next »

[pooksocket]

I am a new chair. I inherited two adjuncts from my predecessor.

Each is down to teach a course designated 300+ (junior and above)

One of the adjuncts has a Bachelor of Arts in the field. The other has an Ed.D., but neither that degree nor his MA has anything to do with the field he will be teaching in.

Neither has significant "life experience" in the field. That is, it's not as if Philip Roth is down to teach Creative Writing.

Both are members of the administration/staff.

Can anybody give me an idea of what SACS will think about this situation?

More to the point, will they be asking me to 'splain since this isn't my doing?

[anthroid]

SACS will hate it.  The BA person can't teach any longer.  I seriously doubt the other can either.  SACS will allow people who aren't directly credentialed in a field to teach it if they have 18 hours of graduate work in the field (even if the MA is in another field); once in a while you can write a convincing letter of justification (which is what SACS requires) but I just don't see how you can justify a BA teaching a 300 level class unsupervised (that is, as lead instructor rather than TA).  Unless you're willing to sign on as lead instructor and parcel the class out to the adjunct, that person will have to go (and should not have been teaching at the bachelor's level to begin with unless this is a vo-tech of some kind).  Check and see if your Ed.D. has those 18 hours at the Master's level.  If not, start advertising for 2 new adjuncts.  And it is now your doing if you keep them on--it's your responsibility to make sure classes from here on out are staffed with qualified people.  You don't have to apologize for the past but you have to fix the future.  Your dean should be helping too!

Good luck.  You've inherited a not-great situation.

[concordancia]

Yeah, I would go ahead and let them teach this one, but let them know that if they want to keep adjuncting, they have to show progress towards 18 graduate credits.

I like the goal of keeping departments from putting warm bodies in, but there really should be a way to get approval for people who are good at teaching the subject matter, regardless of their credentials. Do they have a history at the department? Is there documentation of their effectiveness?

[anthroid]

Yeah, I would go ahead and let them teach this one, but let them know that if they want to keep adjuncting, they have to show progress towards 18 graduate credits.

I like the goal of keeping departments from putting warm bodies in, but there really should be a way to get approval for people who are good at teaching the subject matter, regardless of their credentials. Do they have a history at the department? Is there documentation of their effectiveness?

I do see what you're saying, but ... I'm not sure I would.  I don't know how you justify a BA level person teaching a 300 level course.  I do agree that good teachers should be hired, but having advanced education and training really is useful (I'm talking master's here).  SACS is pretty persnickety about appropriate credentials (I went through a SACS visit a few years ago and am still a bit raw!).  I understand that there is an implied, or perhaps real, contract with these two, but a BA level person really should not be teaching upper division courses (in fact, probably should not be teaching at the college level at all unless it's vocational).  SACS could really cause some trouble here.

In my time in admin, I've inherited some doozies and I really do work on getting the inappropriate ones out.  It isn't easy or comfortable but that's part of the job of department chair and dean.

[dogvomit]

IF they are not qualified to teach, they have no business in the classroom and you have no business keeping them.  In fact, by allowing them to teach you are literally flamboozling they students who paid to take courses from a qualified instructor.

There is no valid justification for leaving them in those classes except that you are too lazy to do the ground work to fill them with COMPETENT instructors.   

[scampster]

IF they are not qualified to teach, they have no business in the classroom and you have no business keeping them.  In fact, by allowing them to teach you are literally flamboozling they students who paid to take courses from a qualified instructor.

There is no valid justification for leaving them in those classes except that you are too lazy to do the ground work to fill them with COMPETENT instructors.   

You don't know that they aren't competent. Competent and qualified are two completely different things.

[dale1]

Completely agree, scampster.  We have to stop assuming that a graduate degree imbues the holder with magical powers of excellent teaching, research, and service performance.  What it does is make someone minimally qualified, not competent or good or excellent or any other level of performance.

[dogvomit]

IF they are not qualified to teach, they have no business in the classroom and you have no business keeping them.  In fact, by allowing them to teach you are literally flamboozling they students who paid to take courses from a qualified instructor.

There is no valid justification for leaving them in those classes except that you are too lazy to do the ground work to fill them with COMPETENT instructors.   

You don't know that they aren't competent. Competent and qualified are two completely different things.

A degree verifies a level of competency in one's field.  Maybe they are COMPETENT, but then I didn't say they were not, i said you should use competent instructors and that students pay to take courses from qualified instructors.   

[dogvomit]

Completely agree, scampster.  We have to stop assuming that a graduate degree imbues the holder with magical powers of excellent teaching, research, and service performance.  What it does is make someone minimally qualified, not competent or good or excellent or any other level of performance.

Maybe the institutions that you attended or work at are this way, but where I went a degree indicates mastery of a subject, not just a rubber stamp.  Part of that mastery was demonstrating skills in teaching.  However, I realize not all colleges and universities have the same standards.  Maybe that is why the market is always glutted with unemployed?

[amlithist]

I completely agree with Anthroid--just because you've inherited them, your name is on the line now, so you're going to have to fix the staffing.

We're just a CC, but I had to do major housecleaning when I became chair:  of 30 adjuncts, about a third were teaching transfer-level classes with a B.A., some of those for years and years and years.   Some of them--the ones who were decent teachers--I was happy to keep on to teach dev ed courses (which is legitimate--through the MA level, the rule of thumb is that instructors should have at least one degree higher than those they're teaching), but a lot of them got a long-deserved boot.  And it really raised both the level of professionalism within the department, and the success rates of students as well.

It wasn't fun, but it had to be done.  Honestly, I hid a bit behind Admin ("the dean required me to audit credentials, and I had to do this!"), but I took a good bit of the hit, too.