Report on the Summer Pay Plan
Submitted and Approved By: Promotion, Tenure, and Salary Committee
April 17, 2014
Charge: Revisit the summer pay plan after reading the 2012-13 PTS analysis and performing
your own analysis of Summer 2013. Be sure all parts of the pay plan are being followed and
make any recommendations. Consider an addition to the policy that would take into account pay
for years in which the payouts exceed revenue.
Summary of Summer Data Analysis
The committee began by taking the data from the 2012-13 PTS report and adding data from
summer 2013. As was noted in that report, it is not possible to do comparisons prior to 2012
because the funding sources for previous years data were not reflected in the 2012 and 2013 data.
However, we can compare total student credit hours between these time periods. We continue to
see an increase in total student credit hours every summer (11,250 in 2010; 13,457 in 2011;
14,179 in 2012; and 15,543 in 2013).
Some notable differences between 2012 and 2013 that are shown in the table below include:
• A decrease in the SCH (Student Contact Hours) that are unpaid, although the actual number
of courses increased.
• An increase in the percent of UG courses that are at the salary cap of 75 SCH. Several factors
could be leading to course enrollment not exceeding 75 SCH, including best practices related
to online course enrollments (according to the UW-L Online Education Handbook
enrollment should not exceed 25 students), facility limitations in classrooms, or lack of salary
increases with greater enrollment.
• A decrease in the median enrollment for UG classes that reached/exceeded the cap.
• An increase in the median enrollment for Grad classes that reached/exceeded the cap.
• A decrease in the number of Grad courses that had below cap enrollment.
• An increase in online courses taught.
2012
2013
Central Pool Student Contact
11150*
11384*
Hours (SCH)
Unpaid courses/field
Count = 117
Count = 133
experiences
Students = 180
Students = 175
4% of total SCH (446)
2% of total SCH (228)
Paid undergraduate courses
Count = 44
Count = 44
that reached/exceeded cap (75 Mean SCH = 96.8
Mean SCH = 91.1
SCH)
Median = 88.5
Median = 82.5
Range = 75 – 236 (14% were
Range = 75-226 (32% were at
at 75)
75)
39% of total SCH
35% of total SCH
Paid graduate courses that
Count = 8
Count = 5
reached/exceeded cap (45
Mean SCH = 59.9
Mean SCH = 67.4
SCH)
Median = 49
Median = 69
Range = 45-92
Range = 48-88
4% of total SCH
3% of total SCH
2012
2013
Paid undergrad courses that
had below cap enrollment**
Paid grad courses that had
below cap enrollment**
Paid field experiences
Count = 96
Count = 105
38% of total SCH
42% of total SCH
Count = 36
Count = 23
5% of total SCH
3% of total SCH
Count = 30
Count = 32
10% of total SCH
14% of total SCH
Number of online courses^
110 (~33%)
135 (~39%)
*Team-taught courses (Global management and UWL100) seem to report the SCH twice
**Grad/UG crosslisted courses are counted twice for number of courses (count)
^Obtained from Factbook of online education and the Office of Institutional Research
Discrepancies from the pay plan
We performed analyses on 2012 and 2013 data to identify summer salaries that were discrepant
from the pay plan. We discussed these findings with Bob Hoar. Those discrepancies that were
found seemed to be due to incorrect classifications in the data (e.g., a course labeled as
undergrad/grad when it is really an internship) or special cases that are worked out with the
chairs/deans. For the most part, the plan seems to be followed correctly, although it is apparently
very labor intensive to implement because of the different time points when salary is determined.
Survey Data Summary
We conducted a survey of current faculty and full-time IAS (487) to get feedback on summer
teaching and the summer pay plan (see Attachment A). The response rate for the summer portion
of the survey was 63% (309 respondents). The sample was fairly representative of all faculty and
full-time IAS in terms of college and rank (see below). Breakdown of respondents by college and rank
College
CLS
SAH
CBA
Missing
N (%)
133 (41%)
126 (39%)
41 (13%)
21 (6.5%)
Rank
Full Professor
Associate Prof.
Assistant Prof.
Other
N (%)
63 (20%)
70 (22%)
120 (37%)
5 (1.6%)
Rank
Senior Lecturer
Lecturer
Associate Lecturer
Missing
N (%)
8 (2.5%)
23 (7.2%)
12 (3.7%)
20 (6.2%)
Why are people not teaching in the summer?
Respondents who were not interested in teaching in the summer (37%) primarily gave two
reasons for not wanting to teach: 1) low compensation and 2) research/work/family
commitments. Those who wanted to teach but were not able to (17%) primarily cited low
availability of courses to teach or low student enrollment as reasons for not teaching. Of those
who wanted to teach but didn’t, 24% said the course was canceled due to low enrollment.
The vast majority (73%) of those respondents who said they were interested in teaching summer
school in 2012 or 2013 did end up teaching at least one summer term. Of those who taught
summer term, 28% taught in only one of the two summer terms. The most common reasons cited
for only teaching one term included lack of availability of a course to teach (sometimes due to
department rotations), other commitments taking precedence, low compensation, and low
enrollment.
