A System for Reporting Faculty Instructional Effort
Report of the Task Force for the Implementation of Workload Reporting Policy
August 2005
A System for Reporting Faculty Instructional Effort
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................3
Implementation Task Force Report .........................................................................5
Appendices
Appendix 1: Implementation Task Force Membership .............................22
Appendix 2: Recent History of Activities Associated with Reporting
Faculty Instructional Activities......................................................23
Appendix 3: Describing and Reporting Faculty Instructional
Activities, Report of the Task Force on Faculty Instructional
Activities, July 2003 ......................................................................30
Appendix 4: Faculty Instructional Responsibilities: Guidelines for
Departmental Policies, Report of the Task Force on Faculty
Instructional Activities, July 2003 .................................................48
Appendix 5: Letter from Provost King appointing Implementation
Task Force Members, September 23, 2003 ...................................63
Appendix 6: Letter from President Atkinson to Chancellors,
September 9, 2002 .........................................................................68
Appendix 7: Letter from President Atkinson to Chancellors,
October 24, 2002............................................................................73
Appendix 8: Diagnostic Analysis of Department Course Data
For 2002-2003, Implementation Task Force .................................75
Appendix 9: Report from UCLA Joint Task Force on Departmental
Teaching Policies, January 2004..................................................100
Appendix 10:TIE Categories and Faculty Instructional Activity
Types ............................................................................................112
ITF Report Final
2
A System for Reporting Faculty Instructional Effort
Executive Summary
The report of the Task Force for the Implementation of Faculty Instructional Work Load
Reporting Policy which follows recommends a new approach to describing and reporting
faculty instructional workload and recommends establishing an ongoing program of
University teaching policy review. The report’s recommendations are consistent with
those of the two reports issued in July 2003 by the Task Force on Faculty Instructional
Activities chaired by Provost King. As the Implementation Task Force considered the
methods by which the recommendations of the first Task Force could be implemented, it
kept three principles articulated in the earlier reports as a central focus for its
considerations:
1. If students obtain academic credit as a result of an instructional activity, so should
the faculty who guided that activity receive instructional work load credit.
2. Academic departments (or similar units) should be the unit of accumulation of
work load credit – not individual faculty – and its corollary – not all faculty
should be expected to provide identical instructional activities.
3. While part of the reporting of faculty instructional work load should be in terms
of “classes” or “class equivalents,” additional indices of the outcome of faculty
instructional activity – such as student credit hours and numbers of degrees per
FTE – should also be regularly included as indicators of instructional activities.
The report makes three overarching recommendations:
1. UC should improve the reporting of faculty teaching by contextualizing it within
the broader perspective of educational outcomes, such as degrees awarded,
graduation rates, and average time to degree.
2. UC should convert to a new system for classifying and reporting classes, called
TIE. This system organizes classes into 18 instructional types that roll up into
three super-ordinate categories of equal importance that describe the faculty’s
instructional goals for students and that convey the faculty’s changing role as
students move from introductory classes to more independent scholarly activity as
they approach graduation. The three categories are:
•
•
•
Transmitting the Knowledge Base
Initiating Intellectual Independence
Emphasizing Independent Inquiry
The TIE system should be used as a systemwide methodology for categorizing
faculty instructional activities and should serve as the basis for reporting classes
and student credit hours in documents such as the annual report to the legislature.
ITF Report Final
3
We recommend that this system be implemented across all campuses of the
University in addition to whatever other reporting systems that the individual
campuses might wish to maintain for other purposes, such as classroom utilization
reporting. Considerable work went into the development of this system and it has
been pilot tested with participation from each of the campuses. We believe that
the system is workable and while the TIE system itself represents a modification
of the system originally proposed by the previous Task Force, that it does meet
the goal envisioned in the first set of reports, namely ensuring that UC adopts a
new reporting method that more fully conveys the complex nature and the full
range of faculty teaching responsibilities and outputs.
We also propose a system for calculating and reporting class equivalents. This
additional feature of the TIE system is needed because a substantial amount of the
instructional activities of the faculty (mainly the types of instruction that fall into
the “E” category of the TIE system) does not fall into activities that in commonlanguage terms are usually associated with the term “classes.” These forms of
instruction, which are often thought of as individualized instructional activities,
are the crowning accomplishment of instruction in a
research/scholarship/performance -based university and are as time and energy
consuming as any other form of instruction. In order to allow this type of
instruction to fit into a reporting system that must also include more traditional
classroom-based instruction the concept of “class equivalents” was seen as
essential to any reporting mechanism that would reflect those things that faculty
do to provide the highest quality education to our students across the full
spectrum of our educational mission – undergraduate and graduate, physical and
natural sciences, the arts and humanities, the social science and engineering,
education and professional.
3. UC should establish an ongoing program of disciplinary teaching policy review
and reporting that includes comparisons with peer institutions and internal review
at the campus level. This section of the report is consistent with the
recommendations made in the initial report of the parent committee and,
essentially, calls for the implementation of those recommendations without
substantial change in form or content. The recommendations include roles for the
Provost in reviewing and overseeing the delegations to each campus related to to
faculty instructional workload and practice; the Executive Vice Chancellors with
regard to reviewing and approving workload policy statements and monitoring
workload practices on the campuses; the Academic Senate in reviewing the
assignment of courses to one of the TIE instructional types; and the Office of the
President in gathering comparative data from other universities as well as UC
campuses, and in reporting to both internal and external audiences on faculty
instructional activities in the manner suggested in our report.
ITF Report Final
4
A System for Reporting Faculty Instructional Effort
Introduction
For the past two-and-a-half years, two successive task forces and supporting staff have
been working on a new approach to the University of California’s management and
reporting of faculty instructional activities.1 While this review was immediately
occasioned by the findings of an audit conducted by the Bureau of State Audits (BSA)2,
interest in and concern about faculty instructional activity is not new. For many years,
legislators in Sacramento have been asking whether the University’s faculty are giving
adequate attention to the teaching mission, particularly with regard to undergraduates,
and our faculty themselves have asked how completely their activities are reported and if
their responsibilities compare equitably across our campuses and with the practices of
other comparable research universities
Over the years, UC has employed several different reporting approaches, ranging from
extensive data systems, to annual faculty surveys, to descriptions of comparable
universities’ policies, with mixed results. The questions from Sacramento have ebbed
and flowed but never abated, and concerns expressed by our faculty about the inability of
any of these approaches to describe fully what they do have also persisted.
