College of Arts & Sciences Workload Policy

Approved 2026

The College of Arts & Sciences Workload Policy is a living document that supports and promotes faculty success across the full spectrum of roles, each essential to the college’s mission. The policy seeks to promote equity across the college, mindful of its wide disciplinary breadth, while also recognizing the distinct day-to-day expectations of individual faculty. It is informed by the requirements and recommendations of the Washington State University (WSU) Office of the Provost, WSU Faculty Manual, and other university policies as well as by the college’s commitment to holistic faculty review and our service to WSU’s land grand mission.

This policy will be reviewed by the dean at least every three years to determine whether it is still achieving our goals outlined above.

Workload Categories

Below are the defined workload categories for the WSU College of Arts & Sciences. Success in each of these categories may look different depending on the discipline of the individual faculty, so we ask that departments/schools each set their own specific definitions of satisfactory (S) and especially meritorious performance (EMP), as well as the rest of the annual review ratings, for each category.  Broadly speaking, CAS defines satisfactory as demonstrating progress towards the criteria of promotion. If a given faculty member is at the professor rank, then they must, at minimum, continue to meet the criteria of that rank. All definitions used at the college and unit level should embody the college’s principles of growth, coherence, and impact.

We caution departments/schools to not overly prescribe their definitions with numbers or other requirements that promote quantity over quality and potentially reduce flexibility for expectations that may change as disciplines evolve. In addition, please be mindful that community-engaged scholarship may have different indicators of productivity and merit beyond that has been traditionally recognized in disciplines.

The college has defined many of our key workload categories within the promotion and tenure guidelines. We include synopses of these categories below, but we also encourage all faculty and leadership to review the college’s promotion & tenure document for more in-depth definitions and indicators of excellence.

Research/Scholarship/Creative Practice:

From the college’s General Statement on Excellence in Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activities: “As a multi-disciplinary and forward-facing unit, the College of Arts and Sciences recognizes that a faculty member’s work in research/scholarship/creative activity will likely take many forms over the course of a career as well as across the College. The College thus maintains an expansive view of scholarship that recognizes the value of multiple modalities and reaching multiple audiences, including scholarship that involves collaborations that cross disciplinary boundaries, engages community partners, and includes commercialization activities. Excellence in research/scholarship/creative activities at the College level is defined by the concepts of growth, coherence, and impact.”  

Please also see the college’s statements on Interdisciplinary Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activity, Commercialization Activity, and Public and Community-Engaged Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activity.

Teaching:

From the college’s General Statement on Excellence in Teaching: “The College values a demonstrated teaching record of achievement and growth, one that demonstrates evolution and innovation in a faculty member’s teaching over time. The College also recognizes that teaching occurs in a variety of modes and environments outside of the formal classroom, individual or group lessons, studio, or lab settings. Work such as independent studies, mentoring and informal advising, and advancing student professional development, especially when it is accompanied by evidence of effectiveness, can also be an element of teaching excellence.”

The college expects all tenure-track faculty, regardless of rank, to teach within the undergraduate program each academic year.

Service:

From the college’s General Statement on Excellence in Service: “Service allows for academic units, campuses, institutions, and professions to operate as a collective. As such, the College values effective service wherein the faculty member takes an active and collaborative role in departmental, college, university, community, and professional activities…Faculty members seeking promotion to Professor (regardless of track) should also demonstrate leadership in their service commitments, particularly within the Department, College and/or University.”

Clinical Work:

From the college’s General Statement on Excellence in Clinical Practice and Clinical Instruction: “In considering the clinical practice, supervision, and instruction presented for promotion in this track, the College values most highly a demonstrated record of achievement and growth, one that demonstrates over time the evolution, innovation, and the expansion and extension of a faculty member’s knowledge and clinical practice. Of particular value is the extent to which a faculty member’s individual clinical practice and instruction contributes to the larger mission of the clinic, department, or unit. While the specific nature of this work will vary among clinics and appointments, the College emphasizes in each instance the importance of providing services and instruction that are ethical, evidence-based, and consistent with the best professional expectations of the discipline.”