These results suggest that there are structural limitations to increasing summer teaching.
Although the goals for the university may be to increase summer teaching, departments often
restrict the number of classes offered most likely because of concerns over enrollment.
Therefore, we can’t assume that any changes made to the summer pay plan would necessarily
increase summer offerings or enrollment.
Are faculty/IAS limiting enrollment in their summer courses?
Of those who taught in the summer, 79% reported that there was no waitlist for their course,
suggesting that, for most people, the salary cap related to enrollment is not limiting the number
of students let into the course. Of those with a waitlist, the majority noted a waitlist of about 5-10
students. However, people may not enroll additional students for many reasons, including best
practices related to online course enrollments, facility limitations in classrooms, or lack of salary
increases with greater enrollment.
How much are people getting paid and are they happy about pay?
Of those who taught a regular course in summer term, 50% said they received the maximum pay
in 2012 and 61% in 2013. Of those who taught another type of course (e.g., independent study,
internship), 54% said they received the maximum pay in 2012 and 42% in 2013.
On a 1(not at all satisfied) to 3(neutral) to 5(completely satisfied) scale, the mean satisfaction
level for summer salary is 3.0; 39% of people are satisfied, and 39% of people are not satisfied.
Summer pay satisfaction did not significantly differ depending on college. However, full
professors are more satisfied with the pay (M = 3.4) than assistants (M = 2.7) or lecturers (M =
2.4)
Do people want to modify the pay plan, and, if so, how?
Survey respondents were asked whether they had any specific complaints about the pay plan or
wanted to make any suggestions for modifying the plan. Their responses were coded and are
recorded below, ordered by frequency.
Comment
CBA
CLS
SAH
Total
Don't like enrollment based pay
2
12%
17
40%
11
24%
30
28%
More Pay (General)
5
29%
5
12%
13
28%
23
21%
Summer teaching is too much effort/too labor intensive
0
0%
8
19%
5
11%
13
12%
Better pay for special courses (internships, labs, etc.)
0
0%
4
9%
8
17%
12
11%
Pay should be based on your base salary (1/9, 10%, 2/9, etc.)
3
18%
3
7%
4
9%
10
9%
Confused about or unaware of the details of the pay plan
2
12%
2
5%
3
7%
7
7%
Too little pay off-term, should be comparable to Fall and Spring pay
1
6%
2
5%
3
7%
6
6%
Pay should be more equitable across various ranks
2
12%
2
5%
2
4%
6
6%
Set minimum pay
0
0%
3
7%
2
4%
5
5%
Make it comparable to other institutions
3
18%
0
0%
2
4%
5
5%
Pay should be equitable across various colleges
0
0%
4
9%
0
0%
4
4%
Concern with current setup forcing online classes over in-class
0
0%
4
9%
0
0%
4
4%
J-term compensation and summer pay should be the same
1
6%
3
7%
0
0%
4
4%
More advanced notice on pay amount for planning purposes
2
12%
0
0%
2
4%
4
4%
CBA
CLS
SAH
Total
Concerns over 12 month contracts
0
0%
0
0%
3
7%
3
3%
Prefer being paid based on enrollment numbers
1
6%
0
0%
2
4%
3
3%
More fair distribution of summer class assignments within departments
1
6%
1
2%
0
0%
2
2%
Pay should be set on a case-by-case individual basis
0
0%
1
2%
1
2%
2
2%
Can make more money doing other work outside of UW-L
0
0%
0
0%
2
4%
2
2%
Would rather (or needs to) work on research in summer
0
0%
0
0%
2
4%
2
2%
Allow summer to count for regular teaching load
0
0%
2
5%
0
0%
2
2%
Other (e.g., payment process, not amount; amount of regular salary)
0
0%
1
2%
1
2%
2
2%
Should be no max on pay
0
0%
0
0%
1
2%
1
1%
Further Considerations and Recommendations
Other factors that affect summer enrollment and offerings
Although the summer pay plan is one factor that affects summer offerings and enrollment, the
committee discussed many other factors that affect summer term. For example:
• Faculty and IAS have other commitments and activities in the summer (e.g., research, field
work, study abroad teaching, and family obligations) that affect whether they teach at UW-L
in the summer.
• Students participate in other activities in the summer (e.g., field work, study abroad, work)
that affect whether they enroll in summer school and in what types of classes they enroll.
• There has been an increase in demand for summer online offerings, so much so that in some
departments, if courses are not online, they do not get enough student interest. Due to the
design of online courses, best practices according to the UW-L Online Education Handbook
are that enrollment should be limited to 25 students.
• There are barriers to getting faculty to teach online courses due to the large workload that is
required to modify a class for an online platform and the limited offerings of the online
training course.
• There are facility limitations that prevent some courses from enrolling more students.
• Some departments limit course and section offerings in the summer. One reason for this may
be that summer enrollment doesn’t count toward academic year student contact hours. A
revision to this policy could potentially increase summer offerings.