The original Instructional Activity Task Force, appointed in Fall 2002, and our
subsequent Implementation Task Force both firmly believe that it is UC’s obligation to
develop meaningful instructional activities policies and to manage the faculty assignment
process with care. We also know that it is essential to present data about faculty
instructional activities in a manner that exhibits full and open accountability, provides a
comprehensive picture of efforts and outputs, and will have meaning to legislators and
UC faculty alike. These are not simple tasks.
We are, however, convinced that the new approach recommended by the original Task
Force and refined by our work will indeed better represent what faculty do and students
experience and will improve campus oversight. This report explains how we believe that
should happen. Inherent in our recommendations are two primary goals:
•
•
to ensure that the University of California adopts a new reporting methodology
that more fully conveys the complex nature and the full range of faculty teaching
responsibilities and outputs, and
to ensure that the University of California lives up to earlier commitments made
to the State for improved policy oversight and additional undergraduate teaching
by regular-rank faculty.
1
Appendix 2 provides overviews of the history of reporting faculty instructional activity, the 2001-02
Bureau of State Audits (BSA) report and the University’s response, the work of the Task Force on
Instructional Activities, and the work stages of the Implementation Task Force (ITF).
2
University of California: Its Partnership Agreement Could Be Improved to Increase Its Accountability for
State Funding, Report of the Bureau of State Audits, July 2002
ITF Report Final
5
Accomplishing these goals will require commitment from the Provost and Senior Vice
President, and from each campus Executive Vice Chancellor to make this sometimes
controversial, sometimes tedious work an ongoing priority for academic administrators,
for the faculty, and for the staff involved. We want to stress that attention to it is
essential if the University of California is to assure State officials that our faculty are
allocating their time appropriately and that instructional workload is in line with practices
at other comparable universities.
Rationale for the Implementation Task Force’s recommendations
It is no wonder that the issue of faculty workload remains an issue of state concern. The
recent Bureau of State Audits review of faculty teaching that focused on “primary
classes” identified some reporting errors, and questioned small classes and relatively light
undergraduate teaching relative to graduate teaching. The audit illustrated that the
system that we now use does not capture faculty teaching effort effectively, nor does it
enable UC leaders to explain effectively faculty instructional responsibilities to California
policymakers.
The reporting system utilized by the University of California for the last decade has
created a primary focus that fails to portray the full range of regular-rank faculty
teaching. While this system does report both “primary classes3” and “independent study
enrollments”, State and University leaders have focused only on the number of primary
classes—4.8 per regular-rank faculty FTE in 2002-03. By setting aside independent
study, a key element of faculty teaching was ignored, and the primary metric
underestimates the actual faculty commitment to instruction.
The most recently reported workload statistic of 4.8 primary classes is not representative
of faculty instructional effort. We recommend that UC adopt a new system that
incorporates all teaching activity, including independent study, and merges it into a
single, meaningful measure that represents the full extent of teaching involvement. We
recognize that classes-per-faculty must remain a key measure due to legislative interest.
However, we recommend that UC report a classes-per-faculty figure that incorporates a
measure for independent study. Moreover, classes-per-faculty should be presented and
discussed within the context of the number of degrees awarded, which is a metric that can
be benchmarked with our comparison institutions. Degrees are a major teaching output
of the University and a primary goal of faculty teaching. Only by presenting a
comprehensive picture, can we adequately reflect total faculty instructional activity. It is
the hope of the Implementation Task Force that the UC administration will adopt and the
Academic Senate will support the new reporting system and oversight approach we
recommend later in this report.
3
A primary class is defined as a regularly-scheduled, unit-bearing offering of a course, usually known as a
lecture or seminar.
ITF Report Final
6
Basic Underlying Principles
During Task Force discussions, the following basic principles, most of which were
articulated in the earlier reports of the Task Force on Faculty Instructional Activities
(IATF), were central to our deliberations and recommendations.
1. UC’s system for reporting faculty instructional activity must, to the fullest extent
possible, emphasize the total activity—not just primary classes—of the regular
rank faculty. (It should also represent the efforts of the entire instructional force of
the institution, but we leave that aspect of reporting to UCOP discretion).
2. If a student at any level receives academic credit for an activity, the faculty should
receive credit for having provided the instruction and/or supervision.
3. Multiple indices of educational outcomes and instructional activity are required to
reflect the complexity of instruction at UC and to fully inform the faculty,
administration, and the public.
4. Care should be taken to make UC reporting meaningful to the multiple external
and internal audiences to whom it is presented.
5. The University as whole should be the unit of measure for external purposes.
6. At each campus, the Executive Vice Chancellor should be responsible for
monitoring and approving instructional workload policies. Primary responsibility
should be delegated to academic departments to ensure that a high quality
instructional program, consistent with the standards of the discipline, is available
to students so they may complete the requirements of the major in an appropriate
time period.
7. Department policies must be explicit about normal assigned course loads, general
responsibilities for individualized instruction, course reassignments, and other
aspects of mounting the teaching program.
8. Collective responsibility is essential; and individual variation is valued as a means
of mounting the best possible teaching and research programs. For this reason, the
department, as opposed to the individual faculty member, is the unit for
accumulation of instruction workload credit.
9. New policies and reporting mechanisms must be consistent with the fundamental
tenets of shared governance. While the reporting of faculty instructional work
load is essentially an administrative matter, the faculty has complete control over
the curriculum. The essential faculty role, through the Academic Senate, must be
sustained.
10. Campus systems should be sufficiently robust to handle multiple reporting
approaches: a) to credit individual faculty with all of their teaching whether it
occurs within their home department or in another unit and b) to report all
department/program teaching, even when taught by faculty from other units.
ITF Report Final
7
Recommendations
A. We recommend that UC improve the reporting of faculty teaching by
contextualizing it within the broader perspective of educational outcomes.
The Implementation Task Force is in full agreement with the Instructional Activities Task
Force (IATF) that it is essential to report UC teaching metrics only in the context of the
outcome of that teaching. This includes, most especially, the annual report to the
Legislature and the discussions of the results in Sacramento. The IATF explained this as
follows:
In discussion and reports about faculty instructional activities, there is a tendency
to emphasize process measures—the number of classes taught or the number of
students enrolled. But to be meaningful, any discussion of faculty instructional
effort must begin with clear measures of the outcomes of that effort. If the
intention is for dollars invested to produce meaningful and valuable results, then
evidence of those results should be presented and carefully assessed.4
The Implementation Task Force endorses the IATF recommendation for displaying
educational outcomes to contextualize teaching statistics. In Exhibit 1 we recommend a
specific display format that incorporates the three essential outcome metrics, all
representing aspects of the University of California’s public accountability and all
dependent upon faculty teaching, the effectiveness of the curriculum, and the efficiency
of its delivery:
•
•
•
Degrees awarded
Graduation rates
Average time to degree
4
Describing and Reporting Faculty Instructional Activities, Report of the Task Force on Faculty
Instructional Activities, University of California, July 2003 p. 8. See Appendix 3.
