Is Washington State an Unlikely Leader?
Progress on Addressing Contingent Work Issues in Academia

 

By Daniel Jacoby
University of Washington, Bothell

There are increasing signs that restive higher education faculty in Washington State are effectively resisting belt-tightening measures. Positive omens include the passage of a state initiative providing cost of living adjustments for K-12 through community college; a 20 million dollar state down-payment reducing the part-time community college teacher wage gap; court challenges against the exclusion of part-time instructors from benefits; and, a state plan to convert a substantial number of part-time positions into full-time lines. These initiatives constitute a ray of light on the otherwise darkened landscape of higher education.

This essay will first highlight the state context in which faculty concerns have arisen. Having laid that groundwork, the essay reports on the parameters within which contingent academic work now occurs within the state's community colleges. Next the discussion turns to how part-timers have mobilized and what affect on policy they have had. The essay concludes by examining some of the challenges in the immediate future.

1. A financial outlook on higher Education in Washington State

Washington's higher education faculty has become more assertive as the severity of restraints on state funding for education has increased. Washington's perennial fiscal crises have been compounded by unorthodox fiscal constraints. The state is one the eight that have no income tax. Meanwhile, under Initiative 601, passed in 1994, expenditures were capped to grow no faster than population and inflation combined. Because the educational constituency has grown faster than these limits, officials find themselves trying to fund higher education on the cheap.

That the community college system forms the bedrock of the state's higher education infrastructure is symptomatic of these financial difficulties. During 1999-2000 there were approximately 125,000 state-funded full-time equivalent community college students [FTE]. By contrast, the four-year colleges enrolled only 28,000 state-funded freshmen and sophomores, along with an additional 41,000 undergraduate at the upper division level. The difference in lower and upper classman at the four-year schools is partly made up by the annual inflow of approximately 11,000 new transfer students from the community colleges each year. Given that the state says 27% of community college entrants (by headcount some 87, 500 students) intend to transfer to a four year institution, it is evident that the vast majority of students intending to complete a bachelors degree begin their higher education in Washington State via the two-year college system (SBCTC, 2000A).

The funding formulas for higher education are a likely factor accounting for this pattern. The State Board for Community and Technical College's [SBCTC] official budget request explains that community colleges receive less than four thousand dollars in state funding per student whereas regional institutions receive approximately five and one half thousand. Funding differentials are exacerbated by the state's recent shift whereby colleges retain their own tuition dollars. So in addition to the $1,500 difference in general fund revenue, tuition disparities at the community colleges increase the shortfall overall to a figure that ranges between $2,500 and $3,500 (SBCTC 2000B).

Washington State community colleges, like those almost everywhere else, have consistently been under-funded relative to their four-year peers. The lower funding formula contributed to the attractiveness in building out the community college system in the early 1970s. Although five new upper division campuses were inaugurated in 1990 to encourage students to complete their bachelor degrees, coordination at all these campuses has been difficult and enrollment growth much slower than anticipated. The "seamless education" that was the talk of the 90s has clearly not patched the system together. One consequence is that the state has one of the lowest per capita rates of awarding four-year degrees in the country.

As if panaceas like "seamless education" were not bankrupt enough, in 1997 Governor Locke advanced the idea of the "virtual university." Expansion of brick and mortar education was declared financially infeasible and on-line distance education was to substitute for that kind of expansion. Patterned after the now financially plagued Western Governors University, Locke's proposal quickly generated opposition at the University of Washington as some 600 faculty signing a petition rejecting the plan. But financial pressures continue. Within the University of Washington, the cause of contingent academic workers caught hold and teaching assistants organized to demand their own union in the Spring of 2000. In the fall, the Faculty Senate closed ranks behind the TA's and asked the administration to recognize their union. UW President McCormick took the bold step of reversing a long-held administration policy and announced an agreement in which the TA's and the University would jointly approach the legislature to request enabling legislation establishing a framework under which TA bargaining rights will be established and negotiations be conducted.

Faculty statewide continue to demand higher wages, and the issue of union bargaining rights at four year colleges and Universities is heating up. While a union of faculty at Eastern Washington University was peacefully agreed to by the Board of Regents and the EWU administration despite the absence of state enabling legislation, at Central Washington University the issue has also been raised but amiable relations appear distant. Still, it is the community college and part-time situation that remains most inequitable.