• UW-L’s date of summer registration is later than some other UW-system schools (e.g., at
UW-Eau Claire and UW-Oshkosh summer registration starts in February). Moving UW-L’s
summer registration date earlier could potentially increase enrollments.
Because of these other factors that affect summer term teaching and enrollment, any change to
the pay plan itself may not necessarily increase summer offerings, enrollment, or revenue.
PTS recommendations
PTS was asked to consider an addition to the policy that would take into account pay for years in
which the payouts exceed revenue designated for salaries. The budget for summer 2012 and
2013 is still not available; therefore, it is not known the degree to which payouts might exceed
the designated revenue from the past two summers. Given this lack of budgetary information,
PTS did not know if drastic changes or only small modifications would be needed to bring
payouts in line with designated revenue. In addition, most methods for altering the plan would
essentially decrease compensation in the summer. Since satisfaction with summer pay is
currently evenly split between those who are satisfied and unsatisfied, changes that lower salary
would likely lead to the majority of faculty/IAS being unsatisfied with summer pay. Given this,
it is likely there would be little support for these changes in the absence of budget data indicating
their necessity. In addition, it is possible that this change would decrease people’s willingness to
teach in the summer and thus reduce summer offerings. For these reasons as well as those
considered above, and in consultation with the chair of Faculty Senate, PTS decided against
making specific recommendations to alter the policy. PTS internally discussed pros and cons of
several strategies for modifying the plan that can be further explored when the summer budget
data is available. However, the committee also encourages the consideration of a holistic strategy
for increasing summer offerings, enrollments, and revenue that would target some of the factors
outlined above.
Attachment A: Full Survey Results
3. Looking specifically at the last two summers (summer 2012 and summer 2013), did you have any interest in teaching in these sessions? # Answer Response % Yes, and I did teach at least one course in 1 142 46% Summer 2012 or Summer 2013 2 Yes, but unfortunately I did not end up teaching in Summer 2012 or Summer 2013 53 17% 3 No, I did not have any interest in teaching during these terms 114 37% Total 309 100% 4. Please specify the reasons that you were not interested in teaching during these summer sessions? (Please select all that apply) # Answer Response % 1 The amount of time it would take was not worth the compensation offered 57 50% 2 I have other work commitments in the summer 46 41% 3 I have other family commitments in the summer 33 29% 4 I have other travel commitments in the summer 16 14% 5 Other (please specify) 31 27% 5. Why were you ultimately unable to teach in these summer sessions? # Answer Response 1 I did not have enough student interest in the course I planned to offer for the class to make required enrollment so the course was cancelled. 5 9% 2 I did not have enough student interest in the course to make the compensation worth it so I chose to cancel the course. 8 15% 30 57% 0 0% 3 4 % My department only offers limited courses and I was not assigned a course in these sessions Another faculty member asked if they could trade with me and teach this course for this semester 5 Something unexpected came up for me personally, and I was unable to teach 4 8% 6 Other (please specify) 11 21% 6. Which semester did you teach and what type of class? (Please select all that apply) # Answer Response % Summer 2012 Regular 1 102 72% Course Summer 2012 some other form of class (internship, 3 29 21% independent study, etc. -­‐ please specify type) Summer of 2013 Regular 4 98 70% Course Summer 2013 some other form of class (internship, 6 33 23% independent study etc. -­‐ please specify type) 7. Did you have a waitlist for any of these summer classes? # Answer Response % 1 Yes (please approximate how many students were on this list) 31 21% 2 No Total 114 145 79% 100% 8. Why did you teach in Summer 2012, but not Summer 2013? (please select all that apply) # Answer Response % 1 There was not a course available in my department for me to teach in 2013 4 20% 2 There was not enough student interest for me to run a course in 2013 3 15% 3 The amount of work for the course was not worth it for the compensation received in 2013 5 25% 4 Other (please specify) 9 45% 9. Why did you teach in Summer 2013, but not Summer 2012? (please select all that apply) # Answer Response % 1 There was not a course available in my department for me to teach in 2012 5 25% 2 There was not enough student interest for me to run a course in 2012 2 10% 3 15% 10 50% 3 4 The amount of work for the course was not worth it for the compensation received in 2012 Other (please specify) 10. Did you receive the maximum compensation for your rank for teaching this summer course? # Answer Response % 1 Yes, for 2012 17 12% 2 Yes, for 2103 27 19% 3 Yes, for both 2012 and 2013 42 30% 53 38% 139 100% 4 No, not for 2012 or 2013 Total 11. How satisfied were you with the pay that you received for teaching a summer course? # Answer Response % 1 Not at all satisfied 22 16% 2 3 4 Neutral 32 31 35 23% 22% 25% 5 Completely satisfied 20 14% Total 140 100% Statistic Min Value Max Value Mean Variance Standard Deviation Total Responses Value 1 5 2.99 1.69 1.30 140 12. Were there any specific complaints that you had regarding the pay that you received for teaching in these summer sessions? # Answer Response % 1 No 78 60% 2 Yes (please specify) 51 40% Total 129 100%