CHAPARRAL

What is the “60% Law”?

     The so-called “60% Law” is a part of the Education Code (Ed. Code), a state law, which stipulates that temporary workers in community colleges may teach only 60% of a full-time faculty member’s load. A full-time teaching load is the number of in-class hours that a contract/full-time faculty member is required to fulfill in order to get a full salary, benefits and eventually, tenure. These required teaching hours (loads) vary depending on the discipline that is being taught but they are detailed in Article VI, section 4 of our Bargaining Agreement (found at www.glendale.edu/guild).  If, by mistake, a part-time faculty member were to teach more than 60% of the hours that a full-timer is required to teach and he/she did that for more than three semesters, state law would require the district to give that adjunct teacher a full-time contract.

What effect does this law have?
     The 60% law is a district-wide limit, meaning that if a district has more than one college, an adjunct teacher is required to drive outside the boundaries of that district to pick up other community college teaching jobs. Additionally, in some disciplines teaching loads (in-class teaching hours) are smaller, which limits the actual hours that a part-timer can teach (e.g. English composition) in a single district. In other disciplines, the teaching blocks are designed in such a way that an adjunct instructor cannot be assigned even a 60% load without splitting one of these teaching blocks—which is usually not done (e.g. math and languages). Because of the 60% restriction, division chairs constantly have to find and mentor new teachers in order to control the number of hours of their already fully-assigned part-timers. The travel costs, in terms of time and fuel, from college to college and the difficulty of juggling multiple assignments in several districts has a detrimental effect not only for the adjunct faculty member but for the college as a whole. Many excellent teachers tire of waiting for a full-time position and soon leave for full-time work outside education. Those who remain cannot get fully involved in campus life, shared governance, professional development opportunities or special student projects. 

What is being done to change this law?
     In this year’s legislative session in Sacramento, a bill is being proposed that would change the 60% limit on teaching hours to 80% for each college (no longer per district). The bill, SB847, was written by Senator Denise Ducheny. In order to be passed into law the bill must get the support of a majority of legislators in both the senate and the assembly, and finally the governor must sign it.

Why is anyone against this change in the law?
     Although this change in the law would incur no cost, there are some who fear its effect on the status quo. Some full-time faculty fear that making it easier to hire part-time faculty to teach more hours would erode tenure and kill the incentive for districts to hire more full-timers, who do much of the governance work. Some adjunct faculty fear that their teaching hours would be reduced in order to give the department chair’s favorites a full 80% assignment.

     In answer to these concerns, the number of new full-time hires is supposed to be decided through the college budget process. While part-timers want to see more full-time hires (with the hope that they may be included in the ranks of tenure-track faculty), those who determine the number of new positions are administrators and full-timers. Adding new positions is expensive (because of the long-term costs of higher salaries and benefits for full-time teachers), but the will and the money to do it are basically out of the hands of part-timers. For full-time faculty to deny part-time faculty an 80% load in order to force the hand of administrators who are reluctant to hire more full-timers, is akin to using adjuncts as a “whipping boy.” The goal of hiring more full-time faculty will not be served by any action other than state-level enforcement of the current 75-25% ratio expressed in state law AB1725. Meanwhile, part-time faculty should not be penalized.

     Some adjunct instructors fear they will lose classes if the limit is raised to 80% and others are selected for an increased load. This is a doubtful scenario. Most part-timers who seek more classes eventually get them as they become available. It is a gradual process. If administrators can give more assignments to those who are already working, it saves them the trouble of recruiting, hiring and training new instructors. An 80% load would allow more of a cushion for those who need the health coverage (which requires a 40% load) offered by the district. In times of course cutbacks the loss of a class would not necessarily mean the loss of office hours or health benefits. Part-timers could more easily achieve one full year of STRS service credit without teaching every intersession. There are definite advantages.

What can I do to help SB847?
     We all need to educate, inform and convince our own state legislators that this is a change that we want. They are very much influenced by support resolutions passed by large organizations (such as our parent union CFT) and also by letters they receive from their constituents. If this change is something that you support, you can begin by attending our next Guild meeting on Tuesday, March 21 in CS177 at noon, when our local will be voting on whether to support a resolution about this matter at the upcoming CFT Convention at the end of this month. Having CFT’s lobbying efforts behind this change will go a long way in convincing legislators that it is the right thing to do. Additionally, you can write your state legislators or call and express your support for SB847 (the change in the 60% law to 80%). You can find your legislators’ contact information at www.leginfo.ca.gov. Click on “Your Legislature” and that will bring you to a page where you can simply input your zip code. &

back to top