| the
Jan/Feb/Mar 2004 Vol. LVI No. 3 |
|
|
President's Column
We are delighted to welcome Claudia Stuart, President of the Texas Council of Faculty Senates, to our TACT State Board. We look forward to working together as we begin preparing for the next regular legislative session. Read Claudia’s article in this edition of the e-bulletin.
We’ve just completed our cycle of biannual regional Spring conferences, a fun and gratifying experience, visiting campuses and chapters and meeting other faculty who are dedicated to bettering our profession. In addition to the tentative list of legislative possibilities with which we started, two items were added as a result of faculty input at these conferences.
One addition to the list is the need for more diversity in the composition of faculty. The current lack of diversity isn’t for lack of trying to hire minority faculty, but as everyone knows, minority faculty are in demand, and most other states pay higher salaries to faculty. Until faculty salaries rise in Texas, lack of faculty diversity will persist in Texas. Why is this issue important? Faculty serve as role models for our growing numbers of minority students. What can we do about it? We can lobby the legislature to create salary and other conditions that are more favorable for hiring and retaining minority faculty, and we can create more Ph.D. programs in areas of the state where minority students are concentrated so that the pool of potential minority faculty can be enlarged.
A second addition to the list is to educate the legislature and public about higher education. While there may be considerable discussion concerning how to go about such a campaign, there is widespread agreement among faculty that most legislators and most of the public have dim or inaccurate perceptions of the activities, challenges, and accomplishments of faculty members. Why is this issue important? Correcting those perceptions would lead to more favorable legislation for faculty and higher education that would result in improving the state’s economy and maintaining an informed citizenry necessary for democracy to function. What can we do about it? We can start by having every TACT chapter invite the local state representative and state senator to shadow a TACT faculty member as she or he goes about her or his business on a typical work day, as Elizabeth Lewandowski did at Midwestern University. We can invite the media to these visits, as happened at Midwestern University, and TACT chapters can submit letters to the editor of local newspapers. In addition, we hope to be reporting soon on a very promising project that was suggested at one of the regional meetings that the TACT State Board will be investigating.
A list of legislative values and principles and an overly long list of legislative agenda items as it now stands are reproduced below, each alphabetized by keyword. Based on input at the regional conferences, we will now begin the process of narrowing down the legislative list to a manageable and coherent agenda. Please share with Chuck Hempstead, our Executive Director at tactoff@tact.org, any ideas you have as to how to best prioritize or consolidate this list and then promote it.
How TACT Works For You
by Dr. James Puckett, TACT President
2005 TACT LEGISLATIVE AGENDA: TO BE REFINED TO THREE OR FOUR ITEMS
79th Regular Legislative Session, 2005
[Note: After further consideration, any of these items
could be moved to the Values and Principles list below.]
Accountability. In addressing the Governor’s mandate for accountability, care must be taken to ensure that enough resources are available to maintain small class sizes, where writing skills and critical thinking skills should be stressed. Weight should be given to the amount of improvement in student achievement over the college career, in order to “close the gaps” between historically privileged and historically under-served populations. Administrators should be held just as accountable as faculty and institutions.
Community Colleges Offering Baccalaureate Degrees. Do not allow locally funded community colleges to offer baccalaureate degrees. Faculty at locally funded community colleges were not hired or trained to offer such degrees and do not necessarily engage in research to stay abreast of their fields. Academic standards and preparation of students with baccalaureate degrees would suffer.
Faculty Salaries. Ensure a nationally competitive faculty for the expected enrollment growth through improved compensation. Through legislation or legislative intent, governing boards should follow the existing state law (1987, 70th Legislature, ch. 823, subsection 3.10, effective June 20, 1987) requiring competitive salaries, and the Coordinating Board should provide timely information to permit the national salary comparisons to be made on each campus.
Financial Aid. Encourage the State goal of increasing higher education access by establishing reasonable student costs and increasing financial assistance. To meet the enrollment goals of "Closing the Gaps," financial assistance to students must be maximized while planning for faculty growth to prevent increased student/faculty ratios.
