| James E. Goodwin | Chair Associate Dean, College of Arts and Science |
| Walter Bennett | Executive Chair, Professor of Sociology |
| Douglas Krienke | Editor, Professor of English |
| Mary Lynn DeShazo | Professor of Chemistry |
| William Harrell | Professor of Agriculture |
| Sara Hart | Professor of Business Administration |
| Ann Holder | Associate Professor, Newton Gresham Library |
| Glen Kercher | Professor of Criminal Justice |
| Dana Nicolay | Associate Professor of Dance, Program Coordinator of Dance |
| Joan Prouty | Associate Professor of Education |
| Eve Stephens | Student |
| David White | Assistant Director, Human Resources |
INTRODUCTION
FINDINGS OF THE FACULTY COMMITTEE
4.8.1 SELECTION OF FACULTY
RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS: SECTION 4.8.1
4.8.2 ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION
INTRODUCTION
4.8.2.1 ASSOCIATE
4.8.2.2 BACCALAUREATE
RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS: SECTION 4.8.2.2
4.8.2.3 GRADUATE
RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS: SECTION 4.8.2.3
4.8.2.4 DISTANCE LEARNING PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES
RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS: SECTION 4.8.2.4
4.8.3 PART-TIME FACULTY
RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS: SECTION 4.8.3
4.8.4 GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANTS
RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS: SECTION 4.8.4
4.8.5 FACULTY COMPENSATION
RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS: SECTION 4.8.5
4.8.6 ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND PROFESSIONAL SECURITY
RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS: SECTION 4.8.6
ACADEMIC FREEDOM
PROFESSIONAL SECURITY
4.8.7 PROFESSIONAL GROWTH
RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS: SECTION 4.8.7
4.8.8 THE ROLE OF THE FACULTY AND ITS COMMITTEES
RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS: SECTION 4.8.8
4.8.9 FACULTY LOADS
RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS: SECTION 4.8.9
4.8.10 CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION
RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS: SECTION 4.8.10
COMPLIANCE TABLES: SECTIONS 4.8.1-4.8.10
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS: SECTIONS 4.8.1-4.8.10
APPENDICES
Sam Houston State University’s mission statement includes the following commitment:
Excellence in instruction is considered foremost in enhancing the educational process. The university has assembled a community of teaching scholars whose goal is to give meaning to the separate elements of our civilization so that students of all disciplines can analyze, study and organize the diverse elements of knowledge, thereby giving conscious direction to the human mind. (1998-2000Undergraduate Catalogue 92-93)
Faculty from all disciplines are committed to provide optimum learning opportunities for students and at the same time actively engage in research and service activities. The following report, supported by appropriate documentation, clearly demonstrates that the University’s pride in the quality and accomplishments of its faculty is justified, and further, that students attending Sam Houston State University have the opportunity to participate in an excellent educational experience.
The following sections report the Faculty Committee’s findings in the ten major areas outlined in Section 4.8 of the SACS Criteria for Accreditation: Selection of Faculty (4.8.1), Academic and Professional Preparation (4.8.2), Part-Time Faculty (4.8.3), Graduate Teaching Assistants (4.8.4), Faculty Compensation (4.8.5), Academic Freedom and Professional Security (4.8.6), Professional Growth (4.8.7), The Role of the Faculty and Its Committees (4.8.8), Faculty Loads (4.8.9), and Criteria and Procedures for Evaluation (4.8.10). The Committee addresses "must" statements from each of the sections and, in the order in which the statements appear in the Criteria, reports on the University’s compliance or noncompliance with these imperatives. Following each series of "must" statements and findings, the Committee makes recommendations and/or offers suggestions, according to the University’s compliance status.
1. An institution must show that it has an orderly process for recruiting and appointing its faculty. This process will normally involve developing a pool of qualified candidates and interviewing those who appear to be best qualified. Institutions are encouraged to recruit and select faculty whose highest degree is earned from a broad representation of institutions (Criteria 43).
2. Recruitment and appointment procedures must be described in the faculty handbook or other published documents (Criteria 43).
The Faculty Committee determined that the University complies with these imperatives.
Sam Houston State University maintains an orderly process of recruiting and appointing its faculty, which is detailed in Academic Policy Statement 800114, "Academic Instructional Staffing." The detailed Instructional Staffing policy begins with a statement confirming the University’s commitment to Affirmative Action. By policy, staffing procedures themselves begin when position allowance needs are identified in the annual budget request cycle. Once a departmental request to fill a position has been approved—whether soliciting approval for a reallocation of a position resulting from a resignation or retirement, on the one hand, or a new position, on the other—the University initiates recruiting steps. Usually the department chair has sufficient time to conduct the search, and she or he consults the departmental faculty about the instructional needs to be served by the position. (Tables 4.8.1.a and 4.8.1.b.)
Table 4.8.1.a
Search Time: Department Chair/Library Interview Survey
Response to question: "When you receive authorization to hire new faculty, are you given sufficient time to conduct a proper search?"
College
Yes, Always
Yes, Usually
Yes, Sometimes
No
No Search
Arts & Sciences 1 9 2 1 0 Business Administration 2 2 0 0 0 Education & Applied Science 4 2 1 1 1 Criminal Justice 1 1 0 0 0 Library 0 1 0 0 0 Total 8 15 3 2 1 Table 4.8.1.b
Departmental Faculty Involvement in Search:
Department Chair/Library Interview Survey
Response to question: "When a new full-time faculty position is allocated to your program, do you consult the department faculty about the instructional needs to be served by the position?"
College
Yes, Usually (Always)
Yes, Sometimes
No
Arts & Sciences 14 0 0 Business Administration 4 0 0 Education & Applied Science 9 0 0 Criminal Justice 2 0 0 Library 1 0 0 Total 30 0 0 The Faculty Survey Questionnaire provides a clear picture regarding faculty confidence in this process: Seventy-four percent of the respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that their departments have adequate processes for recruiting faculty. (Table 4.8.1.c.)
Table 4.8.1.c
Recruiting Processes: Faculty Survey
Survey Statement
Number and Percentage of Respondents1
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Disagree nor Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Not Applicable or "I do not know"
My department has an adequate process for recruiting faculty. 142/192 = 74% 12 16 22 76 66 10 Within the recruiting process my department develops a pool of qualified applicants 147/193 = 76% 8 15 23 57 90 9 Within the recruiting process my department includes a broad representation of institutions 144/193 = 75% 10 13 26 59 85 9 Within the recruiting process my department invites the best qualified applicants for interviews. 146/195 = 75% 11 12 26 59 87 7 Within the recruiting process my department evaluates oral and written English profi-ciency. 115/178 = 65% 12 20 31 51 64 24 1
Grand Total of Respondents: 202In addition, a majority of the faculty agreed or strongly agreed that
a. a pool of qualified applicants is developed (76%)
b. the candidate pool includes a broad representation of institutions (75%)
c. the best qualified applicants are invited for interviews (75%)
d. the candidates are evaluated on oral and written English proficiency (65%)
To initiate the official recruitment process, the Department Chair/Coordinator or Library Director completes a Personnel Job Requisition Form, SHSU P-001F. This document indicates the job specification, required academic credentials and experience, and courses to be taught; it invariably includes a short description of the courses as well. In addition, the Department Chair/Library Director prepares a job vacancy announcement, in conjunction with the search committee, which is frequently used for nontenure-track positions and always used for tenure-track positions (Tables 4.8.1.d and 4.8.1.e).
Table 4.8.1.d
Nontenure-Track Full-Time Faculty/Instructor Search:
Department Chair/Library Interview Survey
Response to question: "How often does your department use a search committee when filling a [nontenure-track] full-time faculty position?"
College
Never
Seldom
Occasionally
Frequently
Always
No Search
Arts & Sciences 0 2 1 1 9 1 Business Administration 1 1 0 0 1 1 Education & Applied Science 0 0 1 1 5 2 Criminal Justice 1 0 0 0 0 1 Library 0 0 0 0 1 0 Total 2 3 2 2 16 5 Table 4.8.1.e
Tenure-Track Full-Time Faculty Search:
Department Chair/Library Interview Survey
Response to question: "How often does your department use a search committee when filling a [tenure-track] full-time faculty position?"
College
Never
Seldom
Occasionally
Frequently
Always
No Search
Arts & Sciences 0 0 0 0 14 0 Business Administration 0 0 0 0 4 0 Education & Applied Science 0 0 0 0 8 1 Criminal Justice 0 0 0 0 2 0 Library 0 0 0 0 1 0 Total 0 0 0 0 29 1 After approval by the Dean and Vice President for Academic Affairs, the documents are forwarded to the Human Resources Department for AA/EEO compliance approval by the University Affirmative Action Officer and for posting of the position.
Except in cases of a bona fide emergency, as indicated in Section 8.07 of Academic Policy Statement 800114, a faculty position vacancy will be advertised locally, statewide, and nationally for a period of forty-five days. Generally, positions are advertised for at least one long semester. As a minimum posting requirement, the vacancy notice is placed in the Chronicle of Higher Education or other comparable national journal. The Human Resources Department also lists the notice on its Internet home page and jobs bulletin board, and with the Texas Workforce Commission, which is linked with the Texas Governor’s Job Bank for Texas State Government Jobs. In addition to the aforementioned recruitment sources, the department routinely uses the following sources to publicize program vacancies: state and regional newsletters, minority universities listings, contacts at professional meetings, graduate school listings and contacts, individual letters, Internet job source listings, journals (professional, science, and technical), mailings to associations, national association newsletters, and phone calls. (Table 4.8.1.f.)
Table 4.8.1.f
Vacancy Publicization:
Department Chair/Library Interview Survey
Response to question: "Which of these are routinely used to publicize vacancies in your program?"
Arts & Sciences
Business
Education & Applied Science
Criminal Justice
Library
Total
Admin Chronicle 7 4 7 2 1 21 State & Regional Newsletters 4 1 1 1 0 7 Minority Universities 4 0 3 0 0 7 Contact at Professional Meetings 13 4 7 2 0 26 Graduate School 2 1 2 0 1 6 Individual Letter 8 2 2 1 0 13 Internet 10 4 4 1 0 19 Other1
10 4 0 1 0 15 No Search 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
Other: 2 - Technical journals-both electronic & hard copy; 1 - Mailing to National Association; 1 - Mailing to State Universities; 1 - Advertisement in Science Journals;6 - Professional Journals; 2 - Telephone calls; 2 - National Association Newsletters
Individuals applying for a position are expected to complete an application, furnish official transcripts of all academic work, and provide three letters of reference. Criteria for selection from among the applicants include competitive quality of academic transcripts; recommendations from prior employers; the caliber of previous academic and nonacademic work experience; established record of or potential for research publications or creative activity; and the alignment of the expertise possessed by the applicant with that required of the position. All of these documents and information are used to rank the applicants for the job (Table 4.8.1.g).
Table 4.8.1.g
Search Items:
Department Chair/Library Interview Survey
Response to survey request for "Items routinely included in the selection process of faculty"
College
Transcript
Written
Reference
Scholarly Accomplishment
Other1
No Search
Arts & Sciences 13 14 11 7 0 Business Administration 4 4 4 0 0 Education & Applied Science 8 8 8 1 1 Criminal Justice 1 2 2 1 0 Library 1 0 1 0 0 Total 27 28 26 9 1 1
Other: Music Performance Activity; Portfolio of Art Work; Statements of Teaching/ Research Philosophies; Phone Conversations; Theatre Production/ Performance Portfolio; Grants/Publications; Conference Lectures and Campus Visits; Experience in Graduate Programs; VitaeDuring the screening and selecting of candidates the department faculty are consulted on tenure track positions and frequently consulted on non-tenure track positions as shown in the Department Chair/Library Interview Survey (Table 4.8.1.h).