ITF Report Final
8
Exhibit 1
Degrees Awarded Per Regular-Rank Faculty FTE
2002-03
Masters/
Bachelor's
Degrees
Professional
Degrees
Ph.D
Degrees
All
Degrees
1.7
3.5
2.6
2.0
0.5
0.3
4.9
5.9
4.5
1.1**
0.3
6.0
Comparisons
4 Private Universities*
4 Public Universities*
University of California
*Stanford, Yale, MIT, Harvard, Illinois, SUNY-Buffalo, Virginia, Michigan
**The relatively small number of masters/professional degrees at UC is due
in part to California’s differentiated system of higher education. Many masters
degrees in professional fields, such as business and education are given by
CSU. In other states the research university has this responsibility.
Average Time to Degree for UC Undergraduates
Quarters to
Graduation
13.0
13.0
12.9
Freshmen
Entering in
Fall 1994
Fall 1995
Fall 1996
Berkeley’s semesters have been converted to quarters in this calculation.
Percent of Undergraduates Graduating
from Comparable Universities within Six Years
(Entered as freshmen in 1996)
Comparisons
28 Public AAU Universities
68%
4 Public Comparison Universities* 78%
University of California
*Illinois, Michigan, Virginia, SUNY-Buffalo
ITF Report Final
9
76%
B. We recommend that UC convert to a new system for classifying and reporting
classes, called TIE.
We recommend that a modified version of the IATF’s “Total Instructional Effort” (TIE)
system be adopted. In the four sub-sections that follow, we explain the three TIE
categories, indicate the underlying taxonomy, discuss our recommended reporting
approach, and compare TIE to the current UC methodology.
B.1 Description of the TIE Categories
Within the context of the educational outcomes discussed above, TIE would be used
internally and externally to explain and quantify the various forms of instruction in a
research university. We recommend using TIE to organize classes into three categories of
equal importance that describe the faculty’s instructional goals for students and that
convey the faculty’s changing role as students move from introductory classes to more
independent scholarly activity as they approach graduation. TIE recognizes that UC
faculty members design curricula that include a rich diversity of course types and a
mixture of large and small classes, ensuring that students receive necessary individual
attention and a broad exposure to research techniques and experiences. We begin by
describing the three equal TIE categories of teaching:
•
•
•
Transmitting the Knowledge Base: In this type of course, faculty provide
instruction that is designed to transmit the knowledge base, skills, methodologies,
analytical approaches and techniques associated with a discipline or field, ranging
from the basic to the advanced level. The course content is developed by the
faculty, and organized on the basis of a syllabus or plan developed in advance of
the beginning of the course. In courses of this type, there may be a great deal of
interaction between the instructor and the student (in the form of class discussion,
office meetings, email communication, etc.) but the basic feature of the course is
that there is a fixed body of knowledge that is to be transmitted by the instructor
and mastered by the student.
Initiating Intellectual Independence: In this type of course, faculty develop
students’ abilities to pursue creative/professional/scholarly work as required by
the discipline or field. Participation provides experience with the methodologies
of the discipline or field and requires prior acquisition of the relevant knowledge
base and skills. Instruction, both content and pedagogy, is more experiential in
nature and tailored to the needs and interests of the particular students. It may
involve small groups or teams of students working on faculty-assigned
projects/tasks under the direct supervision of the faculty. These courses are
designed to enhance students’ problem solving abilities, critical analysis
capabilities, and individual creativity to enable them to apply their knowledge to
complex problems, issues and techniques.
Emphasizing Independent Inquiry: In this type of course, faculty guide, mentor,
and monitor advanced students who are undertaking independent
creative/professional/scholarly work, generally as a culmination to their degree
ITF Report Final
10
program. Students’ participation requires that they have gained a mastery of the
area they choose to pursue. These are one-on-one (or very small) group
experiences with intensive interaction between the faculty member and the
student. Students play an active role in defining the topic to be studied or the
project to be undertaken, including the approach to the inquiry. Courses in this
category usually meet on an ad hoc basis in a location convenient to both the
student and the faculty member.
These three TIE categories represent the different goals of instruction that UC faculty set,
in common with faculty at other research universities, and that are essential to produce
graduates at the baccalaureate, masters, and doctoral levels. Using undergraduate
education in Political Science at UCLA as an exemplar, the photographs and descriptions
on the next page illustrate how instructional responsibilities of the faculty vary and how
they are suited to students’ learning needs and development.
ITF Report Final
11
ITF Report Final
12
B.2 Description of TIE’s Underlying Instructional Type Taxonomy
Classifying nearly 70,000 UC classes into the TIE categories is based upon a taxonomy
of 18 instructional types. The distinctions among these categories require going beyond
former classification approaches to understand what kind of teaching and learning
experience is taking place. Seminars, for example, are no longer a single category; we
classify seminars depending upon whether the central goal of the class is to transmit
knowledge, or to initiate educational independence -- two of the core principles inherent
in the three TIE categories.
Pilot testing showed that, despite such distinctions, individual classes may have
characteristics of more than one of the three TIE categories. This is particularly true in
graduate courses, which may simultaneously prepare students for intellectual
independence even as they allow those students to begin independent inquiry. We also
found that many senior project classes contain both information transmittal and
mentoring aspects. In all such cases, classification will be based upon the class’s central
or primary objectives. It is also important to note that students of all levels, lower
division undergraduates through advanced doctoral students, will take a mix of courses
throughout their time at the University. Finally, there is no a priori relationship between
the category in which a course type appears and the number of students enrolled,
although it is likely that most large classes are designed to transmit the knowledge base.
We show below how the 18 instructional types are aggregated into each TIE category;
definitions of each of the 18 types may be found in Appendix 10.
