When state coffers began to strengthen in the 1990s, a result of strong state economies, legislatures in turn warmed to the idea of providing more aid to college students. This has resulted in a new kind of student aid program, modeled in many states on Georgia's Helping Outstanding Pupils Educationally (HOPE) Scholarship, introduced in 1993.

While the intent behind HOPE Scholarships was to send a message to all high school students that money for college would be available to them if they maintained a set grade point average, another overreaching goal of state aid programs may be compromised, says a new report from the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU). Money to support economically disadvantaged students' attendance in college may be reduced. At the same time, some of the stated aims of the merit-based programs may not be being realized.

The AASCU report, "State Student Financial Aid: Tough Choices and Trade-offs for a New Generation," analyzes the state programs from the standpoints of effectiveness, equity and efficiency. It finds that the programs do make college more affordable for the middle class--a key voting constituency--because this class pays for college tuition. For low-income students, however, the programs don't help because of provisions that subtract the amount of the federal grant from the state award or provide nonrefundable tax credits, for which poorer students do not qualify. On the equity front, AASCU notes, the state merit-based programs actually redistribute wealth from those students in the lower-income groups to those in the higher income groups. Also, the programs are of questionable efficiency because they give money to families that may not need it (see "Campus Clips," February 2000, for a discussion of "overmet" need in state and national student aid funding).

To see a copy of the AASCU report, go to www.aascu.org.

Miami-Dade faculty get first contract

One-and-a-half contentious years after forming a union and sitting down to the bargaining table, the 690 full-time faculty of Miami-Dade Community College have a contract. At the end of January, they ratified their first contract, by an overwhelming 371 to 88 vote. The MDCC board of trustees approved the contract by a 5-to-0 vote on Feb. 9.

The faculty got raises totaling 14 percent over the three-year life of the contract. An 8 percent raise for the first year is retroactive to Jan. 1, 1999. Faculty who hold or earn doctorates get a $3,000 bonus built into the base pay.

Most important to the faculty were measures that protect their academic freedom and due process rights. Among the protections that faculty have never had before, says Mark Richard, president of the United Faculty of MDCC/AFT, are a final and binding arbitration process; seniority protections in the areas of transfer, class assignments and layoff; and a prohibition against censorship.

The contract also contains favorable provisions that will strengthen the union and allow it to enforce the contract. For example, it provides dues deduction, union access to internal forms of communication, reimbursed leave for shop stewards and officers, and protection for whistleblowers.

"People are feeling good about it as a first contract," Richard says. "That resounding vote signifies all that the contract means to people."

Ever since negotiations began in fall 1998, discussions have been acrimonious and frequently aborted. Under Florida's open meeting laws, the bargaining relationship has unfolded before the eyes of public and faculty alike. By the end of 1999, when the union sought a mediator, the college and union had 167 points of contention. But in a single week in January, both sides determined to resolve as many issues as possible and come to an agreement.

Richard notes that while the union was able to secure its do-or-die measures, the administration made some important gains too. For example, the contract stipulates that faculty must be on campus 35 hours a week over all five days. That's five hours and one day more than before. In addition, faculty must take classes worth three graduate credits beyond the master's in a three-year period in order to maintain their rank.

In presenting the contract before the ratification vote, says Richard, the officers did not recommend it, but told why they were voting yes. "The commitment to democracy and debate and difference of opinion were cherished," he says. In the end, "having a union and a contract are the equivalent of putting a constitution in place in a higher ed setting. That had a greater premium value to us than each of the positive articles" of the contract.

Hard statistics on the use of part-timers

Getting a firm handle on the prevalence of part-time college faculty has been a hard task for institutional researchers. Institutions claim they cannot keep track of the numbers because the use varies so much from semester to semester. A new report from the U.S. Department of Education, however, goes a long way toward documenting a trend that is well-established and on the rise.

According to Fall Staff in Postsecondary Institutions, 1997, a biennial report released this January, degree-granting institutions employed nearly 990,000 faculty--568,719 full time, and 421,094 part time. At four-year institutions, the ratio of full time to part time was 67.4 percent to 32.6 percent. Two years earlier, the ratio was 69 percent full time to 31 percent part time.

Two-year colleges rely more heavily on the use of part-time faculty. In 1997, of the 307,163 faculty employed by two-year institutions, 108,629 were full time, and 198,534 were part time (36 percent and 64.6 percent respectively). In 1995, the ratio of full time to part time was virtually the same--36 percent to 64 percent.

The Fall Staff report also shows the breakdown of postsecondary faculty and staff by gender and race/ethnicity. Women made up 36 percent of full-time faculty and 47 percent of part-timers at degree-granting institutions. By race/ethnicity for all faculty, whites were 83.9 percent; Asian or Pacific Islanders, 5.5 percent; African-Americans 4.9 percent; Hispanics, 2.6 percent; Native Americans, .4 percent; and nonresidents were 2.3 percent.

Among the managerial staff, there were a total of 151,363 employees--roughly 79,000 men and 65,000 women working full time. Use of part-timers at this level was minimal, with an additional 2,986 men and 3,848 women employed on this basis.

To download this report, go to the NCES Web site and click on "Data Products Last Six Months" and then on "Data File on Fall Staff in Postsecondary Institutions, 1997."