***** WORKLOAD ANALYSIS: ONE SCHOOL'S EXPERIENCE
Does this sound like your institution? As part of their teaching 
duties, nursing instructors shadow students one-on-one for eight-
hour shifts in a clinical setting -- yet they technically don't get 

paid for this time. IT instructors log on to the network on weekends 

to monitor the discussion bulletin boards in their online classes -- 

but believe the administration has no idea of the odd hours they put 

in to support their online classes. 

Maybe your school has different specific issues, but chances are, 

faculty in some departments at your institution secretly (or not so 

secretly) believe that they work harder, for less pay, than faculty 

in other departments. However, the process of correcting workload 

inequities, perceived or real, can be tricky. After all, how do you 

compare a class in machining with one in business math? 

Perhaps the key is looking at the similarities, not the differences. 

"You can't compare apples and oranges, but at least we're all 

fruit," says Roger Richardson, coordinator for horticulture 

technology at Forsyth Technical Community College (FTCC) in 

Winston-Salem, North Carolina. "There's got to be something they 

have in common to look at." As chair of the faculty senate, 

Richardson headed a committee that investigated workload issues at 

FTCC over the course of a year. 

Richardson's committee recognized certain situations in their system 

that weren't reflected in official workload analyses. For example, a 

computer instructor teaching three sections of the same class has 

less preparation time than an instructor teaching three different 

classes. So the committee tried to quantify what they do as 

teachers.

"From our job description, we took the job of teaching and said, 

'What does this involve that can be measured?'" Richardson says. The 

committee broke teaching into three activities: preparation time, 

teaching time (actual classroom time), and evaluation time. They 

then looked at certain variables, such as class size, to see how 

they affected those activities. "Class size doesn't really affect 

prep time, and it doesn't matter a lot in the classroom unless it 

changes the method of instruction. But in evaluation, grading 10 

papers is a lot different from 30," he says.

Once the committee had examined traditional classroom teaching, they 

began looking at alternative ways of delivering instruction. "That 

gave us a way to talk about normal classrooms versus online classes 

versus clinical settings, like in nursing," Richardson says. 

Richardson did the analysis in a simple spreadsheet. He says, "It 

looks like a scary proposition: People said, 'How would we ever 

evaluate that? It's too complex.' But it's very adaptable to

spreadsheet analysis. There's a number for each variable." 

For FTCC, Richardson and his committee started with numbers 

collected by FTCC for a study the statewide community college system 

completed. They factored in low estimates for the variables not 

included in the study, such as 15 minutes of prep time per 

classroom hour and 2 minutes of evaluation time per student per 

classroom hour. The results showed that 18 contact hours (not to be 

confused with credit hours), made up of four different sections with 

three different preparations, plus time for administrative duties, 

requires approximately 42 hours of work per week. 

This quantitative analysis of a formerly nebulous concept, says 

Richardson, gives FTCC faculty a way to talk with administrators 

about volatile issues. For example, as FTCC accepts more students, 

faculty members now have a way to demonstrate to administrators how 

changing class sizes changes their workloads. "Administrators might 

think if they can put 40 people in a classroom, or put 40 people in 

an online class that doesn't have physical space, it's not different 

from having 20 people in class. But that's not the total picture," 

Richardson points out. "There's a lot of work that's hidden. On 

paper, it doesn't look like you're stressing your folks out, but you 

might well be."

Also, as is true in most states, North Carolina's government is 

emphasizing accountability within the educational system. Richardson 

says that this method of analyzing work will be helpful in 

demonstrating that faculty members are indeed performing their 

duties responsibly. 

Richardson had hoped that the FTCC administration would use his 

system to review individual faculty workloads annually; however, 

that effort has stalled because of institutional issues, such as 

budget matters and administration changes. Still, Richardson says, 

"Everybody on the committee left with a better idea of what the 

others did, and that helps. After all, what good's a fruit salad if 

it's all the same?" 

Richardson has agreed to share his analysis spreadsheet and some 

supporting documents with eDUCATE readers who are interested

in his methods. For more information, contact him at 

mailto:rrichardson@forsyth.cc.nc.us .