INDEPENDENT COURSE RESONSIBLITY FOR GRADUATE STUDENTS AND POST-DOCTORAL SCHOLARS

For the purpose of this memo, “faculty” shall refer to any UC appointee that has independent responsibility for conducting approved regular University courses for campus credit, as outlined in APM-110-4 (14). Note that APM-110-4 (14) explicitly excludes students in a UC degree program who teach independently within their discipline from inclusion within the faculty. Thus, Graduate Student Instructors (GSI’s) are explicitly excluded from the considerations of the rights and responsibilities of faculty, as outlined in the APM.

Further, the APM definition of faculty differs (is broader) than that found in the Academic Senate Manual (which naturally only incorporates senate faculty). Since language on academic freedom is found in the APM, and not the Senate manual, we assume that the rights and responsibilities of academic freedom and the Code of Conduct adhere to this broader definition of faculty.

I. Graduate Student Instructors

There are four title codes associated with instruction by graduate students. Two of these – Teaching Assistants and Teaching Fellows – are described in the APM. The remaining two – Associates In and Graduate Student Acting Instructor – are described within individual campus policies. The latter of these (Graduate Student Acting Instructor) is used only on the Berkeley campus.

On campuses other than UCLA and Berkeley, the Associates In title is used for GSI instructors of record; Teaching Assistant is used for all other uses of graduate student instruction (UCSC also has a few Teaching Fellows, who are subject to loose supervision, as specified in APM-410-20). At Berkeley and UCLA, the Associate In title is supervised, and does not provide instructor-of-record status. No title at UCLA allows graduate students to act as instructors of record, while at Berkeley, the Graduate Student Acting Instructor title implies instructor-of-record status.

The following is an essential consideration: Since all of these titles are now part of the ASE bargaining packages, the true definition of these four title codes are to be found in those bargaining agreements. In these agreements, responsibilities and remuneration are set out for each applicable title code. The bargaining agreements are done campus-by-campus, rather than system-wide. However, a sampling of two personnel manuals (UCSC, UCSB) suggests that these contracts generally defer to the system-wide APM for the definition of Teaching Assistant and Teaching fellow responsibilities.

It’s worthwhile to make note of the general aspects of the four titles currently in use by the different campuses:

Teaching Assistants

According to the UC Academic Personnel Manual (APM-410), Teaching Assistants are not to be instructors of record, either formally or de facto. Their roles are quite explicitly limited by APM-410-20 to “the conduct of recitation, laboratory, or quiz sections”, and they are to work under the close supervision of an instructor of record with an appropriate title (professor, lecturer, etc.). They are required to be enrolled as full-time graduate students that have maintained a minimal grad-point average (established by Chancellor). Certification of qualifications is done by the Graduate Dean, but selection is to be made by the Chair of the associated department. At Berkeley, the GSI Step I and Step II titles are essentially Teaching Assistant titles.

Teaching Fellows

According to APM-410, a teaching fellow is chosen to deliver the entire course of instruction for a lower division course, and must be advanced to candidacy, with two years’ prior teaching experience. The fellow is to teach under the “general supervision” of an overseeing faculty member, who is to be designated in the catalog or schedule of classes, and who is to be “in charge” (quotes from APM-410-20) of the course. APM-410-29-b also allows Teaching Fellows to provide the entire course of instruction for upper division and graduate classes, but only after review and approval by the appropriate Senate committee (Courses of Instruction, Educational Policy, Graduate Council, depending on the campus; this stipulation arises from Academic Senate Regulation 750).

Associates In

Although no longer in the APM, due to the differing nature of its definition among the different campus’s bargaining agreements, this title appears to be intermediate to Teaching Assistant and Teaching Fellow in terms of experience, but superior to both in terms of independence. It generally requires (based on reviewing two campus’s personnel policies) a Master’s degree or advancement to candidacy, and 1 year of prior teaching experience. Appointments seem to be made upon the recommendation of the department, with further review by the divisional Academic Senate if the Associate In is to teach an upper division or graduate class. Final approval seems to be the prerogative of the Divisional Dean. At all campuses except UCLA, Associates In are expected to act as instructors of record (Berkeley does not have this title). At Berkeley, GSI Step III is similar, although restricted to lower division instruction, and supervised by a faculty member.

Graduate Student Acting Instructor

This title, unique to the Berkeley campus, is for GSI instructors of record in upper division classes. The title requires advancement to candidacy, two years’ prior teaching experience, and Academic Senate review.

Compensation

Compensation is subject to campus-by-campus bargaining.

Academic Freedom

The August 12, 2002 white paper from Robert Post, which was an attachment to our October agenda, speaks about academic freedom for graduate student instructors, justifying limitations (third-to-last paragraph) relative to the full academic freedom enjoyed by faculty. Post’s discussion is in the context of a strong supervisory role played by the faculty that suggests that Post’s position is restricted to Teaching Assistants. However, the APM-410-20 stipulation that teaching fellows operate under the general supervision of faculty members suggest that it may be the supervising faculty, and not the Teaching Fellow, that enjoy the rights and endure the responsibilities of academic freedom. This argument could be extended to any GSI title that operates under faculty supervision.

Code of Conduct

For GSI titles that operate under faculty supervision, the Post white paper suggests that the responsibility for overseeing the application of the Code of Conduct may rest with the supervising faculty member.

II. Postdoctoral Scholars

Section 390 of the Academic Personnel Manual defines the role and responsibilities associated with the three Postdoctoral title codes. Although giving no guidance on the process of selecting Post Doctoral Scholars to act as instructors of record for UC classes, APM-390-4 states that

“… if formal teaching duties are assigned, a Postdoctoral Scholar must hold both a Postdoctoral Scholar title and an appropriate teaching title. Under this circumstance, the full-time Postdoctoral Scholar appointment percentage will be reduced accordingly.”