Transmitting the Knowledge Base
Fieldwork—Skills/Techniques
Laboratory—Skills/Technique
Lecture
Lecture plus Supplementary Activity
Seminar—Topical
Studio—Technique
Initiating Intellectual Independence
Fieldwork—Research
Internship
Laboratory—Research
Legal/Medical Clerkship
Practicum
Practicum—Teaching
Project
Seminar—Research/Creative Development
Studio—Production/Performance
Tutorial
ITF Report Final
13
Emphasizing Independent Inquiry
Conference
Individualized Instruction
ITF members believe that the assignment of courses is best done at the lowest possible
level – usually the department level. For already-existing courses, a one-time coding of
all approved courses should be undertaken by the departments with the guidance of the
institutional research office and the registrar. The institutional research offices have been
highly involved in the piloting of the TIE approach and have the technical knowledge of
how the process works and areas in which difficult decisions occur. For new courses,
assignment of TIE categories should be thought of as part of the course approval
processes with the requirement that all new courses have a designation of one of the 18
categories. On each campus the Academic Senate Division should play an active role
through periodic review of the process.
B.3 Format and Approach for Using TIE for Legislative and Other External
Reports
In Table 1 we present the format that UC should use for reporting classes-per-faculty
information to the Legislature and in other situations when such data are requested. This
table shows the distribution of classes and student credit hours across the TIE categories,
taught by regular-rank faculty in 2002-03, along with the per- regular-rank-FTE measures
for each TIE category.
Table 1: TIE Methodology (Initial Test)
2002-03
Number of
Classes or
Class
Equivalents*
Classes Per
Regular
Rank FTE
Number of
Student
Credit Hours
(SCH)
SCH per
Regular
Rank FTE
T-Classes: Transmitting the Knowledge Base
22,258
3.8
3,616,723
614.8
I-Classes: Initiating Intellectual Independence
17,221
2.9
313,852
53.3
E-Classes: Emphasizing Independent Inquiry
___15,487___
___2.6___
__281,869__
___47.9___
54,966
9.3
4,212,444
716.0
Total
Note: Number of Regular Rank Faculty FTE = 5,883
* E-Classes only –see next page for discussion of “class equivalents”
We agree with the IATF that, in addition to contextualizing information about
educational outcomes as discussed in Recommendation A, parallel data about SCH5
should always accompany class data. Because classes have varying characteristics (size,
meeting times, preparation responsibilities, out-of-class contact, etc.), including a second
measure along with the number of classes taught provides a more complete picture of
5
Student Credit Hours (SCH) represent the multiple of unit credit in a class times the number of students in
that class summed over all classes. SCH are the basis upon which UC receives state funding.
ITF Report Final
14
faculty work that will enrich public understanding and assure faculty that UC is
communicating a more accurate picture of how they educate students.
The IATF recommended that class enrollments also be included. At this time, however,
we are not certain this would add useful information beyond the concepts inherent in
SCH data. The UC Office of the President will gather number of classes, SCH, and
enrollment data from the campuses. We ask that UCOP make the final decision about
whether or not enrollment data is necessary to paint a complete picture of faculty
instructional workload.
As indicated in Table 1, an additional step is required to report E-Classes (Emphasizing
Independent Inquiry) in this manner, primarily due to the nature of doctoral education. At
the later stages of study, doctoral students spend considerable time with faculty in a
variety of one-on-one relationships, such as supervised individual research/creative work,
collaborative work, and preparation for the dissertation. These interactions are
intertwined and not conducive to detailed record keeping, and current practices vary
across campuses and even among similar departments within campuses. While one
department may try to capture each student’s interactions in differentiated classes of
perhaps four units each, another will lump them all together and show only one course
with eight-to-twelve units. The number of SCH awarded for the totality of the interaction,
therefore, tends to be more consistent and is more representative of faculty effort than is
the number of class enrollments or the number of classes itself. If one does count classes
as now recorded on the campuses, these current practices result in 5.0 E-Classes per
regular rank FTE.
We spent many hours considering the meaning of this figure and reviewing various
options for overcoming this consistency problem. We wanted to avoid possible future
fluctuations if enrollment practices change, and we wanted a metric for class-equivalents
that could be justified in relationship to other classes (T and I) where there is greater
consistency of reporting and content. In the end, we recommend that E-Class-equivalents
be derived from the SCH output of those faculty/student interactions based upon average
SCH in I-Classes, which also tend to be small and individualized. We believe that this
approach will present a reasonable and justifiable picture of the significant time and
commitment of UC’s faculty to this demanding type of education.
The calculation of E-Class equivalents reported in Table 1 is shown below using data
from that table. The average number of SCH in I-Classes is 18.2. We convert E-Classes
to E-Class equivalents by dividing the number of SCH in E-Classes by the average SCH
per I-Class.
To get the number of E-Class equivalents per FTE, we divide the number of E-Class
equivalents by the number of FTE (5883). The result is 2.6 E-Class Equivalents per
regular-rank FTE, which UC would report in lieu of the 5.0 E-Classes per Regular Rank
FTE that results from the current inconsistent registration process.
ITF Report Final
15
Calculating E-Class Equivalents
A
B
C=A/B
D
E=D/C
F=E/5883
(FTE)
# SCH in I-Classes
# I Classes
SCH per I-Class
313,852
17,221
18.2
SCH in E-Classes
# E Class Equivalents
# of E-Class Equivalents per Regular-Rank
FTE
281,869
15,487
2.6
B.4 Comparing TIE to the Current UC Methodology
Table 2 displays the 2002-03 results from the current accounting system that reports
Primary Classes and Independent Study Enrollments. Primary Classes are defined as
regularly-scheduled, unit-bearing course offerings, of which lectures and seminars are
common examples. Independent Study includes all other instructional activities for
which students receive credit toward their degrees and that meet on an as-needed basis
convenient to the faculty member and the student. Independent Study Enrollments are
presented separately; i.e., their values are not included in the metric “classes per regularrank FTE.” Thus, when 4.8 classes per faculty FTE becomes a focus of discussion, it is
missing a significant component of UC faculty effort.
Table 2: Current Methodology:
“Primary Classes” and “Independent Study Enrollments”
2002-03
Primary Classes
Independent Study Enrollments
Total Classes
Number of
Classes
28,123
28,123
Classes Per
Regular Rank
FTE
4.8
NA
4.8
Number of
Student Credit
Hours (SCH)
3,787,385
432,206
4,219,591
SCH per FTE
643.8
73.5
717.3*
Note: Number of Regular Rank Faculty FTE = 5,883
*717.3 is the UC official SCH per FTE: the slight difference between this number and the test results in Table 1 (716.0) are
due to technical issues that will be eliminated when TIE is officially implemented.