Table 4.8.1.h
Faculty Involvement in Search:
Department Chair/Library Interview Survey
Response to survey request: "Indicate the best match of how often you consult or include the faculty when you are engaged in screening and selecting candidates for a full-time faculty position."
A. Nontenure-Track Position
College
Never
Seldom
Occasionally
Frequently
Always
No Search
Arts & Sciences 0 0 1 4 9 0 Business Administration 0 1 0 2 1 0 Education & Applied Science 0 0 0 1 7 1 Criminal Justice 0 0 0 0 0 2 Library 0 0 0 0 1 0 Total 0 1 1 7 18 3 B. Tenure-Track Position
College
Never
Seldom
Occasionally
Frequently
Always
No Search
Arts & Sciences 0 0 0 0 14 0 Business Administration 0 0 0 0 4 0 Education & Applied Science 0 0 0 0 8 1 Criminal Justice 0 0 0 0 2 0 Library 0 0 0 0 1 0 Total 0 0 0 0 29 0 Generally, after a sufficient number of applicants has been secured, the job will be placed in a "hold" status to review applications and interview candidates, prepare a priority list, and make a recommendation of the preferred candidate to the dean. In personal interviews regarding the faculty employment process, three of the four deans indicated that inviting candidates to campus for personal interviews is limited by available travel funds.
After receiving the dean’s recommendation, the Vice President for Academic Affairs confirms AA/EEO compliance in the hiring procedure. Upon favorable recommendation of the Vice President for Academic Affairs and subsequent concurrence of the President, the President sends a written job offer to the recommended candidate. When the President receives a signed response from the prospective faculty member, the position is considered to be filled. The Board of Regents, The Texas State University System, must approve all appointments.
3. It is expected that an institution will employ faculty members whose highest earned degree presented as the credential qualifying the faculty member to teach at the institution is from a regionally accredited institution (Criteria 43).
4. If an institution employs a faculty member whose highest earned degree is from a non-regionally accredited institution within the United States or an institution outside the United States, the institution must show evidence that the faculty member has appropriate academic preparation (Criteria 43-44).
The Faculty Committee found that the University complies with these criteria.
No positions at Sam Houston State University have been filled with a candidate from a non-accredited institution (Table 4.8.1.i), and few positions are filled with candidates from foreign universities.
Table 4.8.1.i
Accreditation of Search Candidates:
Department Chair/Library Interview Survey
Response to question: "Have you filled any full-time faculty positions with a candidate from a non-regionally accredited university, i.e., an institution not subject to a regional accrediting agency?"
College
No
Yes: If so, explain how you verify that faculty has appropriate academic preparation
Arts & Sciences 13 1: Math and Computing Science: Foreign universities of high quality that can be validated by the International Handbook of Universities and The World of Learning1 Business Administration 4 0 Education & Applied Science 9 0 Criminal Justice 2 0 Library 1 0 Total 30 1 1
The International Handbook of Universities and The World of Learning validate the degrees from institutions outside the United States.Records in the Division of Academic Affairs indicate that new, full-time faculty hired since January 1993 represent a diverse group of teachers and scholars whose highest earned degrees come from a broad representation of institutions. (See Table 4.8.1.j.)
Table 4.8.1.j
Profile of New, Full-Time Faculty Hired Since January 1993
A. Source of Terminal Degrees
Source of Degree
Number
Approximate Percentage of Total
Sam Houston State University 3 3% Other Texas Universities 43 38% AR, LA, OK Universities 5 4% Nonregional Universities 62 55% Total 113 100% B. Demographic Profile of New, Full-Time Faculty Hired Since January 1993
Ethnic Background
Male
Female
White 57 42 Black 2 1 Hispanic 5 1 Asian 3 2 Total 67 46 5. Institutions must ensure that each faculty member employed is proficient in oral and written communication in the language in which assigned courses will be taught (Criteria 44).
The Committee determined that the University complies with this "must" statement.
Sixty-five percent of faculty members surveyed in the general faculty survey agreed or strongly agreed that job applicants demonstrate appropriate proficiency in oral and written English. Although this response was not as high as expected, Table 4.8.1.k, below, indicates that departments are satisfying the proficiency requirement.
Table 4.8.1.k
English Proficiency of Job Candidates:
Department Chair/Library Interview Survey
Response to question: "Which of the following are routinely used to determine the candidate’s ability to communicate to students?"
College
Inter-view by Chair
Inter-view by Faculty
Oral Presenta-tion
Written Presentation
Teaching Class
Other1
No Search
Arts & Sciences 14 14 11 1 9 4 0 Business Administration 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 Education & Applied Science 8 8 8 3 5 1 1 Criminal Justice 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 Library 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Total 29 29 25 4 14 5 1 1
Other: Conducting Ensemble; Audition in area of performing arts; Public lectures; Meeting with students; Examples of research and publicationsAs the table reveals, the department chair determines candidates’ ability to communicate through employment interviews, oral and written presentations, class presentations, examinations of research and publications, and evaluations of written letters of application and vitae. Furthermore Academic Policy Statement 871214, "English Language Proficiency for Instructional Personnel," as required by the Texas Legislature, details specific procedures and requirements to ensure that successful candidates possess effective communication skills in the English language.
Having determined that the University complies with all of the imperatives in this section of the Criteria, the Faculty Committee makes no recommendations. However, the Committee proposes the following suggestions:
The University should study the option for earlier approval of position allowances to begin advertising of vacancies.
The University should evaluate the feasibility of establishing a pool of travel funds to use for bringing a larger number of prospective candidates to campus, and also of creating a teleconferencing facility to improve the candidate phone interview process.
The University should determine whether establishing a Texas Business Travel Account (BTA) will result in state travel discounts and preserve limited travel funds when the institution invites out-of-state faculty candidates for on-campus interviews.
Section 4.8.2 of the SACS Criteria for Accreditation is a broad area covering academic and professional preparation for four separate categories of faculty: Associate (4.8.2.1), Baccalaureate Faculty (4.8.2.2), Graduate Faculty (4.8.2.3), and Distance Learning Programs/Activities Faculty (4.8.2.4). The comprehensive criterion for this section is that both full-time and part-time faculty comply with the "must" statements for academic and professional preparation outlined in these sections.
1. Both full-time and part-time faculty must meet the following criteria for academic and professional preparation (Criteria 44).
The Faculty Committee determined that the University complies with this comprehensive criterion; evidence for compliance follows in individual sections of this report.
The faculty members of Sam Houston State University are competent and diverse in their academic and professional preparation. Of the tenured or tenure-track full-time faculty employed in 1997-1998, 88.4% held the terminal degree, and 76.2% were tenured. The credentials of all faculty members providing undergraduate and graduate instruction are monitored by the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The Office of the President maintains records of official transcripts in all faculty personnel files. Official documentation of appropriate professional and work experiences, technical and performance competencies, records of publication, and certifications are maintained in these files.
In presenting its findings in this section, the Faculty Committee addresses "must" statements from each of the categories (and, as appropriate, "should" statements) and reports on the University’s compliance or noncompliance with these imperatives in the order in which the statements appear in the Criteria. Following each series of "must" statements and findings, the Committee makes recommendations and/or offers suggestions, according to the University’s compliance status.
4.8.2.1 ASSOCIATE
This section does not apply to Sam Houston State University.
4.8.2.2 BACCALAUREATE
1. Each full-time and part-time faculty member teaching credit courses leading toward the baccalaureate degree, other than physical education activities courses, must have completed at least 18 graduate semester hours in the teaching discipline and hold at least a master’s degree, or hold the minimum of a master’s degree with a major in the teaching discipline (Criteria 46).
2. In exceptional cases, outstanding professional experience and demonstrated contributions to the teaching discipline may be presented in lieu of formal academic preparation. Such cases must be justified by the institution on an individual basis (Criteria 46).
The Faculty Committee found that Sam Houston State University complies with these "must" statements.
The appropriate departmental chair ensures that each full-time and part-time faculty member teaching credit courses leading toward the baccalaureate degree has completed at least eighteen graduate semester hours in the teaching discipline and holds at least a master’s degree or holds the minimum of a master’s degree with a major in the teaching discipline. Exceptions to this requirement in 1997-1998 included eight faculty members holding bachelor’s degrees who taught kinesiology activity courses and six faculty members holding bachelor’s degrees who taught dance activity courses. Substantially more than 25% of the discipline course hours in the undergraduate major programs are taught by faculty members holding the terminal degree.
The office of the appropriate dean as well as the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs also monitors the credentials of all faculty members who provide undergraduate instruction.
Exceptional cases in which faculty do not have a master’s degree with eighteen graduate semester hours but who do have outstanding professional experience and have demonstrated contributions to the teaching discipline are justified when the faculty members are first employed. The records of such exceptions are maintained among the faculty files in the office of the President.
During 1997-1998 there were exceptional cases among faculty teaching Spanish. The employment of these faculty members was justified on the basis of their being native speakers of Spanish, their having outstanding professional experience (such as having taught Spanish in the public schools for more than twenty-five years or having lived many years in Mexico), and/or their having completed two summers of intensive study in Mexico.
From time to time the Elementary Education Program has employed individuals who have responsibilities associated with student teaching; some of these faculty do not have the required graduate hours in elementary education, but do have appropriate compensatory experiences in public schools. One such faculty, for example, taught elementary social studies courses and also supervised elementary education student teachers of social studies. This faculty member, who holds a degree in history, has six years of teaching experience in elementary schools; in addition, he has been employed by the Region VI Education Service Center, where his assignment was to work with teachers and administrators at elementary and secondary school campuses in this region.
3. The Commission encourages interdisciplinary courses and recognizes that appropriate credentials for teaching may vary. The institution must document and justify the academic and professional preparation of faculty members teaching in such courses or programs (Criteria 46).
4. It is the responsibility of the institution to keep on file for all full-time and part-time faculty members documentation of academic preparation, such as official transcripts and, if appropriate for demonstrating competence, official documentation of professional and work experience, technical and performance competency, records of publications, certifications and other qualifications (Criteria 46-47).
The Committee determined that the University complies with these criteria.
The University offers an interdisciplinary degree program in environmental science. The environmental science courses are taught by faculty members who have the appropriate credentials for the courses they teach. These faculty members include faculty from the Departments of Biological Sciences and Chemistry as well as an adjunct faculty member. The academic preparation of the faculty members teaching environmental science courses during 1997-1998 are summarized in Table 4.8.2.2.a:
Table 4.8.2.2.a
Faculty Members Teaching Environmental Science Courses
Departmental Affiliation
Terminal Degree
Major
Biological Sciences PhD Biology and Environmental Engineering Biological Sciences PhD Bacteriology Biological Sciences PhD Zoology Chemistry PhD Analytical/Environmental Chemistry Adjunct Faculty (Industrial Hygienist) MS Environmental Science Documentation of the academic and professional preparation of faculty teaching in this program can be found in the files of the faculty members in the Office of the President. In addition, the chair of the Department of Biological Sciences makes the teaching assignments each semester and monitors the academic preparation of the faculty members teaching in this program.
The University also offers several interdisciplinary courses within its Honors Program. These courses draw upon the expertise of faculty from the Departments of Physics, Geography and Geology, Biological Sciences, Chemistry, History, and Political Science. With the department chairs of these disciplines, the Director of the Honors Program shares responsibility for assuring the appropriateness of faculty credentials to teach in the program.
The interdisciplinary major in humanities is being phased out by the year 2000 because of students’ lack of interest and participation.
5. At least 25 percent of the discipline course hours in each undergraduate major must be taught by faculty members holding the terminal degree, usually the earned doctorate, in that discipline. In some disciplines, the master’s degree in the discipline may be considered the terminal degree, such as the M.F.A., the M.S.W., and the M.L.S.; in others, a master’s degree in the discipline, coupled with a doctoral degree in a related discipline, is considered appropriate (Criteria 47).
