I know saying this, I’m probably going to hear from people who got screwed, and I should, because when it happens to you, it sure as hell doesn’t feel “rare”) in comparison with some of the horror stories I’ve heard from other colleges. Part of the reason it is less frequent is because my institutions do have collective bargaining agreements (union contracts) which contain language regarding rehire rights.
That said, there are certain “holes” in the language regarding either the classes you can be re-hired for, the number of classes you can be guaranteed, seniority, etc…
Usually when adjuncts hear this, they are immediately frustrated and angry, and with good reason, but more often than not, rather than blaming the administrators who exploit these holes, or create them through adversarial bargaining, the blame goes on the unions who “don’t care about adjunct issues”.
Now don’t get me wrong, there are many times when unions could and should do more for adjuncts, or at least do a better job of facilitating the expression of their concerns, and I’ve written on this, but often the most contentious discussion that takes place in negotiations, and the place where admin is most intransigent is over adjunct rehire rights. I’ve seen entire contract negotiations held up over the issue. Know that wanting something and even expressing it is never a guarantee you’re going to get it, no matter how hard you yell.
This is what brings me to AB 1010. This is a California Assembly Bill that has recently been introduced by Jose Medina, an Assemblyman out of Riverside which calls for the implementation of a union adjunct rehire rights policy for all community colleges. Read it here:
When I first heard about the bill, I was a bit apprehensive, mainly because I know, from having looked at rehire rights policies in other contracts, that you need to be very careful with the language you have for such policies, because any vague language which is subject to interpretation can be exploited by management, and either overturned or reinterpreted by an arbitrator if the matter reaches the level of a stage three grievance.
This is often why unions and admin will revisit their rehire policies to “clean up” the previous language.
When you pass something as a bill and put it into law, it’s not so easy to do that. Look no further than the Obamacare case before the Supreme Court being fought over four words in a 600-page document (“established by the state”).
I was also nervous about the potential loss of seniority and rehire rights in the event an adjunct would have to turn down a particular assignment due to extenuating circumstances, like a schedule conflict with another district. If you read the bill however, you will find that a adjunct will only lose seniority if they turn down ALL classes offered, and to be fair, you’re never going to get a bill passed that would give protections to turn down classes to one’s liking.
Personally, I like the bill as it is written, and I think if it got passed, as it is presently written, that it would be a great windfall for adjuncts in California.
The key here is, as presently written. I will tell you now, when various administrators see this bill around the state, they will be none too happy with it.
First of all, the bill allows for adjuncts who have received seniority rights (after six semesters), and have received a less than satisfactory evaluation, to be given a written plan for remediation and then re-evaluated in the next semester. In effect, adjuncts would be given a second chance if they botch an evaluation. This, in my opinion is a great idea, but I can tell you from having pushed for this in negotiations is something administrators generally hate, and you can be sure they will speak to it.
Another provision in the bill that administrators will be unhappy with is this:
In cases where a reduction in assignment needs to occur due to program needs, budget constraints, or more contract faculty hires, the reduction shall occur first from among those part-time, temporary faculty members who have not yet qualified to be placed on the seniority list, and thereafter in reverse seniority order, with the least senior part-time, temporary faculty member reduced first. Any rights to a certain workload equivalent shall be maintained for a period of 18 months. In cases of class cancellation due to low enrollment, faculty members shall displace faculty members who are lower than they are on the seniority list.
A similar idea was floated by one of the negotiation teams at one of my colleges and it was a complete non-starter.
Now maybe we’ll all get lucky and every administrator and scheduler in the California Community College System will have either had a sudden change of heart, or simply be drunk, asleep, or stoned as the bill winds its way up to the governor, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Assuming then that we can get this bill past the Assembly and Senate, the next, and biggest hurdle, is…you guessed it, Jerry Brown. Now Jerry may be down with adjuncts or not, but again, this bill, like the categoricals I mentioned earlier, goes at the heart of the local control issue. This bill is about effectively taking a part of adjunct hiring policies out of the hands of local districts and putting it in the hands of the state.
Great, I say, and so should you, but again, this gets to what I discussed in my previous entry–there’s going to need to be a change in the philosophy regarding how education is managed in the state.
Do not believe for a minute good adjuncts that I don’t think we should fight this fight-we not only should, we have to. But we need to know what we’re up against, and we need to be strategizing to achieve this goal.
Part of this should be to wake up our local elected officials to the realities to local control. Maybe we need to remind them of the city of Bell, and let them know that on a smaller, yet more widespread scale, a similiar misdirection of educational resources and capriciousness of administrators is alive and well.
Anyway, get out there and fight for AB 1010 to be passed, and with real language that works for adjuncts.
