Just a note that the following dates (relevant to the bargaining process) are now confirmed:
December 7th (6:30-8:00 p.m.): Provincewide information session hosted by the CAAT-A Divisional Executive, featuring the faculty Bargaining Team. This session specific to partial-load faculty.
December 8th (6:30-8:00 p.m.): Provincewide information session hosted by the CAAT-A Divisional Executive, featuring the faculty Bargaining Team. This session open to all faculty, including partial-load.
December 9th @ 9:00 a.m. – December 11th @ 3:00 p.m.: Online strike authorization vote, conducted by the Ontario Labour Relations Board
This vote is needed to authorize the faculty bargaining team to organize any work action, which may or may not include a strike
December 13th: The first day that either party may take labour action:
The first day that management may lock out CAAT-A faculty members
The first day that management may unilaterally impose Terms & Conditions of employment, affecting such areas as workload, pay, benefits, labour rights
The first day that unionized faculty members may, with a successful strike vote, organize labour action
As a reminder, the faculty bargaining team has proposed referring all issues that remain unresolved (following negotiations) to voluntary binding interest arbitration, as a means of resolving bargaining without disruption to our work or our students’ academic year.
One of the things that I found as soon as I got involved in academic labour issues is that my sense of time changed, and I started looking at change in terms of different time frames. For example, the degree to which our class sizes are impacted by a decision that someone made in 1985, or the fact that both teams are already writing potential recommendations for the next round of bargaining into this round’s Collective Agreement (in a nutshell, the faculty team’s proposal provides for mechanisms that would guarantee such recommendations; the CEC team’s proposal would let the Employer prevent recommendations from being put forwards).
So you start to think of it as something like a chess game, only there’s a gap of years between each move. (The metaphor breaks down when you consider that arbitrator’s rulings can redefine the meaning of negotiated language, in between rounds of bargaining.)
And in the last round of bargaining, I think that I e-mailed the bargaining team’s chair and vice-chair, when I thought that the Employer was proposing a reasonably innocuous bit of language that could end up having problematic effects about a decade later, if specific other things were to happen in the meantime.
All of which is to say that you start to value institutional memory. Right now, for example, in the face of the Employer’s ability to unilaterally Impose Terms & Conditions of Employment (16 days from now), many of our members experienced the Imposition of 2009; many did not.
So it’s in that spirit that I welcomed the following letter from a professor who leads with their experience. I have redacted any identifying information:
I started work as a full time faculty [in the late eighties]. I’ve been through the 2006 strike, the 2009 imposed terms & conditions, and the 2017 strike. After 32 years as a faculty member, I am more than frustrated with the College Employer Council – their actions, their communication mistruths, and their callous disregard for both students and faculty. Given the CEC behaviour in the past, I am not surprised – but I am frustrated for everyone who has poured their heart and soul into doing their best for students during the pandemic. Doing their best for students has often been at the expense of faculty well-being and more so since March 2020. Working in a [Centre for Teaching & Learning], I’ve noted how tired faculty have become but the past 18 months, it’s been beyond tired. It’s an exhaustion that goes bone-deep. What an unfortunate time for our employer to take this adversarial stance. It strikes me as absurd – working in a [CTL] and talking to faculty about learner-centred education, UDL [Universal Design for Learning], pedagogies of care, humanizing learning – and, especially authentic assessment – knowing full well that implementing any of these things is often beyond the scope of what SWFs allow–if, in fact, the people I’m working with are lucky enough to have a SWF. New faculty don’t know what they don’t know. They’re afraid–as are many faculty–of where we are heading if there is a strike. After 32 years, I’m afraid of what will happen if we don’t take a strong stance. What will happen to those new faculty? What will happen to future faculty? Will Apprenticeship and Academic Upgrading faculty be treated differently? In closing, let me say how much I appreciate your insightful emails and your podcast. Thank you.
In return, thank you for the kind words and also for the questions at the end, which will hopefully give me material for an upcoming post. As ever, readers are welcome to reach me at firstname.lastname@example.org — all letters will be kept strictly anonymous.
