by Jeanne Allen
National Journal
December 3, 2013
Adjunct professors do indeed make higher education solvent, and are an important pipeline for schools and students. On one hand, “it” is a model for K-12, where rather than having only full-time teachers a more fluid, flexible human capital pipeline should include people whose lives might need or desire teaching or leading on a part-time basis to fill gaps, elevate students’ exposure to more content and generally expand the knowledge pool around schools. I remember meeting my first charter school “teacher” who was a full time Stanford Physics professor working part-time teaching science at California’s first charter in San Carlos, where then-superintendent and now Gates Foundation leader Don Shalvey was superintendent. The “adjunct” teacher was a full-time professor there and while this is still possible in charter and non-charter public schools, it is much more rare today “thanks” to the inflexible rules governing the hiring and certification of teachers which was a result of a a mis-regulated NCLB. But I digress. The point is that the method of using adjuncts is a good one, and should be emulated in all levels of learning. The notion of supplementing our schools will talent is no different than a business hiring a consultant to do things for which they have unique skills that supplements, not supplants, other vital positions in an organization. But how it’s constructed, as you raise, Fawn, is a serious issue.
As a consumer, I’ve watched my kids in college have adjuncts that are totally unqualified to teach or just disconnected from the entire university experience. Their schedules prevent them from being on campus or in touch to meet. A few Fordham University adjuncts “we” got to “know” taught courses that promoted their latest book or research (often agenda-driven) as opposed to what the course outline demanded. A St. John’s University adjunct sought to expose her students to the museums and sites of New York, on weekends, to fulfill some core requirement that “we” never quite understood. These folks – like so many others I’ve heard about — were filling gaps, plugging holes and merit very few benefits for their inadequate contribution to higher learning. I suspect the administrations for whom they work have too much on their plate to really worry, given the low cost, whether it’s effective. Perhaps that’s the problem — if it were a higher cost to the institution these professors might be taken more seriously, and more seriously vetted.
Not only have I been exposed to more than my share of adjuncts through kids and my own education, but I’m married to one. By day he teaches at a prestigious boys’ school. By night, he teachers at a university. He’s exceptional, of course, by even objective standards. The pay is not, but he does it to maintain and continue to use his expertise, and because he loves teaching. My adjunct professor-husband is not looking to get rich on this work, or become part of another system. Like him, most other adjuncts he knows also simply like keeping their hand in higher education and feel it’s professionally and personally enriching. I wonder if “systemizing” their employ and benefits wouldn’t do to these individuals what it did to K-12 education, which is create a factory model of hiring and benefits that has resulted in more mediocrity as the ability to make personnel decisions became diffuse and disconnected from whether quality matters.
Let’s not overthink this one. Like all aspects of education today, quality does matter and codifying pay and benefits at any level might improve the employee’s welfare but doesn’t necessarily result in our fulfilling the intent and purpose of educational institutions, which should be the ultimate and measurable goal of any changes we make, at any level.