Tentative CCGA Stance

Preface: The nature and intent of state-supported summer instruction is currently under discussion. Policies and practices relating to the delivery of state-supported summer instruction are under development at individual campuses. As a result, it is difficult for CCGA to gauge the impact and appropriateness of stipulations it might put forward regarding the use of Graduate Student Instructors in state-supported summer classes. Thus, the following proposal refers only to the employment of Graduate Student Instructors for courses taught during the regular academic year.

CCGA is categorically opposed to the use of graduate students as instructors of record for instruction during the regular academic year. We propose two GSI titles, differentiated according to academic advancement and teaching experience, that will encompass the gamut of graduate student instruction in the University. In all cases, instruction is to be done under the supervision of a faculty member, with the right of academic freedom and responsibility for the Code of Conduct adhering to the overseeing faculty member. We propose that these new titles become effective for 2007-2008.

CCGA proposes that graduate students without advanced degrees or the status of Ph.D. candidate be relegated to the role of Teaching Assistant. However, we feel that the terms of employment stipulated in APM-410-20 are inappropriately restrictive. CCGA acknowledges that Teaching Assistants take a larger role than that provided for in APM-410-20, and feels to some extent that this is appropriate. We propose the following revised language for APM-410-20:

A Teaching Assistant is not responsible for the underlying instructional content of a course, for establishing the criteria under which the course’s students will be graded, for planning examinations, or for determining the term grade for students. The Teaching Assistant is responsible only for conducting regular classes, and recitation, laboratory, or quiz sections, under the active direction and supervision of a University appointee with a faculty title as specified in APM-110-4 (14), to whom responsibility for the course’s instruction, including the performance of Teaching Assistants, has been assigned.

This can be compared to the existing language, which reads as follows:

A Teaching Assistant is not responsible for the instructional content of a course, for selection of student assignments, for planning of examinations, or for determining the term grade for students. Neither is the Teaching Assistant to be assigned responsibility for instructing the entire enrollment of a course or for providing the entire instruction for a group of students enrolled in a course. The Teaching Assistant is responsible only for the conduct of recitation, laboratory, or quiz sections under the active direction and supervision of a regular member of the faculty to whom responsibility for the course’s entire instruction, including the performance of Teaching Assistants, has been assigned.

The proposed language relieves the restriction on teaching the entire enrollment of a class, but does require that the class and its evaluative rubrics be designed and overseen by a faculty member. Relative to the old language, this also relieves the restriction that the overseeing faculty member be a “regular” member of the faculty, allowing visiting faculty to act as instructors of record. We believe that the strong oversight referred to in APM-410-20 (and maintained here) clearly implies that academic freedom and the responsibility for the Code of Conduct adhere to the overseeing instructor.

CCGA proposes that students with advanced degrees, or that have advanced to candidacy, and that have at least one academic year’s teaching experience, be eligible to appointment to a newly delineated Teaching-Fellow-like title that permits instruction of the entire content of a lower-division class under the regular supervision of a faculty member. Academic freedom and responsibility for the Code of Conduct would adhere to the overseeing faculty member, who would be co-listed with the Fellow and who would act as the instructor of record. Appointment of Teaching Fellow would require approval from the appropriate divisional Senate committee, irrespective of the level at which the Fellow is expected to teach. Once approved to the title, Teaching Fellows would be authorized to teach either lower- or upper-division classes on a class-by-class basis, with departments appealing to the appropriate Senate committee, and the divisional Dean approving the funding. The appeal to the Senate should explain the circumstances under which the use of the Teaching Fellow will benefit the University, and identify the faculty instructor of record. The training of graduate students as for future independent instructional roles could contribute to this justification, but indiscriminate use of GSI instructors to relieve faculty teaching loads should be strongly discouraged. Consideration for appointment to the title and authorization for specific classes may proceed simultaneously.

In this context, faculty oversight would entail the following. The co-listed faculty member would review catalog copy and any other material developed by the Graduate Student Instructor (GSI) to advertise the class to potential students. The co-listed faculty member would review the curricular content of the course to ensure that it adheres to the course description and content as previously approved by appropriate committee of the Academic Senate. The faculty member would apprise the GSI of the faculty code of conduct, and be available to discuss aspects of its implementation should the GSI request consultation. The faculty member would also be available for confidential exchanges with the students in the class in order to receive complaints or criticisms about the conduct of the course, and would follow through on substantive matters with the GSI. Finally, the overseeing faculty member would review criteria for assessing the final grade and/or evaluation, and approve the individual grades and/or evaluations recommended by the GSI.

An exception to the restriction against graduate students acting as instructors of record may be made for graduate students that have held previous positions consistent with one of the faculty titles of APM-110. In such cases, appointment should be to the appropriate faculty title according to the standard procedures for appointment to such titles, with the additional requirement of approval by the appropriate Academic Senate committee.

According to APM-390, Postdoctoral Scholars are eligible to act as instructors of record for any course offered for campus credit, but are to be appointed to the appropriate teaching title during the period of instruction, with a corresponding reduction in the Postdoctoral Scholar title percentage-of-full-time. Insofar as Postdoctoral scholars thus have formal instructional titles, the enjoy the full range of Academic Freedom as outlined in APM-010, and are responsible for comprehending and abiding by the Faculty Code of Conduct outlined in APM-015. Our reading of APM-137 suggests that appointments to instructional titles can indeed be for as short a duration as a single term.