6. It is the responsibility of the institution to justify the master’s degree, or master’s in the teaching discipline coupled with a related doctorate, as the terminal degree for faculty members teaching in these disciplines (Criteria 47).
7. The above requirement also applies to each major offered through distance learning, including those offered at branches or other sites (Criteria 47).
The Faculty Committee determined that the University complies with all of these imperatives.
During the fall of 1997 and spring of 1998, the long semesters used as samples, more than the required 25% of the course hours in each major undergraduate discipline were taught by faculty members holding the terminal degree, usually the earned doctorate in the discipline, the master’s degree in the discipline considered to be the terminal degree in the discipline, or the master’s degree in the discipline and a doctoral degree in a related discipline. The percentages of undergraduate major hours taught in the fall of 1997 by faculty with appropriate terminal degrees are indicated in Table 4.8.2.2.b. Results similar to these were also obtained for the Spring 1998 semester.
Table 4.8.2.2.b
Percentage of Undergraduate Hours Taught by Faculty with
Appropriate Terminal Degrees: Fall 1997
Undergraduate Discipline
College
Percentage of Undergraduate Major Credit Hours Taught by Faculty with Earned Doctorate in Discipline, MFA, MSW, MLS, or Master’s Degree in Discipline Coupled with Related Doctorate
Arts and Sciences Art 66.4 Biological Sciences 87.5 Chemistry 76.9 Computing Science 46.3 Dance 53.7 English 56.4 Environmental Science 69.3 French 100.0 Geography 71.3 Geology 100.0 German 100.0 History 82.8 Journalism 32.5 Mathematics 69.4 Music 42.1 Photography 63.1 Physics 76.5 Political Science 100.0 Radio/Television 64.3 Sociology 71.4 Spanish 49.2 Speech Communication 74.7 Theatre 97.8 Statistics (Support Area) 100.0 Business Administration Accounting 57.5 Finance 49.1 General Business Administration 62.4 Business Administration Economics 78.1 Management 71.2 Marketing 49.9 Business Analysis (Support Area) 35.5 Management Information Systems (Support Area) 100.0 Criminal Justice Criminal Justice 87.6 Education and Applied Science Academic Studies 59.3 Agriculture 71.3 Health 91.6 Home Economics 99.1 Technology 74.4 Kinesiology 64.5 Philosophy 100.0 Psychology 66.1 Bilingual/English-as-a-Second Language (Support Area) 98.8 8. Faculty members who teach in remedial programs must hold a baccalaureate degree in a discipline related to their teaching assignment and have either teaching experience in a discipline related to their assignment or graduate training in remedial education (Criteria 47).
The Committee found that the University complies with this "must" statement.
Sam Houston offers four developmental courses: ENG 031D, MTH 031D, MTH 032D, and RDG 031D. All instructors of developmental courses hold at least the bachelor's degree and have either teaching experience in a discipline related to their assignment or graduate training in remedial education. Table 4.8.2.2.c summarizes these course offerings for the academic year 1997-1998:
Table 4.8.2.2.c
Profile of Developmental Courses
A. Developmental Courses Taught During Fall 1997 Semester
Developmental Course
Number of Faculty Members
Number of Sections
ENG 031D 8 12 MTH 031D 7 15 MTH 032D 4 6 RDG 031D 4 8 Total 23 41 B. Developmental Courses Taught During Spring 1998 Semester
Developmental Course
Number of Faculty Members
Number of Sections
ENG 031D 4 6 MTH 031D 5 9 MTH 032D 4 4 RDG 031D 1 4 Total 14 23 Developmental English is sometimes taught by graduate assistants who hold bachelor’s degrees in English or, rarely, in a related field. However, during 1997-1998, two of the instructors of ENG 031D held MA degrees in English. In addition, during the fall of 1997, the Director of Freshman English, an Associate Professor of English with impressive experience teaching in her discipline, taught one section of ENG 031D. The director monitors classroom performance of instructors of ENG 031D.
Among the instructors of MTH 031D and MTH 032D during 1997-1998 were the Coordinator of Developmental Mathematics, who holds the MS in mathematics and has extensive teaching experience in that discipline; two faculty members who hold PhD degrees in mathematics; six faculty members who hold MA degrees in mathematics; one faculty member who holds a BS in mathematics and an MEd in Educational Psychology; and two graduate assistants who hold the BS in mathematics. Six of the faculty members teaching the developmental mathematics courses have had extensive experience teaching mathematics at Sam Houston State University.
Developmental Reading is taught by three faculty members who hold MEd degrees in reading and one faculty member who holds the Doctor of Education degree.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS: SECTION 4.8.2.2
Having determined that faculty members of Sam Houston State University who teach in baccalaureate programs meet all the criteria specified for their academic and professional preparation, the Faculty Committee has no recommendations.
4.8.2.3 GRADUATE
Sam Houston State University is authorized by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to offer seven graduate degrees in seventy-five degree programs and three doctoral degrees in three degree programs. The graduate faculty comprises members of the University academic faculty and administration who have been appointed as either graduate faculty or associate graduate faculty according to established procedures. These faculty are expected to engage in recognized scholarly activities, research, and/or professional activity.
The Vice President for Academic Affairs is responsible for overseeing the academic programs. The Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs is the chief administrative officer of the graduate faculty. The Graduate Council serves as an advisory body to the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs. The Graduate Council consists of the Coordinator of Graduate Studies, who serves as chair, two faculty members from each college, the Director of the Newton Gresham Library, and the Director of Undergraduate Admissions, who is an ex officio member.
The dean of each college serves as the official representative of the graduate faculty of the college. The dean also serves as the official channel of communication between the graduate students and the University administration.
1. Institutions offering either master’s or specialist degrees must demonstrate a high level of faculty competence in teaching and scholarship (Criteria 47).
The Committee determined that Sam Houston State University complies with this criterion.
Minimum requirements for appointment to the graduate faculty ensure that the graduate faculty demonstrate the requisite commitment, interest, and skills essential for the integrity and effectiveness of graduate education. Graduate faculty who are current in their areas of specialization are involved in the types of scholarly activities (for example, research and writing) required of graduate students in order that they can serve as role models and that they have first-hand experience to guide and direct the scholarly activities of students. Evidence of research and scholarly activities includes presentation of papers at professional conferences, as well as the publication of books, textbooks, book chapters, monographs, research reports, journal articles, book reviews, and review essays. Creative activities and accomplishments include local, state, and national art exhibitions; juried competitions; concerts; recitals; dance spectrums; and theatrical performances.
The academic or professional community recognizes a faculty member for his or her scholarly expertise in the field. This recognition is indicated by appointment to important planning committees; election or appointment to administrative positions of national professional associations; receipt of awards or honors from professional, academic, scientific, or governmental agencies; and appointment to the editorial and review boards of academic journals, book publishers, and governmental agencies.
2. Institutions offering doctoral degrees must demonstrate the research capability of faculty members teaching in these programs (Criteria 47).
The Faculty Committee determined that Sam Houston State University complies with this criterion.
The University demonstrates the research contributions of faculty members of each college, including faculty who teach in the doctoral programs, in its publication of the Annual Report on Faculty Research and Creative Accomplishments. This document lists publications; book/media reviews; conference papers; creative accomplishments; school district activities; and awards, grants, contracts, and research of various faculty members. The Annual Report on Faculty Research and Creative Accomplishments is available to each department chair in hard copy and to each faculty member on the mainframe.
The College of Criminal Justice recognizes scholarly and professional activities, publications, and scholarly recognition as being interrelated. Graduate faculty are expected to show activity in all three areas during their careers. Graduate faculty status is reviewed every two years; faculty accomplishments are evaluated on the same schedule. Graduate faculty are expected to engage regularly in activities, including research, that are essential for a complete graduate education.
3. Eligibility requirements for faculty members teaching graduate courses must be clearly defined and publicized (Criteria 47).
The Committee established that Sam Houston State University complies with this "must" statement.
The graduate faculty consists of those members of the University academic faculty and administration who have been appointed to graduate faculty membership in accord with eligibility requirements and procedures established in Academic Policy Statement 801014. This policy statement in its entirety is accessible on the mainframe, as is the complete Academic Policy Manual. Hard copies of the Academic Policy Manual are also located in the offices of the academic deans, department chairs, and the Newton Gresham Library. This academic policy statement is also accessible in Appendix V of The Faculty Handbook issued to each faculty member, as are other academic policy statements from the faculty section of the Academic Policy Manual.
The following statements in Academic Policy Statement 801014 refer to the eligibility requirements for graduate faculty:
Nomination and approval of nominees to the graduate faculty will be based upon evidence of competencies which shall be judged to be essential to successful performance at the graduate level. Each academic department chair will provide to the appropriate college dean a list of the recommended minimum requirements for appointment of a faculty member of that academic unit to the graduate faculty. Each college dean will, in turn, develop a statement outlining the minimum requirements for the appointment of a faculty member of that college to the graduate faculty. The University Graduate Council will review all of the recommended minimum appointment criteria submitted by each college in order to ensure a modicum of standardization of appointment requirements across the University. The University Graduate Council will forward the results of its review, together with any recommendations for change deemed appropriate, to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Upon approval of the proposed appointment criteria for each college by the Vice President for Academic Affairs, current and future graduate faculty appointments will be evaluated according to the criteria established for the appropriate college in order to determine appointment eligibility.
Criteria for membership on the graduate/associate graduate faculty were established for each of the colleges according to the procedure outlined above. Copies of these criteria are available from the offices of the appropriate department chairs, the college deans, the Coordinator of Graduate Studies, and the Vice President for Academic Affairs.
4. All institutions must have adequate resources to attract and retain a qualified faculty, especially in the disciplines in which doctoral programs are offered (Criteria 47).
The Faculty Committee determined that the University complies with this criterion.
The interim dean of the criminal justice doctoral program indicated that even though salaries at Sam Houston State University are a little less overall than they are nationally, the salaries are adequate to attract and retain a qualified faculty. This administrator also indicated that support systems are adequate. These resources include computer equipment, computer laboratories, secretarial support, and faculty offices. There are no research assistantships for graduate students, but there are teaching assistantships reserved for the more advanced doctoral students.
The Dean of the College of Education and Applied Science, who oversees the Educational Leadership doctoral program, indicated that steps have been taken through market adjustments and merit pay (both of which are required for doctoral faculty) to adjust any salary inequities.
5. Faculty members responsible for the direction of doctoral research must be experienced in directing independent study (Criteria 47).
The Faculty Committee found that the University complies with this criterion.
All graduate faculty members responsible for the direction of doctoral research are experienced in directing independent study. Prior to and periodically during employment, each graduate faculty member has submitted a vitae that summarizes professional and work experiences, technical and performance competencies, publications, certifications, and service activities. Appropriate documentation of doctoral faculty credentials is maintained in the office of the appropriate dean and the Office of the President.
6. Each faculty member teaching courses at the master’s and specialist degree level must hold the terminal degree, usually the earned doctorate, in the teaching discipline or a related discipline. In some instances, the master’s degree in the discipline may be considered the terminal degree, such as the M.F.A., the M.S.W., and the M.L.S.; in others, a master’s degree in the discipline coupled with a doctoral degree in a related discipline is considered appropriate (Criteria 48).
7. It is the responsibility of the institution to justify the master’s degree, or master’s in the teaching discipline coupled with a related doctorate, as the terminal degree for faculty members teaching in those disciplines (Criteria 48).
The Committee determined that Sam Houston State University complies with these imperatives.
