According to this article in the Chronicle, it looks like an increasing number of institutions are putting the screws to their faculty to do more online learning work for less money. The story starts with an anecdote about a county college in California pressuring faculty to use sabbatical time for online course development. It continues with the following:
In the 1999 survey, the average minimum overload pay was $1,885. In 2002 it was $1,620, a decrease of 14 percent. The average maximum overload pay also dropped, from $4,097 in 1999 to $2,740 in 2002, a 33-percent decline.
While differences in salary and hours spent working may be partly responsible for the decrease in overload pay, the amount of the drop-off is significant, Ms. Schifter says. “I’m not sure that it paints a rosy picture.”
The proportion of faculty members surveyed who “often” received time off to develop online courses also dropped, from 13 percent in 1999 to 10 percent in 2002. However, the percentage of those who often received extra compensation for online teaching increased from 26 percent in 1999 to 28 percent in 2002.
In order to know what’s “fair” you really have to know how much each institution is netting on these courses. Typically, online learning programs lose money in the first year or two and then become money makers in the out years. In an earlier post I noted that UMass appears to be making a 90% profit margin on their courses, (though the description is vague, and we don’t know if this is gross, net, or even really profit). If you use Marshall University’s online calculator, the profits look more realistic (and more fair). Plugging in the example numbers that Marshall helpfully supplies from their own experience, they lose money in the first two years, have a 10% net margin in year 3, and a 40% net margin by year 7. That strikes me as roughly fair for all parties. Of course, Marshall pays faculty extra for both online course development and online delivery.
