CBU’s Teaching Scholar Proposal FAQs

Yes – in fact, it is essential.

Universities in Canada continue to incur financial struggles due to government funding constraints, declines in domestic enrolment and controls over tuition rates. These trends are particularly pronounced in Nova Scotia where several universities are struggling financially, as was the case for CBU for many years. This is why institutions are increasingly dependent upon international student enrolment to sustain their operations. This is the only way for universities to raise sufficient funds to maintain essential operations. Yet, as pointed out in a recent ANSUT publication, “While robust (international) recruitment and retention strategies are important, they can also place universities in vulnerable positions that are often out of administrators’ control.”

International student recruitment has been essential for CBU to maintain a sufficient critical mass of students in order to offer a diversity of programming for all of our valued students (international and domestic), as well as support other core university functions such as research and service to community. This has been the case at CBU for many years due to demographic decline in the local Cape Breton region.

Then, in 2018 CBU introduced Post-Baccalaureate programming through the Shannon School of Business. These high-quality and highly-employable programs are comprised of 99 per cent international student enrolment, accounting for just under 50 per cent of CBU’s total enrolment and a minimum of 50 per cent of total revenue derived from student tuition.

This means the associated financial risk for CBU is very high and likely without precedent for any university in Canada. This does indeed place CBU in a vulnerable position due to factors that are beyond any administration’s control. Yet the success of programs designed to meet high international demand has resulted in significant benefits for the university. And given the founding mandate of this institution, the cultural and socio-economic benefit to the broader Cape Breton community might be just as important. For example, the Cape Breton region saw population growth, not decline, for the first time in decades in 2019.

The Teaching Scholar proposal was motivated by CBU’s desire to responsibly address the undeniable risks of the post-baccalaureate programs that, if managed well, could continue to enhance the University (and the greater Island community) in many ways. If not addressed, the overall well-being and future of the University will be harmed. CBU believes it is important to ask questions about the proposal with the purpose of drawing attention to the real issues and continuing the attempt to resolve them.

Simply put, CBU must find a way to address risks associated with post-baccalaureate programming for the benefit of our valued students, members of the CBU community and the Cape Breton community in general.

Short: Yes. The inclusion of a limited number of Teaching Scholar positions will complement growing numbers of faculty occupying traditional positions, not replace them. Similar progressive models are being used in some of Canada’s most respected universities in both Nova Scotia and Ontario.

Extended: Yes. CBU proposed that the University’s existing faculty model be adjusted to allow for the inclusion of a strictly limited number of Teaching Scholar positions. This would not only complement the growing numbers of faculty occupying traditional positions but also enable continued growth of traditional positions. CBU’s proposal is not original. It is a version of an updated and progressive faculty model of the sort introduced in recent years at some of Canada’s most respected universities in both Nova Scotia and Ontario. CBUFA’s communication to the public after taking a strike vote accused CBU’s administration of designing the proposal to help revert to a 1960’s junior college faculty model. Nothing is further from the truth. The rationale for adjusting the existing model – at CBU and elsewhere – was to help deal with factors presently influencing the post-secondary education environment which were almost non-existent when CBU was Xavier College in the 1960’s and 70’s, specifically:

• the institutional and social necessity of accommodating international students
• the necessity of increasing traditional research capacity to support experiences of academic excellence for our students and to address community, global and societal challenges and opportunities
• the pedagogical necessity of increasing capacity in the scholarship of teaching and learning (the value of which is being increasingly recognized in recent decades by universities responsive to student needs).

The way those factors operate is shaped by the specific history and unique circumstances of each institution. Most obviously, perhaps, the operation of many Canadian universities is now dependent on international students due to government funding constraints and tuition regulation policies. CBU has evolved over a relatively short period of time from a small junior college serving only Cape Breton students, to a fully accredited university with the highest percentage of international students in the country. Success in developing programs that meet high international demand has been the key factor in helping the University overcome an extremely stressful situation several years ago, a situation many universities continue to face. Maintaining these students and serving them better is essential to the continued well-being of the entire University.