Administrative Leadership:

Though recognized within the promotion and tenure guidelines, below the college provides a detailed description of roles that fall under administrative leadership. Faculty with this workload category should be reviewed for excellence using the framework of growth, coherence, and impact as described in the Research/Scholarship/Creative Activities general statement. 

• College-/Campus-wide leadership: associate deans, campus academic directors, department chairs, school directors, or other ad hoc positions or opportunities as approved by the dean and vice chancellor of academic affairs, as appropriate.
• Not to be used for department-level administration (assistant chair, grad director, etc.) unless authorized by dean and vice chancellor of academic affairs, as appropriate. Instead, the work associated with those positions should be accommodated through the service category.

Educational Leadership:

Though recognized within the promotion and tenure guidelines, below the college provides a detailed description of roles that fall under educational leadership. Faculty with this workload category should be reviewed for excellence using the framework of growth, coherence, and impact as described in the Research/Scholarship/Creative Activities general statement. 

• College/Campus-wide programs: director of composition, director of ROOTs, director of foundational courses
• Not to be used for department-level administration (assistant chair, grad director, etc.) unless authorized by dean and vice chancellor of academic affairs, as appropriate. Instead, the work associated with those positions should be accommodated through the service category.

Secondary Areas for Scholarly Career Track Faculty:

From the college’s General Statement on Excellence in Secondary Areas: “Given the potential range of secondary areas available to scholarly faculty, the College recognizes that the profiles and accomplishments of candidates for promotion in this sub-track may vary widely. Especially given this diversity, expectations for the type of work and its manner of production and dissemination will also likely vary by discipline and should be defined in part by the expectations of a candidate’s home department. For its part, the College holds that the quantity of work in any given area, while potentially significant, is by itself an insufficient criterion for promotion.”  Faculty with this secondary workload categories should be reviewed for excellence using the framework of growth, coherence, and impact as described in the General Statement on Excellence in Secondary Areas.

Secondary areas can be any of the workload categories already defined by this document plus Advising, Undergraduate Research, Internship Programs, Practice, or other dean-approved category and should be described in offer letters or contracts.

Baseline Workload

Table 1 outlines the typical baseline workload for each faculty track, subtrack and position type for all ranks. Most college faculty appointments will follow this baseline workload though there may be case-by-case variations, particularly in the career track. Workloads, including teaching loads, may differ from Table 1 based on performance over a three-year period to support faculty success in their various roles and time-in-rank.

Some faculty will have workloads that deviate from the baseline based on performance or other factors (see also Initial Implementation and Grace Period section). For example, some tenure and career track faculty workloads may shift to reduce teaching percentages to accommodate increased research effort. The conditions that warrant those shifts are outlined in Baseline Workload Review section. No workload changes will be made to pre-tenure tenure track faculty during the time that they are pre-tenure.  Initial baseline workloads, including teaching load, for new tenure track faculty will be negotiated with the Dean at the time of approval of the search so that the initial workloads are in alignment with market expectations. Changes in workload following unsatisfactory reviews will follow the Faculty Manual. 

Table 1- CAS Baseline Workloads.

Track/Subtrack/Position	Teaching	Research	Service	Secondary	Clinical
Tenure Track	20-40%	40-60%	20%[1]	–	–
Career Track – Scholarly	60%	–	20%	20%[2]
Career Track – Teaching	80%	–	20%	–	–
Career Track – Research[3]	0%	100%	–	–	–
Career Track – Clinical	varied	–	–	–	>50%
Lecturers/Adjuncts/Adjoints	varied	varied	varied	varied	varied

Teaching FTE to Course Load Conversion and Exceptions[4]