So, I’ve been inviting faculty to offer their thoughts and opinions (on either what I write here or discuss on The Ontario College Podcast) at email@example.com. I’m grateful to two individuals who reached out to me last week, to discuss the current Offer of Settlement. I’m hoping to feature their letters this week (and I invite you to share your own), but I wanted preface those discussions by presenting the faculty’s current Offer of Settlement (dated November 18) and offering some quick thoughts about each of the 18 major proposals in it.
I’m pasting the complete offer below, in .pdf form. To explain the formatting a bit, the words that are in bold and underlined are new Collective Agreement language that is being introduced in the proposal; the words that are struckthrough are being removed from the CA (according to the proposal). The words that are in yellow highlighting represent changes from the Faculty team’s last Offer of Settlement (on Nov. 8). Many of those highlighted sections feature new language that has been incorporated from the College Employer Council’s (CEC’s) previous Offer of Settlement (of November 10).
So, let me try to walk you through the proposals, briefly. This won’t be a deep dive, but it will hopefully provide a bit of an overview so that I can discuss some of them in greater detail later. Let me start by noting that I’ll be looking at these proposals in a thematic order, so the numbering below will be…messed up.
To start, let’s draw attention to the three committee structures that are proposed: one on workload; one on Equity, Diversity & Inclusion; and one on Indigenization, Decolonization, and Truth & Reconciliation. In the hopes of arriving at a deal at the table, these structures were proposed as a compromise from earlier proposals that made extensive changes to the CA to address these issues. They are in response to arguments that these issues are broad and may require research, analysis and/or consultation. In other words the faculty team has agreed (as a compromise position) to refer some large matters to committees throughout the life of the Collective Agreement, but only on the condition that the processes result in concrete recommendations or changes at the end of that time.
Faculty Proposal #6: Workload Committee (Letter of Understanding)
The faculty proposal provides for a professional researcher and a substantial period of time to analyze broad aspects of faculty workload, including that of Counsellors, Librarians, and the measurement and compensation of Partial-Load workload
It also has “Teeth”: If the parties can’t agree, a dispute resolution mechanism incorporates a third-party arbitrator’s workload recommendations into the 2023 Collective Agreement, and the committee would review workload every three years
Management’s comparable proposal might lead to zero change; it also targets areas for two-tiered workload protections
Faculty Proposals #7 + #8: Defining different modes of in-class and online teaching, and providing additional attributed hours for courses with an online teaching component, following discussion with supervisor
This creates the opportunity for immediate necessary relief for professors and instructors
Permits faculty and managers to come to agreement on additional attributed hours, and permits faculty to refer disputes to the Workload Monitoring Group for resolution
Unlike CEC’s proposal, this would provide faculty with needed time immediately, rather than years from now, if ever
Faculty Proposal #9: Increasing “Essay/Project” evaluation factor from 0.03 hours (per student per Teaching Hour) to 0.04 hours
Currently, faculty who teach a 3-hour class where students are evaluated only on the basis of written work or projects receive a maximum of 5.4 minutes per student per week for evaluation and feedback
This proposal would increase that number to 7.2 minutes per student per week
Unlike CEC’s proposal, this would provide faculty with needed time immediately, rather than years from now, if ever
Faculty Proposal #17: No bargaining unit member will suffer layoff, lose hours or lose wages as a result of the Employer’s contracting out work normally done by faculty in the bargaining unit
This proposal is made necessary by the increased amount of faculty (professor, instructor, counsellor, librarian) work that has been given to employees not in the bargaining unit
The CEC removed any proposal to limit contracting out from its latest offer
Faculty Proposal #18: The College shall not use, share, sell, or transfer course materials produced by faculty members without their consent
This proposal is necessary to protect faculty jobs and bargaining unit work
