Saturday, April 27, 2013

Affordable Care Act Implementation Misery

This one isn't even mildly funny, for which I apologize, but it is something to be aware of (perhaps especially for those of us  in positions that are at least incrementally more secure than those of by-the-course contingents).

In a nutshell: in a number of states, colleges and universities (public, private, and even, in at least one case I've heard of, church-sponsored) are restricting the number of classes adjuncts can teach, and/or underestimating the hours involved in teaching a class to a ridiculous extent (1 hour for prep/grading/email/everything else for each hour in the classroom!?!), in order to ensure that said adjuncts' duties can not be construed as including 30 hours or more a week of work, which would make them eligible for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

Guidelines are apparently still being written (the IRS held hearings last week),  but there's a built-in Catch-22: if adjunct faculty acknowledge how hard they actually work, they will find themselves with less work (or the same amount of work spread over more schools) next fall.   In some places -- e.g. ones where many adjuncts have worked both for a state college or university and a local community college -- it may no longer be possible to put together something resembling a livable income (not that that was really possible anyway), since they'd be working more than 30 hours total for a single employer -- the state.

Short-term, the pain for people who have been (semi-) supporting themselves through adjunct work is going to be very real, and there may also be pain for those in charge of hiring adjuncts to teach sections assigned to "professor staff," and, eventually, for students who need to take the intro classes most often taught by adjuncts.  Longer-term, I wonder whether this might constitute some sort of tipping point which makes somebody (parents? students? legislators?  TT faculty? at least some administrators? adjuncts themselves?) realize we just can't go on this way.

But I'm probably being overly optimistic. I'd love to see a re-commitment of money and other resources to teaching introductory classes in ways that truly engage (and challenge) students, especially having those classes taught in small sections led by instructors with full-time salaries and benefits and review systems that don't rely solely on student evaluations, and sufficient time to work with each other to assess and update the curriculum and course materials (otherwise known as faculty governance/control of the curriculum, one of those historic values of American higher ed that seems to be getting lost).

However, judging from discussions both at my own school and on the internet, I'd guess that the preferred solution will be more introductory courses taught through large lectures delivered by a Ph.D.-holding (and decently compensated) instructor of record, with work graded, if not by a machine, then by poorly-compensated TAs and/or a new breed of adjuncts who are even more interchangeable, and hence more vulnerable (I'm not sure Jonathan Rees is correct in seeing online methods of instruction as the key threat, but he's right that the potential restructuring of higher ed employment to include a few highly-compensated superprofessors and many, many assembly-line workers is a real, and alarming, possibility).

And, as I think we're all increasingly coming to realize, when the majority of the faculty (76% of faculty appointments are non-TT, and most of those are part-time, according to the AAUP)  are vulnerable, we're all vulnerable.

12 comments:

  1. Good post, Cass.

    Charlie Rose did a related segment on this a couple days ago.

    I don't care because I farm out all my proffie duties to some smart Chinese kids each night when I go to sleep. When I wake up the next morning, all my work has already been done--and for only about $2.68. That lets me sit around drinking bourbon all day, unless I need to administer an exam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've thought about doing this with my online courses. No lie.

      Delete
    2. If your students are doing the same (a plausible possibility), everybody could save some time, and possibly money, by hiring the same stand-ins/subcontractors.

      Of course, the above is only a stopgap until we get to the point where machines grade papers that were, in turn, written by machines. I'm not sure why anyone should bother at that point, except that the collapse of the assessment/administrative industrial complex might do some harm to the economy. I'm not sure what share of the GDP it makes up, but I'm sure that share is growing.

      Delete
  2. I read the IHE article; this is no way to treat people.

    I think we'll begin to see more and more examples that will show the folly of not going all the way to a single-payer system, of expecting capitalism to "do the right thing".

    We have about ten long-term non-TT instructors at my department, and now I'm curious about what their situation is with regards to the ACA, or if it will change. I'll ask the dept head tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I asked the head, and this is where my dept. is: we have 25 full-time non-TT instructors, who get health benefits (compared to 35 TT); and only two part-time. There is no move afoot to reduce their hours due to the ACA. So at least as far as my dept is concerned, Baumfulck State hasn't stooped that low yet.

      Delete
    2. @Peter K: Those numbers are exceptional. I wonder what the turnover is. Mean number of years (and standard deviation) on both (untenured) TT and non-TT? If there are only two part-timers, then I assume there might be a few dozen TAs? And maybe some administrators or professional researchers who teach classes without showing up on the budget as proffies.

      Delete
  3. This is the very definition of piling on. Not only do you get paid crap wages, you're not getting health insurance either.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Important post that makes me feel ill.

    Cassandra asked if this could be a tipping point that makes people realize that the way we treat THE MAJORITY of college instructors must change. It could be if people cared.

    On the other hand, one prediction we don't have to worry about is this:

    "In some places -- e.g. ones where many adjuncts have worked both for a state college or university and a local community college -- it may no longer be possible to put together something resembling a livable income (not that that was really possible anyway), since they'd be working more than 30 hours total for a single employer -- the state. "

    This presumes that the adjuncts work in a state with a competent and efficient government. No worries!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, my state's government seems to be managing to police this matter (or, rather, from what I hear from colleagues, the community college is very much on top of it and my own uni is rather slow on the uptake). Then again, I've got a state government that has shown signs of wishing to be pretty intrusive in some ways lately (no, I didn't vote for the present administration).

      Delete
  5. The really funny part is that if this administration gets what it pays for---college courses taught with no homework, since they're unwilling to pay for having it graded---the students will love it, and the proffies involved will get better anonymous student evaluations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True dat. As I said above, I think they're getting perilously close to the point of endorsing minimum effort on either the students' of the proffies' parts, especially in what are aptly termed "commodity" courses. Somebody should just start selling AA degrees (oh; wait a minute; several somebodies already are).

      Delete
  6. This is exactly, exactly, exactly what I was afraid of when ACA passed. "Compromise" sucks. Single-payer that shit.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.