• 20% FTE equates to one three-credit course per semester; this equivalency should be used to scale other credit load courses (e.g., two-credit or four-credit courses).
• The required FTE/credit load (Table 2) is considered an average across an academic year. In other words, a faculty member can have 60% teaching in the fall semester and 20% teaching in spring semester to meet their average 40% teaching FTE for the academic year.
• If a course is canceled one semester due to low enrollment, then the faculty member should be reassigned to a course that same semester, if possible, or assigned an additional course the following semester to maintain the average required FTE/credit load.
• There may be occasions when chairs/directors need to assign teaching that puts a faculty member beyond their teaching workload percentage to maintain instructional capacity. In those cases, the chair/director should reduce that faculty member’s service expectations, if possible, to account for the additional teaching. For example, a faculty member teaches two four-credit courses in one semester and two three-credit courses the next semester, then their service allocation should be reduced by the FTE equivalency of two credits.
• When faculty co-teach courses, each participating faculty will receive partial credit for that course as scaled to the total number of instructors (e.g., if two faculty are teaching, each receive half credit whereas if three faculty are instructors, then they will each receive one third credit).
• Exceptions to the FTE to credit conversion include:
  • School of Music, which has teaching loads defined by their accrediting body (see appendix).
  • Large enrollment classes (>100 students), without teaching support in the lecturer component (for those classes with labs) (TAs or graders) can be weighted as an additional 6.67% FTE or 1 credit course per semester (or 3.33% FTE per year).
  • Management of ASE teaching lab sections of a course (>10 ASEs) can be weighted as an additional 6.67% FTE or 1 credit course per semester (or 3.33% FTE per year).
    • This weighting assumes that the instructor is, at minimum, providing training and full supervision for the ASEs including regular meetings. If your unit has a director of undergraduate or foundational studies whose duties include ASE training and supervision for these classes (or you are that director and receiving credit through your appointment), then additional credit will not apply. This weighting is in addition to the credit received for teaching a four-credit course.
  • Coordination of a course that is more than 5 sections with several different instructors can be weighted as an additional 6.67% FTE or 1 credit course per semester.
    • This weighting assumes that the course coordinator (only one individual) is, at minimum, leading efforts to maintain consistency in learning goals and outcomes across the sections including regular meetings with all instructors. If your unit has a director of undergraduate or foundational studies whose duties include this course coordination (or if you are that director and receiving credit through your appointment), then the additional credit will not apply.
  • Faculty whose home campuses are Vancouver, Tri Cities, Everett, Spokane, or Global Campus may have other teaching exceptions that may not be listed above. For those instances, local campus policies should be followed with consultation with chairs/directors and dean.
  • Others that require prior approval from dean.

Baseline Workload Review

The college and departments/schools will review the baseline workload for all faculty members in the college every three calendar years to determine whether baseline workload changes are warranted[5]. Changes in baseline workload are meant to provide accommodation for increased effort associated with successful graduate & undergraduate research mentorship and F&A-generating grant funding as well as to provide pathways for faculty who are underperforming in one area of their responsibilities for growth in other areas. The baseline workload review is only for career- and tenure-track faculty. For career-track faculty, baseline review process cannot lead to a <50% teaching workload allocation without dean approval. Pre-tenure tenure track faculty are not subject to any changes associated with a baseline workload review.

The college will develop tools to collect and/or track effort in graduate & undergraduate research mentorship. F&A generating awards will need to be logged annually by the unit. It will be the responsibility of the department/school and faculty to ensure accuracy of these yearly reports by the requested deadline. The information from the reports will be used to calculate yearly averages of the below values across the three-year period. If the values warrant a workload change that results in a course load reduction or the maintaining of a reduced course load (e.g., one course per semester), then that reduced teaching load will be applied over the next three calendar years. Course releases are applied within an academic year at the discretion of the chair/director and local campus academic director. This approach is designed to promote stability within an individual faculty’s workload as well as to manage the administrative work for chairs/directors. Note, on the occasion that approved reduced teaching loads or course-buyouts means that no instructor will be available for a specific course, chairs & directors need to (1) assess if instructional replacement is warranted for that course, (2) determine if the course will not be offered during that period, or (3) identify department/school funds to cover the instructional costs. In addition, units that experience substantial workload changes across faculty should use curriculum updates to manage those changes.