This proposal is comparable to Intellectual Property language in Canadian postsecondary institutions. Faculty in the B.C. college system, for example, own the copyright for all work produced in the course of their normal assigned duties
The CEC has offered no satisfactory explanation why faculty consent would be an unreasonable condition of the sale of faculty-produced materials
Faculty Proposal #10: Addition of language that coordinator duties must be “reasonable and reduced to writing” before the coordinator role is accepted
This proposal makes sure that coordinator assignments are clear and reasonable
This proposal serves to discourage potential management efforts to assign bargaining unit work outside the bargaining unit by creating workloads that would reasonably be refused by bargaining unit members
CEC’s proposal omits the words “reasonable and”
Faculty Proposal #1: Committee on Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (Letter of Understanding)
Local subcommittees of the existing Union/College Committee at each College would seek to implement employment systems, policies, and practices that are non-discriminatory and equitable in nature and effect
Provincially, a subcommittee of the Employer-Employee Relations Committee (EERC) would make recommendations for the next round of CA bargaining
Unlike the CEC’s proposal, this committee “has teeth”: Where the provincial committee can’t agree, an arbitrator will decide upon recommendations for the next round of bargaining
Faculty Proposal #2: Round Tables on Indigenization, Decolonization, and Truth & Reconciliation (Letter of Understanding)
Provides a clear scope and framework for Indigenous-led and jointly-Chaired Local Round Tables to review each College’s policies and practices
Provincially, the chairs of each College’s Round Table would participate in a subcommittee of the EERC, to make recommendations for the next round of CA bargaining
Unlike the CEC’s proposal, this provincial subcommittee has a dispute resolution mechanism: Where the provincial committee can’t agree, an Indigenous arbitrator will determine recommendations for the next round of bargaining
Faculty Proposals #3 + #4: Access (for faculty who identify as Indigenous) to an Indigenous Elder / Traditional Knowledge Keeper as a personal support in Workload Monitoring Group meetings and Grievance Meetings
This faculty proposal is currently in both sides’ Offers of Settlement
Would improve equity of current dispute resolution mechanisms in the CA
Faculty Proposal #5: Addition of two Indigenous arbitrators to the existing list of arbitrators in the CA
This faculty proposal is currently in both sides’ Offers of Settlement
Would improve equity of current dispute resolution mechanisms in the CA
Part of the faculty team’s proposed dispute resolution mechanism for the provincial Round Table on Indigenizaiton, Decolonization, and Truth & Reconciliation
Faculty Proposal #11: Amendment of Class Definition of Counsellor
Language in faculty proposal has already been included in current CEC offer of settlement
CEC proposal also includes “poison pill” language that could take work away from counsellors and assign it outside of the bargaining unit, as well as undermine the autonomy of Counsellors to do their work
Faculty Proposal #12: Partial-Load faculty can bridge benefits during non-teaching periods with mere written offer of future employment
Currently, Partial-Load faculty need contracts for future teaching, to bridge benefits between employment periods
This proposal would enable PL members to bridge benefits upon receipt of an offer of future teaching
This item has no cost to the Colleges — members pay 100% of benefits during bridged periods
Faculty Proposal #13: Partial-Load faculty shall get credit for holidays when calculating service
This proposal is featured in both teams’ current Offers of Settlement
It is a very minor improvement that would in limited cases permit PL faculty to get a new salary step a month sooner than they would otherwise
Faculty Proposal #14: Partial-Load faculty shall be eligible for seniority hiring for courses that they have taught in any Partial-Load capacity (not just as part of a PL contract)
This proposal would broaden the seniority hiring entitlements for qualified PL faculty on the PL registry
Faculty Proposal #15:
a) Partial-Load faculty shall be eligible for PL Registry (and seniority hiring) if they are currently teaching Partial-Load or have done so in the past
Would maximize contract faculty members’ eligibility for seniority provisions of the PL Registry, at no cost to the colleges
The current Collective Agreement excludes Partial-Load faculty from the PL Registry if they are not currently employed as PL or lack 8 or more months of service as PL.