K-16. Make K-16, a seamless transition from kindergarten through college, a reality by ensuring that students have the necessary preparation. Regular public reporting of each college to each school district as to the college performance by students from those districts should occur as is done in North Carolina. High schools should determine their curriculum and course content in consultation with college faculty.
Recoup Losses. Now that the state economy is recovering, recapture higher education funding lost during the 78th Texas Legislature and add 5 percent to accommodate enrollment and cost of living growth. In order to meet legislative priorities contained in "Closing the Gaps," accountability, and quality, additional state resources are needed to prevent further erosion of programs and student/faculty ratios.
Shared Governance. Enact a Shared Governance law such as the one in Arizona. Shared governance on campus assures that sufficient communication and deliberation contributes to quality decision-making, including the preparation of the university budget.
[Note: After further consideration, any of these items
could be moved to the Legislative Agenda list above.]
Academic standards. The quality of a Texas college degree must not be undermined through the good intentions of providing opportunity to the educationally under-prepared. Academic standards must be protected in the design of courses, expectations for students, and grading policies. Over-reliance should not be placed on high-stakes standardized testing.
Adjunct Faculty. It should be the goal of all parties involved in Texas higher education to systematically reduce the use of adjunct and part-time faculty to the level required to teach specialized, periodic courses. Part-timers should not be used as cost reduction devices.
Distance Education. Distance Education programs have a place in higher education in helping career education of the mobility impaired and remote and vocational learners. Other students may also profit by distance education, but we must ensure that campus-based college education is not jeopardized in the pursuit of easy access Nothing replaces interaction among professors and students. Distance education is a potential threat to quality education and requires special efforts to protect against cheating and the stealing of intellectual property.
Diversity of Faculty. Greater diversity of faculty should be achieved in order to provide role models for minority students. This diversity can be brought about by keeping faculty in state with higher salaries and by creating more Ph.D. programs in areas where minority students are concentrated.
Educate the Legislature and the Public. Encourage the legislature and the public to consider accountability measures whose implementation will result in the desired outcomes, namely, closing the gaps and increasing efficiency as much as possible without compromising academic standards, while the same time stimulating Texas' economic competitiveness and preparing the citizen leaders of tomorrow to keep our democratic traditions vitally alive.
Field-of-Study Curriculum. We support reinstatement of "may" instead of "must" in regard to creating a state-wide, automatically transferable, standardized curriculum for field of study beyond the core curriculum, but realize that this is not a feasible goal. We must instead remind administrations and faculty senates that faculty are to be appointed by administrations to field-of-study committees only after consultation with faculty senates, and we must be vigilant that non-administrative faculty are represented on the committees in the ratios prescribed by law.
Line Item Funding. We support a return to line item funding of university budget items, including faculty salaries, in the State Appropriation Act. However, attaining this goal may not be feasible at this time.
Tenure and academic freedom. Tenure, academic freedom, and the encouragement of free expression must be protected to attract the best faculty and guarantee students a creative, broad-based education.
Executive Director’s Report
by Chuck Hempstead
As I have said before, it is my opinion that this newfound scrutiny is a product of the legislative trade-off of tuition deregulation for appropriations cuts. And now some question whether sticking additional costs on students is practical in attaining the other recent state goal of “Closing the Gaps.” Interestingly, it is the students who have complained the least.
The old joke is growing tired that our system of higher education was once State supported, then State assisted, and now State located.
We all know the real problem, and it’s not unique to Texas higher education. Our State has a rapidly growing (and young) population stuck in a recession amid a state public resource base dependent upon an antiquated and regressive system.
Back to accountability, which sounds a whole heck of a lot like TACT’s mantra of insisting on quality in our institutions of higher learning. The difference in perspective might be that TACT can show that if quality inputs are reclaimed – smaller class sizes, fairly compensated personnel, individual attention to students, staff professional development – we can be part of America’s traditionally envied and successful educational program - a level of international stature that is now questioned by some researchers. Another point of view may be that accountability counts on ever greater efficiencies, like Ford’s assembly line followed by robotics, to squeeze more product (educated, productive citizens) from a diminishing cost per widget.