A Good Adjunct
Now that we’ve acquired a bit of steam from the events of last week, what we do with it and how we make it sustainable is a big concern, and yes, a complicated one.
As a “national” action, NAWD was able to put out some salient points: 1) that adjuncts are treated shabbily, 2) they are an essential, not auxiliary part of academia, and 3) their ill treatment hurts educational institutions, students, and society as a whole.
But see, the thing is it’s easy to point out problems, and far harder to come up with solutions that can be practically achieved.
For the record, as if this needs to be said, what adjuncts need, first and foremost, is full-time employment, and short of that, the same sort of respect in terms of pay, benefits and opportunities as full-time contract teachers with respect to the amount and kind of work they do.
Anyway, the groups I worked with for NAWD concentrated mostly on the categorical allocation of funds for paid adjunct office hours, equity pay, and more full-time positions. We did this because, 1) the money was there 2) It was something specific 3) it would immediately improve the situation for adjuncts 4) it can be attained easily.
Our situation was also specific to the California state government, which controls our community colleges’ funding, and generally sets labor policy.
We also pursued it because we knew we could get buy-in from a coalition of groups like students, full-time faculty, governing board members and legislators, and even some administrators.
The big challenge here, and the mountain yet before us, is Governor Brown, but more so an outdated philosophy regarding “local” control. To be brief, this philosophy is that local districts inherently have a better idea of how money should be spent and so therefore the state should effectively pass on the pots of money exercising as little control as possible as to how this money should be spent. Well, being that this money is largely controlled by local administrators and boards, this has meant that much of this money has gone to places they deem most important, and this has often been at the expense of instruction.
It should be no surprise that administrative services and the money paid to administrators has more or less exploded in relation to the money put towards instruction, nor should it be a surprise that these groups, whether intentionally or no have come to regard adjunct labor as both expendable and exploitable. As long as administrator’s hands are not categorically forced to deal with instruction properly, school budgets will always be balanced on the backs of adjuncts.
There is of course, two other, more sinister forces at work–political posturing and straight up corruption.
First, in case many of you haven’t figured it out, more often than not, the people who run to be on school boards are not doing simply out of the kindness of their hearts, or because they have a deep commitment to education. Now by saying this, I’m aware there are true public servants out there and I feel that lately I’ve been working with a few, but let’s be real. Many governing board members are simply filling their resumes for higher office, or are burnishing their public image either for business, or to simply self-aggrandize. These are people who are often ready to buy into the sound-bite culture of incompetent culture-corrupting teachers, whiny unions, bloated budgets, wasteful spending, etc. These people see teachers as public servants, and I mean in the Downton Abbey sense of the word servant.
By contrast, they are big on promoting high-profile projects that at times will be more flash than substance, and love creating more and more of those links between the institution and the almighty business community. This will sometimes lead to things like thousands of dollars being spent on sending a select group of students to a swanky leadership conference while the adjunct office will go for a week or two without a 120 dollar toner cartridge because we (the wasteful adjuncts) need to conserve resources–just put the student handouts up on blackboard, nevermind whether some of your more indigent students can actually afford to download it.
By the way, I’m not anti-business, and community colleges should have such relationships, but I teach World Religions, so you can imagine why I might have a little problem when a curriculum’s worth is evaluated in terms of its strict utilitarian value.
Then of course, there’s the straight up corruption. Anybody ever notice how local construction companies and certain academic vendors take a very strong interest in local school board elections? Ever wonder how these groups, many of whom who are fiscally conservative and actually small government, can suddenly get behind large bond measures? Did you really think it was because these groups really have a soft spot for the work you do?
I’ll assume that, being as I like to think of my readers as smart, that you would give a big “NO” as an answer to the last question. One of the latest trends in academia is the building of Wellness Centers on college campuses with the idea that they be open to the general public, and hey, if you can get a private company to run the the site, even better. Better yet is to charge higher prices than local privately-owned fitness centers operations to boot, then to pitch the whole project as a future revenue stream for the college.
Meanwhile, as for the rotting classroom with rat infestations and lack of adjunct office space? Well, we all have to make do, you know, and perhaps we can address that in the next bond measure…provided the public will go along with it.
Now bond funds are never used for instruction, but if bond funds are not being directed towards the direct support of instruction, what do you suppose is going to happen to the monies that are with the “stellar” track record up above?
What this all means is that more than just getting a few categorical items in a budget, there has to be a fundamental change in philosophy as to how community colleges and academic institutions are managed, and it needs to come from the top down and with an eye on both transparency and equity.
…And it’s going to take some courage, particularly on the part of the governor of California, to step up and actually starting calling some specific shots and setting priorities rather than waving his hands and telling someone else to do it, or wait for some initiative mandate from the voters, particularly when the initiative process is largely dominated by private big money.