b) Partial-Load faculty shall keep seniority right to teach classes, even if the course code or name changes
Prevents college managers from undermining PL seniority rights by making superficial changes to courses
Proposal #16: Partial-Load faculty shall be eligible to the maximum number of assignable courses (up to 12 teaching hours) for which they have seniority per the PL Registry
Maximizes opportunity for PL faculty with seniority to have contracts that provide a living wage
This proposal has negligible cost (if any) to the Colleges
Bound by the limits set out by Bill 124, both parties have agreed to annual salary increases of 1% across the board
This would likely represent a loss in real wages (after inflation) of approximately 10%, over the three-year life of the Collective Agreement that the CEC proposes
Both parties have agreed to language that would see wage negotiations reopened if Bill 124 is overturned by the courts or replaced
Benefits: In addition to covering medically-prescribed cannabis, the balance of the 1% increase in benefits (permissible under Bill 124) should be used to subsidize the cost of dental implants.
Okay! Lots to report obviously, but let me start by offering a plug for my new-ish podcast, “The Ontario College Podcast”. The fourth episode (recorded on Tuesday Nov. 16, prior to the start of Conciliation) was published today. It’s the first new episode in an unreasonably long time, and I’ve flattered myself that the podcast was singlehandedly responsible for the College Employer Council’s touching recent obsession with communication blackouts.
In this episode, I analyze some of the CEC’s messenging (and I note that the CEC’s messages today do nothing to contradict my theory). I also offer a preview of the Conciliation process — one that, alas, has already been surpassed by events, specifically the CEC’s request (on the first day of Conciliation!) for a “no board” report, whose only function that I can think of is to serve as a legal precondition for labour disruption.
Lastly, I talk about some of the principles that have guided the faculty bargaining team’s efforts to balance short-term and long-term thinking in arriving at the specific language and proposals in our recent Offers of Settlement. Although I refer specifically to the faculty team’s November 8th Offer of Settlement, the general and specific points that I make still seem to apply to the new Offer that the faculty team submitted today.
Anyway, let me see if I can string together a few posts on the current state of bargaining over the next few days. You’d do me a big favour towards that end by e-mailing me at firstname.lastname@example.org and offering any of your own thoughts on what you’ve been hearing from both sides right now, or questions about the bargaining process — particularly a question that might not have been addressed at the November 11th Provincewide bargaining update, which had attendance of over 1,500! Or maybe you’d like to share some of your current experiences teaching — including teaching as Partial-Load — to help remind us all what we’re bargaining for in the first place.
Of course, the College Employer Council doesn’t need any reminder of what it’s like in the classroom right now, since — as they remind us — 79% of College administrators in the Ontario public College system have teaching experience.
Perhaps in a future #MythBusterMonday, the CEC would be willing to share some details as to whether that teaching experience was, say, at the postsecondary level, or in the Ontario public College system, or frankly whether it was even in any kind of formal education system whatsoever. And boy would it be gratifying to know how many administrators have postsecondary experience in the specific kinds of teaching modes (like asynchronous online or hybrid or hy-flex) for which they’re providing faculty with only 108 minutes to prepare a 3 hour class (per the “Established B” factor, which hasn’t changed since 1985).
Or hey, maybe they’ll just go back to talking about communications blackouts.
So, I’m thinking about the emergency remote learning experience, from the student’s perspective. Probably most people reading this already have some fairly strong opinions about the Emergency Remote Teaching experience — I’d be happy to devote some time to opinions that anybody chooses to e-mail to email@example.com (anonymity will be preserved), but I right now, my thoughts are on my students.
“The degree is more than just a piece of paper,” Abatemarco said. “It’s about the relationships that you make there in person. All of that has really been taken away. All of that is really nonexistent at this point.”
The degree is about the relationships, because education is about relationships — the relationship between teacher and student. That’s it — that’s at the core. And the less that relationship can develop, the less education can occur.
Another student quoted in the article reinforces this:
So he is plugging away at online courses: marketing, microeconomics, theology, sociology, a first-year seminar, Excel. He was grateful that professors held casual Zoom meetings outside class. One of them had an informal “dinner” with him and other students over a video link. His main human contact, outside of the family, is meeting with a few friends from Long Island. “We have a joint bond in recognizing how brutal the last three months of school have been,” he said.
