PTR in Texas State-Supported Universities:

Responding to the Legislative Challenge

American Association for Higher Education/New Pathways II

Post-Tenure Review “Projects with Promise” Mini-grant

Final Project Report 1998-2001

Sam Houston State University Post-tenure Review Research Group:

Frank Fair, Dennis Longmire, Jo Ann Duffy, Paul Reed, Laverne Warner, Debra Price, and Bill Fleming

Sam Houston State University/Texas State University System

August 30, 2001

Dr. Frank Fair & Dr. Debra Price, Co-Directors

June 1998-August 2001

PTR in Texas State-Supported Universities:

Responding to the Legislative Challenge

I. Describe your institutional context with respect to post-tenure evaluation, including the specific approach to post-tenure review followed:

POST-TENURE REVIEW COMES TO TEXAS:

“Two strikes and you’re out!” was the message in the fall of 1996 from a powerful Texas State Senator to the faculty at Texas state-supported universities. His proposal --"if someone receives two substandard evaluations in a row, then that person's tenure should be revoked"-- presented a stark challenge to the institution of tenure, and, accordingly, legislation to implement this policy was introduced in the Texas legislature when it next met in January of 1997. Texas faculty associations, joined by university administrators concerned about the welfare of the profession, began a lobbying campaign to deflect or soften this blow to the tenure system. A number of legislators worked with faculty leaders and administrators to craft a compromise that would be acceptable to all parties.

They succeeded in this effort, and on May 31, 1997 the Texas legislature mandated that a system of post-tenure review (PTR) be put in place in all state universities just six months later on January 1, 1998. This was a rather abrupt beginning for PTR or the "Performance Evaluation of Tenured Faculty" as it is known officially. This legislation is usually referred to as “Senate Bill 149” or “SB 149,” and it became Section 51.942 of Subchapter Z, Chapter 51, of the Texas Education Code. (See Appendix I for a copy of the complete bill.)

To the frustration of faculty and higher education administrators, the discussions in the legislature that led to SB 149 seemed to be fueled by a small stock of anecdotes concerning faculty members’ failures in teaching and patient care. None of the anecdotes were made public, and they were used in place of specific, relevant hard data on faculty performance. Indeed, when asked by faculty leaders at a meeting of the UT System Faculty Advisory Council, the same state Senator who initiated the PTR legislation bluntly asserted that 6% of the tenured faculty were likely to be incompetent and that PTR was what was needed to send them packing. He did not give any basis for the 6% figure.

This abrupt beginning, coupled with the compromise legislation's broad grant of discretion to the various institutions of higher learning to create their own systems of PTR, made it seem obvious to many that the resulting systems for PTR would need to be revisited at some later date to determine if they were functioning effectively. We hope that our research is a useful contribution to that review.

THE LEGISLATIVE MANDATE—RELEVANT PORTIONS OF Senate Bill 149:

“Each governing board of an institution of higher education shall adopt rules and procedures providing for a periodic performance evaluation process for all faculty tenured at the institution. The governing board may design its rules and procedures to fit the institution's particular educational mission, traditions, resources, and circumstances relevant to its character, role, and scope, in addition to other relevant factors determined by the governing board in the rules adopted pursuant to this section. The governing board shall seek advice and comment from the faculty of the institution before adopting any rules pursuant to this section. The advice and comment from the faculty on the performance evaluation of tenured faculty shall be given the utmost consideration by the governing board.” (Emphasis added)

Further provisions of SB149 (emphasis added):

“In addition to any other provisions adopted by the governing board, the rules shall include provisions providing that:

(1) each faculty member tenured at the institution be subject to a comprehensive performance evaluation process conducted no more often than once every year, but no less often than once every six years, after the date the faculty member was granted tenure or received an academic promotion at the institution;

(2) the evaluation be based on the professional responsibilities of the faculty member, in teaching, research, service, patient care, and administration, and include peer review of the faculty member;

(3) the process be directed toward the professional development of the faculty member;”

“(4) the process incorporate commonly recognized academic due process rights, including notice of the manner and scope of the evaluation, the opportunity to provide documentation during the evaluation process, and, before a faculty member may be subject to disciplinary action on the basis of an evaluation conducted pursuant to this section, notice of specific charges and an opportunity for hearing on those charges; and

(5) a faculty member be subject to revocation of tenure or other appropriate disciplinary action if incompetency, neglect of duty, or other good cause is determined to be present.”

