Here's an ethical dilemma for you all.
Normally I am 100% on the side of the workers, but some aspects of this particular situation give me pause.
We have a job category at my uni which is basically "long-term non-tenure-track" — these positions seem to have different names at different places. It's not as well paid as tenure-track, but a lot better paid than the adjunct level. There are three ranks, much like tenure-track. The difference is that there is no research or service requirement for the role; it is 100% teaching. They teach a three-course/semester load and are not supposed to teach elsewhere.
So we have five or so people on this track, and one of them is (say) Esmerelda Smyth. Esmerelda is coming up for promotion to the highest rank of the three.
But here's the thing: Esmerelda is also teaching multiple courses per semester at our local community college. I know this because my daughter is enrolled at the community college and by chance picked one of Esmerelda's classes. The class was online, so I was able to observe the layout, assignments, etc. It was a mess. Esmerelda would change the due dates for the assignments at the last minute without warning (you'd look on the LMS and suddenly the assignment would be due a day earlier), the readings did not match up with the page numbers in the textbook (they would say things like "Pages 6-20" where these started and stopped at random points in two different chapters, probably left over from a prior edition), some assignments were listed as on the LMS but were not there, she did not answer email about the changes in dates or the page numbers or the missing assignments. And daughter got no written feedback or even grades — none — the whole semester. After the semester ended, suddenly a whole lot of grades appeared for assignments, and a course grade. But there were no interim grades, no chance to know how she had done before it was too late. Never one word of feedback.
I hesitantly brought this up to some members of my own department, in advance of our promotion vote. The responses were along the lines of "Well, when you overwork people, you can't expect them to do a superb job" and "When you don't pay people enough, you can't expect them to take only one job." I get all that. But at the same time, it was a miserable course, and not the kind of course I'm happy to offer to our students.
Our course evaluations are so cursory that they are unlikely to reveal this. And the people I brought this up to in my department are pointedly dismissive.
What would you do in these circumstances?
I should add that Esmerelda is prickly and I don't think would be at all receptive to my trying to talk to her directly.
I dont think it is fair to evaluate them based on work at a different college. They may be slacking in that role if it is an adjunct situation and be doing a much better job where you are. All you shoudl really work from is the information from your college.
As for them not teaching at another institution, is this in their contract? If so, it seems like a reasonable thing to bring up but if it is just an unspoken rule it is not a rule at all.
Quite aside from the teaching quality, does the mere fact that she is teaching elsewhere violate the terms of her contract? Here, that would not be allowed without permission of the dean. You can argue about whether those rules are just, but they are intended to make sure exactly this doesn't happen, with someone spreading themselves too thin.
What's the dilemma? What option do you have?
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 20, 2022, 02:03:01 PM
I dont think it is fair to evaluate them based on work at a different college.
Totally this: you absolutely cannot base the decision on anyone's experiences elsewhere,
especially not your daughter's. In fact, that your daughter is taking a class with her raises a huge conflict of interest for you.
QuoteAs for them not teaching at another institution, is this in their contract? If so, it seems like a reasonable thing to bring up but if it is just an unspoken rule it is not a rule at all.
Totally this, too.
There is no dilemma.
deleted
You could call up the community college dept chair and complain about the shitty job they are doing at providing a college education to students.
QuoteI hesitantly brought this up to some members of my own department, in advance of our promotion vote. The responses were along the lines of "Well, when you overwork people, you can't expect them to do a superb job" and "When you don't pay people enough, you can't expect them to take only one job." I get all that. But at the same time, it was a miserable course, and not the kind of course I'm happy to offer to our students.
Some of the tenured people
want the adjunct appointment to go badly for the school. It's just the lay of the land. They resent hiring off the tenure track. That's why they make excuses. Esmerelda, if she's been around the block a few times, knows this.
ETA: Does that mean the CC could afford to hire only tenure track faculty? Who cares. Not our problem.
I see nauseating aspects right and left. You don't want to hear more. Cheers.
IF this is a typical promotion decision, the candidate will create a package. Your job is to evaluate the package. IF the candidate omits pertinent information from your institution, that is a problem. IF the candidate includes information from the CC, then evaluate it. You can not evaluate what is not in (or supposed to be in) the package.
As for their outside employment, that is another matter. IF you can document that there is indeed such a prohibition, question the appropriate dean. IF they dont get back to you, there may be another way to prompt action. (We have a Fraud Hotline, so if candidate was prohibited from teaching other places, &/or the dean was informed and ignored this information, either or both of these would be items that could be reported to the hotline.)