TACT is not accepting this debate philosophically. Your elected State Board debates the specifics of these dichotomies daily, and particularly this month during the Regional Conferences being held around the State. We are grappling with our approaches, not only during 2004, but in the development of a legislative agenda for 2005. Your response is invited and needed as your profession competes for appropriations with the many other important public initiatives.
It’s your association. You have committed yourself to Texas university students and their futures, and now we are asking you to commit to making the policy recommendations to ensure those futures that only TACT has the expertise to provide.
Member, University Formula Advisory Committee
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
One major mystery associated with the I & O Formula is how the relative weights in the matrix were developed. It appears that the rates were established without the benefit of a full study of the costs associated with providing instruction in each of the disciplinary areas. The 76th Legislature established the current weights, again apparently without the benefit of a thorough cost study. During the 78th Session several legislators questioned the basis for the relative weights and called for a funding formula based on actual costs for instruction.
Respond to these calls, an ad hoc Formula Matrix Cost Study Committee was formed by the Higher Education Coordinating Board to examine how moving to instructional costs as the basis of the matrix weights would impact funding. This committee reported its findings and recommendations to the University Formula Advisory Committee in December 2003. To determine instructional costs, the ad hoc committee included the elements of faculty salaries including Teaching Assistants, academic support, institutional support, student services, and departmental operating expenses including research enhancements. The study showed that when compared with weights based on instructional costs some weights in the existing matrix were providing surplus funding for some disciplines and inadequate funding for others.
When weights based on instructional costs were used for determining funding, twelve schools faced cuts in funding but all other schools gained funding (see Figure 2). Texas Southern University, Texas Women’s University, the University of Texas at Austin, and the University of Houston System lost the most funding under the cost-based matrix. To help mitigate the impact of significant changes in funding, the University Formula Advisory Committee chose to recommend that the use of a cost-based matrix be phased-in and fully implemented by the 2006-07 biennium. The committee also recommended that for the 2004-05 biennium funding loss realized by any institution should be limited to 3% (see Figure 3).
Figure 3.
These recommendations have been forwarded to Don W. Brown, Texas Commissioner of Higher Education, for his consideration. Commissioner Brown will make the final determination of whether or not to present the recommendations to the Coordinating Board and promote them with legislators. He may choose to recommend making no changes in the funding matrix, or recommend the committee’s plan for phasing-in the cost-based matrix, or recommend that the cost-based matrix be implemented immediately with no phase-in period.
Given the questions raised about the basis for higher education funding in the last legislative session, it is unlikely that Commissioner Brown will recommend no changes be made in the formula. It appears that some cost-based change in formula funding for higher education in Texas will be implemented in the near future.
President's Message, Texas Council of Faculty Senate
by Claudia Stuart Editor's Note: Claudia Stuart is President of the Texas Council of Faculty Senate and recently accepted an appointment as a board member of the Texas Association of College Teachers. The following is reprinted from her president's message in the TCFS newsletter.
As we move into 2004, we are facing new challenges. Campuses are faced with increased tuition costs and decreasing funding streams. Faculty is required to do more with less. Less in the way of funds and resources and more in the way of teaching load and uncapped online classes. We see time after time that faculty rise to the occasion in order to give the best quality education to our students. We hope to highlight some of those efforts in future editions of the newsletter.
It is important for all of our state institutions to have a representative member in this fine organization, the Texas Council of Faculty Senates. Through our numbers in faculty governance, we are being heard on the respective campuses and are able to assist with the implementation of change. Some of the past speakers have prepared us for change. Dr. Steve Murdock, demographer for the State of Texas, shared data regarding rapidly growing populations and their impact on not only the state, but also systems and institutions within the state. Dr. Catherine Parsonault, of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, discussed fields of study and the common course numbering system and the need for uniformity to evoke greater understanding of course offerings throughout Texas. Dr. Harrison Keller, senior policy analyst for Speaker of the House, Tom Craddick, spoke about accountability and other important insights on legislative matters affecting higher education. At our spring meeting, Dr. Bruce Walker, Vice Provost and Director of Admissions for the University of Texas, will discuss the need for and impact of tuition increases and how it affects the recruitment and retention of students in regards to “Closing the Gap.” In furthering that theme, Commissioner Don Brown, of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, will address “Closing the Gap.” This will be a meeting you certainly do not want to miss.