An informal dinner with students? Sounds like a great idea. Sounds like something that I wish I could have done. Sounds utterly bloody impossible, given the workload demands of Emergency Remote Teaching, and Ontario Colleges’ general failure to acknowledge those demands.
Informal dinner, or meaningful individualized feedback on their actual work? Or perhaps neither?
One interesting test of the quality of the student learning experience — the quality of the educational experiences provided by Ontario Colleges through Emergency Remote Teaching — will be seeing what percentage of the current cohort of students end up providing alumni donations to their respective colleges.
Because what is the motivation behind alumni donations? Memories. Of educational experiences. Of relationships. Of the faculty who knew and impacted you personally. Of the students that you worked and socialized with. Of the groups and clubs that you were able to participate in.
All of which is not simply to say that education isn’t best when it’s in the context of an experience; it’s to say that it doesn’t exist except as an experience, and the quality of education is directly related to the quality of the experience.
Which reminds me of a slogan that I painted on a picket sign once upon a time:
How can I know my students’ needs when I don’t know their names?
Right, so: Now a quiz. (If only so that I can figure out WordPress’ polling function.)
Here’s the question:
Based on the explanations of the different types of evaluation outlined earlier this week…
That’s it for now — feel free to click to share your opinion (and maybe even e-mail your rationale to firstname.lastname@example.org). I’ll provide my own opinion on the matter — and discuss more options around evaluation/feedback hours — early next week.
[Again, a preface to communicate my sincere regret that this post pertains almost exclusively to Full-Time faculty at Ontario Colleges. It is absolutely shameful that the work associated with the preparation and evaluation of classes taught by contract faculty is not measured, despite repeated efforts by partial-load and full-time faculty — as a union — to remedy this disgusting inequity. In an upcoming post I will try to relate some of the SWF issues discussed here to the work of contract faculty.]
So, I wanted to follow up on my last post, in which I outlined the different evaluation factors, as presented in the Collective Agreement.
Today, I wanted to show how they appear on a SWF (Standard Workload Form), and what a SWF communicates to full-time faculty about the time that they are provided, to provide evaluation and feedback to students in all of their classes.
Let’s start by taking a sample SWF, which I have highlighted in different colours. I recognize that they may be formatted differently in different colleges, although they should all contain all of the information in the sample SWF provided on pp. 85-86 (e-pages 89-90) of the Collective Agreement.
The parts that are of significance for the purposes of a discussion of evaluation factors are in blue and pink. The blue column identifies the breakdown of evaluation factors for each of the classes assigned, and the pink translates that breakdown into a number of hours provided for evaluation and feedback.
So let’s start with the totals and work our way backwards: Our hypothetical professor from a hypothetical semester long, long ago is assigned to teach five sections of class (three different preps for what it’s worth), responsible for evaluating and providing feedback on the work of a grand total of 173 students in all of the classes, combined.
And to do all of the evaluation for all of the students in all of the classes, our hypothetical teacher is provided with a total of 12.47 hours weekly, for each of the weeks covered by this workload assignment. (This is shown on the bottom row of the left pink column.)
Looking upward from that row, we can see that the five sections are each allocated a specific amount of time for all of their evaluation/feedback needs — anywhere from 2.23 hours to 2.61 hours.
But let me focus on the fourth row of the classes — the section that is attributed 2.41 hours weekly for evaluation / feedback. That section has a class size of 38, yet the hypothetical professor is attributed LESS time to evaluate those 38 students than they receive to teach the 35 students in the course directly below it.
So how can a class have 8% more students, but provide a professor with 8% less time to grade and provide feedback on their assessments? The answer lies in the evaluation factors, which we see broken down by percentage in the blue columns.
(Class #1 has 70% of its assessments listed as Essay-type, 20% as Routine/Assisted and 10% as In-Process. Class #2 has 75%, 0%, 25% of the assessment under each category, and Class #3 is broken down as only 50% Essay-type and 25% for each of Routine/Assisted and In-Process.)
(As a reminder, the terms “Essay”, “Routine/Assisted” and “In-Process” to describe types of evaluation can be misleading; explanations of each are provided in the previous post.)