The TIE classification framework is not based on the concept of regularly scheduled vs.
ad hoc meetings. Rather, it is based on the predominant nature of the instruction. Thus,
using TIE required moving from two course groupings to three and led to some shifts:
• While most Primary Classes were classified as T-Classes, others moved into the I
category based upon their pedagogical goals. Examples include research seminars
that center on individual student projects.
• Some Independent Study classes were classified as I-Classes, based on their
pedagogical goals and no longer bound by the formal schedule criterion.
Examples include TA practica that were not pre-scheduled because of the need to
accommodate all of the TA’s schedules.
ITF Report Final
16
There were a small number of other adjustments, but they were de minimus. The drawing
below illustrates the basic relationship.
T-Classes
Primary
Classes
I-Classes
Independent
Study
E-Classes
Thus the 4.8 Primary Classes per Regular Rank FTE can be understood as the sum of 3.8
T-Classes plus a subset of I-Classes.
Estimating the Relationship of TIE Classes and “Primary Classes”
While we believe strongly that faculty instructional activity should be reported using the
TIE method, we recognize that during the transition between using the current and the
proposed method (TIE) some people will be interested in seeing how the numbers of
classes in the TIE method relate to the numbers of “primary classes” resulting from the
current method. Table 3 below combines T-Classes, and I-Classes with enrollments
greater than 2 to estimate of the number of TIE classes that are similar to the current
method’s “primary classes.” As stated above, we estimate that most of the T-Classes
were formerly “primary classes.” The I-Classes are composed of both Primary Classes
and some Independent Study. For this exercise, we assume that any I-Class with 1 or 2
students would in the past have been reported as Independent Study, so we subtracted
those from the total number of I-Classes. Combining the number of T-Classes and IClasses with enrollments of three or more student, yields an estimated 5.0 classes per
regular-rank FTE, demonstrating congruence with the current methodology that yields
4.8 primary classes per regular-rank FTE.
ITF Report Final
17
Table 3.
Estimating the Number of “Primary Classes” from TIE
2002-03
Estimate of “Primary
Classes”
Classes
Per
Regular
Rank
FTE
All T-Classes
22,258
3.8
I-Classes with enrollments > 2
7,273
1.2
29,531
5
Estimate of “Primary Classes”
Note: Number of Regular Rank Faculty FTE =
5,883
C. We recommend that UC establish an ongoing program of disciplinary teaching
policy review and reporting that includes comparisons with peer institutions and
internal review at the campus level.
This recommendation addresses one of our two primary goals: “to ensure that the
University of California lives up to earlier commitments made to the State for improved
policy oversight and additional undergraduate teaching by ladder faculty.” The
University’s commitments to the state in this arena were set forth in letters from former
President Atkinson (Appendices 6 and 7) containing delegations to the Chancellors and
Executive Vice Chancellors.
One aspect of this oversight deserves discussion: UC’s ability to obtain valid and
comparable data on teaching loads and practices at peer institutions. We spent a
considerable amount of time seeking sources and approaches for this purpose. We found
only one research university that publishes such data and their data reporting system is
inconsistent with UC’s approach. Committee members also interviewed colleagues at
other institutions, and these conversations generally confirmed the policy ranges for
broad disciplines that UC has cited in its annual report on teaching activity for several
years. While these policy numbers do not make it possible to make precise comparisons
to UC reported class counts, they do enable meaningful reflection and discussion about
the similarity of UC teaching loads to our competition. But there is no mechanism for
assurance that the definition of a course at another institution is the same as a UC course,
and no institution was willing to share its actual ladder faculty teaching load by
discipline. As a result, UC will have to continue to express the teaching policies of our
peers in ranges, with explanations of the variations that necessarily flow from differences
in curricula, term length (e.g., semesters vs. quarters), the balance of undergraduate and
graduate enrollment, etc. Thus, we conclude that in practice it is impossible to collect
more detailed, consistent, and documented information on classes-taught-per-faculty at
other institutions. This finding is a factor in the recommendations that follow.
ITF Report Final
18
Based upon earlier UC directives, the recommendations of the IATF, and our
conversations and investigations, we make the following recommendations:
1. The Provost should
a. Review and oversee the delegations to each campus Chancellor and Executive
Vice Chancellor related to faculty instructional workload policy and practice.
The essential elements are described below as recommendations for the
Executive Vice Chancellors.
b. Propose a policy for assigning TIE designations. This policy shall be brought
to the Academic Senate in academic year 2005-06 for consultation, and a final
policy should be put in place by July 1, 2006.
2. The Executive Vice Chancellors should be asked to continue taking responsibility
for:
a. Reviewing and approving existing instructional workload policy statements
(and all changes). Departments should be expected to review their written
policy in detail to be certain that it is a complete statement of instructional
workload policies, including comparisons with peer institutions (as collected
by the Office of the President and supplemented by department efforts),
undergraduate teaching responsibilities, and course release and buyout
practices. Our committee considered UCLA guidelines (Appendix….), and we
commend them as a model that may assist other UC campuses.
b.
Providing updated policies to the Provost and Senior Vice President for
Academic Affairs on an as-requested basis. We recommend that this be done
on a biennial basis instead of annually.
c. Comparing the formal workload policies of the units with actual data to:
•
Ensure that actual teaching conforms to department policy, (after
allowance for research buyouts, course reassignments, normal year-toyear variations for special circumstances, and alternate-year courses,
etc.).
•
Assess the degree to which the policies and practice seem to be consistent
across similar disciplines within the campus6.
6
While the ITF recommends that the Office of the President develop comparative data by
discipline for UC and comparable institutions, we also note that data at the specific departmental
level should be used with great care. Such data can be useful in facilitating a conversation with a
department about its success in meeting workload goals, but because of the differences in the way
courses in the curriculum are structured and delivered, particularly with regard to how lectures,
laboratories, and discussion sections are combined and the number of classes and units associated
with each action, workload statistics across departments and campuses are not necessarily directly
comparable. The department-level data should not be published or routinely shared among
ITF Report Final
19
d.
•
Ensure that stated course loads are comparable to course loads in that field
as practiced at the other UC campuses and that they are generally
consistent with stated policy loads at comparison institutions (data to be
provided through the Office of the President, as outlined below).
•
The EVC and relevant dean should work with any unit that is below
comparison institutions or has not specified teaching loads completely to
make appropriate modifications to their instructional workload
statements and practices.