These meetings are educational, informative and enlightening to all who attend. We have hearty discussions and healthy debates regarding various topics. Topics, to name a few, have included budget shortfalls and funding losses, faculty development and even the impact of the war in Iraq on college and university campuses. Ways and means are shared with emphasis on being proactive. Members have regional meetings, also, to discuss issues common to their region and solutions are sought. Sharing those findings with the entire group proves beneficial in problem solving, also.
Occasionally, we meet with TACT and AAUP to discuss legislative issues facing higher education and other political issues looming on the horizon. The input of these three organizations meeting together reinforces the commitment and dedication of faculty everywhere as we endeavor to do all that we can for the people of Texas.
By Dr. Russ A. Schultz
Dean, Fine Arts & Communications
Lamar University, Beaumont
Welcome
TACT Eastern Regional Spring Conference
John Gray Library, 8th Floor
February 14, 2004
On behalf of President Simmons, the faculty and administration of Lamar University I am very pleased to welcome you to our campus. We are particularly excited to have all of you visit our campus and see the changes that have taken place. Much like the Ford Car commercial, if you haven’t seen Lamar lately, see us again. We are very proud of the renewed look of our campus, with the new residence halls, the renovations of some of our older facilities and the overall attractiveness of the campus. But that is only the external side of our transformation. The success of our students and dedication of our faculty have spawned a rapid increase in enrollment all over the campus with many of our programs growing like never before. Enrollment this Spring Semester, the largest in our history, shows a 21% increase over just 3 years ago. It is also noteworthy that the spirit of collaboration between faculty and administration is better than any other campus I have had the pleasure to be associated with or visit. So, as you spend your day on campus, please take a moment to ask your Lamar colleagues what’s going on. Be prepared to get an earful of the pride that has come to be Lamar.
We are also pleased to have you here because of the work that you do. Not “punching a clock” like some other careers, our profession has not always received the public praise that we would hope or expect. However, it should be noted that higher education in the United States is the envy of the rest of the world. People from across the globe aspire to come to the US to study and receive a degree from an American University. Throughout the world that is both the key to success and a mark of leadership. Much of the success that we achieve is due to two things; one is the concept of shared governance, where the opportunity and responsibility to run the university is vested with the faculty and the administration. And the second is what you do, that is, vigilantly watch the politics of and about higher education, keeping the faculty informed of those issues that affect their ability to successfully do their jobs and to speak out and represent their interests when necessary. Your vigilance is an important protection of academic freedom, the cornerstone of our academies, and insures the presence of the best possible working conditions, so that we can continue to attract and retain outstanding faculty and provide the highest quality education for our students.
So again, welcome to Lamar University. We hope that your day will be enjoyable and your discussions productive.
Accountability is the Buzzword for 2004
Never in my ten years with TACT can I remember such an active legislative interim. Accountability in higher education, however it will be defined, is the talk of the town among a number of public bodies. There are number of important actions being taken, examples include last month’s Governor’s executive order, The Joint Interim Committee on Higher Education (and its “subcommittee,” the Legislative Oversight Committee), audits, and the Coordinating Board staff’s recent concept paper entitled, “Promoting Excellence in Texas Public Higher Education Through Institutional Groupings, Peers, and Benchmarks.”
Cost-Based Funding Recommended for Texas Higher Education
by Larry J. King
The inner workings of the Instruction and Operations Formula (often referred to as the I & O Formula) for funding Texas higher education has been a mystery from the inception of the formula system more than forty years ago. This matrix provides universities reimbursement for instructional costs based on a matrix that provides a weight for semester credit hours based on academic discipline and level of instruction (see Figure 1), a funding rate per weighted semester credit hour, and the number of semester credit hours generated for each area of the matrix. Reimbursements are calculated by multiplying the relative weights of the matrix times the rate times the number of semester credit hours generated. The rate used in the calculation is established by the Legislature and for the 2002-03 biennium the rate was $56.65. Download XLS Spreadsheet
Opening Remarks: East Region Spring Conference