THE BACKGROUND OF OUR RESEARCH PROJECT:

Our first research project on PTR in Texas was sponsored by the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) New Pathways II Program. We began in 1998-1999 by studying the PTR system functioning at our own university, Sam Houston State University. Then in 1999-2000 we studied the PTR procedures on the other campuses which comprise the Texas State University System (TSUS). We made a final report to the AAHE on the results of that project in the summer of 2000, and that report is summarized in an AAHE publication entitled Post-Tenure Faculty Review and Renewal: Experienced Voices—Creative Conversations.

The following year a second grant from the AAHE’s New Pathways II Project allowed us to broaden and deepen the investigation of PTR procedures at Texas state-supported universities. Since the initial study was conducted with a small, somewhat homogeneous sample of six campuses in the TSUS, the new study attempted to encompass more of the diversity within Texas higher education and to test and extend our previous findings by enlarging the sample. As soon as the grant approval was received in August of 2000, we solicited the cooperation of sister public universities in Texas. Seven of the campuses agreed to participate. Tables 1 and 2 list participating campuses included in both the initial project and the follow up project.

Table 1: The Universities Studied in the First Project 1998-2000

Full-time Student Full-time Faculty

Head Count* Numbers**

Southwest Texas State University	20,917	Tenured - 449 Tenure Track - 102
Sam Houston State University	12,439	Tenured - 259 Tenure Track - 94
Angelo State University	6,102	Tenured – 104 Tenure Track - 55
Sul Ross State University	2,420	Tenured – 48 Tenure Track - 27
Lamar University/Beaumont	8,414	Tenured – 187 Tenure Track -- 78
Lamar University/Port Arthur	2,381	Tenured – 27 Tenure Track - 41
Totals for the campuses in the TSUS 1998-2000	52,673	Tenured -- 1074 Tenure Track - 397

*Public University Profiles, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Fall, 1999

**Statistical Report, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Fall, 1999

Table 2: The Universities Studied in the 2000-2001 Project

Full-time Student Full-time Faculty

Head Count* Numbers**

Texas Tech University	24,185	Tenured – 563 Tenure Track - 266
Stephen F. Austin State University	11,736	Tenured – 261 Tenure Track - 128
University of Houston – Main Campus	30,757	Tenured – 758 Tenure Track - 183
University of Texas – Arlington	22,121	Tenured – 434 Tenure Track – 119
University of Texas – Tyler	3,783	Tenured – 84 Tenure Track - 42
University of Texas – Pan American	13,360	Tenured – 212 Tenure Track – 88
Texas A & M-College Station	38,654	Tenured – 1321 Tenure Track - 284
Totals for the campuses in Round Two 2000-2001	144,596	Tenured – 3633 Tenure Track - 1110
Totals combined for all campuses 1998-2001	197,269	Tenured – 4707 Tenure Track - 1507 Total Tenured and Tenure Track - 6214

*Public University Profiles, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Fall, 1999

**Statistical Report, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Fall, 1999

In terms of diversity, the combined group in the three year study is composed of:

(a) three of the state’s four leading public research universities--Texas A & M University at College Station, Texas Tech in Lubbock, and the University of Houston (Note: the University of Texas at Austin was invited but declined after the UT System Faculty Advisory Council planned a self-study incorporating questions on PTR),

(b) UT Pan American which serves a largely Hispanic community in the Rio Grande Valley,

(c) the University of Houston which is a major urban university,

(d) a number of medium sized universities from locations around the state—Angelo State University and Sul Ross State University from West Texas, Southwest Texas State from the area near Austin, three campuses from East Texas--Lamar/Beaumont, Lamar/Port Arthur, and Stephen F. Austin, and Sam Houston State University from the Greater Houston area,

(e) and, finally, three components of the University of Texas system (UT Arlington, UT Pan American, and UT Tyler).