The question California adjuncts and their supporters should be asking themselves now is, how to we get the governor to see what needs to be done?
By the way, there is also talk of a adjunct job security bill as well, and while it faces the same problem of local control, it represents a another can of worms which is perhaps even more complicated and divisive within adjunct ranks.
That will be the subject of my next entry.
Till then, be strong and keep up the good fight good adjuncts.
A Good Adjunct
Yeah, I know it doesn’t sound as well the morning after, but now it’s time to drink that bitter cup of coffee, or in my case a 16 oz. can of Rockstar, and get on with it.
First, and I cannot stress this enough NAWD, NADA, or NAAD who whatever you want to call it cannot die.
This is what I’m going to do over the next few days. I’m going to every site on the blogroll that has a comments page, and I’m telling that henceforth, every fourth Wednesday in February should be declared National Adjunct Day of Action, or well…whatever.
We need to institutionalize this date while it is fresh in mind.
Don’t simply make it the date of 2/25. Why not? Because NADA needs to be a day of campus-related action, and needs to take place on campuses, and at times when campus traffic is at its highest–right square in the middle of the week.
We do these actions to empower ourselves and to inform those most directly affect by our presence, exploitation, or again whatever you want to call it–our students.
How many are you going to reach on a Saturday or Sunday rally? Yeah, you know…
And by the way, we need to do this now, before the various organizations at large get together and tussle with the date, and lose the whole point in their turbidity.
The next thing you need to do, well, I’m going to get into that tomorrow, but now I’ve got Humanities quizzes to grade, because after all, besides being a noise maker and general pain in the ass, I’m a teacher, and yes…
I’m still an Adjunct
A Good Adjunct
Let’s hear it for the students here today.
Let’s hear it for the full-time faculty here today.
Let’s hear it for the administrators here today.
Let’s hear it for the governing board members here today.
Let’s hear it for the staff here today.
Let’s hear it for the adjuncts here today.
You know, nothing in my wildest dreams told me 20, 10, or even five years ago that I would be here doing this today.
And I have mixed feelings about it. Thinking back on my life, I never saw myself as what I have become-an adjunct instructor. From my early 20’s, I knew I wanted to teach in higher ed., and I knew that above all things I wanted to be a teacher.
I still love being a teacher, and I love even teaching at multiple schools, but I don’t love being an adjunct.
For me at times, being an adjunct has meant waiting desperately each semester for a class assignment, having a car or a Trader Joe’s bag for an office, buying clothes from thrift shops and off Craig’s List, buying food for my kid through the WIC program, or sometimes even having to stand outside a Social Services Clinic cradling my sick child in my arms because I couldn’t afford insurance.
For me, being an adjunct at times means having to tear away from the time I can devote to a student, being bound to somewhere else, where students, often just as needy will also be denied access at times.
Being an adjunct also means being in an ever-growing class of transient instructors, who when the rare full-time position comes open, will join in the competition for the job like wild dogs fighting for table scraps, with perhaps one or two people being lucky enough to win the lottery of full-time job out of up to 230 applicants.
Being an adjunct means standing beside my full-time colleagues, unable to fully take part in tasks like program review, or fully understand department culture, or the big picture, because I am wed to my other campuses, and just as much as the car to which I drive to them.
And being an adjunct has meant making half as much as a full-time colleague of the same experience teaching a 17 hour load while my colleague is only required to do 15.
No, I don’t love being an adjunct, but I’m happy to be here today.
Five years ago, when in the midst of the great recession, and adjuncts were faced with the loss of classes coupled with a 5% pay cut after years of no raises, it wasn’t just that I despaired of being an adjunct, but of the idea that nothing would change.
What I mean by this is that I believed that when economic times got better, and if I survived the recession still employed as teacher, my pay and perhaps some benefits would get slightly better, but that the basic dynamic of living at marginal wages, with marginal job security, and a minimal chance of full-time employment would continue.
Now, maybe it’s not so much that I don’t believe that it could still be the case, but it’s that I’m sick and tired of not speaking out, that I’m happy, especially when I see the opportunity for California to truly begin addressing the “Adjunct Condition”.
This is the “adjunct condition”:
Nationwide, approximately 75 % of college instructors are adjuncts, with only 25% being full-timers. On many campuses the majority of the curriculum is taught by adjuncts. Generally these instructors are only paid for classroom hours, not for prepping, grading, researching, professional development, committee work, etc., which often represent anywhere from 60-80% of one’s job.
The “adjunct condition” is also students dealing with a loss of access to their teachers, who will teacher higher than full-time loads at multiple campuses.
Further, it is in some cases, the literal collapse or hollowing out of academic departments, with some departments, while having fully qualified adjuncts more than capable of teaching full-time classes, possessing no full-time faculty.
