Back See this section in context: SVCC and HLC

2002 Criterion 2

Evidence that needs strengthening:

The allocation of instructional workloads indicates an imbalance in the appropriate distribution of faculty assignments. Indeed, the institution’s 2001-2002 report of teaching workloads indicates teaching overloads in excess of 360 semester credit hours for full-time faculty. In one case, a faculty member carried an overload of 26 credit hours. Clearly, these levels of faculty workload are inconsistent with allowances for effective teaching for the full-time faculty available. Consequently, the team recommends that the college develop a faculty workload policy consistent with principles of good practice for teaching and learning (p. 8).

Two of the 2011 self-study committees examined the HLC’s concern about instructional workload. The visiting team cited the total teaching load as imbalanced in relation to an “appropriate distribution.” But the study teams generally concluded that what is appropriate for one individual or program is not necessarily appropriate for another. For example, some disciplines lend themselves to carrying overload; but some settings are very labor intensive per student, thereby lessening the desirability of overload. In addition, at Sauk, some open settings (specifically labs and clinicals) are compensated under the heading of overload. What is appropriate in this college community is a case-by-case decision. Figure ix shows the most recent available breakdown of overload distributions:

The HLC team noted a faculty member with 26 overload hours. As shown in the table above, an average of about 9% of faculty are consistently willing to take on that level of overload. The team also expressed concern about teaching effectiveness. This is a vital issue as it speaks to the college’s Mission to provide “high quality” learning opportunities (1A.5). A closer examination of the situation shows that several practices ensure that those faculty who are carrying the largest loads are doing so because they can maintain high quality:

• At the beginning of the class scheduling process, each full-time faculty member submits a proposed schedule to the Academic Vice President (VP). Traditionally, the VP honors this proposed schedule as much as possible. In some cases an instructor is asked to take on an additional class, but contract language is clear on the right of faculty to refuse any more than two hours of overload; therefore, no one is forced to accept large overload amounts involuntarily.
• Every fall, student evaluations are conducted in all on-campus classes. Although the contract prohibits these from being used in the formal performance review process, they are reviewed by the supervising Dean or VP prior to being sent to the faculty member and may be considered a factor in the decision to permit or deny overload requests.
• The VP and academic Deans conduct yearly evaluations of each faculty member, which form the primary basis for approving overload requests. Based on self-evaluations from the instructor and periodic classroom observations, this evaluation provides evidence for the teaching effectiveness and performance expectations of the faculty.

Although Sauk's practice of overload assignment is suitable in the context of its distinctive institutional needs, the self-study committees recognize that a more systematic policy approach would ensure that this practice is not warped or misused as time passes:

• The self-study found that Sauk’s student evaluations are not administered to any online classes other than those for the NIOIN program. Although generally confident in the quality achieved by current faculty whose overloads include significant numbers of online sections, the self-study recognizes that the lack of online student feedback could contribute to bringing about the concerns of the HLC. During the spring 2011 semester, the VP organized a taskforce to begin developing such a tool.
• While the college has been careful about assigning overloads only to proven and capable teachers, there is no policy in effect that establishes the principles to guide that decision. Guidelines in the 1986 faculty handbook were not updated in subsequent versions. The VP has committed to working with faculty to examine overload issues and develop appropriate guidelines in conjunction with the review of the faculty handbook.