Providing the required level of undergraduate instruction, appropriately
distributed among classes taught by regular rank faculty and classes taught by
other instructors.
e. Ensuring that each campus has an explicit written policy about the
circumstances under which faculty may and may not have departmental
expectations about their instructional activities reduced. This should include a
listing of administrative positions and Academic Senate responsibilities for
which reductions are allowed and a reiteration of the University’s policy on
modified duties for accommodating child-rearing responsibilities (APM 76028). In addition, each campus should have a clear written policy about the
extent to which reduced teaching obligations for a limited period may be a
subject of negotiation in recruitments. Each campus’s policy should be
submitted to the Provost and Senior Vice President – Academic Affairs for
review. All actual release time should be reported to the Executive Vice
Chancellor.
3. The Academic Senate should review this system for reporting faculty instructional
effort by reviewing the assignment process and its consequences on a periodic
basis. In addition, the Senate should have on-going participation in the
assignment process, usually through the course approval process.
4. The Office of the President should be responsible for:
a. Gathering comparative data on teaching policies at UC comparison
institutions and at all UC campuses. In consultation with the Council of Vice
Chancellors, UCOP should develop a plan for reviewing at least five
disciplines each year on a rolling basis designed to cover all UC disciplines
over time.
campuses unless they are part of documents and processes that contain explanatory information
for each department about how faculty efforts are deployed. See Appendix 9: Diagnostic Analysis
of Department Course Data form 2002-03, Implementation Task Force
ITF Report Final
20
b. Gathering actual teaching data for those disciplines from each UC campus.
These data should be used to ensure that i) UC policies are consistent and
competitive with our peer institutions and ii) campus use of the TIE system is
consistent and robust in order to ensure effective reporting of faculty teaching
to the Legislature. Results should be used to advise the Provost/ Senior Vice
President about issues warranting systemwide attention and should be
distributed to the EVCs for use in evaluating department policy and practice.
c. Gathering TIE data and reporting it to the Legislature in the manner
suggested.
d. Conducting a full comparison of TIE and the current UC methodology in the
first year of reporting under the new approach. This will provide UC and
campus leadership with the ability to explain the new TIE methodology to the
Academic Senate, individual faculty, and the Legislature and demonstrate its
meaning and how it presents an improved image of faculty instructional
activities and outcomes.
ITF Report Final
21
APPENDIX 1
Membership of Task Force for the
Implementation of Faculty Instructional Work Load Reporting Policy
Lisa Alvarez-Cohen, UCEP Chair (2003-04), Professor, Civil/Environmental Engineering,
Berkeley
Mark Appelbaum (Task Force Chair), Associate Vice Chancellor, Undergraduate Education,
Professor of Psychology, San Diego
George Blumenthal, Academic Council Vice Chair (2003-04), Academic Council Chair (200405), Professor of Astronomy & Astrophysics, Santa Cruz
George Brown, Vice Provost Academic Affairs, Professor of Physics, Santa Cruz
Robert Heath, Interim Director Office of Undergraduate Education, Professor of Plant
Physiology & Biophysics, Riverside
Herbert Killackey, Associate Executive Vice Chancellor, Professor of Neurobiology &
Behavior, Irvine
Joseph Kiskis, UCEP Chair (2004-05), Professor of Physics, Davis
Catherine Koshland, Vice Provost, Academic Planning & Facilities, Professor of Public Health
(May 2004 – present), Berkeley
Gene Lucas, Executive Vice Chancellor, Professor of Chemical Engineering, Santa Barbara
Paula Lutomirski, Associate Vice Chancellor, Los Angeles
Nancy Tanaka, Executive Director of Academic Affairs, Merced
Patricia Turner, Interim Dean, Humanities, Arts & Cultural Studies; Vice Provost
Undergraduate Studies; Professor of American Studies/African American/African Studies, Davis
William Webster, Vice Provost, Academic Planning & Facilities, Professor,
Civil/Environmental Engineering, Berkeley (September 2003-April 2004)
Staff:
Robert Daly, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Academic Planning and Budget, Riverside
Paul Eykamp, Coordinator Long-Range Enrollment Analysis and Database Development, Office of the President
Linda Guerra, Acting Assistant Vice President, Academic Strategic Planning and Analysis, Office of the President
Anne Machung, Coordinator Comparative Data Analysis, Academic Affairs, Office of the President
Sandra Smith, Assistant Vice President Planning and Analysis, Academic Affairs, Office of the President
Caroline West, Director Analysis and Information Management, Los Angeles
Other advisers:
Lawrence Hershman, Vice President, Budget, Office of the President
Jerry Kissler, Assistant Vice President, Budgetary Planning and Fiscal Analysis, Budget Office, Office of
the President
Debora Obley, Assistant Vice President, Budget Development and External Relations, Budget Office,
Office of the President
22
APPENDIX 2
University of California
Recent History of Activities Associated with
Reporting Faculty Instructional Activities
The 2001-02 BSA Audit
On September 12, 2001 the Joint Legislative Audit Committee authorized the Bureau of State
Audits (BSA) to conduct a comprehensive audit of the University’s performance under the
Partnership Agreement with the Governor. This marked a new chapter in the University of
California’s focus on the reporting of faculty instructional activities. In the sections that
follow, we describe the current reporting methodology, the BSA audit, and the University’s
response, including two UC-wide task forces that were central to that response. We draw
upon the excellent report of the first task force to document this history.
UC’s Current Reporting Methodology
The University’s current approach to public reporting of faculty instructional activities was
put in place in the early 1990’s when the state experienced serious budget difficulties that
resulted in budget cuts to many state-supported institutions and agencies, including UC. The
formal vehicle for this is the University’s annual report to the Legislature, Undergraduate
Instruction and Faculty Teaching Activities. The following description of that report was
included in the July 2003 report of the Task Force on Faculty Instructional Activities (IATF):
The legislative report was designed to inform legislators about University activities to
improve the undergraduate academic experience and to address concerns about
teaching. Part I of that report described ways the campuses sustained excellence in
undergraduate education and presented examples of innovative programs. Part II
responded to 1992 Supplemental Budget Language expressing the Legislature’s intent
that UC faculty members increase their average instruction responsibilities by one
additional class over a three-year period, and asking the University to report annually
on the average teaching activity of regular-rank faculty. That section of the report has
indicated that over time the ratio of primary classes taught per regular-rank faculty
member ranged from 4.5 in 1990-91 to a high of 5.0 in 1996-97 through 1998-99.