It is also the ever-revolving door of adjuncts being hired and fired from one place to work at another, which allows for little building of solid departmental goals or consensus.
The “adjunct condition” clearly hurts adjuncts, but it also hurts students. Student completion rates are declining, and research has established that one of the main causes is the lack of access that students have with their instructors who, as national statistics show, are more often than not adjuncts.
Further, adjuncts are disproportionately used in lower level developing skills and first-year college classes, where often student access to teachers is most needed, yet least provided.
Moreover, the “adjunct condition” hurts the community, as declining completion rates mean fewer trained workers to take jobs that provide growth and advancement, and at the same time, increase a community’s tax base to pay for anything from better parks and schools, to simply better roads. Second, those students who fail to complete the skills needed for good jobs will often come to need public assistance, or run a higher risk of incarceration, and clearly take more from the community than they are giving back.
If hearing all this makes you angry, then welcome to what an adjunct both feels and understands.
It is the nature of our society to look for villains. Why surely, there must be some clear cause or menace which has perpetrated this wrong.
The fact of the matter is that everyone bears some blame.
Taxpayers for years insisted on lower taxes and stronger law enforcement. They got what they wanted, or well, sort of—less money for schools and more money for prisons.
Administrators, anxious to offer as many classes as they could, yet keep their budgets in check, increasingly hired adjuncts because they were a lot cheaper and more er. . . flexible. i.e., easy to get rid of.
Legislators, even when handed electoral mandates like 75% of classes being taught by full-timers, simply chose to, and still choose to waive the law.
Full-timers, often pressed by the own work needs, including the increasing bureaucratic pressures of SLO’s, program review, curriculum development, and various committee work simply tried to keep up with their work.
Adjuncts, willingly accepted to teach classes aware of the poor job security and benefits, most often with the delusion that simply a years of hard work would alone lead them to full-time jobs which either never materialized, or were simply too competitive for all but a lucky few.
But you know what, today is not about anger, or at least not finger-pointing. It’s about solutions.
In 2012, California passed Proposition 30, which brought needed funds to education, yet despite its passage, much of the debt that California had accrued during the recession had to be addressed, and so in 2013 and 2014, monies to simply save public education were spent.
It is now 2015, the money is there in the budget to affect real change, and change is long overdue.
Change for what you ask?
First let’s give students better access to their teachers. If after all, schools are all about students, shouldn’t students be better able to access teachers outside the classroom?
It has been estimated that 30 million dollars, not additionally spent, but simply reallocated and specifically targeted to paid adjunct office hours, could do part of that.
What might better help would be to make pay between adjuncts and full-timers more equal. This, coupled with office hours will incline adjuncts to work at fewer campuses, and to have the time to not only better consult with students, but to do more thorough prepping, quicker grading turnarounds, and connect better with their campuses.
50 million dollars in adjunct pay parity, again not additionally spent, but simply categorically directed, would bring adjuncts.
Finally, what is most needed, is simply more full-timers. Many if not most adjuncts, are in fact full-time teachers who cobble together multiple part-time jobs to live tenuously and teach transiently. If California public really wants to have the best teachers, it should make it possible for the largest numbers of them to singularly devote their energies to one educational institution.
100 million dollars specifically towards the “conversion” (the governor’s office’s own words) of part-time to full-time teachers would change the present part-time to full-time ratio from 75% adjunct and 25% full-time, to 58% Part-time and 42% Full-time.
All told this represents a total of 180 million dollars, not additionally spent, but redirected to meet these needs.
It would be dishonest to say that the categorical allocation of 180 million dollars to address adjunctification would solve adjunctification in and of itself, but it would be a good first step.
There is much to suggest California’s legislature is on board with this, but not Governor Brown, who would rather give it in lump sums to various districts to leave administrators and governing boards to redirect to pretty much everything else but the above three items.
Ironically, Governor Brown is pushing for a high-speed rail project costing tens of billions of dollars, and recently pushed a water bond for billions of dollars.
This is because, as the Governor asserts, he is working towards a long lasting legacy.
What Governor Brown needs to realize is that one’s legacy resides not in physical infrastructure, but in human capital and potential. One’s legacy resides in the hearts and minds of those that follow you.
The Chinese Philosopher Lao Tzu said that the greatest leaders are those who let the people claim success as their own. Think of how many future students would be able to speak of their own success if they had increased access to a teacher who is both financially stable and feels respected.
My good adjuncts, and you are good for the work and struggle you have endured, my fellow faculty, administrators, governing board members, and staff, who work with us in the common endeavor to abate ignorance and promote potential, and finally, yet first of all, dear students, we need to make the Governor see what’s right, and we need to do it now, for it will not just affect Governor Brown’s legacy, but the ones that we leave for those who follow.