In most instances faculty members teaching courses at the master’s and specialist degree level hold the terminal degree in the teaching discipline or a related discipline. However, during the fall of 1997 and the spring of 1998, there were exceptions to this practice. These exceptions included two faculty members in the Computing Science Program who taught three graduate courses. Both faculty members held the MS degree in Computing Science, and one of these faculty members had completed sixty-seven doctoral graduate hours in computing science. In another example, a faculty member with an MA degree in history and sixty-two doctoral hours of history taught two sections of a master’s level history course by independent study. One faculty member with an MEd degree taught one section of a special education course, while another faculty member with an MEd degree taught one section of an industrial technology course. In each case the faculty had demonstrated exceptional scholarly and/or professional experience.
The Department of Music has many specialized courses that require instructors to teach a limited number of students. Eight of these instructors holding either the MM or MA degree in music taught fifteen sections of courses in their specialization. These instructors are distinguished professionals who perform in area orchestras and other musical groups.
The MFA in Art is considered to be the terminal degree for faculty teaching in either the MFA or MA degree programs in that discipline. During the 1997-1998 academic year, four faculty in the Department of Art possessed either the MA or MS degree in Art coupled with the MFA degree, two faculty held the MFA degree, one faculty had the MA degree in Art, and one faculty held the MA in Art coupled with the PhD in College Teaching. Each of the MFA, MA, and MS degrees was in the faculty member’s teaching area.
In the Department of General Business and Finance, one faculty member who taught graduate business administration courses holds the MS in Business Administration and the EdD degree in Curriculum and Instruction.
One faculty in the Department of Health and Kinesiology who holds the MS degree in Nutrition and Food coupled with the PhD in Curriculum and Instruction taught graduate Health Education courses. This faculty member had earned eighteen graduate hours in Health Education for the PhD Another faculty in this department who had the PhD in Physiology taught graduate courses in Kinesiology.
During 1997-1998 graduate courses were taught by faculty in the Department of Library Science who had terminal degrees in related fields. These faculty included two individuals who both hold MEd and EdD degrees in Curriculum and Instruction, one who holds the MLS degree and the PhD in Educational Administration, one who holds the MS in Library Science and the PhD in Educational Administration, and one who holds the MEd degree in Elementary Education and the MLS in Library Science.
In the Mathematics Program, one faculty who holds the MS degree in Mathematics and the Doctor of Education in Curriculum and Instruction taught graduate courses.
The MFA degree is considered to be a terminal degree for faculty who teach in the Dance Program. During 1997-1998 two faculty who hold the MFA in Dance taught graduate dance courses.
One faculty member of the Psychology Program who holds both the MEd and the PhD in Education taught a graduate Psychology course during the 1997 Fall semester.
During 1997-1998 one faculty member of the Department of Technology who holds the MEd degree in Industrial Arts Education and the EdD in College Teaching taught graduate Industrial Education courses. This faculty member has thirty-nine graduate hours in Industrial Arts in his EdD degree courses.
Should an academic department seek permission to have a non-member of the graduate faculty teach a graduate course within a given semester, a formal request, accompanied by documented justification, must be submitted by the department for review and action to the dean and to the Vice President for Academic Affairs (see form entitled "Request for Permission to Allow a Nonmember of the Graduate/Associate Graduate Faculty to Teach a Graduate Course").
8. All faculty members teaching courses at the doctoral degree level must hold the earned doctorate in the teaching discipline or a related discipline (Criteria 48).
The Faculty Committee found that the University complies with this imperative.
Sam Houston State University is authorized to offer the Doctor of Philosophy in Criminal Justice, the Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership, and the Doctor of Philosophy in Forensic Clinical Psychology. Because the doctoral program in Forensic Clinical Psychology begins in the Fall 1998 semester, this report does not cover the credentials of the faculty members involved in this program.
The seventeen graduate faculty members and the four associate graduate faculty members of the College of Criminal Justice all teach courses at the doctoral level. Each of these faculty members holds the earned doctorate in the teaching discipline or an appropriate related discipline. Justification for faculty teaching in this graduate program who have degrees in related disciplines and related professional experience is found in the faculty files in the Office of the President. Table 4.8.2.3.a shows the discipline of the terminal degrees held by these faculty members.
Table 4.8.2.3.a
Qualifications of Doctoral Faculty: Criminal Justice
Number of Faculty
Terminal Degree
Discipline
1 PhD Administration and Higher Education 1 PhD Criminal Justice 3 PhD Criminology 1 PhD Criminal Justice and Criminology 1 PhD Guidance 1 PhD History 1 DSL Law 1 PhD Political Science 4 PhD Psychology 1 PhD Public Administration 6 PhD Sociology The faculty member holding the PhD in history teaches the History of Violence, Penology, Crime and Punishment, and the Development of Law Enforcement Entities. The faculty member holding the PhD in Political Science has considerable experience as an instructor for a Police Training School for Officers, a police officer, a criminal investigator, a criminal justice planner, and a public administrator.
The six graduate faculty of the College of Education who teach doctoral courses in the Educational Leadership Program all hold the earned doctorate in the teaching discipline or a related discipline. Table 4.8.2.3.b shows the discipline of the terminal degrees held by these faculty members:
Table 4.8.2.3.b
Qualifications of Doctoral Faculty: Educational Leadership Program
Number of Faculty
Terminal Degree
Discipline
3 PhD Education Administration 1 EdD Education Administration 1 EdD Education: Elementary Education 1 PhD Supervision, Curriculum, and Instruction In addition to the six doctoral faculty of the Educational Leadership Program, there are twelve affiliate doctoral faculty from the areas of Library Science, Secondary Education, Counseling, Computing Science, Management, Criminal Justice, Bilingual Education, Mathematics, Curriculum and Instruction, and Political Science; three school administration faculty; and four field support faculty who provide educational expertise to the doctoral students. Each of these affiliate and school administration faculty holds the appropriate terminal degree and experience for participation in this program.
9. The Commission recognizes that in unusual cases institutions may appropriately include as graduate faculty members those who have demonstrated exceptional scholarly or creative activity, or professional experience, but who may not possess the required academic credentials. There also may be an occasion when a new graduate discipline is in its formative stage in higher education and there are no faculty members available with academic credentials in the discipline. In either case, when an institution presents evidence of competence or academic credentials other than the doctorate in the discipline for its graduate faculty, it must justify the employment of such faculty (Criteria 48).
The Faculty Committee determined that the University complies with this criterion.
One faculty member in the Department of Library Science does not have any graduate hours in library science; however, this individual holds a Doctor of Education in Curriculum and Instruction, with a specialization in adolescent and children’s literature. She also holds a BA degree in English Teacher Education and an MEd degree in Curriculum and Instruction. The teaching assignments of this faculty member have included LS 560: Literature for Children; LS 561: Current Trends in Materials for Children and Young Adults; and LS 580: Master’s Seminar. The LS 580 curriculum includes such topics as "Nonfiction Literature for Children and Young Adults" and "Selecting and Evaluating Multicultural Materials for Youth." The teaching experience and academic preparation of the individual in question support her competence in teaching these courses.
10. The Commission encourages interdisciplinary courses and recognizes that appropriate credentials for teaching may vary. The institution must document and justify the academic and professional preparation of faculty members teaching in such courses or programs (Criteria 48).
Sam Houston State University currently does not offer any graduate interdisciplinary courses.
11. It is the responsibility of the institution to keep on file, for all full-time and part-time faculty members teaching graduate courses, documentation of academic preparation, such as official transcripts and, if appropriate for demonstrating competence, official documentation of professional and work experience, technical and performance competency, records of publications, and certifications and other qualifications (Criteria 48-49).
The Faculty Committee determined that the University complies with this criterion.
Documentation of competency of all full-time and part-time faculty to teach graduate courses is on file in the appropriate academic offices.
12. An effective graduate program depends on the scholarly interaction of faculty. The appropriate number of faculty members to adequately support a program varies according to discipline and the scope of the program. However, for each graduate degree program, an institution must employ at least four qualified full-time faculty members whose responsibilities include teaching in the program (Criteria 49).
The Committee found that the University does not comply fully with this criterion.
Graduate degree programs and doctoral degree programs are summarized in Table 4.8.2.3.c.
Table 4.8.2.3.c
Graduate Degree Programs
A. Master’s Degree Programs
Graduate Degrees
No. of Degree Titles
No. of Degree Programs
MA 22 31 MBA 1 1 MEd 16 20 MFA 1 6 MLS 1 1 MM 1 6 MS 8 10 Total 50 75 B. Doctoral Degree Programs
Graduate Degrees
Number of Degree Titles
Number of Degree Programs
EdD 1 1 PhD 2 2 Total 3 3 At least four qualified full-time faculty members teach in each graduate degree program, with one exception: The Dance program, which in previous years has been in compliance with this criterion, last year lost one of its four full-time faculty. To date, the program has not appointed a full-time faculty to fill this vacancy, thus leaving the graduate faculty with only three full-time teachers. The Faculty Committee makes a recommendation to correct this situation in the recommendations and suggestions which follow this section.
Graduate faculty and associate graduate faculty members and their disciplines are summarized in Table 4.8.2.3.d. Most disciplines of faculty members are obvious. There are exceptions, however, as in the case of the degrees in Home Economics offered by the Department of Family and Consumer Sciences. The disciplines of the faculty are Fashion Merchandising and Design, Home Economics, Interior Design, Nutrition and Dietetics, and Vocational Home Economics.
Table 4.8.2.3.d
Graduate Degrees and Faculty
College
Disciplines
Number of Graduate Faculty
Number of Associate Graduate Faculty
Arts & Sciences Art 7 1 Biological Sciences 14 0 Chemistry 8 0 Dance 3 0 English 22 5 Geography 2 1 Geology 3 2 History 8 4 Computing Science 6 2 Mathematics 18 2 Music 9 4 Physics 7 0 Political Science 8 2 Sociology 4 2 Theatre 3 0 Business Administration Accounting 5 4 Business Administration 4 2 Business Analysis 1 1 Economics 6 0 Finance 2 3 Management Information Systems 1 1 Marketing 5 0 Criminal Justice Criminal Justice 17 4 Education & Applied Science Agriculture 4 6 Education 20 17 Fashion Merchandising and Design 0 1 Home Economics 1 0 Health 3 1 Technology 5 1 Interior Design 0 1 Kinesiology 5 1 Library Science 5 0 Psychology 11 0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS: SECTION 4.8.2.3
The Faculty Committee determined that Sam Houston State University complies fully with all but one of the imperatives in this section of the Criteria; to correct the instance of noncompliance, the Committee makes the following recommendation:
The Dance Program must hire at least one full-time faculty member to teach in its graduate program.
To improve the quality of graduate education at the University, the Committee also makes the following suggestions:
Even though at least 25% of the discipline course hours in the Journalism Program are taught by faculty members holding the terminal degree in that discipline or other appropriate credentials, when vacancies occur in the future the department should make every effort to recruit and employ faculty members with terminal degrees in journalism.
The Office of Graduate Studies should investigate the possibility of offering research assistantships for graduate students in the doctoral programs.
4.8.2.4 DISTANCE LEARNING PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES
1. Institutions offering courses for credit through distance learning activities and programs must meet all criteria related to faculty.
2. Whether through direct contact or other appropriate means, institutions offering distance learning programs must provide students with structured access to and interaction with full-time faculty members.
The Faculty Committee determined that the University complies with these imperatives.
Sam Houston State University’s distance learning activities and programs are addressed in Section 4.5 (Distance Learning Programs) and Section 4.6 (Continuing Education, Outreach, and Service Programs) of the SACS Self-Study Report.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS: SECTION 4.8.2.4
Having determined that the University complies with the imperatives in this section of the Criteria, the Faculty Committee makes no recommendations.