Failing to rally forces around an anti-601 initiative, the Washington Educational Association sponsored, and the Washington Federation of Teachers ultimately endorsed, a citizen's referendum which guaranteed teachers from Kindergarten through Community College raises in line with the cost of living. In a statewide election the referendum passed overwhelmingly. Unfortunately, that stopgap measure may actually complicate the task of closing the pay differential between part-timers and full-timers because it reduces the pot of money to be spent raising part-time salaries.

2. The Part-time issue in Washington's Community Colleges

Washington State is a leader in community college education. Whether that is something to brag about depends upon what you look at. The state's faculty is among the most creative in developing new models of teaching. With help from the Washington Center for the Improvement of Undergraduate Education, the state's community college system has been in the vanguard of the learning community movement whereby questions are investigated with teams of faculty from different disciplines. In another show of quality, President Clinton touted one of Shoreline Community College's job training programs as a national model. In these and other areas, it cannot be said that the state's community colleges lack drive or originality. Lurking beyond these positive images are the problems created by inequities in faculty employment.

The May 2000 report from the National Center for Educational Statistics makes clear, the pattern of part-time employment in Washington is not unique. According to their national survey, sixty two percent of the 255,000 instructional faculty and staff working in the nations two-year schools were employed part-time. Because part-timers, taught less than half the courses of full time teachers, (2.1 courses per semester vs. 4.5), this faculty headcount translates into a pattern in which roughly 43 per cent of student instruction is conducted by part-timers (NCES, May 2000, pp. 39 and 78). Data provided by Washington's SBCTC indicate that the state is almost dead even with this national average. While the use of part-timers in Washington accelerated in the early 1990s, that increase has, since 1995, been practically halted (Best Practices Task Force, 1996). Since that time the percentage of part-timers has risen less than 1%. It appears likely that lobbying by part-timers was a factor in changing the trajectory of part-time employment.

 

The scale of part-time faculty participation in the instruction of community college undergraduates forced the 1996 Best Practices Task Force to admit that the adjunct system had been abused. Hiring exceeded the level which could be justified educationally: "[B]udget reductions, increased enrollment that is not fully funded, and similar requirements to 'do more with less' all create a powerful incentive for colleges to employ adjunct faculty for purely economic reasons--to deliver needed services within available budgets (Best Practices, 1996, p 4)."

The incidence of part-time faculty use is uneven across the community college system. Some colleges find ways to hire more full time faculty, just as some programs within colleges are less deeply affected. Overall, rural colleges are less dependent on adjuncts, largely because they find it difficult to recruit them. Likewise, technical colleges, where job training predominates, are staffed almost entirely by full-time instructors.

The use of part-timers is most disproportionate within the Basic Skills area, particularly in English as a Second Language [ESL] courses. Part-time instructors taught slightly over 69% of the FTE course-load in Basic Skills courses throughout the state system. Humanities instructors occupied second place as some 48% of these courses were taught using part-time instructors. In only three of eight broad classifications were fewer than 40% of courses taught by part-timers: Mechanical and Engineering 25%; Social Sciences 36%; and Science 37%.

As Table 1 makes clear the proportion of classes taught by full-timers rises substantially if we remove the roughly 15% of classes that were taught during the evening, off the main campus, or that depended upon non-state funds. One may be able to justify this under the assumption that these are the arenas used to justify hiring "flexible" part-time faculty. Doing so reduces the incidence of part-timers instruction from 43% to 30% of FTE class instruction. However, breaking down totals by division continues to reveal a similar picture in regard to where part-timers are most commonly deployed: The three divisions in which they participate most heavily are, in descending order: Basic Skills (50%); Humanities (39%); and Math (33%).