At the same time, the relevant programs are also high-risk because demand is very sensitive to changes in external circumstances over which CBU has little control or changes in student preference for different programs within the University. The fact that enrolment in high-demand, high-risk programs is not sufficiently diversified at present, increases that risk. That said, in the foreseeable future, CBU must continue to deliver these programs. The alternative is turning back the clock and revisiting the anxiety and stress of the recent past. Our preferred vision of the future is that we move forward more confidently with an evidence-based, strategic approach to enrolment management. If the Teaching Scholar Proposal is not the best solution, CBU is, as always, open to considering viable alternatives. The Proposal was an honest attempt, in line with other innovative universities, to address an undeniable issue that will not go away, and to do so in a responsible manner.

Short: Yes. CBU has made a commitment to adopt enrolment management best practices that have been developed by academics and administrators throughout North America. Programs such as the post-baccalaureate programs in business were designed with quality assurance standards and market demand in mind.

Even the best management practices cannot eliminate the risk posed by specific programs which the University must continue to deliver. The fact of the matter is that significant reliance on the international market poses significant enrolment risks due to several factors, some of which are beyond our control. So, CBU is trying to be both creative and prudent in preventing the development of major problems facing some other universities in the Maritimes and elsewhere in Canada.

Extended: Yes. CBU has made a commitment to adopt enrolment management best practices that have been developed by academics and administrators throughout North America in recent decades. For example, our post-baccalaureate programs in business were designed to meet both MPHEC quality assurance standards and a strong market demand. Retention and persistence rates of students in the programs are excellent (much higher, on average, than other undergraduate programs). It is precisely because they are high-risk that CBU is beginning to cap admissions to the post-baccalaureate programs and slow the rate of growth. It is also attempting to diversify (by country of origin) enrolment in them.

Risk can also be minimized by setting targets for enrolment increases in low-risk programs with high domestic demand and making substantial investments in the human and physical resources necessary to develop new programs aligned with CBU’s Academic Plan (for example health-related areas). Even the best management practices cannot eliminate the serious risk posed by specific programs which the University must continue to deliver. So, CBU is trying to be both creative and prudent in preventing the development of major problems facing some other universities, in the Maritimes and elsewhere in Canada.

Short: Yes. High-risk programs can be defined as those with largely international enrolments. CBU proposed to identify high-risk programs as those in which the percentage of international students exceeds 35 per cent of the total enrolment.

Extended: Yes. At a very general level, high-risk programs can be accurately defined as those with large international (especially insufficiently diversified) enrolments. But more specifically, CBU proposed to identify them as programs in which the percentage of international students enrolled exceeds 35 per cent. This number approximates the average of international enrolments in Nova Scotia universities plus 10 per cent. Still, where CBUFA Full Time Continuing Teaching Scholars are presently required to maintain delivery of high-risk programs – currently, Post-Baccalaureate programs in business – the international enrolment number is approximately 99%. In practice, therefore, based on CBU’s proposal, Full-Time Continuing Track/Continuing Teaching Scholars would be needed in only one of CBU’s five academic Schools.

Short: No. Program specialization must also be taken into consideration. Post-Baccalaureate programs are populated by students who already have an undergraduate degree. They are enrolling to further enhance their skills and knowledge within a specific professional focus. Faculty with these specialized skillsets are less likely to have the background, content expertise and skills to serve other CBU programs, should international student enrolment or program preferences shift, as was the case with the BET and BHSC programs in 2019 to present day.

