Legislative Priorities Survey

 

If the demographics of the sample are generalizable to the population of higher education members in the IEA, the majority of our members are part-time non-tenure track faculty at two-year schools. Our members are most interested in employee compensation issues. Increasing their salaries is their top priority. They support funding that makes higher education more accessible to students, but only if new money can be provided to fund those programs. Roughly one-third of the sample knew about the Invest In Excellence (IIE) campaign. Of those who knew about the campaign the vast majority seemed well informed with regard to the basic principles of IIE as those apply to higher education. Almost two-thirds of the sample said they would send an email to their legislator and about one-third said they would send a postcard. Very few indicated that they would engage in any other activity in order to become more politically active in the IEA. Most of the sample believed they should be covered by institution-provided health insurance while they are employed and after they retire. Less than half are covered now and roughly one-third believe they will be covered after retirement. When asked if protections against sub-contracting were more important than the eligibility for unemployment benefits, one-half or two-thirds, depending on how the question was posed, chose unemployment benefits. Roughly two-thirds of the sample agreed that the IEA should engage in a legislative initiative to make dual credit programs conform to a state-wide standard. About half of the sample felt that two-year schools should not offer baccalaureate degrees. About half of the sample indicated that their children are entitled to tuition waivers as an employee benefit provided by their current employer.

 

Some detail is given below. A full report of the findings is available. Please contact Meredith Byers, Higher Education and Student Program Director at the Illinois Education Association in Springfield, meredith.byers@ieanea.org.

308 higher education members responded to the instrument. 77, or 28%, were full-time tenure track faculty, 30, or 11% were full-time non-tenure track faculty, 5, or 2%, were part-time tenure-track faculty, 135, or 50%, were part-time non-tenure track faculty, 19, or 7%, were full-time non-faculty staff, and 5, or 2%, were part-time non-faculty staff. 37 people did not answer this question. 91 of the respondents, or 34%, were employed at four-year schools, 178, or 66%, were employed at two-year schools. 39 people did not answer this question.

 

When asked what the top priorities should be when schools deploy resources 81% chose salary, 59% chose employee benefits, and 33% chose pensions and recruiting and retaining diverse faculty and staff. Only issues around employee compensation had the support of more than 30% of the respondents. When asked which priority should be ranked highest, 47% selected salary. The next highest item was employee benefits, chosen by 13% of the respondents.

 

84% of the respondents supported allocating additional money to student programs, but only if additional funding is provided by the system. The respondents split roughly in half when asked if new resources should be allocated to programs that encourage students to pursue education related careers (52%) or allocated to traditional liberal arts programs (48%). When asked which student incentives should receive allocations tuition waivers were supported by 31% of respondents and textbook (grants) were supported by 25%. No other program was chosen by more than 20% of the respondents.

 

Only 113 respondents answered yes when asked if they were aware of the IIE campaign. 99 said they were aware that one of the core principles of the IIE campaign is to “provide adequate resources to all public higher education institutions.” 197 people did not respond to the second question. 82 people said they were aware that a core principle of the IIE campaign is to “provide a long-term solution for pension system stability and funding.” Again, 197 people did not respond to this question. 57 respondents agreed that the IIE campaign adequately addresses the needs of higher education (while 200 people did not respond).

 

When asked what activities they were willing to engage in to become more politically involved in the IEA 188 respondents said they would send an email to their legislator, 114 said they would send a postcard to their legislator, 78 said they would attend a local rally, and 72 said they would meet with their legislator in Springfield.

88% of respondents strongly believed that they should be covered by health insurance provided by their institution; 48% are covered. 85% of respondents strongly believed that they should be covered by post-retirement health insurance provided by their institution; 32% believe they will be covered.

 

182 respondents felt that the IEA should seek additional protections against sub-contracting at institutions of higher education. 81 disagreed and 45 people did not respond. 237 respondents asserted that IEA should investigate the best way to clarify “reasonable assurance” for contingent faculty (while 27 said no and 45 did not respond). When asked if subcontracting or unemployment eligibility was the most important issue, 152 people chose unemployment eligibility (109 chose subcontracting and 47 did not answer).

 

187 respondents agreed that the IEA should support a legislative initiative to make dual credit programs conform to a statewide standard.

 

145 respondents felt that community colleges should not be allowed to offer baccalaureate degrees (119 answered yes to this question and 44 people did not respond).

 

144 respondents asserted that tuition waivers are offered to their children as a benefit of their employment (120 answered no and 44 did not respond).