An increase in the percentage of “Routine/Assisted” or (especially) “In-Process” evaluation types and a corollary reduction in the percentage of “Essay”-type evaluation means that faculty will be attributed less time to evaluate more students.
So, when I was a member of a Workload Monitoring Group, one of the most common questions that I used to get was, “How can my class sizes keep going up and up, but my total workload remains the same on the SWF? The answer was most frequently that the classes in question were being credited with less “Essay”-type evaluation and more “Routine/Assisted” or “In-Process”.
Which could be absolutely fine, if the nature of the course’s evaluation was discussed between the professors who teach the class and the manager, as both faculty and management have agreed must happen (cf. Article 11.01 E3), and they came to an agreement about what types of assessments the course material requires. That conversation should see the manager asking the professor what kind of assessments and feedback would be needed, in order to determine (and promote) students’ achievement of the course outcomes, and should see both parties agreeing upon the appropriate breakdown of evaluation factors for the assignments administered to the students.
(There’s one more step, but I’ll come to that in an upcoming post.)
The problem is when the evaluation factors fail to accurately reflect the work that is completed by the students in a class, and in turn the work that must be performed by that class’ teacher. If online courses are given “in-process” evaluation factors when it is impossible for the teacher to evaluate the students and provide them with feedback during the class time, then that teacher is denied the time that they need to evaluate the students’ actual work, and those students are in turn cheated out of the feedback that they — and Ontario taxpayers — are paying for.
If the evaluation time provided on a SWF is insufficient to meet students’ needs, then faculty are left with two options: a) Perform uncredited, unacknowledged, unpaid labour to provide the students with the feedback that they deserve and need (Just like Contract faculty!) or b) Spend only the time that they are attributed for the task of evaluating students, regardless of whether that time is sufficient to meet student needs.
As ever, please submit corrections, questions, and rants to email@example.com. Any letters posted in whole or in part will have identifying information removed.
[I note that this post concerns SWFs, and is therefore of interest primarily to Full-Time faculty. I’ll try to follow it up with a post on a related issue that might be of some relevance to Partial-Load faculty.]
Okay, so… let’s talk SWFs for a bit.
It’s worth introducing the topic at this point, since SWFs for the Winter semester are due six weeks before the start of the first scheduled day of teaching, not including holidays.
So, if the teaching period of the Winter semester happens to start on Monday, January 4, then the SWF would be due on… Friday, November 13, if my calendar and math are correct.
The SWF’s delivery is, according to the Collective Agreement (Art. 11.02 A1[a]), supposed to be preceded by a discussion of the workload proposed by your manager.
In addition, Article 11.01 E3 reads:
And it’s precisely the methods of evaluation that I want to review, because the shift to online teaching may impact them in ways that faculty don’t realize.
So, let’s start by covering the three categories of evaluation / feedback recognized in the Collective Agreement. In my next post on this topic, I’ll talk about how to read a SWF to understand how evaluation factors translate to specific amounts of time that faculty are given, to evaluate their students in each of their classes and provide feedback.
Let me preface with a couple of points:
Full-time faculty are given a finite amount of time to complete the evaluation and feedback of the students in their classes; that time is clearly recorded on the SWF.
The Collective Agreement provides minimum attributions of time for the grading of each student in each class. The attribution of time depends on the type of evaluation that is required for each class.
There are three different types of Evaluation. I’ll outline them here, and then in my next post, I’ll demonstrate how they are put into action on a SWF.
Essay Type: Article 11.02 E2 of the Collective Agreement specifies that the Essay evaluation factor is used for grading “essays; essay type assignments or tests; projects; or student performance based on behavioral (sic) assessments compiled by the teacher outside teaching hours”. Given that list, the term “Essay” type is a bit misleading.
Broadly speaking, the litmus test for determining whether a test or assignment is “essay type” depends upon the level of interpretation required. If you’re grading according to the presence/absence of keywords, or if the work could possibly be put into a format where it could be graded by a computer or a well-trained chimpanzee, then it’s probably doesn’t qualify as “Essay” type. If, on the other hand, the evaluations depend on students working with or applying abstract concepts, or writing extended passages, then it probably does.
