C1.02 Questions Vol 2

Welcome back! In our previous post, we introduced ARC-PA Standard C1.02 and discussed why personnel sufficiency is about much more than faculty headcounts or student-to-faculty ratios. The Standards ask programs to consider not only the number of faculty and staff available, but also whether they have the workload structure and institutional support necessary to fulfill their responsibilities effectively.

This week, I'd like to focus on one of the most important and often misunderstood elements of faculty sufficiency: workload.

At first glance, faculty workload may seem easy to measure. Many institutions attempt to quantify it through teaching credit hours or standardized workload formulas. While those tools can provide a useful starting point, they rarely capture the full scope of what PA faculty actually do. Understanding what constitutes a fair and realistic workload is essential to determining whether a program truly has the personnel resources needed to succeed.

When Traditional Workload Models Miss the Mark

At many colleges and universities, workload expectations are borrowed from undergraduate teaching models, where teaching credit hours serve as the primary measure of faculty effort. For PA education, however, that approach often overlooks many of the responsibilities discussed above. The result is a workload model that may capture classroom teaching while underestimating the many other activities required to operate a successful PA program.

Yet I've seen workload policies in which teaching activities account for nearly 100 percent of a faculty member's calculated workload, while many other essential responsibilities receive little or no consideration.

That creates an obvious problem. If the workload model recognizes only a portion of the work being performed, faculty are left trying to accomplish everything else outside the model itself.

Over time, that mismatch carries a very real human cost.

One of the reasons PA faculty continue to accomplish so much is because they care deeply about their students. They willingly invest the extra hours because they want their programs—and their learners—to succeed. When faculty consistently compensate for unrealistic workload expectations, the result is often exactly what we would expect: fatigue, burnout, and eventually turnover.

This is precisely why workload has become an important part of the C1.02 conversation. ARC-PA is not asking programs to document workload simply to satisfy another reporting requirement. Rather, the Standards recognize that unrealistic workload expectations can directly affect faculty sustainability, program operations, and ultimately the quality of education provided to students. Evaluating workload helps programs determine whether faculty have been given the support and resources necessary to fulfill their many responsibilities successfully.

What Does a Fair Workload Policy Look Like?

During the webinar on C1.02, I joked that I was about to describe a "perfect world" concerning a fair workload policy. While every institution has its own policies and constraints, I do believe there are several characteristics that define a fair and equitable workload model for PA education.

First, a program should clearly define what constitutes a full faculty workload. A full-time equivalent (FTE) should represent a fixed amount of work, not simply a certain number of teaching credit hours. Once that workload has been established, responsibilities beyond that point should be recognized as overload rather than quietly absorbed into an already full schedule.

Second, workload calculations should reflect how faculty teach, not simply what they teach. Laboratory instruction, small-group facilitation, case-based learning, problem-based learning, and multiple instructional sections all require faculty time. If a workload model recognizes only the primary lecture course while overlooking these additional teaching responsibilities, it may significantly underestimate the actual work being performed.

A comprehensive workload policy should also recognize the many responsibilities required to operate a successful PA program beyond classroom instruction. Assessment activities, curriculum development, accreditation preparation, committee work, admissions responsibilities, and other program operations all require time and should be reflected within the overall workload calculation.

Administrative leadership deserves similar consideration. Program Directors, Directors of Clinical Education, Didactic Directors, and other leadership positions carry responsibilities that extend well beyond teaching. I've seen situations where a Program Director was expected to teach the same credit load as every other faculty member while simultaneously managing the administrative responsibilities of the program. That simply isn't sustainable, and it fails to recognize the realities of those leadership roles.

Finally, a workload policy should acknowledge the growing amount of time faculty devote to student success. Many programs are seeing increasing numbers of students who require additional advising, remediation, coaching, and academic support. These activities may not appear on a teaching schedule, but they are essential to fulfilling the program's educational mission and deserve appropriate recognition within faculty workload.

No workload model will ever be perfect. However, institutions that thoughtfully account for these responsibilities are far more likely to create sustainable environments where faculty can meet accreditation expectations while continuing to provide exceptional support for their students.

Ultimately, that's the goal. A workload policy shouldn't simply distribute work—it should accurately reflect the work that is actually being done.

In our next blog

In our next installment, we'll tackle one of the most common questions I receive from PA educators: How many faculty do we actually need? As we'll see, there is no single formula that can answer that question. Instead, we'll explore how factors such as program complexity, enrollment, teaching model, administrative support, institutional commitment, and faculty experience all work together to determine a program's true capacity.