Sam Houston State University has developed into a relatively large, diverse institution organized into four colleges, with authorization to offer six baccalaureate degrees, seven master’s degrees, and three doctoral degrees in three program areas. A well-qualified faculty has been critical to achieving and maintaining educational effectiveness related to the respective needs of this multifaceted organization and its academic programs. The number of full-time faculty members must be adequate to provide effective teaching, advising, and scholarly or creative activity, and be appropriate to participate in curriculum development, policy making, institutional planning and governance.
Full-time faculty have composed the teaching core at Sam Houston State University; however, part-time faculty provide an important dimension in delivering the University’s educational program. Part-time faculty include those working under contract whose special expertise is vital to the success of various programs.
Ten-year comparative data reflecting full-time to part-time faculty ratios are provided in Table 4.8.3.a below. These data indicate more than a two to one (2:1) overall ratio for the ten-year period 1988-89 to 1997-98. The data further show that the current 1997-98 faculty ratio of full-time to part-time faculty approximates the ten-year averages.
Table 4.8.3.a
Full-Time/Part-Time Faculty Comparisons: 1988-19981
Fall | Spring | |||||||
Full-Time | Part-Time | Full-Time | Part-Time | |||||
# | % | # | % | # | % | # | % | |
| 97-98 | 364 | 69.5 | 160 | 30.5 | 358 | 69.1 | 160 | 30.9 |
| 96-97 | 350 | 67.8 | 166 | 32.2 | 340 | 65.0 | 183 | 35.0 |
| 95-96 | 333 | 64.8 | 181 | 35.2 | 328 | 62.2 | 199 | 37.8 |
| 94-95 | 341 | 67.1 | 167 | 32.9 | 341 | 66.0 | 176 | 34.0 |
| 93-94 | 335 | 68.8 | 152 | 31.2 | 330 | 67.5 | 159 | 32.5 |
| 92-93 | 335 | 71.3 | 135 | 28.7 | 336 | 69.3 | 149 | 30.7 |
| 91-92 | 328 | 75.1 | 109 | 24.9 | 326 | 70.7 | 135 | 29.3 |
| 90-91 | 336 | 74.3 | 116 | 25.7 | 331 | 72.4 | 126 | 27.6 |
| 89-90 | 320 | 77.9 | 91 | 22.1 | 320 | 75.1 | 106 | 24.9 |
| 88-89 | 305 | 79.0 | 82 | 21.0 | 311 | 79.0 | 83 | 21.0 |
| Average | 334.7 | 71.6 | 135.9 | 28.4 | 332.1 | 69.6 | 147.6 | 30.4 |
1
Source: Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs1. The number of full-time faculty members must be adequate to provide effective teaching, advising, and scholarly or creative activity, and be appropriate to participate in curriculum development, policy making, institutional planning, and governance (Criteria 49).
The Faculty Committee determined that the University complies with this imperative.
Responses to the self-study survey items (Table 4.8.3.b) indicate the degree to which faculty agree or disagree with various policies and practices concerning the employment of part-time faculty at the University.
Table 4.8.3.b
Perceptions of the Use of Part-Time Faculty at SHSU: Faculty Survey1
Response to statement: "The University...."
Survey #
Statement
Percentage in Agreement
Percentage in Disagreement
48a ... is over-dependent upon part-time faculty to meet the needs of teaching. 38 38 48b ... is over-dependent upon part-time faculty to meet the needs of advising. 6 63 48c ... is over-dependent upon part-time faculty to meet the needs of scholarly creative activity. 4 70 48d ... is over-dependent upon part-time faculty to meet the needs of committee responsibilities. 4 70 43a ... has an adequate number of full-time faculty to carry out effective departmental curriculum development. 42 39 43b ... has an adequate number of full-time faculty to carry out effective departmental policy making. 54 24 43c ... has an adequate number of full-time faculty to carry out effective departmental governance. 52 24 43d ... has an adequate number of full-time faculty to carry out effective institutional planning. 45 28 1
Faculty responses to the Survey items related to this must statement are shown with the two Agree categories combined and the two Disagree categories combined.Sam Houston State University traditionally prides itself on the quality of its teaching. However, as the table above indicates, the faculty responses to the survey items related to this imperative are equally divided (38%) on whether the University is or is not overly dependent on part-time faculty to carry out these teaching responsibilities. On the other hand, the faculty responses clearly show a strong belief that full-time faculty of the University adequately provide effective advising and accomplish creative and scholarly activities and that these responsibilities are met effectively without over-dependence on part-time faculty. In addition, the majority of the faculty respondents (approximately 2:1) perceive that their full-time faculty are adequate to carry out effectively curriculum development, policy making, and governance, as well as institutional planning.
2. The employment of part-time faculty members can provide expertise to enhance the educational effectiveness of an institution, but the number of part-time faculty members must be properly limited (Criteria 49).
The Committee determined that the University complies with this criterion.
Sam Houston State University limits the number of part-time faulty by staffing courses with as many full-time faculty as possible. As a matter of general guidance, and in accordance with Academic Policy Statement 890301, the use of part-time faculty is kept to a minimum; however, when budget constraints preclude the hiring of additional tenure-track faculty and when the number of courses needed to meet student demands exceeds the number that can reasonably be taught by full-time faculty, part-time instructors are used to fill this need. The various demands of each college and its program areas determine to what extent part-time faculty are needed. This complexity and variation are reflected in Table 4.8.3.c, "Part-Time Faculty Percentages by College, 1988-1998." (See Table 4.8.3.a, above, for variations in percentage ratios of part-time faculty over the past ten years.)
Table 4.8.3.c
Part-Time Faculty Percentages by College, 1988-19981
Years
Arts and Sciences
Business
Criminal Justice
Education and Applied Science
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
97-98 21.9 24.7 33.3 31.2 27.6 29.0 44.9 42.1 96-97 28.3 30.0 24.6 32.3 16.1 34.4 45.4 45.1 95-96 31.7 31.7 32.8 32.8 10.7 20.7 46.2 52.4 94-95 25.7 26.9 27.4 27.4 26.9 18.5 46.7 48.6 93-94 24.9 27.5 17.2 19.0 26.9 29.6 46.8 45.6 92-93 25.5 24.3 8.9 10.7 20.8 48.6 42.9 43.8 91-92 23.6 26.5 9.0 14.0 48.3 40.0 29.2 37.9 90-91 21.6 20.8 5.6 7.4 44.1 48.5 35.8 40.3 89-90 19.0 18.8 5.7 7.5 28.0 32.1 33.6 39.1 88-89 17.7 17.5 7.8 5.8 38.5 25.0 29.5 33.0 Percent Average 23.99 24.87 17.23 18.81 28.79 32.64 40.1 42.79 1
Source: See Appendix A.The higher percentage of part-time faculty in the College of Education and Applied Science reflects the attention to state mandates for the certification requirements in the Teacher Education program. Each semester this large University program collaborates with approximately thirty independent school districts within a hundred-mile radius. Supervision of pre-service teachers in their final student teaching semester requires the use of adjunct part-time faculty to
maintain the travel schedules for the required mentoring by a University supervisor.
In addition to the state mandates, the Teacher Education program complies with the supervision requirements for its accreditation by NCATE, National Council of Accreditation of Teacher Education, a five-year review and accreditation process. (Because only ten of sixty-seven teacher education programs in Texas meet these standards for this national accreditation for teacher preparation programs, SHSU’s is clearly among the best programs in the state.)
Since master’s level candidates in the Teacher Education program are full-time teachers and since there is no doctoral program in this department, no pool of graduate students exists to assist supervision of the approximately two hundred student teachers each semester. This need for supervisors is filled by part-time faculty.
Data from Table 4.8.3.c also reflect the rise in the part-time faculty percentages for the College of Business as a result of one of the many criteria (student-to-faculty ratio requirement) for earning the accreditation for business schools. (See Appendix A for full-time/part-time faculty comparisons by college, 1988-1998, by head count and FTEs.)
3. Part-time faculty members teaching courses for credit must meet the same requirements for professional, experiential and scholarly preparation as their full-time counterparts teaching in the same disciplines (Criteria 49).
The Committee found that the University complies with this "must" statement.
Academic Policy Statement 890301 in The Faculty Handbook clearly states the qualifications required for part-time faculty: "Part-time faculty must meet the same requirements for professional, experiential, and scholarly preparation as their full-time counterparts in the same disciplines." All the colleges and departments follow the stated policy.
Perceptions of faculty respondents to the self-study survey concerning the qualifications of part-time faculty are shown in Table 4.8.3.d:
Table 4.8.3.d
Faculty Perceptions of Part-Time Faculty Qualifications: Faculty Survey
Response to statement: "In my department, part-time faculty with teaching responsibilities..."
Survey #
Statement
Percentage in Agreement
Percentage in Disagreement
45a ... meet the same criteria as full-time faculty for professional preparation. 35 41 45b ... meet the same criteria as full-time faculty for experiential preparation. 30 37 45c ... meet the same criteria as full-time faculty for scholarly preparation. 24 47 As previously noted (see Section 4.8.2.2, above), chairs of academic departments oversee the administration of Academic Policy Statement 890301 (The Faculty Handbook) regarding the hiring of properly credentialed faculty. However, survey data in the table above seem to indicate that some faculty are not convinced that part-time faculty in their respective departments meet criteria requirement in the areas of professional, experiential, and scholarly preparation.
4. Each institution must establish and publish comprehensive policies concerning the employment of part-time faculty members (Criteria 49).
The Faculty Committee determined that Sam Houston State University complies with the criterion.
The University has a clearly stated policy that guides the employment of part-time faculty (The Faculty Handbook, Academic Policy Statement 890301). However, faculty responses to Question 44 of the SACS survey indicate that some faculty are not aware of this policy. In response to the statement, "My department has a policy concerning the employment of part-time faculty," 35% agreed, while 29% disagreed.
5. The institution must also provide for appropriate orientation, supervision, and evaluation of all part-time faculty members (Criteria 49-50).
The Committee found that the University complies with this imperative.
Deans provide an orientation session for all new faculty, giving an overview and specifics on university and college procedures, as well as expectations on office hours and other departmental responsibilities. Department chairs and program coordinators provide further orientation, supervision, and evaluations for part-time faculty (see The Faculty Handbook, Academic Policy Statement 890301). In some instances, part-time faculty are assigned mentors.
The faculty’s perception of these policies and procedures are indicated in Table 4.8.3.e:
Table 4.8.3.e
Faculty Perceptions of Part-Time Faculty Orientation, Supervision, and Evaluation Policies and Practices: Faculty Survey
Response to statement: "For our part-time faculty, my department..."
Survey #
Statement
Percentage in Agreement
Percentage in Disagreement
46a ... provides adequate orientation. 29 34 46b ... provides adequate supervision. 32 36 46c ... provides adequate evaluation 25 47 As the table suggests, faculty members may not be fully aware of the college and departmental support for new part-time faculty, perhaps because they do not attend orientation meetings or participate in the supervision of evaluation of part-time faculty unless they themselves are serving as mentors.
6. Procedures to ensure student access to part-time faculty members must be clearly stated and publicized (Criteria 50).
The Committee determined that the University complies with this criterion.
Information about required office hours, faculty availability to students, and any unique departmental situations is shared in orientation meetings with all new faculty, including new part-time faculty. The importance of student access to faculty is stressed at the departmental and college levels. Students have access to both part-time and full-time faculty during posted office hours. Part-time faculty who teach only evening classes meet students before and/or after class and make contact with students by way of telephone and e-mail. Faculty have office phone numbers published in their syllabi, and some faculty offer home phone numbers as well. To foster student access, faculty involved in field-based courses also state office hours at the field campus sites, as well as at University offices.
Having determined that the University complies with all of the imperatives in this section of the Criteria, the Faculty Committee has no recommendations. The Committee offers the following three suggestions, however:
Full-time faculty for each department should participate in the budget/planning processes for staffing courses to ensure that the need to use part-time faculty is anticipated but properly limited.