For faculty who have not been with the department/school for three calendar years by the time of the workload review, the effort will be averaged across the employment length rather than three years.

Annual reviews and performance evaluation for faculty who receive baseline workload changes will be based on the new workload allocations (e.g., with increased research and reduced teaching efforts) until the next baseline workload review. As such, baseline workload changes are optional for faculty and some faculty may choose to opt out of a baseline change if they feel that their eligibility was due to a temporary, rather than sustained, shift in effort.

Initial Implementation and Grace Period

To help with the transition to a standard workload policy, at the policy’s implementation, we will have three opportunities for a grace period for eligible faculty from units who have historically had a 1/1 or 2/1 (or 1/2) teaching load but do not meet the threshold at implementation.

Grace period eligibility:

1. Tenure track faculty from units who have historically had a 1/1 or 2/1 teaching load, have not had unsatisfactory reviews in the past three years, and who have an active external grant but whose grant(s) may not reach the Effort on F&A Generating Grants threshold (described below) will receive credit for meeting that  threshold for the initial 3-year period.
2. Tenure track faculty from units who have historically had a 1/1 or 2/1 teaching load, have not had unsatisfactory reviews in the past three years, and are within three points the Graduate and Undergraduate Mentoring threshold (described below) will receive credit for meeting that threshold for the initial 3-year period.
3. Tenure track faculty from units who have historically had a 1/1 or 2/1 teaching load, have not had unsatisfactory reviews in the past three years, and recently received tenure (within 3 years from policy implementation) will be provided with a one-time, three-year grace period from changes in teaching load.

The grace period will enable eligible faculty to avoid major shifts in workload for the initial three-year period, allowing them time to meet the research/mentoring expectations outlined in this policy.

While a faculty member is in the grace period, they will not be eligible for any additional exceptions that enable shifts in workload. The exceptions described below are only available to faculty who are not benefiting from a grace period.  For example, a faculty member cannot retain a 1/1 teaching load due to a grace period and receive a reduction in teaching because they manage large numbers of ASEs.

All other tenure track faculty will have a baseline workload of 40% teaching, 40% research, and 20% service. These units will be eligible for the exceptions and workload shifts described below at Workload Policy implementation.

Effort on F&A Generating Grants

The college recognizes that success in managing F&A generating grants may maintain or warrant a shift in workload to provide increased FTE for the management of those grants. This need for increased research/scholarship is the justification for the baseline workload of 30% teaching, 50% research, and 20% service for some tenure track faculty.

If eligible for this workload change/maintenance, then a maximum FTE of 10% per academic year may be shifted from the teaching to research/scholarship/creative activity workload allocation or a 30% teaching allocation may be maintained. Note, this change can be separate or in addition to a workload change due to graduate and undergraduate mentoring (see below).

Eligibility is determined by meeting at least one of the below conditions:

• Faculty who are primary investigators (PIs)[6] or part of a multiple primary investigator team (MPI)³ with a funding agency involving an F&A generating grant or contract with a total project budget[7] averaging $100,000 (including direct and indirect costs) per year.
• Faculty who are primary investigators (PI) or co-primary investigators (co-PI)³ with F&A generating grants with a cumulative average award[8] (across multiple grants, if applicable) of $100,000 (including direct and indirect costs) per year from F&A generating grants and/or contracts awarded directly to that faculty member (i.e., not the overall total of the project).

For tracking purposes, the college request that units provide a simple annual grant report to attest which faculty have met this threshold by the required deadline. These reports will be used to inform average yearly values across the three-year workload review period that will then determine eligibility. The college recognizes that the awarding of grants does not often align with the calendar year and that there may be times when much of the award extends into a new review period though the date of award occurred in the current/prior review period. Chairs/directors should be mindful of these occurrences and consult with the college.