 

 

_____________________________________________________

Table 1: Use of part-timers in Washington State, Fall 1999

For All Courses On-campus, Day, State Funds

Academic Area

PT FTE Courses taught

Total FTE Courses Taught

 

PT FTE Courses Taught

Total FTE Courses Taught

Basic Skills

391.03

563.51

 

81.78

161.95

 

69.39%

 

 

50.50%

 

Business, Data

357.88

871.51

 

136.48

535.04

Processing

41.06%

 

 

25.51%

 

Humanities

596.02

1232.88

 

351.41

898.97

 

48.34%

 

 

39.09%

 

Math

217.22

493.76

 

120.99

360.39

 

43.99%

 

 

33.57%

 

Mechanical

152.94

603.3

 

58.83

424.78

Engineering

25.35%

 

 

13.85%

 

Public Service

477.25

1110.22

 

207.4

689.82

 

42.99%

 

 

30.07%

 

Science

145.9

394.04

 

66.23

279.12

 

37.03%

 

 

23.73%

 

Social Science

157.13

434.13

 

75.96

300.27

 

36.19%

 

 

25.30%

 

Totals

2495.37

5703.35

 

1099.08

3650.34

 

43.75%

 

 

30.11%

 

Source: Compiled from Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges Data

______________________________________________________

To learn more about part-timers preferences and work history, the Washington Federation of Teachers surveyed faculty at 14 of institutions for which it is the bargaining representative. Surveys were given to union representatives to distribute to all part-timers on their campuses and 555 separate surveys were returned. While the method of distribution and collection leaves open the probability of sample bias, legitimate conclusions may be drawn on the basis of these surveys, provided appropriate qualifications are noted. Results must be regarded as suggestive, not as definitive estimates that reflect the total population.

In anticipation of the survey results, it is helpful first to examine potential sources of bias. Surveys were distributed through campus mailboxes. However, some part-timers do not have mailboxes, while others do not teach at the central campus of their institution and may not have been reached. Although campus leaders at some colleges made a strong effort to exhort their part-timers to return the surveys, at other campuses surveys were returned on a more casual basis.

It is important to determine whether the returned surveys constitute a representative cross section of faculty at the colleges. In Table 3, we can see that some of the 8 major disciplinary categories used by the State Board to define subject area, such as Basic Skills and Humanities, are significantly over-represented, others, particularly science and social sciences, more closely reflect the distribution of faculty by subject area. Given theses variations, it is probable that the survey as a whole is biased toward faculty more aggrieved by part-time issues. Thus, results are best interpreted as indicating how employment concerns respond to specific variables change, not as definitive estimates of the percentage of faculty in a given category.

The survey was designed to provide information on two main concerns. The first was to gage whether the part-time faculty prefers higher levels of employment. Second, the survey was intended to develop some categories that might help us understand these preferences.

______________________________________________________

Table 2: Number and Percentage of Returns from Washington State Community Colleges

______________________________________________________

 

College*

Prime1

Affiliation

%

Headcount2

Total3

%

Centralia

14

11%

128

21

16%

Edmonds

81

28%

294

106

36%

Everett

32

16%

196

39

20%

Peninsula

25

17%

149

26

17%

Pierce County

28

8%

343

34

10%

Seattle Central

44

13%

328

57

17%

Seattle North

31

10%

303

48

16%

Seattle South

23

9%

267

34

13%

Shoreline

65

22%

294

93

32%

Skagit Valley

37

19%

195

48

25%

South Puget

38

24%

160

47

29%

Tacoma College

35

13%

269

49

18%

Whatcom

45

29%

157

47

30%

Yakima Valley

25

14%

182

26

14%

Overall

523

16%

3265

675

21%

1 Faculty assigned to schools according to their stated primary affiliation

2 Percentages are calculated using state data for Fall 1999 as shown. These data are for all Part-time faculty, including those on contract funding, teaching at night or on other campuses.

3 Calculated using all data from faculty who taught at school, regardless whether they identified this is primary affiliation. It is appropriate to group responses by college when looking for college wide information but because some faculty taught at more than one campus, both the state's total of 3265 faculty and the survey total of 675 involve double counts.

*Only colleges with total response rate in excess of 10% included.

______________________________________________________________________

Clearly, not the entire part-time faculty wants full-time employment. However, in the WFT survey, 50% said they did and, another 18% said they wanted more work than they have presently secured through their community college jobs. Fewer than 30% of those indicating a preference said they wished to work as little as their present employment provides. The percentage of those dissatisfied is thus very large, and would likely remain so even with greater survey participation.