At the departmental level, the concerns of the faculty could be addressed with better communication about the issues of selection and hiring of part-time faculty.
Program administrators should develop strategies to keep all faculty apprised of procedures relating to the employment of part-time faculty.
General information about graduate teaching assistants (referred to as Assistant Instructors) is provided in the graduate catalogue. Specific guidelines are outlined in Academic Policy Statement 890303 ("Employment of Graduate Teaching Assistants [Assistant Instructors])," Academic Policy Statement 800114 ("Academic Instructional Staffing"), and Academic Policy Statement 871214 ("English Language Proficiency for Instructional Personnel").
1. The employment of graduate teaching assistants is a well-established practice in higher education, but should be carefully monitored (Criteria 50).
2. An institution must avoid heavy dependence on graduate teaching assistants to conduct classroom instruction (Criteria 50).
The Faculty Committee determined that the University complies with these imperatives.
Table 4.8.4.a, below, provides a breakdown of the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) positions of assistant instructors compared to those for full- and part-time faculty in each of the four colleges for the fall semester of 1997. The grand total was 488.01 FTE generated. Of the 488.01 FTE, assistant instructors generated 52.50 FTE, or 10.7%.
Table 4.8.4.a
Full- and Part-Time Faculty and Assistant Instructors for Fall 19971
College
Full- and Part-Time
Assistant Instructors2
Grand Total
Number
FTE
Number
FTE
Number
FTE
Arts & Sciences 274 244.85 74 35.75 348 280.60 Business Administration 63 52.75 1 0.50 64 53.25 Criminal Justice 29 24.25 15 7.50 44 31.75 Education & Applied Science 158 113.66 21 8.75 179 122.41 Total 524 435.51 111 52.50 635 488.01 1
Source: Fall 1997 Semester Report for Vice President for Academic Affairs2
Assistant Instructors (Graduate Assistants) make up 17% of the grand total.The title "assistant instructor" embraces three categories: teaching assistant instructors (TAs), who are responsible for teaching courses and assigning grades; nonteaching assistant instructors who conduct research, supervise laboratories, or assist faculty with classroom preparation; and doctoral teaching fellows in the College of Criminal Justice who have completed a master’s degree prior to entering the doctoral program. As Table 4.8.4.b indicates, twenty-six FTEs were generated by teaching assistant instructors, and 26.5 were generated by nonteaching assistant instructors.
Table 4.8.4.b
A Comparison of Number and FTE Positions for Teaching and
Nonteaching Assistant Instructors for Fall 19971
College
Teaching Assistant Instructors
Nonteaching Assistant Instructors
Grand Total
Number
FTE
Number
FTE
Number
FTE
Arts & Sciences 29 14.50 47 21.25 76 35.75 Business Administration -- -- 1 0.50 1 .50 Criminal Justice 10 2 5.00 5 2.50 15 7.50 Education & Applied Science 14 6.50 7 2.25 21 8.75 Total 53 26.00 60 26.50 113 52.50 1
Source: Offices of each Academic Dean2
Doctoral teaching fellows in the College of Criminal Justice compose this number (10=5 FTE).When nonteaching FTEs are excluded and only teaching assistant instructors and full- and part-time faculty are considered, the teaching assistant instructors accounted for only 5.6% of the FTEs generated. When the FTEs generated by both the nonteaching assistant instructors and the doctoral teaching fellows were excluded (all doctoral teaching fellows have completed a master’s degree), only 4.3% of the FTEs were generated by assistant instructors.
Responding to the faculty survey statement number 50 that "My department is overly dependent upon graduate teaching assistants to carry out classroom instruction," 90% of the faculty either strongly disagreed, disagreed, or neither agreed or disagreed with the statement, and 86% of the department chairs either strongly disagreed, disagreed, or neither agreed nor disagreed.
3. Each institution employing graduate teaching assistants must provide a published set of guidelines for institution-wide graduate assistantship administration, including appointment criteria, remuneration, rights and responsibilities, evaluation and reappointment (Criteria 50).
The Committee determined that the University complies with this "must" statement.
As mandated by Academic Policy Statement 800114, "Academic Instructional Staffing," position vacancies for assistant instructors are advertised in fliers and handbills widely developed and distributed either by the department or the college. The policy determines selection criteria thus:
Criteria for the selection of Assistant Instructors include undergraduate grade point average; experience; performance on the GRE or GMAT Exam; and letters of recommendation . . . . Instructor positions are allocated by the appropriate academic dean based upon available funding. Once a preferred candidate has been selected by the hiring unit, it is the responsibility of the dean to make a written offer to the candidate. If the position is accepted, the dean will forward the entire personnel file to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The file should contain an Application for Assistant Instructorship, official transcript(s), at least three letters of recommendation, a Payroll Action Form, and other pertinent sign-up papers as required by the Payroll and Human Resources Departments.
Remuneration for assistant instructor services consists of a stipend paid bi-monthly and benefits (health insurance). Out-of-state or out-of-country tuition is waived for assistant instructors, who pay in-state tuition and fees required of resident students (Academic Policy Statement 890303, "Employment of Graduate Teaching Assistants"). Table 4.8.4.c indicates the salary variance for assistant instructors among the colleges at Sam Houston State University:
Table 4.8.4.c
Comparison of Sam Houston State University Assistant Instructors’
Salaries Among the Four Colleges, 1997-981
College
Number of Assistant Instructors Within College
Salary Per Semester
Arts & Sciences 74 $2,736 ($608 per month) Business Administration 1 $2,745 ($610 per month) Criminal Justice 15 $3,006 (MA at $668 per month)
$5,004 (Doctoral at $1,112 per month)Education & Applied Science 21 $2,736 ($608 per month) 1
Source: Survey by Faculty Senate, Fall 1997Assistant instructors earn a minimum of $5,472 for a nine-month period for a .5 FTE position, with an average salary of $10,954 per FTE position. Table 4.8.4.d presents the minimum salaries for Sam Houston State University and four comparable public senior colleges and universities. The average salary paid to teaching assistant instructors at other Texas public senior colleges and universities for 1997-1998 is $5,314. The minimum salaries for Sam Houston State University and four comparable public senior colleges and universities are as follow:
Table 4.8.4.d
A Comparison of Sam Houston State University’s and Sister Universities’ Minimum Salaries for Assistant Instructors, 1997-981
Institution
Salary: Assistant Instructor
Angelo State University $4,600 Lamar University $4,000 Sam Houston State University $5,472 Stephen F. Austin State University $6,000 Southwest Texas State University $6,500 1
Source: Telephone Survey conducted by the Office of Graduate Studies, Sam Houston State University, Fall 1997Even though the minimum salary for assistant instructors at Sam Houston State University is average when compared with other universities, this is the same salary reported in the SACS Self-Study accreditation report ten years ago. In the spring of 1998, the Sam Houston State University Faculty Senate, as a result of the above survey of sister institutions on assistant instructors salaries, recommended to the Academic Policy Council that assistant instructors receive a 15% salary increase.
A description of the role and responsibilities of an assistant instructor is also found in the 1997-1999Graduate Catalogue (33); more specific guidelines are outlined in the Academic Policy Statement 890303, "Employment of Graduate Teaching Assistants":
The term "assistant instructor," as used at Sam Houston State University, indicates a graduate student who is employed by the University on a part-time basis, usually one-quarter or one-half time, to teach lower-division courses and/or laboratories under the supervision of a full-time faculty member. A half-time assistant instructor normally is responsible for two courses, or four laboratories, or twenty clock hours of duty each week and is expected to be enrolled in six to nine semester hours of course work each semester.
The policy statement continues with further guidelines for the hiring of assistant instructors:
Positions of Assistant Instructor are made available to a limited number of graduate students each year. The purposes of the Assistant Instructor Program are to aid in financing the graduate studies of outstanding students and to provide experiences in the instructional program through the assignment of duties designed to support and improve the total instructional program of the University . . . . Assistant instructors may not normally hold other salaried positions from the University. An exception of this rule may be made after the written approval of the appropriate academic dean.
Academic Policy Statement 890303 specifies that the division/ department chairs have the responsibility to see that all assistant instructors receive periodic orientation, training, supervision, and evaluation necessary to ensure their effective performance.
Assistant instructors are usually appointed for one academic year, but the position may be renewed for a second year. Only in unusual circumstances will an assistant instructor be considered for a fifth semester or third year (Academic Policy Statement 890303, "Employment of Graduate Teaching Assistants"). Assistant instructors must have a minimum overall grade point average not less than 3.0 and have a satisfactory work performance record in order to retain their positions.
Faculty survey responses indicated that 23% of the faculty believe that their departments have written guidelines for the employment of assistant instructors, while 15% disagreed and 62% neither agreed nor disagreed or did not know. However, 61% of the chairs agreed that they had published guidelines.
4. Graduate assistants who have primary responsibility for teaching a course for credit and/or for assigning final grades for such a course, and whose professional and scholarly preparation does not satisfy the provisions of Section 4.8.2 must have earned at least 18 graduate semester hours in their teaching discipline, be under the direct supervision of a faculty member experienced in the teaching discipline, receive regular in-service training and be evaluated regularly (Criteria 50).
The Faculty Committee determined that the University complies with this imperative.
According to Academic Policy Statement 890303 ("Employment of Graduate Teaching Assistants"),
An assistant instructor must have earned at least eighteen graduate semester hours of credit in [his or her] teaching field. This requirement does not apply to assistant instructors who are engaged in assignments such as providing laboratory assistance, teaching physical education activity courses, attending and helping to prepare lectures, grading papers, keeping class records, and conducting discussion groups. The policy further specifies that assistant instructors who have the primary responsibility for teaching a course or laboratory for credit and assigning final grades must be under the direct supervision of an experienced faculty member in the teaching field, must receive regular in-service training, and must be regularly evaluated. Division or department chairs are responsible for ensuring that the orientation/training, supervision, and evaluation of assistant instructors are accomplished.
Department Chair/Coordinator survey responses indicated that 63% of the chairs agree that graduate assistants receive professional orientation, 67% agree that their units provide in-service training, and 87% agree that graduate teaching assistants are supervised by qualified faculty.
5. Institutions may appoint graduate teaching assistants for whom English is a second language only when a test of spoken English, or other reliable evidence of the applicant’s proficiency in oral and written communication, indicates that the appointment is appropriate (Criteria 50).
The Committee found that the University complies with this criterion.
The dean of each college has the responsibility for evaluating an applicant’s oral and written English. According to Academic Policy Statement 871214 ("English Language Proficiency for Instructional Personnel"), individuals being interviewed for an instructional position at Sam Houston State University will be carefully evaluated prior to being hired to ensure that they possess effective communication skills in the English language. If there is reason to believe that the individual’s ability to express himself/herself clearly in the English language is in doubt, the academic dean (a) requires that instructional personnel whose primary language is not English take the Test of Spoken English (TSE) administered by the Educational Testing Service or (b) requires that instructional personnel whose primary language is English meet with a committee of three faculty members appointed by the appropriate academic dean.
According to Academic Policy Statement 890303 ("Employment of Graduate Teaching Assistants [Assistant Instructors]"), "each written recommendation for the employment of assistant instructors will bear an endorsement from the appropriate academic dean certifying that the candidate has been evaluated as to his/her English language proficiency and is qualified to fill this position vacancy."
Faculty responses to survey question number 51 indicated that 85% of the faculty either strongly agreed, agreed, or neither agreed or disagreed that graduate assistants must demonstrate proficiency in oral and written English. All departmental chairs (100%) either strongly agreed, agreed, or neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement.