In all but one of these universities, we had the full support and cooperation of the Chief Academic Officer, usually a Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the head of the Faculty Senate. In the one remaining case, we had the cooperation of the administrative side, but, unbeknownst to us at the time, the Faculty Senate was not involved with the project, and the response rate suffered accordingly. We must express here our appreciation to our faculty and administrative colleagues on all of the participating campuses who took their time and resources to collaborate in this inquiry. It simply would not have been possible otherwise.

II. The Major Goals and Objectives and How They were Achieved

A. The Major Goals

The overall goal of the study was to compile useful, comparative information on the PTR process as it is developing on various campuses of state universities in Texas. The specific objective of the study was to collect reliable information concerning a number of particular questions related to PTR so that all participating state universities would have some benchmarks against which to evaluate their own situation. With this aim in mind, our results will b made available on the participating campuses to the CAO/VPAA and to the head of the Faculty Senate.

Specific Questions Addressed in the Study

(1) By legislative directive, the process of setting standards for faculty performance was to involve faculty input: How was this carried out? What guiding principles or theoretical views about a faculty member’s role or about the educational process were operative? How was variation from department to department dealt with? In particular, what factors helped to set the boundaries of legitimate variation? What revisions may be needed and how will those be carried out?

(2) Since the legislature directed that all tenured faculty members must be reviewed by 2004, how was the first group to be reviewed selected? How are subsequent groups to be selected? Were any concerns about fairness raised? If so, how were they dealt with?

(3) Pruning the “deadwood” was a primary legislative objective: Has PTR truly been of help in identifying “deadwood?” Has PTR led to a spate of early retirements? Have any dismissals for cause occurred as a result of PTR?

(4) The language of SB 149 mandated a developmental emphasis for PTR, especially as it bears on the vast majority of faculty who do not fall into the “deadwood” category. Has that emphasis in fact been realized? What have been the experiences of the first generation to undergo PTR? If there is a developmental aspect to PTR, has the focus been on teaching, research, or service?

(5) Provision for professional development plans is a feature of many PTR systems: How do they vary and why from campus to campus in what is required? How do they vary and why from department to department on a particular campus?

(6) SB 149 mandates peer review at the heart of PTR: What is the variety of processes used to implement that mandate? How are peers defined for this purpose? How does peer review appear to be working? Is it helpful? Is it a source of tension among peers? What improvements, if any, are called for?

(7) Are there any lingering concerns about academic freedom? How might they be addressed?

(8) Are there any other issues arising from the PTR process that faculty members, their representatives, administrators, or system officials feel need to be addressed?

B. How the Goals were Achieved

Methodology

In the first year of the study (1998-1999), several key legislators were interviewed about the intent and spirit of the PTR legislation contained in SB 149. Specific questions about how results would be interpreted by legislative policy makers were also asked. Further interviews with the Texas State University System's (TSUS) Chancellor and the system attorney clarified the importance of this legislation and its possible effect on the various campuses comprising the TSUS.

In 1998-1999 the focus of the study was on the faculty and staff of Sam Houston State University. An initial list of interview questions was solicited from the members of the research team. These questions were discussed, and a final set was compiled for interviews with the Vice President for Academic Affairs, the deans, and those faculty members who pioneered the process by undergoing PTR in the first year of its implementation.

Furthermore, in consultation with Dr. Christine Licata of the American Association for Higher Education, we constructed a ten-page survey about the Performance Evaluation of Tenured Faculty (PETF), as the PTR process was officially designated in Texas, and about any experiences they may have had with the process. The survey was distributed to all tenured and tenure-track faculty at Sam Houston State University. (See Appendix II for a copy of the survey instrument.)