Extended: No. An additional factor to be taken into consideration when defining risk is program specialization. While all university programs are specialized, Post-Baccalaureate programs are populated by students who already possess an undergraduate degree. Their purpose in enrolling is to acquire further skills and knowledge with a specific professional focus. Faculty delivering these programs must be hired accordingly and this makes it less likely that they have the background, content expertise and skills to serve other CBU programs. Thus, the circumstantial risk of professionally oriented Post-Baccalaureate programs is magnified by the reality that their delivery requires numbers of faculty whose competency in specific areas of expertise is not easily adaptable to other programs, should international student enrolment or program preferences shift, as was the case with the BET and BHSC programs in 2019 to present day.

Short: No. CBU is proposing conditions that strictly limit the number of Full-Time Continuing Track/Continuing Teaching Scholars.

Extended: No. CBU is proposing three conditions that, especially when taken together, strictly limit the number of Full Time Continuing Track/Continuing Teaching Scholars.

• Although a faculty appointment might be largely justified by the needs of a high-risk program, the academic School delivering the program may also require a background, knowledge and a skill set that would ensure the faculty member could serve more stable programs delivered by the School (there are obvious program/faculty synergies, for example, between the BBA and the Post-Baccalaureate Diploma in Business Management program). In that case, there would be no relevant need for the advertised position to be a Full-Time Continuing Track Teaching Scholar. For example, several of the 58 hires in December 2021 were tenure-track positions that will also serve the needs of current high-risk programs.
• There would be a numerical limit to how many Full-Time Continuing Track/Continuing Teaching Scholars could be appointed, calculated on the basis of the number of full-time, traditional Tenure Track/Tenured CBUFA faculty (Lecturers, Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Full Professors). That number would not include the following: persons with tenured positions who are on administrative appointments; faculty in Teaching Scholar positions; and, of course, other CBUFA members (lab instructors, NPE’s, librarians, and specialists). CBU is proposing that appointments of Full-Time Continuing Track/Continuing Teaching Scholars could not exceed a negotiated percentage of the CBUFA faculty number, so defined.
• Full-Time Continuing Track/Continuing Teaching Scholar appointments could only be made in the academic School responsible for administering a high-risk program. That program, of course, might require individual courses offered by faculty in other Schools. Indeed, it is possible that a good portion of the teaching load of a faculty member in one School might be devoted to required courses in another School’s high-risk program (for example, an appointment in the School of Arts & Social Sciences delivers Communication course sections in the Shannon School of Business Post-Baccalaureate Diploma in Health Care Management program). Yet even if the latter’s position was largely justified by the need for those sections, according to CBU’s proposal the appointment would have to be a Tenure Track not a Full-Time Continuing Track position.

Short: Yes. Shannon School of Business faculty (with areas of expertise not easily adaptable to and/or required for other CBUFA-delivered programs) currently teaching post-baccalaureate programs occupy limited-term positions. According to CBU’s proposal, all 19 current limited-term positions (as of Fall 2022) would immediately be converted to Full-Time Continuing Track or Continuing Teaching Scholar appointments fully governed by a probation, promotion, tenure and continuing status article. Upon achieving Full-Time Continuing status, those SSOB Teaching Scholars would have the same job protection as all other Full-Time Continuing CBU employees.

Extended: Yes. Shannon School of Business faculty presently teaching in Post-Baccalaureate programs with areas of expertise not easily adaptable to and/or required for other CBUFA-delivered programs occupy limited term positions. To be specific, in the Fall of 2022 these positions consist of five appointments in the first year of a limited term contract, nine in the second year of a limited term contract, three in the third year of a limited term contract and two in the fourth year of a limited term contract. According to CBU’s proposal, all 19 limited term positions would immediately be converted to Full Time Continuing Track or Continuing Teaching Scholar appointments fully governed by a Probation, Promotion, Tenure and Continuing Status article. Upon achieving Full Time Continuing status, those SSOB Teaching Scholars would have the same job protection as all other Full Time Continuing CBU employees. In sum, job protection for nineteen of the most vulnerable CBUFA members would be increased significantly while there would be no decrease in protection for all other members.  