The other point that I would make concerns the role of student presentations, which I interpret to qualify as “student performance” that is graded “based on behavioral assessments”, and that therefore count as “Essay” type evaluation if the teacher has to compile the assessment and feedback at home.
By the same token, I understand all portfolios of students’ work (including, say, student journals or any assessment representing a compilation of student work throughout the semester) to count as “Essay-type” assessment.
If a course’s evaluation/feedback is rated as 100% “Essay”-type, then a professor is attributed a minimum of 108 seconds per week, per teaching hour of the course. In other words, a prof could be granted as little as 5.4 minutes of time each week to complete the assessments for each student of a course that has three teaching hours weekly.
Routine or Assisted Type: The same article defines the second category of evaluation — “Routine or Assisted” — as “grading by the teacher outside teaching contact hours of short answer tests or other evaluative tools where mechanical marking assistance or marking assistants are provided”.
There has been some debate about which noun was modified by the “where” clause, but let’s let that slide for the moment. I’ve always interpreted this type to include the grading that could be done by Scantron or could be graded according to an answer key that could be provided to a marking assistant (e.g., “Connect the terms in Column A to the definitions in Column B”).
It’s significant that this is a kind of assessment that isn’t evaluating students’ ability to apply theoretical concepts, or demonstrate critical thinking or apply principles to their own experiences.
The minimum attribution for Routine/Assisted-type grading in the Collective Agreement is half that attributed to Essay-type grading. This translates to 54 seconds per teaching hour per week, for a course that has only Routine/Assisted-type assessments.
In-Process: The final category of assessment for the purpose of measuring workload is “in-process”, which is defined as “evaluation performed within the teaching contact hour”.
When asked for examples of “in-process”-type assessments, I often offer an example of nursing students demonstrating their ability to use a blood pressure cuff. The assessment takes place during the class time; the student knows their grade within the class period; and there is nothing about the evaluation or feedback that the teacher (i.e., professor or instructor) needs to complete at home.
Since the evaluation takes place (and feedback is provided) during the class hour — which is already counted on the SWF — in-process evaluation/feedback is attributed very little time to complete: approximately half the time attributed for Routine/Assisted grading. So if a 3-hour course were to be graded entirely using in-process grading, the minimum attribution would be 1 minute and 40 seconds for evaluation and feedback to each student, weekly.
Some points worth considering about the evaluation types:
In-Process assessments (those done “in real-time” during the class teaching hour) are virtually non-existent in online teaching. I suppose that if a professor were teaching a class on American Sign Language, then it might be possible to assess every student’s skill (and return their grade) within scheduled class hours, over a screen. Beyond that, I’m having a hard time imagining what in-process grading might look like in an online (and particularly an asychronous) context.
Changing evaluation factors is the easiest way for managers to assign more students to faculty without increasing the mathematical measurement of their workload. Faculty are attributed as much time to grade essays for 50 students as they are to grade multiple choice tests for 100 students, or to grade in-class assessments for 163 students.
The minimum attribution for “Essay” type evaluation is simply inadequate for providing meaningful feedback to students. Teachers are attributed only twice as much time to grade a class with all essays as they are to grade a class that only has multiple-choice tests all semester. And they’re only given 3.3x more time to grade essays at home than faculty are given to grade assessments during the class time. And, in fact, I can read and grade an essay in a couple of minutes. What I can’t do in a couple of minutes is explain the basis for that grade to the student, and give the student feedback to help them improve on future work.
The time attributed to faculty for evaluation/feedback is based upon the teaching hours of a class. If a class were reduced from 3 weekly teaching hours weekly down to 2, then the time attributed for evaluation would similarly be reduced by 1/3, although it’s not clear that the assessment obligations of the faculty would be reduced appropriately.
That’s it for now. Next post will be looking at how these numbers get plugged into a SWF, and how FT faculty members can determine whether their SWFs accurately reflect the time-demands presented by their classes’ actual evaluation and feedback needs.