This survey included questions focusing on faculty members’ perceptions about the following areas:

1) the importance of tenure and openness to “term contracts” as an alternative;

2) the reasons for the implementation of PTR as well as how “post tenure review” should operate;

3) benefits and problems associated with the PTR system used in their institution;

4) any impact PTR has had on the professional activities of the faculty; and

5) personal experiences of faculty members both as “subjects” of PTR review and as “reviewers” of others.

Additional questions about the respondents’ background and demographic status were also asked including questions about their tenure status, academic rank, length of time in service, teaching load, gender, and race. These items were included to provide an opportunity to explore any differences in the perceptions about the PTR process that might exist among the different sub-groups within the academic community. For similar reasons, the most current “Carnegie Classification” was recorded for each of the institutions included.

In the second year (1999-2000), the interview questions and the survey instrument were revisited. Some minor changes were made in order to clarify certain questions deemed problematic by the research team. We secured the cooperation of the Vice Presidents for Academic Affairs and the heads of the Faculty Senates from the other campuses of the TSUS. The results from those interviews and surveys were conveyed to the AAHE in our report in the summer of 2000 and to the participating institutions.

In the third year (2000-2001), with further funding from the AAHE the interview questions and survey instrument were administered at a number of state-supported universities in Texas. The participating universities were listed in Section I of this report, but we would like to point out again that the group includes three of the four major research universities in the state and included several of the component campuses of the University of Texas System. In all of the institutions, except one, the Faculty Senate heads agreed, along with the relevant administrators, to distribute and collect the surveys of tenured and tenure track faculty on their campuses. This collaboration was a great help logistically and may have led to a healthier response rate than otherwise would have been obtained. Querulous comments received from participants at the institution where this process was--inadvertently--not followed, support the importance of involving the Faculty Senate in the process.

At each institution, survey instruments were sent through campus mail systems to all tenured and tenure track members of the faculty. The instructions provided information about the project and, once completed, the survey was simply folded to expose an address where their completed survey was returned. Response rates varied from one institution to another with an overall response rate of approximately 24% with a total of 1,513 respondents returning completed surveys. The most recent figures available show a total of 6,214 tenured or tenure track faculty employed at the institutions included in our survey. It should be emphasized that the results reported below are the pooled results from all of the surveys administered over the entire three year period of the study. (See Appendix III for a complete printout of the frequency results.)

Description of Sample Results

The characteristics of the sample reported in Table 1 show that 56.8% of the respondents were employed at universities classified by the Carnegie Classification system as “Doctoral Extensive” institutions. Another 41.4% were employed at “Masters I” institutions and the remaining 1.7% were employed at “Associate” level universities. When looking for patterns of responses to the survey items among the different sub-groups of the sample, those respondents who work in the institution classified at an “Associates” level will be excluded from analysis. Their numbers are small and including them in subsequent analysis would violate our promise that responses from any single institution would not be revealed.

Eighty percent of the respondents were tenured and 78% held the rank of associate (31.3%) or full (47.2%) professor at the time they completed the survey. Almost half (46.7%) of the respondents reported having between 12 and 30 years of university service with another 14.6% reporting over 30 years of service. Only 21.3% of the sample reported having less than seven years of experience. Over two thirds (67.9%) of the sample were carrying a teaching load of less than 12 semester credit hours. The great majority of respondents (88.6%) were white and 69.8% were male.

Table 3 Characteristics of the Sample

Sub-Group of Sample	%	n
Carnegie Classification
Associates	1.7	26
Masters I	41.4	627
Doctoral Extensive	56.8	860
Tenure Status
Not Tenured	19.9	291
Tenured	80.1	1174
Rank
Assistant/Instructor	21.4	309
Associate	30.1	456
Full	47.1	681
Years of Service
1 - 6.5	21.3	317
7 - 11.5	17.4	260
12 - 29.5	46.7	697
30 or more	14.6	217
Academic Load
< 12 credit hours	68.9	1027
12 credit hours	18.4	274
> 12 credit hours	12.7	190
Gender
Female	30.2	428
Male	69.8	990
Ethnicity
White	88.6	1214
Non-white	11.4	156
Total Sample	100.0	1513

In addition to completing the "forced choice" questions on the survey, a significant number of the respondents also provided written comments to elaborate on points raised in the survey. These comments provide interesting insights that help enlighten the interpretation of the survey results. With regard to the sample, however, we need to emphasize that the sampling procedure was not a random process, and this sample represents a "convenience sample." The results, therefore, must be interpreted with this in mind. Considerable care should be taken before generalizing the results from these surveys to the broader faculty population.

