Download
1 / 34
340 likes | 460 Views
Implementing the new Workload Policy. Heads of School Workshop April 2010. Structure of the session. Introduction and overview How well do you know the Workload Policy? Review of the context Draft Guidelines Scenarios and report back Other issues Next steps.
E N D
Implementing the new Workload Policy Heads of School Workshop April 2010
Structure of the session • Introduction and overview • How well do you know the Workload Policy? • Review of the context • Draft Guidelines • Scenarios and report back • Other issues • Next steps
Purpose of the session and guidelines • Develop shared understandings across the Schools • Empower School leaders to allocate the workload confidently and equitably taking into account work responsibilities not ‘counted’ in the metrics process • Empower HoS to make on balance judgements aligned with the principles of equity and transparency
Key concepts Negotiation Flexibility Transparency Equity On balance
The context • Workloads are an employment & industrial relations issue within a legal framework • The ACU Staff Enterprise Agreement 2005 – 2008 sets out the “rules” for workload allocation: • “Staff shall not normally teach more than 4 units in any one semester • Staff will normally accumulate the equivalent of 360 contact hours per year … This includes 336 contact hours of teaching, supervision and administration and 24 contact hours of other approved academic related activities as defined by the policy”
The context • The Academic Workloads Policy has been revised and the 360 “loaded” hours has become 1000 hours of teaching, supervision and administration and up to 500 hours for research. • Heads of School must be careful not to allocate more than 1000 hours of teaching and related work – a breach of the Agreement could lead to a dispute which could be referred to either Fair Work Australia or the Federal Court.
The Context • The Enterprise Agreement also expects that staff “… will be available for scheduled School, Faculty and University meetings, and for interaction and consultation with students and colleagues on a reasonable basis during the course of the daytime hours of University operation and/or other times in the case of other teaching patterns. • The details of such availability shall be made publicly available to students, colleagues and the relevant Head of School. The manner in which these details will be published and recorded is to be determined by the Head …”.
The Legal Context • The “availability” provisions have to be balanced against the “Right to Request Flexible Working Arrangements” which is one of the National Employment Standards (NES) of the Fair Work Act. • Staff who are responsible for a child under school age (or a child up to 18 years of age who has a disability) now have the right to request flexible working arrangements. • These include changes in hours of work, changes in patterns of work and changes in location of work.
The Context • The request must be lodged by a staff member in writing with a copy to HR • The University can reject a request for flexible working arrangements “only on reasonable business grounds”. • The University must respond to the request in writing within 21 days, and if the request is refused, “ …the written response must include details of the reasons for the refusal”.
The Context • HR has updated the Guidelines for Work/Life Balance Arrangements to include a “Right to Request Flexible Working Arrangements”. • Staff making such a request are asked to consider the potential impact on their School including on their colleagues • Heads of School may need to consult with the Timetabling Unit regarding formal requests
The Legal Context • The other legal consideration is that under Occupational Health and Safety law, staff members must have an unpaid break of at least 30 minutes after they have worked for 5 hours.
Should we be using the research active definition to allocate workload? Current Situation Possible alternatives? Take the whole idea of research active out of the workload (keep PhD) Allocate higher workload for those who produce outputs to compensate for the “real time” it takes to do research • 350 for research active • 350 for PhD • Amount allocated for papers would not cover the time spent in researching the literature, collecting and analysing data and writing the publication RECOMMENDATION: As research intensive and teaching intensive positions will affect these issues, we should not change the policy now but should keep it as an issue to be raised at that time
Staffing levels and quality of publications RECOMMENDATIONS That there should be no difference in the expectations for Level A and E with regard to research output at this time. Research intensive and Teaching intensive should have different expectations. That workload should not be used to reward publishing in A or A* journals. The research office should consider other reward options. • What do we expect of research for a Level A versus a Level E academic? • What do we expect of the Level E academic with a significant administrative role (HOS, Associate Dean) versus the Level E academic who is doing no administration? • What are our expectations regarding the quality of journals in which academics publish? • Should workload be used to reward those who publish in quality journals?
Collaborative Research RECOMMENDATIONS Split can be negotiated by the writing team and percentage contribution of each team member recorded on Research Master Mentoring program should have workload associated with it – no suggested hours at the moment as program is still being developed • Does the current workload policy cater for fostering collaborative research? • How do we encourage senior staff to mentor others and to write papers with them? • Workload for writing a refereed journal article is 150 split pro-rata between authors - How do we make the split? • How should the formal research mentoring program be recognised in the workload model?
Fostering new research in your school RECOMMENDATION An amount of 150 hours may be allocated by the HOS for general research and scholarly activity to those staff who are not undertaking a PhD and who are not yet research active. A clear understanding of what each staff member will achieve during those 150 hours should be negotiated at the time of the staff member’s annual performance review. • What if staff in your school have not been doing research in the past or have been publishing in the non-HERDC recognised journals and conferences? • What about the person who is not research active but wants to start a new research project now and needs time to collect data etc? • What about the new staff member at ACU? • Does the teaching-research nexus that we aspire to affect decisions regarding research hours for “teaching intensive” staff?
Academic streaming Goal 4 of the ACU Strategic Plan states that: “The University will establish an appropriate staff profile…” The University’s Transitional Plan states that: • 4.2.4 Appropriate academic staff “streaming” policy and procedures are developed and implemented • (the University will) … implement streaming of academic staff members into 3 categories – research intensive, teaching and research and teaching intensive • The Timeframe is to “Deploy by 2011 academic year”
Edit and deactivate Adding a row
Number of students changed from 4 to 24 Will not automatically update hours to be taught and marked
Next steps • Complete the Guidelines • Projects vs non-projects • Lunch-box sessions for assistant HoS and others • Sessions for new Heads of School • Others?????