So the only 'ethical dilemma' I see is whether you report the contractual violation to the dean or provost &/or the fraud hotline.
As to the quality of the CC course, that is independent of your current employment and as an other helicopter parent, you can and probably should report your concerns about the poor quality to the CC dean, but dont include your affiliation with any other university... in this case you are only a parent.
Yes, it is in the contract that they should not be working elsewhere.
If everything were going well, I would turn a blind eye to happening to know that she is working elsewhere. But the other thing I now know is that she's a poor teacher — I suspect from trying to work two full-time jobs simultaneously. However, I sympathize with the conditions that make working two full-time jobs necessary or appealing. But I also have a duty to our students, and if the volume of work means that the teacher teaches badly, that's a problem. Hence the dilemma.
Quote from: Hegemony on January 20, 2022, 07:51:47 PM
Yes, it is in the contract that they should not be working elsewhere.
If everything were going well, I would turn a blind eye to happening to know that she is working elsewhere. But the other thing I now know is that she's a poor teacher — I suspect from trying to work two full-time jobs simultaneously. However, I sympathize with the conditions that make working two full-time jobs necessary or appealing. But I also have a duty to our students, and if the volume of work means that the teacher teaches badly, that's a problem. Hence the dilemma.
There is no dilemma. If the person is a bad teacher one doesn't want her to teach. No matter where she has been a bad teacher.
If a person is a bad electrician, one would not want him to fix the central heating in winter, and especially if he has blown up the neighbor's heating. And you learned about the blow-up from your daughter. Even if he is working two jobs.
A university president once said to a group I happened to be in:
This is a university, not a charity.
One of the problems is that the promotion files do not reveal any of this — they're just a teaching statement and some syllabi. You can't tell if the assignment dates get shifted, if the page numbers are wrong, or if she gives no feedback and doesn't grade any of the assignments till the end of term. Who knows, maybe at our university she's more diligent. Impossible to tell.
Really the only demonstrable thing is that she is breaking the rules of the contract by teaching full-time elsewhere. I hate blowing the whistle on this, as (as I say) I know conditions are such that many people feel the need to do this. And my colleagues have said that they don't care. So I guess it would take me raising an almighty fuss at some level of higher administration. That feels so egregious that I'm inclined just to let the promotion happen. But I do have misgivings: it's bad for our students. So we circle back to having a dilemma.
Quote from: dismalist on January 20, 2022, 08:08:50 PM
Quote from: Hegemony on January 20, 2022, 07:51:47 PM
Yes, it is in the contract that they should not be working elsewhere.
If everything were going well, I would turn a blind eye to happening to know that she is working elsewhere. But the other thing I now know is that she's a poor teacher — I suspect from trying to work two full-time jobs simultaneously. However, I sympathize with the conditions that make working two full-time jobs necessary or appealing. But I also have a duty to our students, and if the volume of work means that the teacher teaches badly, that's a problem. Hence the dilemma.
There is no dilemma. If the person is a bad teacher one doesn't want her to teach. No matter where she has been a bad teacher.
If a person is a bad electrician, one would not want him to fix the central heating in winter, and especially if he has blown up the neighbor's heating. And you learned about the blow-up from your daughter. Even if he is working two jobs.
A university president once said to a group I happened to be in: This is a university, not a charity.
But you only have a second hand account about their performance elsewhere. You should not base your promotion decision based on hearsay. Your college has the means and a process to evaluate their performance. Perhaps it is flawed, but that is a separate issue. Basing your evaluation on a parent's second hand report of their performance at a different place of work would set a horrible precedent, even if you are that parent.
It seems that the real issue here is the evaluation methods being used for assessment and that it seems you are limiting people from external work without providing them enough work/income. These are the issues you should raise. This individual case is just the logical outcome of your process and likely runs deeper than this single case
Quote from: Hegemony on January 20, 2022, 10:05:28 PM
Really the only demonstrable thing is that she is breaking the rules of the contract by teaching full-time elsewhere. I hate blowing the whistle on this, as (as I say) I know conditions are such that many people feel the need to do this.
Unless in similar situations, when you have known someone was working elsewhere and yet you said nothing, then you are perfectly justified in pointing this out.
