Should Faculty Work for Free?

MacEwan is an attractive place to study. While other institutions across the sector contract, we continue to grow. What accounts for our success? Why do students from across the province and the country flock to our campus?  It probably isn’t the weather or our ivy-covered quads. Nor is it likely to be the shiny new expenditure installed in building 7 or anticipated improvements coming to Sport and Wellness, though our campus facilities and infrastructure are in relatively attractive shape. Instead, MacEwan’s value rests in its people. Personalized learning, a supportive campus environment, and close faculty engagement are the keys to our success.

Strategic Vision 2030 pronounces a bold new agenda of “perpetual motion” and “pushing the envelope”. Yet the formula for success is nothing new, it is embedded in our historic culture of student engagement.  Back in 2011, the Globe & Mail’s Canadian University Report awarded MacEwan “A” grades for teaching quality and student-faculty interaction. Inspiring lectures are part of the equation, but our student-focussed advantage rests on more intimate forms of instruction: small classes where instructors connect with students and offer detailed feedback, honours supervisions, independent studies which mitigate a shortcoming in our lack of course options and variety, and community-engaged and work-integrated-learning internships that prepare students for careers and that anchor our place in O-day’min.

There exists broad consensus among faculty and many administrators that such opportunities are vital to MacEwan’s student-first approach. However, the Collective Agreement between GMUFA and the Board of Governors does not adequately recognize or compensate such activities. While the university collects tuition from students for things like 398, 498, and 499 numbered courses, and while these courses offer credit toward student degrees, they do not, in most cases, carry Instructional Hours. As such, these unscheduled teaching activities are not recognized as faculty workload.

Responding to the passion of our members in their pursuit of teaching excellence, and to their genuine commitment to student mentorship, GMUFA’s negotiating team has proposed several modest, workable solutions at the bargaining table that are already practiced at other institutions:

• A paid premium for each for-credit individual supervision, as exists at some other institutions.
• A “loyalty card” system that would provide a course release to faculty after they have completed 8 independent studies or honours supervisions.
• A Professional Development fund premium for each supervision (similar to number 1 above, yet paid into one’s PD allowance).

Each of these common sense proposals has been met with a resounding “NO”, and the Board’s team has not offered any explanation why. Their unequivocal position has simply been that “faculty are not required to do this work”. While the University celebrates the record number of presenters at Student Research Day, the only solution they have offered at the table to formally recognize these contributions is for eligible faculty to “apply for a reduction to their scheduled teaching”. This is, essentially, the same solution that already exists. Without clear commitments to funding releases, and transparency and equity in how unscheduled faculty contributions translate into earned teaching reductions, history has shown the futility of this solution.

Faculty remain passionate educators, who wish to continue on our journey of student-focussed excellence. Unfortunately, larger class sizes, growing service and research demands, and other forms of workload creep have resulted in faculty burnout. Senior leadership understand thermodynamics and have conceded that perpetual motion does not, in fact, exist. However, it has failed to offer the support or “external energy” necessary to continue incentivizing student-focused learning. 

All teaching, whether scheduled or unscheduled, needs an input of resources.  Just as cars require petrol to keep moving, faculty need resources—both time and money—to sustain momentum toward Teaching Excellence. That’s the only way to truly fire on all cylinders. Without the right fuel, without appropriate recognition of unscheduled teaching, the alternative is that faculty retrench.

At the table, the Board’s team has confirmed that Honours theses, Independent Studies projects, and Work-Integrated-learning supervisions are not required components of faculty workload. Since the administration appears set on saying “NO” to formally recognizing such activities through committing in writing to sufficient funding, faculty should pay more focused attention to their work-life balance and their wellbeing. This may result in saying “NO” when asked to volunteer time and energy for uncompensated teaching. If the Board refuses to value this essential work, faculty may have no choice but to withdraw it. Without fair recognition, Strategic Vision 2030 won't move forward—it will run out of gas, and it will stall.