As we collected the data from the surveys and the interviews, we met periodically as a group to report our findings and to discuss their potential significance. On three different occasions, preliminary results from the study have been presented at national meetings hosted by the American Association of Higher Education. A distribution of the frequencies of responses to each item on the survey as well as a copy of the actual survey instrument and interview questions are available as appendixes at Final Report. The remainder of this report will present the general findings of five sections of the survey and will include discussion of any significant differences found among the sub-groups of the sample.

Survey Section I. Importance of tenure and openness to “term contracts”

The first section of the survey instrument included three questions designed to determine how important tenure is to the faculty and to measure their openness to “term contracts” as an alternative. Table 4 shows the percent of respondents who either “strongly agree” or “agree” with each of these questions. Fewer than half of the respondents believed that the award of tenure amounts to a “lifetime job,” and it is clear from these figures that tenure is perceived to be the “foundation of academic freedom” by a great majority of the respondents (83.7%). Only 15.9% of the respondents believed that tenure is “outmoded and should be replaced by long-term renewable contracts.”

Table 4 Percent of Respondents Who Either “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” With Statements About Tenure

	%	n
Tenure amounts to a lifetime job.	47.1	700
Tenure is the foundation for academic freedom.	83.7	1252
Tenure is outmoded and should be replaced with long-term renewable contracts.	15.9	224

Contingency table analysis was performed to determine whether or not there were any statistically significant differences in the way different sub-groups of the sample responded to questions included in this section. When examining these associations, a Pearson Chi-Square statistic was used and only those values that reached the .001 level of statistical significance are discussed in this report. There were no statistically significant differences among any of the groups in response to the statement that “tenure amounts to a lifetime job.” However, faculty who had received tenure were much more likely to agree or strongly agree with the idea that “tenure is the foundation for academic freedom” with 87.1% of those with tenure agreeing or strongly agreeing compared to only 69.6% of those who had not yet been tenured. Similarly, faculty members with fewer years of service were significantly more likely to “disagree” or “strongly disagree” than were faculty with longer years of service.

Assistant Professors and Instructors were significantly more likely to agree with the statement that tenure is outmoded and should be replaced with long term contracts as were women and faculty holding lower academic ranks. Similarly, faculty with fewer years of service were more likely to agree with this statement.

Survey Section III. Reasons for the Implementation of PTR and Suggestions for How PTR Should Operate

Table 5 shows the number of respondents who either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” when asked about different reasons for the development of “post tenure review” procedures and how they think the PTR should operate. Eighty-eight percent of the respondents believed that PTR was created due to pressures to increase faculty accountability and 61.7% felt that it was created to “weed out the deadwood” on the faculty. Only 42.5% of the respondents reported that they thought “financial pressures” were at play in the development of PTR. Further analysis shows that there were no statistically significant differences in the responses to these items within any of the different sub-groups of the sample.

Table 5 Percent of Respondents Who Either “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” with Statements About the Cause for PTR and How it Should Operate

	%	n
PTR created due to pressures to increase faculty accountability.	88.1	1277
PTR created to weed out the deadwood.	61.7	884
PTR developed due to financial pressures.	42.5	567
PTR adds an important element to our department’s annual review process.	40.3	582
PTR should only be used for faculty who fail to meet minimum annual standards.	63.1	926
PTR should focus on:
All activities	84.6	1244
Teaching	28.5	404
Research	11.5	161
Service	9.1	127

Figures reported in Table 5 also show that two thirds (63.1%) of the respondents agreed that “post tenure review” should only be used for members of the faculty who fail to meet minimum annual evaluation standards. Contingency table analysis shows that faculty members who are tenured, hold higher academic rank, and have more years of academic service are significantly more likely to agree with this conception of a “triggered” PTR. Men were also more likely than women to agree with “triggered" PTR.