That ratio in 1999-00 was 4.9. Part III of the University’s annual report responded to
the 1985 Supplemental Language asking the University to report annually on its
instructional activities policies for full-time tenure track faculty and on the policies at
its salary comparison institutions.1
In its 2000-01 four-year Partnership Agreement with Governor Davis, the University
committed to continue to maintain the increase in faculty teaching that resulted from the
1
Describing and Reporting Faculty Instructional Activities, Report of the Task Force on Faculty Instructional
Activities, University of California, July 2003, p. 1
Historical Appendix Final
23
efforts of the early 1990’s, that is, maintaining a ratio of at least 4.8 primary classes per
regular-rank faculty member.2 Furthermore, the current Higher Education Compact, an
agreement between Governor Schwarzenegger, the University of California, and the
California State University, includes a statement that UC will provide to the Governor,
Secretary of Education, the fiscal committees of the Legislature, the Legislative Analyst’s
Office and the Department of Finance an annual report that includes information on faculty
instructional activities per FTE. The annual report to the Legislature remains an essential
communication of the University’s good faith in responding to contemporary commitments to
the state. The most recent report was submitted to the Legislature in August 2001, providing
data on academic year 1999-00, which was the base for the BSA report. Subsequent reports
have not been provided due to the work that is described here.
The Nature of the Audit and the University’s Response
The BSA was instructed to analyze the University’s annual Undergraduate Instruction and
Faculty Teaching Activities report and present conclusions on any trends that the BSA
identified. The report of the Task Force on Faculty Instructional Activities (IATF) (Appendix
3) provides a summary of the Audit activities.
As a consequence of their analysis, the BSA included among its recommendations the
following: UC should:
o Clarify the definitions of primary classes and independent study in the instructions
that UCOP sends to the campuses.
o Ensure that the campuses consistently interpret the definitions of primary class and
independent study by periodically reviewing the campuses’ data for accuracy and
consistency.
o Review more closely the existing classifications of classes and make corrections
where appropriate. This review should include, but not be limited to, primary classes
with low enrollments.
o Report workload statistics for non-regular rank faculty, as well as the regular rank
FTE.
As part of the audit process, the University had the opportunity to comment on the findings,
prior to the public release of the audit report. President Atkinson’s July 15, 2002 letter of
response to the BSA is incorporated in the official audit report. In that letter, the President
reaffirmed the University’s commitment to achieving the goals for instructional activities
stated by the Legislature in Supplemental Language and by the Governor in the Partnership
Agreement. President Atkinson indicated that the University would examine the lowenrollment classes (those identified as having one to two students) and would remove from
the reported count any that should not be defined as classes, categorizing them properly as
independent study, if that is what they are. He also indicated that the University would
2
A primary class was defined as a regularly-scheduled, unit-bearing offering of a course, usually known as a
lecture or seminar. Regular-rank faculty FTE includes only those available to teach, that is, not on sabbatical or
other leave.
24
include information about the teaching activities of non-regular-rank faculty in future
instructional activities reports.
September 9, 2002 and October 24, 2002 letters from President Atkinson to the chancellors
included directives to the Chancellors and Executive Vice Chancellors, still in effect, that
require campuses to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Maintain a file of each department’s instructional activities policies.
Routinely submit a copy of each department’s current policy to the Provost and Senior
Vice President – Academic Affairs.
Review and approve all department policies and any future changes in them, and
report those changes to the Provost and Senior Vice President – Academic Affairs.
Annually review, by department, reported instructional activities and determine the
appropriateness of any discrepancy between the effort reported and the policy that
pertains to that department.
Review the campus’s recent experience with average class size and, if appropriate,
take steps to reverse increases in class size.
Develop or review campus policy with regard to instructional release time, submit the
policy to the Provost and Senior Vice President – Academic Affairs for review, and
implement it.
Require that departments must, to justify each new faculty position, submit for the
Deans’ and EVC’s review, an analysis of the value of that position not only for
research, but also for meeting instructional needs.
Continuing UCOP responsibility for oversight of these activities is inherent in these
directives.
The Task Force on Instructional Activities (IATF)
In November 2002, in consultation with the Academic Council Chair, President Atkinson
appointed a Task Force on Faculty Instructional Activities, chaired by former Provost King, to
examine the adequacy and equity of instructional responsibilities in the University and to
reconsider the ways we define faculty instructional activities and describe them both publicly
and to our faculty. The Task Force completed its work in July 2003 and produced two
reports:
•
Describing and Reporting Faculty Instructional Activities, which suggested a new
approach to reporting faculty teaching activities in a way that reflects the special
features of a research university experience for our students and the different modes of
teaching in which our faculty are engaged. The new approach was called TIE (Total
Instructional Effort), and it articulated three forms of faculty instruction: FacultyDesigned Instruction, Faculty-Supervised Group Instruction, and Faculty-Supervised
Tutorial Instruction.
•
Faculty Instructional Responsibilities: Guidelines for Departmental Policies, which
placed the locus of responsibility for teaching activities clearly on the department as a
25
collective whole and recommended new processes to monitor comparability of efforts
within disciplines and strengthen oversight.
The Chancellors and the Academic Senate reviewed and commented on the reports. There
was support, in principle, for the TIE approach to reporting faculty teaching activity, with
concomitant recommendations that the definitions for the proposed reporting categories be
clarified, and that there be recognition that the new reporting framework would involve
considerable work by faculty and staff to implement.
The Implementation Task Force (ITF)
In September 2003, Provost King appointed the Implementation Task Force (ITF) to advise
him and the Executive Vice Chancellors about the best ways to implement or respond to the
IATF’s recommendations, address comments received from the Academic Senate and the
campus administrations, and provide oversight for the development and practical assessment
of the proposed approach. Having asked his staff to work with campus colleagues to see how
the Task Force’s definitions of teaching activity could be operationalized, he asked the
Implementation Task Force to review the categorization effort and to work with the campuses
to resolve any issues that arose during the review. The ITF had eight in-person meetings,
between during 2003-04 and 2004-05. Subgroups also met, and members consulted by
telephone and email.
The ITF’s work was threefold:
1. Refining the IATF’s proposed course accounting system for describing and reporting
faculty instructional activity. During Summer 2003, prior to the first meeting of the
ITF, the University’s Institutional Research Directors were asked to pilot test the
proposed TIE course accounting system. Five campus IR directors met with five or
six academic departments on their respective campuses to discuss the TIE
classification proposal and to attempt to assign each of the department’s courses to one
of the three categories: Faculty-Designed Instruction, Faculty-Supervised Group
Instruction, and Faculty-Supervised Tutorial Instruction3. This work showed that the
category definitions did not provide sufficient guidelines to departments. Also, faculty
and administrative reactions to the category descriptors were negative, because faculty
members consider all courses to be faculty-designed. The conclusion was that the ITF
would need to revise the definitions so that they were clear, consistent,
comprehensive, and would explicitly capture the types of courses that faculty
members had difficulty classifying during the pilot, as well as eliminate the distinction
between faculty-designed and faculty-supervised.
