The Pissed Off Professor

Last time on “Lest We Forget Teaching Is a Business,” I filled you in on the basics of teachers’ unions and the fact that the workload among the disciplines isn’t equal. I also explained that my current concern was over my job, and not the other issues I have with adjunct representation within the union. I left you hanging regarding the consequences, so let’s get to the next installment:

Because the union refuses to take a stand for any individual departments, the results are a scrambling within the disciplines to increase the number of units certain classes are worth. This is nothing more than a smoke-filled slight-of-hand trick.

If a class is currently a 3-unit course and it becomes a 4-unit course, three things happen: first, the full-time faculty can teach fewer classes to fulfill their contractual obligations; second, the students pay more for the same class; third, well, that’s my issue, and I’ll get to that, but first, a bit more in the way of explanation.

When I was a Sac City Student (mid-1980s), most math classes were 3-unit courses, but before I was done, they had been upgraded to 4-unit classes. The explanation I was given was that math classes met more often or for longer periods of time than other disciplines. (Apparently, under certain circumstances, differences can be assessed without a complete breakdown in the system.)

This was only an issue for me because of the fee increase, but it wasn’t much more than a blip in terms of my greater educational picture.

What I didn’t know until after I began teaching at Sac City was that the increase of units in the math department set off all kinds of internal issues in other departments. The English department pointed out that the work done in the classroom by math teachers (e.g. feedback, examples, and corrections) was the same work being done outside the classroom by its instructors.

Remember, in most disciplines there is a right answer, and only one best way to get there; however, in a composition course, the number of right answers is a multiple of the number of students sitting in a classroom, and the best ways to get to that answer are infinite.

For example, a math teacher needs to help her class get through the following problem:

X = 4 (12-3)

The problem has to be solved like this:

X = 4 (9)

X = 36

No matter how you slice it, the mathematical order of operations requires the equation within the parentheses be completed prior to the external multiplication. There is no other way to do this and arrive at the right answer—period.

Now, let’s take an equally easy English “problem”:

X = I cooked dinner + I made the dessert

Here we have two complete sentences a student needs to combine in order to vary his sentence structure.

X = I cooked the dinner, and I made the dessert.

X = I cooked the dinner, so I made the dessert.

X = I cooked the dinner after I made the dessert.

X = After I made the dessert, I cooked the dinner.

X = I cooked the dinner before I made the dessert.

X = Before I made the dessert, I cooked the dinner.

I could go on for hours with this, and it’s only a simple sentence. Now consider that while math deals with numbers and operators, English deals with words, punctuation, and ideas. An English teacher simply cannot put a writing “problem” on the board and show the class how to solve it because there are few concrete answers to be had.

Theoretically, I think most English composition classes should be 4-unit courses: the work students and instructors do outside of the classroom dictate as much.

Here’s that third problem: if the average English class is upgraded to a 4-unit course, I will not be able to continue teaching. The reason is the union’s position regarding adjunct faculty members. We are prevented from teaching more than 15 units per calendar year. Currently, that means an adjunct with my level of seniority can count on at least two classes per semester (6 units) and often has the opportunity to take on a third course (9 units) in alternating semesters.

If composition courses are bumped up to 4-units, instructors like myself will have to settle for even less money or hope to teach more courses to make up the difference.

Instead of my teaching 2 sections of English Writing 300 (6 units and 1 prep), I’d have to take an English Writing 300 course (4 units and 1 prep) and couple that with a lab class (2 units and 1 prep). With the 4-unit average, getting 9 units becomes nearly impossible, unless I am willing to teach 4 classes (3+2+2+2 units and 2-4 preps).

This change is going to happen; it’s only a matter of time.

The one silver lining I can find on this otherwise gray black cloud is that unlike the math department (which is staffed almost exclusively by full time faculty members), the English department full-time-to-adjunct faculty ratio is roughly 1-to-4. This semester, there are 44 sections of English Writing 300, and only 3 full-time faculty members are teaching this course.

English Writing 300 will be the first class to go to 4-units because of the workload: the very reason only 3 of the full-time faculty members want to teach it.

I have been involved in several department meetings regarding this issue, and as the only adjunct present and/or willing to speak, I have been verbally assaulted by more than one full-time faculty member as not understanding because I am an adjunct.

I hope they get what they want, but they’d better be careful what they wish for. If the union doesn’t make changes to the number of units an adjunct is allowed to teach, there are going to be an awful lot of 4-unit English classrooms filled with students, but there won’t be enough contractually eligible instructors to teach in them.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 21st, 2007 at 10:38 am and is filed under Classification, College, Education, English, Teaching, Writing. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.