______________________________________________________

Table 3: Distribution of Faculty by Academic Field of Employment

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

 

Several attributes were more prevalent among those who wanted full-time work. The most important thing to note is that large percentages of faculty reported they were either the only wage earner in their family, or that that this was the primary source of their income. Fully 59% of the individuals surveyed reported that part-time teaching was the primary source of their personal income. Additionally, 34% reported that their earnings were the only source of income in their household. Within the overlapping group of 136 respondents (27%) who essentially identified community college teaching as virtually their entire household income (i.e., they are only household support and this is their only source of income) nearly 84% said they wanted more (15%) or full-time work (68%). Likewise, as one would expect preferences for full time work were higher when individuals were the only breadwinners in their household (63%) compared the overall rate of 50%), or separately when their earnings from teaching were the primary source of their individual income (also 63%). Thus a sizable group indicated community college income significantly contributes to their livelihood and among these the majority indicated that they desired additional employment.

Faculty prepared in traditional arts and sciences disciplines appear to have greater reliance upon their part-time teaching income, at least as indicated by their relative preference for full-time or increased work. Thus, survey results show that 85% of the social scientists, 76% of humanities, and 74% of science faculty prefer more work than they presently have. By contrast, those serving in non-traditional academic areas, such as Public Service or Business, are somewhat less likely to seek greater teaching employment. Mathematicians, curiously, appear to fall outside the expectations for traditional arts and science faculty.

______________________________________________________Table 4: Sources of Household Income

______________________________________________________

Source: WFT Survey

Responses were to the following questions:

Is this your primary source of income?

Is yours the only source of income in your household?

______________________________________________________

The final point to note is that many of the faculty appear to have adjusted to this system as best they can. Those faculty who want to work full-time reported that they taught an average of 3.33 classes in the Fall quarter of 1999. Within this group, those identifying themselves as depending primarily upon their community college earnings averaged 3.46 classes per quarter. By contrast, those indicating that they were satisfied with their teaching load reported an average of 2.17 class per quarter. The SBCTC, on the other hand, reports that average workloads are lower, and that only 45% of part-time faculty taught more than the equivalent of one course in fall 1997. While survey sample bias may account for some of this difference, the SBCTC figures, too, are biased because they omit courses that were not state funded or that were outside the community college system altogether (SBCTC, Research Report 98-4).

Some 248 of survey respondents said they taught at two or more institutions and among these 90 said they taught at three or more. This finding again varies from the SBCTC's finding that only 27 persons taught at three or more colleges, casting doubt on the state's conclusion that only 291 faculty systemwide taught at two campuses. There are several possible

 

 

_____________________________________________________

Table 5: Preference for More Employment Teaching by Field

______________________________________________________

Employment Field

Want Full Time

Want More Work

Content

% Want More

Basic Skills

54 (46%)

23 (20%)

37 (32%)

67%

Business, Data etc

19 (36%)

14 (27%)

18 (35%)

63%

Humanities

97 (61%)

25 (16%)

33 (21%)

76%

Mathematics

21 (40%)

4 (8%)

26 (50%)

48%

Mechanics/Eng'rg

4 (50%)

1 (13%)

3 (37.5%)

63%

Public Service

25 (33%)

19 (25%)

28 (37%)

58%

Science

20 (57%)

6 (17%)

8 (23%)

74%

Social Science

20 (74%)

3 (11%)

4 (15%)

85%

 

 

 

 

 

Source: WFT Survey

______________________________________________________

reasons for the discrepancy. First, the state's analysis was not designed to verify employment at private institutions, nor at four-year schools. Second, individuals in the WFT survey were asked to identify schools over the past three years, whereas the state board restricted its analysis to a single quarter. The WFT survey is more helpful if the intent is to garner information on the extent of the freeway flyer phenomenon over time. Findings from the WFT survey suggest that the State Board's analysis may undercount the true dependence by "part-timers" on upon multiple courses and colleges. Even so, the State Board's report that freeway flyers constitute 13% of the part-time FTE suggests a high incidence.