As a result, the ITF, together with the campus Directors of Institutional Research and
staff in the Provost’s Office, refined the proposed accounting system, and developed a
3
The disciplines were: Chemistry and Biochemistry, Studio Art, Electrical Engineering, Political Science,
Psychology, and a discipline-of-choice with a large amount of field work (i.e., Psychology and Social Behavior,
Earth Sciences, Social Welfare, Anthropology, and Geological Science.)
26
new UC taxonomy of 18 Faculty Instructional Activity types and a framework for
placing those instructional types in three equal categories of courses that capture the
instructional goals for the UC students who are enrolled. (See Appendix 10 for a
complete description.) The new system was also to be called TIE and to refer to Total
Instructional Effort. Now, however, category titles were adopted that represented each
letter of the acronym and the primary pedagogical purpose of each group of courses:
•
•
•
Transmitting the Knowledge Base
Initiating Intellectual Independence
Emphasizing Independent Inquiry
In February 2004, Provost King asked the Executive Vice Chancellors to test this
proposal. Each campus asked its departments to classify all General Campus courses
into the proposed instruction types, and the Institutional Research offices identified the
classes in each type that were offered in 2002-03, using both the old (primary and
independent study) and the new (18 instructional activity types) reporting frameworks.
After data were submitted to UCOP in April 2004, UCOP staff compiled the system
data into each of the 18 types and used the ITF’s guidelines for placing the each of the
18 types into the appropriate TIE category.
Review of the results during spring 2004 resulted in general satisfaction that, while not
perfect, the system yielded credible class counts and distributions by instructional
activity type as well as type of instructor (e.g., regular rank vs. Unit 18) that were
consistent with faculty experience. It was also possible to compare the results of the
old and new methods. While the new method gives a great deal more information
about the ways in which the curriculum is delivered, the two methods yield overall
summary results that are comparable and can be explained to external audiences. They
will be useful for reporting statistics for the UC system to external constituents.
During summer 2004 the ITF asked its staff to examine a few departments in some
detail to ascertain whether the data indicate that course types were properly coded
according to the activity type definitions and consistently coded across departments
and campuses. An extensive analysis of data from Physics was conducted, followed
by reviews of Anthropology, Chinese, French and Music. The exercise underscored
that while the courses may be accurately categorized according to the 18 course types,
there are differences in the way courses in the curriculum are structured and delivered,
particularly with regard to how lectures, laboratories, and discussion sections are
combined and the number of classes and units associated with each action. Workload
statistics across departments and campuses are not necessarily directly comparable.
The ITF itself has recommended that the Office of the President should develop
comparative data by discipline for UC and comparable institutions. Given the results
of this diagnostic exercise, however, the ITF’s conclusion was that data at the specific
departmental level should be used with great care. Such data can be useful in
facilitating a conversation with a department about its success in meeting workload
goals, but the department-level data should not be published or routinely shared
27
among campuses unless they are part of documents and processes that contain
explanatory information for each department about how faculty efforts are deployed.
2. Reviewing the IATF’s findings with regard to UC’s comparability with other
universities in faculty instructional effort. During the course of its work, the IATF
conducted 140 interviews of faculty and department chairs to gather as much
information as possible about expected instructional responsibilities at UC and its
comparison institutions. That work, described in their July 2003 report,4 underscored
the difficulty in obtaining good data about teaching activity at other universities.
Overall, however, the information they were able to collect was consistent enough,
across departments and campuses, to lead them to the conclusion that, at a policy level
the number of classes UC faculty are expected to teach on average is similar to the
number expected of faculty at comparable research universities.
To supplement the work of the IATF, the ITF asked staff to gather additional data for
five departments: Mechanical Engineering, Philosophy, Physics, Business &
Management, and Theater/Drama. Staff completed 69 interviews with department
chairs at UC and comparison institutions (Stanford, Yale, MIT, Harvard,
Northwestern, University of Chicago, University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign,
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, SUNY-Buffalo, and University of Virginia-Main
Campus). Results were consistent with the findings of the IATF. Combined results
from both IATF and ITF interviews are shown below.
4
Faculty Instructional Responsibilities: Guidelines for Departmental Policies, Report of the Task Force on
Faculty Instructional Activities, University of California, July 2003, pp. 4-9
28
Faculty Instructional Expectations
Stated by Department Chairs
At the University of California and Comparable Universities1
2003-04
Avg. Number of Classes per Academic
Year at UC Campuses on
Avg. Number of Classes per Academic
Year at Comparable Campuses on
Semester System
Semester System
Quarter System
Quarter System
Social Sciences
3-4
4-5
3-4
4
Humanities and
Arts
4
4-5
4
4
Biological and
Physical Sciences
2
3
2
2-3
Engineering
3
4
3
2-3
1
Stanford, Yale, MIT, Harvard, Northwestern, University of Chicago, University of IllinoisUrbana-Champaign, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, SUNY-Buffalo, and University of
Virginia-Main Campus
3. Considering issues associated with campus oversight of departmental teaching
policies. The ITF carefully considered the recommendations made by the Task Force
on Faculty Instructional Activity, as well as the University’s commitments to the state
regarding faculty instructional activity that were set forth in letters from former
President Atkinson (September 9, 2002 and October 24, 2002).
ITF members also considered carefully the conceptual and practical relationships
between using the TIE system to categorize and count classes at the campus level, and
instructional workload statements developed and managed at the department level.
The ITF concluded that TIE is a reporting system, not a set of guidelines either for
setting the curriculum or managing teaching activity. Finally, the ITF considered
issues associated with developing guidelines for use by departments in establishing
their policies for instructional workload, course release, and administrative and
research buyout. After careful deliberations, the ITF members agreed that, while
department policies must be explicit about normal assigned course loads, general
responsibilities for individualized instruction, course release, and other aspects of
mounting the teaching program, campuses must have the autonomy to develop campus
guidelines for departments that are appropriate for each campus. The ITF members
agree that the campus guidelines created by the UCLA Joint Task Force on
Departmental Teaching Policies might serve as a useful model for other campuses.
(See Appendix 9)
The Implementation Task Force’s recommendations can be found in the body of this report.
29