6. Institutions employing graduate teaching assistants must provide a structure for administrative oversight at a level above that of the individual academic units to ensure conformity with institutional policies and procedures (Criteria 50).
The Committee found that the University complies with this "must" statement.
While the division/department chairs have the responsibilities of recruiting, hiring, providing orientation and in-service training, supervising, and evaluating assistant instructors within their academic units, the dean of each respective college has the responsibility of ensuring conformity with institutional policies and procedures within his/her academic unit.
The Faculty Committee determined that the University complies fully with the imperatives in this section of the Criteria; there are no recommendations. To attract students to graduate programs at the University, however, the Committee proposes the following suggestion:
Even though the salaries of assistant instructors at Sam Houston State University stand at the mid-point in comparison to those of assistant instructors at sister institutions, the salary increase recommended by the Faculty Senate would be beneficial in attracting graduate students.
1. An institution should provide adequate salaries and benefits to attract and retain able faculty members. The institution should also provide a retirement plan, to which it contributes a reasonable percentage of the cost, and a plan for adequate insurance coverage (Criteria 51).
2. Salary increases must be based on clearly stated criteria (Criteria 51).
The Faculty Committee determined that Sam Houston State University complies with both of these imperatives.
Since Sam Houston State University is a state institution, the faculty salaries budget is mandated by the legislature of the state of Texas. Other benefits such as medical and dental insurance, unemployment and workman’s compensation, retirement, and life insurance are also determined by the legislature’s requirements and funding. The legislature, in its biennial meeting, recommends the percentage of annual faculty salary increase for universities throughout the state. Individual institutions may supplement state allocations through additional funding drawn from local sources.
The state average increase in faculty salaries for 1997-98 was 4.8%. The increase at SHSU for the same period was 3.3%. In all but one fiscal year during the past decade, the percentage salary increase at SHSU was less than the average percentage increase in the state. During the 1998 fiscal year SHSU ranked nineteenth of thirty-five state universities in average faculty salaries. The University’s ranking on faculty salaries in the state has declined over the decade from ninth to nineteenth. Similarly, the deviation of the University’s average faculty salary from the state average has increased from a low of $1,501 in fiscal year 1989 to a high of $7,643 in fiscal year 1998, suggesting that faculty salaries at SHSU have become increasingly less competitive. (See Tables 4.8.5.a, 4.8.5.b, and 4.8.5.c, and Figures 1 and 2.)
Table 4.8.5.a
Total Nine-Month Salaries for Full-Time Faculty at Texas Public Senior Colleges and Universities in First Four Ranks, 1988-981
Year
Percent Increase
Average Salary
SHSU Rank Average Salary
Average Salary
Deviation from Average Salary
SHSU
State
SHSU
State
1988-89 -- -- 9 $38,003 $39,504 - $1501 1989-90 3.8 5.7 9 $39,430 $41,756 - $2326 1990-91 1.2 3.7 11 $39,908 $43,299 - $3391 1991-92 1.5 1.9 11 $40,501 $44,125 - $3624 1992-93 2.2 2.2 11 $41,400 $45,086 - $3686 1993-94 2.9 3.5 12 $42,614 $46,654 - $4040 1994-95 1.6 2.7 16 $43,284 $47,932 - $4648 1995-96 2.2 3.2 14 $44,879 $49,351 - $4472 1996-97 2.4 6.3 16 $45,866 $52,470 - $6604 1997-98 3.3 4.8 19 $47,364 $55,007 - $7643 1
Source: Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board reports, 1988-1998As Table 4.8.5.a indicates, the increase in average faculty salaries at SHSU from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 1997 was 2.4%, but the change in the Consumer Price Index for the same period was 3% (Academy, March-April, 1997: 83); the percentage increase in real terms, then, was -0.6.
Table 4.8.5.b compares the average salary by rank at SHSU in 1997 with the average national salaries and average regional salaries of public universities in Category IIA institutions (that is, comprehensive institutions):
Table 4.8.5.b
Comparison of Average Comprehensive Salaries by Rank at SHSU, Regionally, and Nationally at Category IIA Institutions1
Institution
Salary: Professor
Salary: Associate Professor
Salary: Assistant Professor
Salary: Instructor
SHSU $66,000 $53,700 $44,700 $31,572 National $73,688 $60,222 $50,265 $38,569 West South Central Region(TX,LA,AR,OK) $67,176 $55,314 $46,203 $36,183 1
Source: Academy, March-April, 1997: 83The salary figures for SHSU in the table above include a portion of the Federal Social Security Program contribution, which is paid by the state. Compared with both the national and regional averages for similar universities, SHSU’s salaries are less than those for the same rank in the top three ranks.
Figure 1
Comparison of Average Faculty Salaries
At SHSU and Across the State
(Salaries expressed in 1,000s)
Figure 2
Percent Increase in Faculty Salaries
At SHSU and Across the State
Responses to Item 13 of the Self-Study Faculty Survey indicate that 60% of the faculty responding to the survey either disagreed or strongly disagreed that the University provides adequate compensation to its faculty. Fifty-two percent of the faculty responding to the survey think salaries at SHSU are not competitive with comparable institutions in our region (Item 14). Twenty-one percent neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. Only 14% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.
As Table 4.8.5.c and Figure 3 indicate, as compared with average faculty salaries at other major Category IIA public universities in the state of Texas, the average faculty salary at SHSU is fairly competitive, except at the level of instructor.
Table 4.8.5.c
Average Comprehensive Faculty Salaries by Rank
At SHSU and Comparable Universities in Texas1
University
Salary: Professor
Salary: Associate Professor
Salary: Assistant Professor
Salary: Instructor
SHSU $66,000 $53,700 $44,700 $31,572 Stephen F. Austin $62,000 $49,800 $45,400 $38,900 Southwest Texas $67,000 $55,100 $45,500 $36,900 1
Source: Academy, March-April, 1997: 83Figure 3
Comparison of Faculty Salaries by Rank
At SHSU and Comparable Universities in Texas
Each year faculty are evaluated for merit increases in salary. These merit increases are permanent additions to salary and not annual bonuses. The amount of money available each year for merit pay increases has varied, depending upon the merit pool. No merit money at all, for example, was available in fiscal years 1992 and 1995. The amount of money available for merit pay increases in other years during the past decade has ranged from 2% to 3% of the faculty salary budget. In fiscal year 1998 faculty received an across-the-board increase of 2% or $900 per nine-month contract salary in addition to merit increases for those who qualified for those awards.
The average salary at SHSU by rank of men and women in fiscal year 1998 is compared in Table 4.8.5.d:
Table 4.8.5.d
Average Salary by Rank and Gender, 1997-981
Gender
Salary: Professor
Salary: Associate Professor
Salary: Assistant Professor
Women $53,600 $41,400 $34,500 Men $54,400 $44,200 $36,500 1
Source: Academy, March-April, 1997: 83As the table indicates, the salaries of faculty women are lower on average than those of men in the three top ranks. Salaries of women are on average less than those of men by anywhere from $800 to $2,600 per year. This disparity may be due to such things as differing credentials and experience and length of service. Furthermore, it is possible that women on the faculty disproportionately have appointments in disciplines where the average salary is below the average University salary.
State agencies were formerly authorized to pay a portion of employee contributions on social security coverage of their employees. However, the 74th Legislature amended the Texas Government Code so that state employees are required to pay contributions on wages in the amount of the employee tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code. For employees who are appointed half-time or more, the state legislature mandates policies and provides funding for insurance programs, including group health, term life, and accidental death and dismemberment. The state mandated that since state employers no longer have to pay for employee social security contributions, any salary and wages paid to eligible state employees after December 31, 1995, must include benefit replacement pay. That replacement benefit is equal to the sum of 5.85% of the FICA covered wages earned by the employee during the pay period (not to exceed $16,500) and an amount equal to the additional retirement contribution paid by the employee because of the benefit replacement pay. The amount paid on the behalf of eligible employees, not including the retirement contribution, may not exceed $965.25 each calendar year.
In 1975, the 64th Legislature passed the Texas Employees Uniform Group Insurance Act, thereby establishing a comprehensive insurance program whose primary purpose is to provide uniformity in life, accident, and health benefits coverage on all employees of the State of Texas and their dependents. In 1991, the 72nd legislative session extended this benefit to employees of higher education. The state contribution for general state employees for fiscal year 1998 is provided in the Employee Retirement System section of the General Appropriations Act. The state contributions for the various levels of coverage are presented in Table 4.8.5.e:
Table 4.8.5.e
State Contributions to Group Insurance in Fiscal Year 1998
Level of Coverage
Maximum Monthly State Contribution
Employee only $190.73 Employee and spouse $299.09 Employee and children $263.29 Employee and family $371.65 1
Source: Texas Human Resource Management Statutes Inventory, 1998-99 BienniumIf the cost of the basic coverage exceeds the amount of the state’s contribution, the state will deduct from or reduce the monthly compensation of the employee by an amount sufficient to pay the cost of the basic coverage. The state has paid all of the employee or retiree health premium and half the cost of health care premiums for dependents and spouse. The out-of-pocket costs for employees with the latter coverage have increased over the years. Optional coverage for dental and life insurance is paid by the employee (except for $5,000 term life policy, which is included in the health package).
Employees accrue eight hours of sick leave per month, or hours of sick leave proportionate to the FTE, with unlimited accrual.
State law requires that both the employee and employer make contributions to the Texas Retirement System (TRS) or the Optional Retirement Program (ORP) based on a percentage of the employee’s salary. Contributions and interest earnings are not subject to federal income tax until the funds are withdrawn or paid as a retirement annuity. Contribution rates for both TRS and ORP, which are established biennially by the Texas legislature, have fluctuated over time. The employee’s contribution is 6.4% to 6.65% depending on whether the faculty member is with TRS or ORP. The state’s contribution has dropped from 8.5% beginning in fiscal year 1980 to 6.0% beginning in fiscal year 1996. This figure compares with a national average contribution for Category IIA institutions of 9% (Academy, March-April, 1997: 83). For faculty employed before August 31, 1995, SHSU has supplemented the state contribution so that the total employer contribution has remained 8.5%; for faculty hired after that date the employer contribution is 6%.
Salaries and benefits should be adequate to retain able faculty members. University records on faculty retention over the past ten years indicate that overall 2.17% of faculty have resigned from this institution. This figure does not include faculty who died, retired, or were not reappointed. Faculty resignations ranged from 1% to 3% during any one fiscal year.
Faculty members are evaluated annually for several purposes, among which are merit adjustment for salary increases and promotions in rank. The evaluation process includes four criteria: teaching effectiveness, scholarly and artistic endeavor, professional growth and activities, and non-teaching or service activities. The criteria for promotion in rank and merit advances within rank are spelled out in Academic Policy Statement 800722 and are incorporated in the Faculty Evaluation System (FES). Evaluation procedures are found in Appendix V of The Faculty Handbook. Each department has established specific activities and performance criteria statements. Faculty members are promoted in rank and awarded merit advances within rank based upon their performance as assessed by these plans. Department chairs or program coordinators make salary increase recommendations to the respective dean, who then makes recommendations to the Vice President for Academic Affairs.
When the faculty were queried about the adequacy of the merit-based salary system at SHSU, only 23% thought the present system was adequate. Fifty-one percent expressed dissatisfaction with the system in its present form. Almost 12% of the faculty agreed that faculty salary increases are based on clearly stated criteria. Fifty-five percent disagreed.
Having determined that the University complies with the imperatives in this section of the Criteria, the Faculty Committee has no recommendations. However, the Committee offers two suggestions:
Because noncompetitive faculty salaries in some programs are increasingly affecting the University’s ability to attract quality faculty to those departments, faculty salaries should be increased. Unless salary levels are reassessed, salaries could affect the quality of instruction and research in the newly added doctoral programs in Educational Leadership and Forensic Psychology.