Short: No. Sessional faculty members and part-time CBUFA positions are teaching-only. Limited-term appointments are not teaching-only. CBU is aligned with progressive Canadian universities which are trying to adjust the contractual status quo to create a faculty model that is responsive to changing circumstances and developing interests of all post-secondary education stakeholders.

Extended: No. Sessional faculty positions and part-time CBUFA positions are teaching-only. Limited-term appointments are not teaching-only. Responsibilities of faculty in limited-term positions go beyond diligently meeting required number of teaching contact hours and performing teaching delivery duties competently. Nevertheless, these positions lack an institutional career trajectory and cannot be considered holistic academic positions. CBU has recently made a managerial decision to help mitigate this problem. By contrast with many other universities which are increasingly hiring faculty on four- and eight-month terms, CBU recently started to consistently hire term faculty on one- or two-year contracts. Nevertheless, CBU recognizes that placing firm contractual limits on the term of an academic appointment invariably narrows the appointees’ professional scope. We want to expand that scope.

CBU, then, conceived the Full-Time Continuing Track/Continuing Teaching Scholar proposal as an adjustment to the faculty model which would significantly increase job protection for a small, negotiated number of faculty members required by the University to deliver courses in high-risk programs (currently, the Post-Baccalaureate programs). Teaching Scholars would now occupy a holistic position. It would have a different focus and encompass a different mix of scholarly elements relative to traditional faculty positions, but it would not be teaching-only. Indeed, a Teaching Scholar position (whether Continuing Track/Continuing or a smaller number of Tenure Track/Tenured positions) would be more expansive than the latter. And in defined scholarly ways, it would also be more inclusive. Much depends on negotiated contractual details. That is why CBU is open to all suggestions for improving the proposal. It would not be reasonable to suggest that a well-rounded academic position must consist of a pre-established harmony of unchangeable parts.  By contrast, CBU’s proposal is aligned with progressive Canadian universities which have tried to adjust the contractual status quo to create a faculty model that is responsive to changing circumstances and developing interests of all post-secondary education stakeholders.

Faculty at Xavier College sixty years ago, for example, did an enormous amount of institutional and community service in addition to delivering their courses. All CBUFA faculty must now perform some service along with a lesser amount of teaching, but they must now spend a substantial amount of time and energy on basic research activities. The well-being of a contemporary university depends on all these activities being performed. However, within the prevailing contractual framework, deeply embedded cultural assumptions and various conventional trade-offs (interacting with other variables) impact the performance of each of these activities.

For instance, X and Y might both be contractually necessary work, but “everyone knows” that X is more important than Y. Or a, b, c and d might all meet contractual criteria for consideration as Y, but “everyone knows” that (a) is the “gold standard.” The weight of culture and convention is exemplified by the 40/40/20 principle used to define the percentage of time that ought to be devoted to teaching, research and service. For although this principle is frequently invoked as an academic a priori, it is an informal rule of thumb which is often helpful and sometimes not. In short, the existing reality is as much unsettled as it is stable. Increasingly, moreover, many universities are recognizing that work in the scholarship of teaching and learning must be accommodated in the overall mix because it is a demonstrated driver of teaching excellence within an institution founded on that value.

For all the above reasons, universities have expanded their faculty models over the years and made incremental adjustments to allow individuals to engage in a different mix of activities. It is normal at most universities for special (short or long-term) provisions to be in place so that some faculty will spend more time on particularly significant research projects and less on teaching. In some cases, they are expected to do minimal teaching and service. Similarly, some universities have worked with faculty associations on contractual adjustments that remove (in a limited number of cases) the responsibility to engage in traditional research activities so that they can devote time and energy to the scholarship of teaching and learning, broadly construed. This work may include discipline-based educational scholarship, curriculum development and evaluation, dissemination of pedagogical strategies to colleagues at one’s own institution and elsewhere, contributions to the scholarship of teaching and learning at conferences or workshops, significant institutional service that enhances the educational environment or students and/or colleagues and professional service to regional or national post-secondary organizations.