The main findings derived from the WFT survey are not controversial. Clearly, Washington State relies very heavily upon part-time faculty, and officials themselves believe that this reliance is greater than is educationally justifiable. In investigating the problem, the State has reached the conclusion that it is important to reduce this reliance. The WFT's data suggests that, if anything, the State still underestimates the extent of the problem. From the vantage point of the part-time faculty member there is much to be gained by improving employment security. To the extent that adverse employment and working conditions affect the community colleges, a point which the State has conceded, the education students receive at community colleges will be advanced by converting some part-time faculty positions into full-time position and by improving the compensation package for part-timers.

Organizing Part-timers in Washington

Policy in Washington State has clearly been influenced by a number of campaigns on behalf of part-time community college faculty. One result, noted earlier, is that in opposition to the national trend involving an increased reliance upon part-time faculty, Washington has essentially halted that trend. In addition, pay and benefit conditions are being raised, albeit at an inadequate pace, far for those faculty dependent upon earnings from their part-time community college teaching. Much of the state's progress traces its lineage directly back to two legislative decisions in 1995 and 1996. First, in 1995, the state redefined its unemployment laws establishing part-time faculty as a special class in order to make it easier for them to collect unemployment. Second, and perhaps more important, the legislature inaugurated a Best Practices Task Force regarding part-time instruction.

In setting up this commission, the legislature had finally responded to agitation from part-timers that had been going on since at least early eighties. Still it wasn't until 1990s that, under Susan Levy's leadership, the Washington Federation of Teachers, seriously began to champion their cause. This transition became even more pronounced when the WFT employed Wendy Rader-Konofalski, herself a former part-timer, WFT legislative representative in Olympia. Working through the union, Rader-Konofalski succeeded in getting priority for the issue within the legislature. In significant measure the WFT was spurred to by Keith Hoeller's Washington Association of Part-Time Faculty [WAPFAC]. This an advocacy group worked independently to creating another essential fulcrum upon which to pry open state policy. Through direct lobbying and publicity WAPFAC maintained pressure on both the legislature and the WFT, ensuring that the issue did not die in intramural union politics. Together Rader-Konofalski and Hoeller--perhaps unwittingly--created an inside/outside strategy that kept everyone on their toes. Although disagreements have at times surfaced, WFT and WAPFAC's successor, the Washington Part-Time Faculty Association have worked more closely in recent years to good effect.

The two organizations have forged alliances with the Worker Center, King County's Labor Council, Seattle Union Now, the University of Washington's Labor Center, and the Center for a Changing Workplace. Together, these groups have provided high visibility for the Permatemp and contingent labor force issue. In the final analysis, consistent organizing by rank and file part-timers over the long haul provided the muscle that led to the creation of a state appointed Best Practices Task Force. The Task Force created the basis for continued legislative action by officially recognizing the abuses inherent in the part-time system and admitting that they arose as a consequence of financial pressure. While the limited use of part-timers can be justified in low demand areas, or where scarce expertise is needed, or even when colleges can not flexibly respond to scheduling needs with their existing full-timers, the state report acknowledged that part-time staffing had gone beyond these rationales.

The Task Force found fault with a the part-time employment system because it provided virtually no incentive for faculty to commit themselves to the classroom, to provide needed service to the campus, department or community, and because the system utilized poor selection, recruitment and development tools. To counter these problems the Task Force suggested several recommendations. First, academic departments should develop a written policy on the appropriate use of part-timers to guide their actions. Second they should improve the recruitment process to ensure quality hires while simultaneously smoothing transitions between part and full time positions. Third, the Task Force suggested that administrators should provide written and early employment commitments for part-time faculty. At the same time multiple quarter contracts were encouraged. Other best practices involving evaluation, development, communication, support and recognition were also put on the table.

To make earnest its support for the task force recommendations Earl Hale, Executive Director of the SBCTC, announced that the State Board would seek twenty million dollars over the 1997 to 1999 biennium to address faculty issues, including part-time salary and benefit inequities. Ultimately the state authorized a maximum of 7.7 million dollars to address part-time issues. Following this, a number of specific initiatives were taken that, cumulatively, have begun to make a difference for part-timers. Most significantly, in 1996 the WFT drafted and secured legislation to ensure that part-timers who work at least 50% receive the medical benefits to which they were entitled. A clear method of calculating percentages of employment time was established to prevent the state from denying those claims. Summer benefits have remained a point of contention and are included in a major court challenge now underway. On a more positive note, the most direct indication that the state takes the problem seriously was the legislature's decision, in 1999, to dedicate twenty million dollars to adjust part-time pay upwards. In doing so, the legislature abandoned language that would have settled for the SBCTC's goal for part-timers--76% of full time pay--and appears to have adopted the WFT's goal of 100% parity. The pay adjustments so far leave part-timers far from either goal, but the actions stand in stark contrast to years of previous neglect.