Importantly, the workload shift described above does not preclude any faculty, even those who do or do not meet the thresholds above, from budgeting salary and benefits to pay for course releases and we encourage faculty to do so. Grant funded buyouts are subject to chair/director, dean, and vice chancellor for academic affairs, if appropriate, approval and may need to meet unit level notification deadlines for approval.  For each course buyout, funding must cover the salary associated with the course plus benefits. For example, a one three-credit course buyout during an academic year equates to 10% of salary plus benefits. In addition, the college encourages departments/schools/campuses to work with pre-tenure faculty to budget course releases in their start-up funding while they work to establish their extramural funding programs.

Graduate and Undergraduate Research Mentorship

Mentoring graduate students and undergraduate researchers falls under the “Scholarship” workload category. If eligible for this workload change/maintenance, then a maximum FTE of 10% per academic year may be shifted from the teaching to research/scholarship/creative activity workload allocation or a 30% teaching allocation may be maintained. This change can be separate or in addition to a workload change due to effort on F&A generating grants (see above).

Note, faculty MUST meet Satisfactory expectations in graduate/undergraduate research mentoring that year, as defined by the department/school, to receive credit applied toward teaching FTE. If faculty are eligible for a course reduction due to this workload change, then that course must be a graduate level course unless otherwise approved by the dean’s office.

To be eligible for graduate and undergraduate mentoring workload change, faculty must meet an average yearly point threshold of 9 points as determined over a three-year review period. The point system is allocated yearly as follows:

• 1.5 per graduate student in role as primary advisor/PI
  • Co-chaired graduate students will be allocated as partial credit as scaled to the total number of faculty serving as co-chair/co-advisor.
• 1.0 if at least one graduate student was supported by an extramural grant for the academic year (this credit is capped at 1.0)
• 2.0 per degree conferral (i.e., graduation) for graduate student that academic year
• 0.50 per instance for each of these roles as graduate committee member, primary advisor for undergraduate researcher (capped at four (4) undergraduate researchers per semester[9]), or other roles as approved by chair/director & dean and vice chancellor for academic affairs, as applicable
• Banking of credit to use beyond a three-year review window is not allowed. No exceptions.
• Faculty must be instructors of record for research credit hours for graduate (700/800) or have a graduate student(s) on formal continuing doctoral status and undergraduate students (498/499 – only if these are used for research credit hours rather than internships or special topics courses) to receive mentoring credit. There must be a corresponding syllabus, or continuing doctoral status mentoring statement, on file for each semester and expectations/contact hours must clearly correspond to enrolled credit hours.
• Graduate students must have completed the required paperwork to formally establish a committee by the annual review period for faculty to receive mentoring credit as committee member.
• The credit for those graduate students who have not completed this paperwork by the annual review period will be attributed to the faculty member leading the graduate program (typically, the graduate program director or graduate coordinator). If the graduate program director/coordinator already has been allocated a course release for this role through their appointment, then they are not eligible for an additional course release through this process.

Points Example:  A faculty member has three graduate students across the academic year. One of these graduate students is funded on a grant for the entire academic year.  Another graduate student graduates that spring semester. The faculty member is also member on three committees (not including their own students) and mentors two undergraduates in their lab/research or scholarship group. This faculty member would receive 9 points for that year.

The college will use a tool to collect the above data prior to the annual review period each year. The college will provide yearly reports to departments/school to check for accuracy. These reports will be used to inform average yearly values across the three-year workload review period.

We encourage departments/schools/campuses to work with pre-tenure faculty to budget in course releases in their start-up funding while they work to establish their graduate and undergraduate mentoring programs. For more information about course buyouts, please see the college policy in appendix.

Less than Satisfactory Performance

If a faculty member receives less than satisfactory on their annual reviews for any of their assigned workload categories for two out of the three years during the three-year workload review period, then some portion of their workload allocation may be transitioned to teaching (to maintain FTE) or reduced (for an overall decreased FTE). If performance concerns are in the teaching category, then FTE may be reduced following the processes outlined in the Faculty Manual. A return to satisfactory for three consecutive years is required to be eligible for the FTE shift or reduction to be reversed (note, an increase in FTE may not be possible due to budgetary constraints even if eligibility is met). Pre-tenure tenure track faculty will not be subject to performance-based workload changes based on less than satisfactory ratings.