It must be acknowledged that CBU did propose teaching-only positions in the past. Before the start of this round of bargaining; however, CBU made a conscious decision to reject that option. Instead, CBU proposed Teaching Scholar positions (whether those in Tenure Track/Tenured or Continuing Track/Full-Time Continuing appointments) that would help prevent the invidious trade-offs that many faculty are compelled to make. To reiterate, CBU proposed that a Teaching Scholar would not be contractually responsible for traditional basic research but would be responsible to engage in the kind of scholarly work just described. Such positions would constitute a small percentage of the overall CBUFA faculty appointments (in addition to School and program-based limits, there would also be strict Department limits). On the one hand, CBU is proposing to adjust the contractual meaning of a holistic academic job in accordance to changes in the post-secondary education sector. And on the other hand, it is committed to ensuring a balance of activities (within Schools, Departments and CBU as a whole) that prioritizes traditional values and conventions.

Short: No. The existing contractual process by which a faculty member is designated active/inactive and the existing measure defining compensation for research inactivity are not connected to the Teaching Scholar Proposal.

Extended: No. The existing contractual process by which a faculty member (with traditional research responsibilities) is designated research active/inactive and the existing measure defining compensation for research inactivity are not connected to the Teaching Scholar Proposal. The purposes of the Teaching Scholar Proposal have been clearly expressed and this proposal is intended to be considered on its own positive merits. Yes, there is provision for a tenured faculty member in a traditional position to voluntarily shift to a tenured Teaching Scholar position. Such a voluntary shift might make sense for a research inactive faculty member who met the proposed Teaching Scholar promotion criteria. It should be emphasized that this scenario was not essential to the rationale for making the proposal. They are two separate issues.

Short: No. Research is an essential element of a high-quality educational experience. CBU would not contemplate anyproposal if it did not contribute to the continued expansion of research capacity.

Extended: No. Research is an essential element of a high-quality educational experience at a contemporary university. One sign of CBU’s institutional maturation is the steady increase of faculty’s research activity and productivity (especially since the first CBUFA contract was signed in 2000). CBU currently provides a $10,000 start-up grant to all new tenure-track appointments. We have a competitive internal funding peer-reviewed competition through which researchers can be awarded up to $8,000 for their research projects. All faculty are eligible for School-based conference travel funding that is more than comparable to competitor institutions. Research Chairs are now a familiar part of the CBU environment and all faculty engaged in major research can apply for teaching release. In the past year, we have invested significantly in student research through our newly introduced Undergraduate Student Scholar Awards and our Community- Student Research initiative. Each program sees students receiving $2,000 and the opportunity to develop valuable research skills while working with a faculty member or assisting with the research needs of a community group or organization on Cape Breton Island. For reputational and related reasons, CBU would not contemplate any proposal if did not contribute to the continued expansion of research capacity. To do otherwise, would be a complete contradiction of both policy decisions under managerial purview and contractual changes strongly endorsed by CBU in the last round of bargaining.

It is no coincidence that many research-friendly efforts have begun at CBU since the successful introduction of programs in high demand with international students that bring the financial capacity to make investments in the broader institution. The Teaching Scholar proposal will help ensure that this dynamic is sustained as it is a financially responsible approach to enable a more stable faculty model and improved experience for students studying in high-risk programs. There are strong, independent reasons for considering these positions. They will enrich the University by broadening the scope and deepening the meaning of teaching, scholarship and service; provide more security for CBU’s most vulnerable faculty and help ensure that the University can continue to deliver Post-Baccalaureate programs of increasingly higher quality. This is crucial to healthy growth at CBU and that is what will allow the University to responsibly invest substantial resources in specialized programs that are expensive to operate but research intensive.Over time, good enrolment management practices may allow CBU to hire more faculty overall. And given the provisions of the Teaching Scholar proposal, that could mean more faculty in traditional research-based positions.