What you think of the working conditions is a separate matter that should be addressed separately if you feel strongly about it. Having rules that are routinely broken because they are unreasonable is not good for any organization.
This person's performance as your daughter's instructor is also an issue that should be dealt with separately if you feel strongly about it. Contact the employer
there to raise those concerns.
You don't really have
an ethical dilemma; you have
three different issues that you feel need to be somehow treated as one integrated problem.
From my perspective, evaluation for promotion should be based on work done at your institution. For someone who is being evaluated mostly based on their teaching duties (as you describe this person as full time NTT, with no service or research obligations), I would assume that their teaching has been scrutinized by colleagues attending their courses, looking through the course material (lecture notes, homework assignments, example student work), verifying that the grade distribution is typical for the level of class being taught, and reviewing the individual's statement about teaching philosophy/methods. Anything less than this is malpractice from the evaluators (i.e., you and your colleagues).
Regarding breaking the contract by teaching elsewhere: this is reportable to the appropriate administrator. You will need evidence other than "she taught my daughter's class at the CC." The other institution should have a list of instructors associated with their classes. If she is teaching there, it should be public record, and you can provide that as evidence.
It seems that part of the issue is that you feel your own school has low standards and people don't care about poor teaching, Hegemony. So you are a bit of a lone voice trying to make a difference and the issue is whether to persist with that or give up.
QuoteReally the only demonstrable thing is that she is breaking the rules of the contract by teaching full-time elsewhere.
If a person has time to hold two full time jobs simultaneously, they're not full time jobs. One, or both, employers is calling a part-time workload full time employment.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 21, 2022, 04:04:24 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on January 20, 2022, 10:05:28 PM
Really the only demonstrable thing is that she is breaking the rules of the contract by teaching full-time elsewhere. I hate blowing the whistle on this, as (as I say) I know conditions are such that many people feel the need to do this.
Unless in similar situations, when you have known someone was working elsewhere and yet you said nothing, then you are perfectly justified in pointing this out.
What you think of the working conditions is a separate matter that should be addressed separately if you feel strongly about it. Having rules that are routinely broken because they are unreasonable is not good for any organization.
This person's performance as your daughter's instructor is also an issue that should be dealt with separately if you feel strongly about it. Contact the employer there to raise those concerns.
You don't really have an ethical dilemma; you have three different issues that you feel need to be somehow treated as one integrated problem.
It does seem like there are multiple issues here, which call for different responses. Marshwiggle and clean give good advice on how to handle them.
Quote from: downer on January 21, 2022, 05:53:23 AM
It seems that part of the issue is that you feel your own school has low standards and people don't care about poor teaching, Hegemony. So you are a bit of a lone voice trying to make a difference and the issue is whether to persist with that or give up.
This is the thing that stood out to me. From what you wrote I sensed that your issue isn't really with the potential contract violation of teaching at another place. Which I get - we have some nebulous rules about that here and folks often teach one class at a neighboring institution for all kinds of reasons. It seems that your issue is more that you want students to be taught effectively. The Esmerelda situation is not the problem but rather evidence of the problem. Perhaps the best place to put your energies is on supporting any efforts at your place to ensure that teaching is high quality and to strengthen assessment and standards for promotion?
Quote from: Hegemony on January 20, 2022, 07:51:47 PM
Yes, it is in the contract that they should not be working elsewhere.
But the other thing I now know is that she's a poor teacher
You don't really know that. First of all, I'd be careful about making holistic judgements based on any class over the last two years. Most of us had to adapt to new formats and lots of unpredictably at a time when things were not working normally. You have no idea what might be going on in this person's life. She might be a perfectly competent teacher who just got completely overwhelmed. What you're describing sounds pretty extreme, but over the last few semesters I haven't done a great job getting grades back to students quickly and have had a harder time keeping everything organized. I also would suspect that if that happened she would prioritize the classes at your institution where she has a contract and gets paid more so you really can't assume the things you describe are true of her classes at your institution.
I agree about arbutus' point about oversight. At a minimum, I hope there have been class observations and reports. That's really important not just for the protection of the institution and the department, but for the the teacher. If my chair gets some complaint about me from a disgruntled student claiming that I'm an awful instructor, he can go look at a series of positive reports from colleagues who observed my classes over the years.