Other Workload Changes or Temporary Shifts

In addition to the exceptions defined above, the college supports formal workload changes for the following circumstances, all of which require prior approval and consultation with local campus leadership if applicable. In the occasion that approved reduced teaching loads or course-buyouts lead to a lack of an instructor for a specific course, chairs & directors need to assess if instructional replacement is warranted for that course or if it can just be not offered.

• Administrative and Educational Leadership Opportunity: A workload change may be available for administrative or educational leadership opportunities at, or above, the level of chair/director or college-wide programs as approved by dean and vice chancellor for academic affairs, as appropriate. These changes may be negotiated with the dean and the relevant offices supporting the leadership position. Note that some internal department/school positions garner a course release (as paid by the department/school), this does not result in a formal workload change – rather, the “in-practice” workload shifts for the review period while in that position.

• Grant Funded or other Course Buy Outs: Faculty may budget salary and benefits into grant proposals to fund course releases. Both the relevant salary and benefits must be covered by the funds. Departments/schools/campuses may also offer courses releases if they pay for the salary and benefits to cover those releases. As above, though these course releases are paid out, they do not result in a formal workload change – rather, the “in-practice” workload shifts for the review period while in that position.

• Modified Duties, Leave, or Reasonable Accommodations: Faculty workload may also be adjusted as part of WSU’s family friend policies (modified duties, family medical leave) or through reasonable accommodations. These processes must go through the formal approval process in consultation with WSU HRS and local campus leadership where appropriate. Chairs/directors are not allowed to make these types of accommodations themselves.

Appeals/Grievances

Faculty may initiate a formal appeal to the CAS Dean’s Office under the following circumstances:

• After a chair/director recommendation for a workload change based on performance (but prior to that workload change being approved by dean and provost).
• After a review for a workload or FTE shift reversal was not successful.
• If a faculty member was not allowed to budget salary and benefits for a course reduction in a funding application.
• If an approved grant-funded course buy-out was not allowed to be used within two consecutive semesters.
• Limited instances not covered in the above, but that are relevant to faculty workload.

To submit a request for an appeal review, the faculty member should email the associate dean for faculty a short summary (maximum of one page) of the appeal and its basis. The decision on the appeal will ultimately be decided by the dean in consultation with the vice chancellor for academic affairs, as appropriate. If concerns are not resolved after review by the dean, faculty may appeal through the provost’s office in accordance with the WSU Faculty Manual.

Example Table

Table 2 – Table highlight different scenarios occurring at Baseline Workload Review (assumes a three-year review period; %FTE reflects annual level effort unless stated otherwise).