As ever, I invite faculty — particularly contract faculty — in Ontario Colleges to share their questions, stories and opinions. You can do this by e-mailing firstname.lastname@example.org. Confidentiality will be strictly guarded.
(Let me take a hop on that trench reference to give a shout-out to my favourite breed of dog, the Irish Terrier, which was the most popular breed for use in the WWI trenches — mainly for the benefit of hunting rats. Apparently the one thing they weren’t good for was carrying messages throughout the trenches, because they’re exceptionally friendly dogs. Anyway, let’s just say that the film 1917 needed more Irish Terriers, IMO.)
Where was I? Right. Teaching. Online. Like so many of us.
So, my summer break being over, let me take a moment to refer to excerpts from an interview in today’s Slate, which discusses one U.S. grade-school teacher’s experiences with hybrid teaching.
Mary Harris: How’s all that working out? This can’t be sustainable for you.
Oh, terribly. But we’re making do. Sometimes it feels totally manageable, and sometimes it feels like I am the worst teacher ever. I just don’t know where to find the balance in between both.
I did the math yesterday. It takes about two to three hours to make an edit for the video lessons, another two to three hours to format the leson, one to two hours to make the attendance quizzes for the week, another two to three hours to make sure the notes are readily available and that links are working. And that’s for one class. I teach two different math classes, so I have to double that.
That’s all work you would not have had to do if you were just teaching in person.
Yes. I’m averaging an extra 25–35 hours a week to make hybrid learning work.
Are virtual school and hybrid learning getting easier?
Definitely not. I just don’t know any other way to put it. Even though it hasn’t even been two weeks, it has felt like the longest school year by far.
Remote learning is so distant—you don’t get to know your students as well.
For sure. Most times, my interactions are just through email. So it’s been a struggle, knowing that I have another 70 to 90 kids I’m going to meet when this is all over, but not really know them. How do we integrate them in the classroom so they feel valued and included?
It’s kind of funny; I used to get upset if I didn’t know my students’ names. Now it feels like quite a challenge to learn anything about them other than their names.
The first — from a former Partial-Load faculty — reads:
The Postsecondary Industrial Complex is an equal-opportunity exploiter of knowledge workers.
The other — from our most dedicated correspondent — suggests on the contrary that, while the industry may offer an equality of opportunity for exploitation of full-time and contract faculty alike, that doesn’t translate to an equality of outcome of exploitation between the two:
I think the “contract faculty member” is being too kind.
Management understands full-well that contract faculty “never get a break,” work through their “unpaid weeks,” “realize that the prep for online classes has to be done before the course opens,” and that “online delivery … [is] an even bigger challenge,” etc. In fact, they depend on it!
Management knows, as well, that contract faculty are ripe for intimidation, coerced into working under unfair circumstances for unfair wages, and can be terminated without cause for any hint of disloyalty or dissent. In fact, they fight for that “leverage,”
I hope these folks – among the finest and most dedicated teachers in the system – understand as well that the faculty strike of 2017 was largely about “them,” their ruthless exploitation, the necessity of getting significant job security, and a guaranteed path to full-time work.
That’s also what Bill 148 “The Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017” was about, and which Premier Ford repealed, along with cancelling the Kaplan arbitration award that opened the way for serious reform in the colleges.
In 2021, the current government will face the electorate and the “Academic Employees Collective Agreement” will expire. As an OPSEU Union steward, I can’t promise that the full-time and partial-load people will be as robust in negotiation and as courageous on the picket line as we were the last time, and I certainly cannot promise that the current government will be defeated by the voters.
Nonetheless, I can say that I am (as are all the people I know) 100% on your side and that we will do what we can to alter college governance, ensure academic freedom, and achieve the employment security we all need and deserve.
Best of luck with the new week.
Reach out to email@example.com with your thoughts on your academic labour. Current topics of conversation include online class sizes, online education (done well vs. done quickly), and the challenges that we face individually and collectively as we attempt to change the way that we teach our approximately 330,000 students. Anonymity will be strictly protected.