All that said, teaching other places may well be an issue. I'd have a hard time imagining it isn't having an effect on her performance. I'll say that as an adjunct who would very much like to have a position like this person has, I find what she's doing unethical and objectionable. I teach regularly somewhere, but they can't tell me that I can't teach other classes elsewhere. It's up to me to manage my workload, they pay me by the course. The argument for creating contract positions is that you actually can expect the person to be committed to teaching only at your institution and not splitting her time and attention with online community college classes for extra money.
If she's not willing to abide by those rules, there are plenty of people who would be happy to have a contract and only have to teach three courses at one place.
Quote from: arcturus on January 21, 2022, 05:06:04 AM
I would assume that their teaching has been scrutinized by colleagues attending their courses, looking through the course material (lecture notes, homework assignments, example student work), verifying that the grade distribution is typical for the level of class being taught, and reviewing the individual's statement about teaching philosophy/methods. Anything less than this is malpractice from the evaluators (i.e., you and your colleagues).
Yeah, none of this is part of the evaluation. It depends solely on what the instructor says about herself. She provides a teaching statement and some syllabi, and that's all the information/documentation we get.
I guess the solution is just to let it go. I know, I could advocate for more thorough teaching evaluation, etc. Believe me, empires have risen and fallen as people form committees to debate about how to evaluate teaching around here. Every extra comma demanded takes ten years of committee work to make happen.
And just to clarify, my daughter lives at home and was taking Esmerelda's course online, so she showed me the lack of any grades till the course had closed; I heard her tearing her hair out about the changed assignments, advised her to send emails for clarification, heard in real time the lack of clarifying emails before the assignments closed (and indeed after the assignments closed), etc. I could well observe the experience from the student's point of view. Of course Esmerelda might be ignoring the community college students and treating our own students responsibly. There's no way to tell from the materials we require for the evaluation. Every piece of evidence I happen to have says that Esmerelda is a poor teacher, but it's true I have limited information. And the promotion rests on Esmerelda saying whether she's great or not, and she says she is, so that's that.
Quote from: Hegemony on January 21, 2022, 10:21:11 AM
There's no way to tell from the materials we require for the evaluation. Every piece of evidence I happen to have says that Esmerelda is a poor teacher, but it's true I have limited information. And the promotion rests on Esmerelda saying whether she's great or not, and she says she is, so that's that.
Given that this is the way the process is set up, it's highly unlikely anything you could say would matter anyway. If the institution really wanted evidence of teaching quality, the process would have some way of getting it in some sort of objective manner.
I have found that you need to pick your battles very carefully in order not to lose all motivation.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 21, 2022, 04:04:24 AM
Having rules that are routinely broken because they are unreasonable is not good for any organization.
But it's common, because higher ed is mendacious, duplicitous in their labor relations/hiring practices. For years I signed contracts that stated explicitly that I, as a part timer, was required to concurrently hold a full time job elsewhere. Which I never did, and only one adjunct in our department did, for a limited time. And they had to know I could not have held a full time job plus the schedule I kept at that school.
As long as schools are hiring people on part time contracts and denying they do it to avoid paying benefits there will be the dual culture of the published rules versus the de facto rules. It's not a healthy world.
It may be different in Canada.
Quote from: downer on January 21, 2022, 11:11:09 AM
I have found that you need to pick your battles very carefully in order not to lose all motivation.
Building on this...given that this evaluation process does not appear to include actual evaluation...what are the positive and negative consequences of Esmerelda being promoted? I can see on the negative side that it provides a bad example for more junior people to follow, but that is of no consequence since they also will not be evaluated on their teaching skills. Also on the negative side is rewarding someone for a poorly done job, but this falls into "life isn't fair" territory. On the positive side, Esmerelda may get a pay raise, which may mean that she won't need to take a side job to make ends meet in the future. Also on the positive side, since you say that this promotion would be to the highest available level, you will not need to go through the farce of "evaluating" her for further promotion opportunities. On the neutral side, it sounds like her job has never been in jeopardy, so good teacher or no, promotion or no, she will still be teaching in your department. On these grounds, I would not do anything to rock the boat regarding the promotion. I might still report the violation of contract to an administrator, though.
Quote from: arcturus on January 21, 2022, 11:25:23 AM
Quote from: downer on January 21, 2022, 11:11:09 AM
I have found that you need to pick your battles very carefully in order not to lose all motivation.