Scenario	Prior/New Baseline Workload	Effort on F&A Generating Grant	Undergraduate & Graduate Mentoring Effort	Teaching Load for next 3 years	Teaching Assignment Example for next AY	FTE to Course Load Exception
A full professor, TT faculty member is lead PI on a $1.5 million project. They also mentor 5 graduate students, 4 undergraduate students, and are on several graduate committees. They are an outstanding teacher, and their service is also very strong. They recently received an award for their graduate mentoring.	Prior Baseline Workload:40% teaching, 40% research, and 20% service.   New Baseline Workload: 20% teaching, 60% research, and 20% service.	Condition met.	Condition met.	Two three-credit course per academic year (1:1) or FTE equivalency thereof.	A mix of undergraduate and graduate courses in each of the fall and spring semesters as determined by the chair. One of those courses MUST be an undergraduate course.	Depends on course assignments
An associate professor, TT faculty member is a PI on a $400,00 project. They also mentor 2 graduate students and are on 3 graduate committees. They are an outstanding teacher, and their service is also very strong.	Prior Baseline Workload:40% teaching, 40% research, and 20% service.   New Baseline Workload: 30% teaching, 50% research, and 20% service.	Condition met.	Condition NOT met.	Two three-credit courses one semester and one three-credit course the other semester (2:1) or FTE equivalency thereof.	Mix of undergraduate and graduate courses that fulfill the teaching FTE.	Depends on course assignments.
An associate professor, career track on the scholarly subtrack just received a $400k, three-year F&A generating grant. Though they mentor on average two graduate students and serve on two graduate committees a year, they do not meet the mentorship threshold.	Prior Baseline Workload:60% teaching, 20% research, and 20% service.   New Baseline Workload: 50% teaching, 30% research, and 20% service.	Condition met.	Condition NOT met.	Three three-credit courses one semester and two three-credit course the other (3:2) or FTE equivalency thereof.	Mix of undergraduate and graduate courses that fulfill teaching FTE.	Depends on course assignments
A professor, career track on the scholarly subtrack is also the Director of Foundational Courses for their unit.  That directorship role includes formal supervision of ASEs who teaching within introductory courses. They also regularly teach large enrollment (>100 students) 4-credit courses that require supervision of >10 ASEs.	Prior Baseline Workload:60% teaching, 20% secondary area, and 20% service.   New Baseline Workload: 40% teaching, 30% educational leadership and 20% service.   The baseline workload was changed due to the educational leadership position associated with Director of Foundational Courses.	Condition NOT met.	Condition NOT met.	Two three-credit each semester (2:2) or FTE equivalency thereof (which is more likely for this scenario).	One 4-credit, large enrollment course (>100 students) plus one 1-credit graduate courses for professional development of ASEs teaching foundational courses per year.	Yes, the teaching percentage for each semester is determined as follows: the 4-credit course is 26.67& FTE plus 6.67% FTE for >100 enrollment. This faculty member would NOT receive the >10 ASE exemption as they already receive a course reduction as part of their directorship. So, the teaching FTE for each semester would be 33.33% for the 4-credit, large enrollment (>100) course and 6.67% for the one-credit graduate professional development course for a total of 40% teaching effort.
A full professor, TT, has received three years of consistently low annual review ratings in research (< satisfactory) though still successful in teaching and service. They have not met either the UG/G mentoring or F&A generating thresholds.	Prior Baseline Workload:40% teaching, 40% research, and 20% service.   New Baseline Workload: 60% teaching, 20% research, 20% service.	Condition NOT met.	Condition NOT met.	Three three-credit courses per semester (3:3), or FTE equivalency thereof.	Mix of undergraduate and graduate courses that fulfill teaching FTE.	Depends on course assignments.
A professor, career track on the teaching subtrack is an excellent teacher but refuses to participate in any service assignments and has had three years of poor annual review ratings in the service category.	Prior Baseline Workload:80% teaching and 20% service.   New Baseline Workload: 90% teaching and 10% service.	Condition NOT met.	Condition NOT met.	Five three-credit courses one semester and four three-credit courses the other semester (5:4) or FTE equivalency thereof.	Mix of undergraduate and graduate courses that fulfill teaching FTE.	Depends on course assignments

---

[1] 20% FTE allocated for Service averages to 8 hours per week of work.

[2] Secondary areas can include research, but for expansiveness we are just using the collective term “secondary” in this table.

[3] These positions are typically solely grant funded.

[4] Chairs/Directors must work with the Dean’s Office to determine how the unit will cover additional instructional costs with current year unit funds when there are changes associated with teaching FTE to course load conversion/exceptions in their units.

[5] Chairs/Directors must work with the Dean’s Office to determine how the unit will cover additional instructional costs with current year unit funds when there are changes associated with baseline workload shifts in their units.

[6] Note, the terms for these types of roles may be different for different funding agencies. If you have a question about whether a different terminology may still fall under this condition, then contact the dean’s office.

[7] This total includes the F&A costs and costs for other institutions.

[8] This total includes the portion of the project allocated to the WSU faculty member and does include F&A costs.

[9] Faculty are welcome to mentor more than nine (9) undergraduate researchers per semester if each are provided high quality mentorship, but any undergraduate researchers beyond this threshold will not be included in the calculations.