Faculty members employed in institutions ranked by the Carnegie Classification system as Masters 1 level institutions were significantly more likely than those employed in Doctoral Extensive institutions to disagree with the proposal that PTR should focus on “all” areas of the professor’s role. Tenured faculty working in Masters 1 level institutions were significantly more likely than others to direct the primary focus of the PTR process toward teaching, as were those at the lower academic ranks who were carrying the largest teaching loads. The only significant pattern that emerged when looking at those who support the idea that the focus of PTR should be toward research was among Associate Professors who were significantly less likely than others to support this idea.

When asked whether or not the development of a PTR system strengthened the annual review process, 40.3% either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that it had. Over 85% of the sample report that PTR should focus on all three dimensions of the academic role: teaching, research, and service. Only 28.5% believe that it should focus only on teaching, with 11.5% believing such reviews should focus primarily on research, and only 9.1% believe the focus should be on service activities.

Survey Section IV. Benefits and Problems Associated with PETF Procedures

In addition to collecting information about the nature of tenure an the “ideal” PTR system, the survey included a series of questions designed to measure “benefits” and “problems” faculty members have experienced with the implementation of the review process on their campus. Respondents were asked to characterize each of 14 potential “benefits” associated with PTR as either a “major,” “minor,” or “no” benefit. Similarly, there were 13 items characterizing potential “problems” associated with PTR and respondents were asked to characterize each “problem” as “major,” “minor,” or “no” problem. In both sets of items, respondents were also given an opportunity to respond that it was “too soon to know” whether the “benefit” or “problem” existed.

The distribution of responses to the “benefit” items reported in Appendix III show that approximately one third of the respondents felt that it was “too soon to know” whether or not the “benefit” would occur. Only about 25% of the respondents felt it was “too soon to know” whether or not potential “problems” would occur. Another two to three percent of the respondents left these items blank resulting in their exclusion from analysis as “missing cases.” Clearly, more time is needed before many of the respondents are willing to conclusively evaluate the “benefits” and “problems” associated with the implementation of PTR.

Table 6 shows both the percent of the sample who responded that it was “too soon to know” along with the percent who responded “major benefit” or “major problem” to the “benefits” and “problems” questions. The largest proportion of "too soon to know" responses to questions about possible benefits were to the questions "forestalls external review" (40.9%) and the question "increases public confidence in higher education" (34.6%). The largest proportions of “too soon to know” responses relating to possible problems with PTR occurred in response to the question of whether or not PTR would produce any "positive change over the long run” (57.2%) and to the question of whether or not it would “force early retirement” (40.7%).

Table 6 Responses to “Benefit” and “Problem” Items

	% Responding:	% Responding:
"Benefit" Items	"Too Soon to Know" (n)	"Major Benefit" (n)
Stimulates improved teaching.	30.3 (448)	5.5 (82)
Stimulates improved research.	29.7 (439)	5.7 (84)
Stimulates improved service.	29.5 (436)	3.3 (48)
Acts as a safeguard to tenure.	32.4 (473)	6.1 (89)
Increases faculty accountability.	23.8 (351)	12.6 (186)
Helps sustain senior faculty vitality.	27.6 ( 99)	6.7 (99)
Increases opportunities for mid/late career changes.	34.0 (499)	3.3 (49)
Establishes development as an expectation.	21.8 (318)	16.1 (235)
Improves collegiality.	20.5 (299)	1.5 (22)
Increases involvement in departmental planning.	22.4 (325)	4.3 (62)
Links department goals with personal professional plans.	23.3 (341)	5.1 (75)
Focuses attention on the annual review process.	20.0 (292)	9.6 (140)
Increases public confidence in higher education.	34.6 (507)