“Non-tenure-track faculty members now constitute a majority of the faculty in higher education in the United States and Canada. The premise of this document is that both students and institutions will be better served when policy and practice reflect the important role played by these professionals.
“Acknowledging the reality of a broad range of academic
appointments with corresponding variations in responsibility, this document
nonetheless presumes that establishing long-term, regularized positions for as
many faculty members as possible is in the best interest of institutions and
higher education generally. The term ‘non-tenure-track’ is used to designate
those faculty members working on a continuing basis—full-time or part-time, in
per-course or contractually limited appointments—without job security or the
prospect of advancement to tenure lines or tenure equivalents.
“This document endorses and extends the work of the MLA’s Academic
Workforce Advocacy Kit; the recommendations made in the MLA’s 2003 Statement on
Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Members; and the 2008 report Education in the Balance, which argues that the profession ‘must
ensure that those colleagues employed outside the tenure track have the
appropriate salaries, working conditions, status, rights and responsibilities,
and security of employment.’ We call particular attention to the following recommendations
of the 2003 statement:
·
“Non-tenure-track (NTT) faculty
members should be hired by means of long-term planning whenever possible, to
provide for extended terms of appointment consistent with institutional needs,
thereby also providing sufficient job security to encourage and support
continuing involvement with students and colleagues. NTT faculty members should
ideally be hired on three-year contracts with full benefits; after six years,
they should be eligible for longer-term review; past six years, they should be
given longer (five- or six-year) contracts and be allowed to participate in
departmental governance regarding NTT lines.
·
“NTT faculty members should be
incorporated into the life of the department to the fullest extent possible,
short of participation on department committees pertaining to the evaluation of
tenure-track faculty members. They should have regular offices, mailboxes,
access to departmental communications, telephone and computer access, parking
permits, library access, after-hours access to buildings, and access to
departmental staff.
·
“NTT
faculty members should be considered for tenure-track jobs alongside new PhDs
whenever plausible and practicable. NTTs should additionally be given equal consideration
for jobs at their home institution (presuming that their home institution is
not their PhD-granting institution) whenever that institution converts NTT
lines to the tenure track.
·
“NTT
faculty members should be fully informed of their terms of employment and fully
aware of the possibilities and consequences of departmental review. Each
appointment should include a clear contractual statement of expectations and
assignments, including in-class teaching and such other responsibilities as
course preparation, student advisement, and service. Each appointment should be made in a timely
fashion that allows NTT faculty members adequate time for course preparation.
·
“NTT faculty members should be provided with
orientation, mentoring, and professional support and development opportunities,
including campus grant programs, access to sabbatical opportunities, support
for travel for research, and support for participation in professional
conferences.
·
“NTT faculty members should be
reviewed annually with regard to salary levels and opportunities for
professional advancement and promotion. Evaluations should be conducted in
accordance with established, written criteria for departmental review, and
departments should establish procedures for appeal or grievance in the event
that an NTT faculty member alleges substantial violations of such criteria.
“Building on the 2003 statement, this document offers
recommendations in five general areas for improving the professional standing
of faculty members who hold non-tenure-track appointments. A series of
questions under each recommendation aims to assist individuals and departments
in evaluating policy and practice in their own institutions and programs. A
high number of affirmative responses corresponds with a high level of
professionalization for members of the non-tenure-track faculty. However, this
document does not attempt to quantify thresholds of affirmative responses that
could be taken to register institutional conditions as 'below standard,' 'standard,'
or 'above standard.' Rather, the purpose is to help faculty members,
departments, and institutions identify areas of policy and practice where
progress has been made and areas where change can and should be sought…”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.