Building on this...given that this evaluation process does not appear to include actual evaluation...what are the positive and negative consequences of Esmerelda being promoted? I can see on the negative side that it provides a bad example for more junior people to follow, but that is of no consequence since they also will not be evaluated on their teaching skills. Also on the negative side is rewarding someone for a poorly done job, but this falls into "life isn't fair" territory. On the positive side, Esmerelda may get a pay raise, which may mean that she won't need to take a side job to make ends meet in the future. Also on the positive side, since you say that this promotion would be to the highest available level, you will not need to go through the farce of "evaluating" her for further promotion opportunities. On the neutral side, it sounds like her job has never been in jeopardy, so good teacher or no, promotion or no, she will still be teaching in your department. On these grounds, I would not do anything to rock the boat regarding the promotion. I might still report the violation of contract to an administrator, though.
Life is not fair (unless, maybe you're a Hindu who will get the right deal in the next life) because there is nothing, no one who metes out fairness running the show. But that's different from when people whose job it is to ensure a square deal for the student give up trying. Of course, as I posted five minutes ago, the culture may well have had seriously compromised ethics before Hegemony came along.
I agree that there seems to be an inconsistency in calling out the lecturer for violating your university's restriction on working elsewhere while also wanting to use negative information about the lecturer's teaching at the CC that is not part of your university's evaluation process. If you expect the lecturer to follow your university's rules, you should too and use only the information that's included in the official evaluation process.
The dilemma seems to be whether you should bother to report the apparent violation. If your colleagues don't care, it's unlikely to have any good effect.
Discussion seems to be mainly about self-interest, nothing more.
Seems we are at an equilibrium in which no one can be made better off without somebody getting worse off. Thus, no one has an incentive to do anything different.
Source of the problem is that the extant rules are terrible.
The only ethical consideration is the question to follow self-interest and go along or not.
That's not a dilemma.
Quote from: Anon1787 on January 21, 2022, 02:46:25 PM
I agree that there seems to be an inconsistency in calling out the lecturer for violating your university's restriction on working elsewhere while also wanting to use negative information about the lecturer's teaching at the CC that is not part of your university's evaluation process. If you expect the lecturer to follow your university's rules, you should too and use only the information that's included in the official evaluation process.
To be clear, I've never had any intention of reporting the community college performance of the instructor. I just factor that into the question I ask myself: "This instructor is holding two full-time jobs simultaneously, which is against our rules. But does what I know of her suggest that she's teaching well enough that this should be disregarded? No, what I know suggests that her teaching is poor; she's probably teaching too much to give any course adequate attention. If I had any say in the situation, I'd look into this more fully and do something about it."
But I have little say, and according to most Forumites, should stay well out of it.
The way that this would effect your problem is that IF she is spread too thin, then the student evaluations at YOUR place may well be lower than they should be and THAT is the door to bring out that she is teaching at the CC in violation of the university's contractual provision.
IF there is any evidence of poor performance at YOUR place, then you can press that in an attempt to derail or delay her promotion.
Quote from: clean on January 21, 2022, 04:25:46 PM
The way that this would effect your problem is that IF she is spread too thin, then the student evaluations at YOUR place may well be lower than they should be and THAT is the door to bring out that she is teaching at the CC in violation of the university's contractual provision.
IF there is any evidence of poor performance at YOUR place, then you can press that in an attempt to derail or delay her promotion.
Although this brings out the problems with the evaluation process. Student evals, in isolation, are a pretty crummy way to judge teaching. I'm an adjunct and even I get observed once a year by someone who also looks at the syllabus, comes to my class and writes up a little report. It isn't exactly a rigorous evaluation, but at least somebody is making sure my classes meet minimum standards. The process at your place not only might allow bad teachers to hang around, but it also could leave people on contracts vulnerable to disgruntled students making false claims.
Deleted.
Quote from: Hegemony on January 21, 2022, 03:52:04 PM
"This instructor is holding two full-time jobs simultaneously, which is against our rules. But does what I know of her suggest that she's teaching well enough that this should be disregarded? "
This is what concerns me. The rule is only seen as a tool to be used to punish someone for some
other transgression. This is how all kinds of stupid rules get created in the first place; the thing that is the real issue is hard to evaluate, so some sort of proxy gets created which is easier to prove and
sounds legitimate.
Either the rule about teaching at more than one place is good or it isn't; using it arbitrarily is unfair and dishonest.
Maybe you should pass this info on to a dean to decide what to do about the apparent contract violation, but do not let it affect your assessment of the promotion packet.