Ethical Dilemma

[arcturus]

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.

[downer]

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.

[mahagonny]

Really 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.

[apl68]

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.

[Istiblennius]

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?

[Caracal]

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.

[Hegemony]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

[downer]

I have found that you need to pick your battles very carefully in order not to lose all motivation.

[mahagonny]

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.

[arcturus]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.

[Anon1787]

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.

[dismalist]

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.

[Hegemony]

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.