As a percentage FTE instruction, the use of part-timers has not expanded in any appreciable degree since 1995, but neither has it been reduced. Consequently, it is significant that after discussions with the union, the SBCTC now plans to pans to change the part-time/full-time faculty mix by adding some 360 full positions statewide. If the legislature follows through on this commitment, Washington's community college part-time instruction percentage could fall significantly below the national average.

 

Conclusions

Despite the real accomplishments on behalf of part-timers there are ominous clouds mark the sky. As always, money is extremely tight in Olympia, the state capitol, and the part-time situation has been complicated by new state initiatives, one limiting taxes and another increasing pay for teachers from kindergarten through community college. In this fiscal environment nothing is certain.

On the other hand, buffeted by law suits, lobbying, and public relations campaigns Washington's SBCTC appears poised to resolve the situation, if for no other reason than to avoid costly liability. The prospect of an expensive court suit has grown since December 12, 2000, when the Vincainzo Case was resolved. To settle this suit, Microsoft consented to a 97 million-dollar payment to Permatemp workers who claimed they were wrongfully denied benefits the company gave to its other employees. At the behest of Keith Hoeller's WPTFA the law firm that represented those plaintiffs, Bendich, Staughbaugh and Strong, is now arguing in a separate case that part-time community college faculty are being denied benefits they rightfully deserve. One irony is that this suit would have no little basis in law if the state had not acquiesced when the WFPTA and the WFT pressed for, and secured, best-practice legislation in the mid-nineties. The subsequent 1996 WFT bill spelled out the method by which part-timer's eligibility to participate in benefit plans was to be determined. The new lawsuit seeks retroactive faculty benefits for up to twenty years, the time during which time the state erroneously calculated hours so as to deprive part-timers of their pension and health benefits.

In an interim decision, Judge Steven Scott has determined last year that faculty teaching 50% or more are entitled to summer health benefits if they work at all at during that period. If complied with this interim decision may conflict with another high priority part-time concern: the ability to collect unemployment benefits. In particular, many part-timers desire unemployment compensation during summer and other times when colleges fail to provide them with classes to teach. By securing summer benefits, the claim of temporary employment may be weakened as part-timers begin to look more like full time faculty, for whom a nine-month contract is presumed to be full time yearly employment. Perhaps the ultimate test of the success of the part-time movement in Washington State will come when part-timers are treated well enough that they will be able to choose between the reasonable assurance of multi-quarter contracts with benefits and unemployment compensation during quarters when they don't teach.

In the meantime the law firm of Frank and Rosen is pressing yet another case arguing that the state's method of paying part-timers is seriously flawed. Presently, not only does the state not provide reasonable assurance of continued employment, the plaintiffs in this case claim, instead, the state misstates the employment relationship altogether. The plaintiffs argue that community because colleges pay part-timers only for each class-contact hour, the state violates its own minimum wage and overtime laws. Although the case faces a variety of obstacles, it constitutes one more pressure point toward the implementation of the best practices that enumerated in 1996.

With the new legislative season approaching lobbying will be intense. The Governor is asking most agencies to take a 2% cut in their budgets. Such a requirement will not automatically brush aside part-time demands for pay equity, benefits, and new full-time positions. However, given the automatic cost of living increases voted in at the last election, it will be much harder to garner political support to redress part-time issues this coming biennium.

 

 

Bibliography

1998. State Board for Community Colleges, Research Report 98-4, Part-time faculty in Washington Community and Technical Colleges.

2000A, State Board for Community Colleges, "Enrollments and Student Demographics," SBCTC Webpage.

2000B, Budget Request, State Board for Community Colleges, SBCTC Webpage

2000, National Center for Educational Statistics, Instructional Faculty and Staff in Public 2-Year Colleges), NCES 2000-192, May 2000.

1996, Best Practices Task Force, Report: Adjunct Faculty Personnel Administration.