The reasons for the disparity in faculty salaries by gender in each rank should be evaluated.
The following discussion reports on generalized and specific evidence of policies, procedures, and faculty perceptions of academic freedom and professional security at Sam Houston State University. The University’s adherence to the principles of academic freedom and professional security is clearly reflected in four key documents: Rules and Regulations, The Texas State University System; The Faculty Handbook; Academic Policy Manual; and Administrative Policies and Procedures. Statements of principles, policies, and related procedures in these documents demonstrate the University’s commitment to both the statement of the American Association of University Professors regarding academic freedom and to institutional procedures which provide professional security for the faculty. Additionally, the Sam Houston State University Mission Statement, including its proclaimed goals and objectives, provides official and public acknowledgment of this commitment. Together these published documents both explicitly establish safeguards to protect academic freedom for both faculty and students and implicitly create concepts and practice of ethical conduct, professionalism, and collegiality for University faculty.
Academic Freedom
1. Faculty and students must be free to examine all pertinent data, question assumptions, be guided by evidence of scholarly research, and teach and study the substance of a given discipline (Criteria 51).
2. An institution must adopt and distribute to all faculty members a statement of the principles of academic freedom as established by the governing board, ensuring freedom in teaching, research and publication (Criteria 51).
3. Institutional policies must set forth the requirement for faculty members to carry out their duties in a professional, ethical and collegial manner that enhances the purpose of the institution (Criteria 51).
The Faculty Committee determined that the University complies with all three criteria.
The Rules and Regulations of The Texas State University System, Chapter V, "University Personnel," provides the formal documented reference for all matters pertaining to academic freedom and professional security. The entire policy statement is printed as Appendix III in The Faculty Handbook. More specific to matters pertaining to academic freedom, The Faculty Handbook includes the following statements reflecting the commitment of the University to the aforementioned standards of academic freedom:
A. Faculty members are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties.
B. Faculty members are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subjects, but they should be judicious in the use of controversial material in the classroom and should introduce such material only as it has a clear relationship to the subject field.
C. Faculty members are citizens, members of learned professions, and professional educators. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline.(The Faculty Handbook B-4: 4, 5)
The self-study faculty questionnaire directly addressed the topic of academic freedom in Item 18, which asked that faculty respond to the following statement: "I have adequate access to documentation pertaining to academic freedom insuring freedom in teaching, research and publication." Table 4.8.6.a shows that of the 202 faculty returning questionnaires, slightly less than 57.9% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, while less than 13.9% disagreed or strongly disagreed. A surprisingly high 22.3% marked "neither agree or disagree," while less than 5% selected the option "I don’t know."
Table 4.8.6.a
Faculty Access to Information About Academic Freedom: Faculty Survey
Response to statement: "I have adequate access to documentation pertaining to academic freedom insuring freedom in teaching research and publication."
Agree or Strongly Agree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Disagree to
Strongly Disagree
Non-applicable
or Do Not Know
Total
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
117 57.9 45 22.3 28 13.9 12 5.9 202 100.0 In addition to the faculty questionnaire, the Chair of the Self-Study Steering Committee also conducted interviews with the Chair of the Faculty Senate, the Chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee (former chairs were also contacted), the deans of the four academic colleges, and the Vice President for Academic Affairs. None of those interviewed could recall any incident in which the question of violation of academic freedom was raised; in addition, no one had knowledge of any record of violation or even question regarding possible abuse of academic freedom. (See Appendix B.)
Information gathered from documentation, surveys, and interviews leads to the general conclusion that there is no threat to academic freedom at Sam Houston State University and that, further, there exists a healthy atmosphere regarding academic freedom among both faculty and students.
Professional Security
4. Although tenure policy is not mandated, each institution must provide contracts, letters of appointment, or similar documents to faculty members clearly describing the terms and conditions of their employment (Criteria 51).
5. All policies regarding employment, as established by the governing board, must be published and distributed to the faculty (Criteria 51).
6. If the institution uses faculty ranks and tenure, the policies and procedures for promotion, for awarding tenure, for providing adequate notice on non-renewal of a probationary appointment, and for termination of appointments, including those for cause, must be clearly set forth in the faculty handbook or other official publication (Criteria 51).
7. Termination and non-renewal procedures must contain adequate safeguards for protection of academic freedom (Criteria 51).
The Committee found that the University complies with all four of these imperatives.
As noted earlier, all policies and procedures including those referred to in the SACS criteria above (that is, faculty appointment and letter of contract; duties and responsibilities regarding employment; and policies for tenure, promotion, non-renewal, and termination) are established and published in The Texas State University System’s Rules and Regulations and are also printed in Sam Houston State University’s The Faculty Handbook. The college deans and the Director of the Library are responsible for providing copies of The Faculty Handbook to new appointees, and in addition, for disseminating handbook updates when they are issued. A copy of the handbook is also available on the web. The individual faculty member is responsible for maintaining and updating his or her own handbook.
The preface to The Faculty Handbook captures the special significance of the handbook itself and the Rules and Regulations, The Texas State University System to questions of professional security:
Policies included in this Handbook are reproduced elsewhere although pagination may differ from the originals. Sam Houston State University’s approved policies and procedures may be found in the Academic Policy Manual or in Administrative Policies and Procedures. These manuals are distributed to all department chairs and academic deans. Copies of the above referenced materials are available in the Newton Gresham Library as well as in academic administrative offices. Individuals wishing to access the complete texts of the Sam Houston State University The Faculty Handbook, Academic Policy Manual, and Committee Book may do so through the University’s computer system. This can be accomplished by logging into "SHSU" and selecting the "Faculty Access Menu," then the "University Documents Menu," and the publication of interest. Members of the faculty are presumed to be familiar with these policies."
The Faculty Handbook is the official Sam Houston State University publication designed to provide guidelines for the faculty concerning policies and procedures under which the University operates. The channels of administration and the functions of various administrative offices and committees are described in this publication to indicate sources to which the faculty may refer for additional guidance. It is an expectation of each faculty of the component university to become acquainted with and to conform to all the rules and regulations relating to his/her appointment and to the proper and orderly discharge of his/her work as set forth in both the Board of Regents’ Rules and Regulations and the University’s The Faculty Handbook; in catalogues, class schedules and other official publications; and on printed or other material regularly prepared for use of the faculty.
In case of any conflict between The Faculty Handbook and the Board of Regents’ Rules and Regulations, the Rules and Regulations prevails.
In accordance with University policy, each faculty member is provided "a statement in writing of the terms of his or her employment, including conditions, responsibilities, and any special prerequisites. [See copy of contract letter, Appendix C.] The document will cover such items as rank, salary, tenure provisions, whether the position is full-time or part-time, and the inclusive dates of the term of service" (The Faculty Handbook B: 10). Faculty members are expected to accept the terms and conditions of employment formally by signing, dating, and returning a copy of the appointment document to the Office of the President.
In regard to faculty appointment, Item 19 of the self-study questionnaire offered the following statement: "I have been provided a letter of appointment which clearly describes the terms and conditions of my employment." As shown below in Table 4.8.6.b, 72.8% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, while 11.9% disagreed with the statement, and 14.9% of the responding faculty neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. One faculty member provided a "Non-applicable or Do Not Know" response.
Table 4.8.6.b
Letter of Appointment: Faculty Survey
Response to statement: "I have been provided a letter of appointment which clearly describes the terms and conditions of my employment."
Agree or Strongly Agree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Disagree to
Strongly Disagree
Non-applicable
or Do Not Know
Total
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
147 72.8 30 14.9 24 11.9 1 0.5 202 100.0 The faculty self-study questionnaire included three additional items concerning prescribed standards for professional security. Item 20 of the questionnaire provided faculty members an opportunity to verify access to documents which describe University policies regarding employment and other matters relating to professional security, for example, promotion, tenure, non-renewal of probationary faculty, and termination of employment, including that for cause. The survey data, presented below in Table 4.8.6.c, shows that more than two-thirds of the responding faculty agreed or strongly agreed that they have access to such documents, whereas less than 14% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Table 4.8.6.c
Faculty Access to Documents Concerning
Professional Security: Faculty Survey
Response to statement: "I have access to documents which describe all policies regarding:
Agree to Strongly Agree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Disagree to Strongly Disagree
Non-applicable or Do Not Know
Total
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Employment 159 78.7 20 9.9 18 8.9 5 2.5 202 100.0 Promotion 155 76.7 261 2.9 16 7.9 5 2.5 202 100.0 Tenure 153 75.7 21 10.9 22 10.4 6 3.0 202 100.0 Non-Renewal of Probationary Faculty 139 68.8 25 12.4 22 10.9 16 7.9 202 100.0 Termination of Employment Including that for "Cause" 141 69.8 25 12.4 27 13.4 9 4.5 202 100.0 Beyond the endorsement of general accessibility to such information, however, faculty reported higher perceptions of accessibility to documents describing policies regarding promotion and tenure than accessibility to documents describing policies concerning notice of non-renewal of probationary appointments and termination of employment, including termination for cause. These data suggest that some faculty indicate degrees of accessibility less than that which would be expected.
Faculty questionnaire Item 21 provided further analysis of the faculty’s perceptions in another matter concerning the clarity, implementation, and enforcement of policies regarding professional security. Responses to this statement reflect noticeable differences of perceptions between clarity of official policy documents on the one hand and their implementation and enforcement on the other hand (Table 4.8.6.d).
Table 4.8.6.d
Faculty Assessment of Clarity, Implementation, and Enforcement of Policies Concerning Professional Security: Faculty Survey
Response to statement: "University policies are (a) clearly stated, (b) clearly implemented, (c) consistently enforced."
Agree to Strongly Agree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Disagree to Strongly Disagree
Non-applicable or Do Not Know
Total
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Clearly Stated 128 63.4 35 17.3 34 16.8 5 2.5 202 100.0 Clearly Implemented 89 44.1 44 21.8 57 28.2 12 5.9 202 100.0 Consistently Enforced 64 31.8 49 24.4 71 35.3 17 8.5 201 100.0 The majority of faculty, 63.4%, agreed or strongly agreed that University policies are "clearly stated," whereas 16.8% disagreed or strongly disagreed. In regard to University policies being "clearly implemented," a 44.1% majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed, while 28.2% disagreed or strongly disagreed that University policies are "clearly implemented." Faculty responses to the third category, that University policies are "consistently enforced," do not show a definitive pattern. As demonstrated in the table, 35.3% of the responding faculty disagreed or strongly disagreed that policies are "consistently enforced," whereas 31.8% agreed or strongly agreed. Moreover, 24.4% neither agreed nor disagreed, and another 8.5% marked "non-applicable" (which may mean "I don’t know"). Thus a significant percentage of faculty have expressed concerns regarding both consistent implementation and enforcement of University policies.
Item 22 asked that faculty respond to the following: "I am aware of abuses and/or improprieties with the administration of SHSU’s tenure policies." Faculty responses as provided below in Table 4.8.6.e indicate a somewhat perplexing pattern. On the one hand, while 24.3% provided an affirmative response by agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement and 41.1% of the respondents provided a definitive negative response, over one-third, 34.6%, responded with "neither agree nor disagree" or "non-applicable or do not know." Therefore, 75.7% of the respondents either were not aware of abuses and/or improprieties or did not know of any such incidents. The wording of the question may have created this perplexing pattern and some uncertainty about the results.
Table 4.8.6.e
Abuses/Improprieties with Tenure Policies: Faculty Survey
Response to statement: "I am aware of abuses and/or improprieties with the administration of SHSU’s tenure policies."
Agree or Strongly Agree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Disagree to
Strongly Disagree
Non-applicable
or Do Not Know
Total
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
49 24.3 37 18.3 83 41.1 33 16.3 202 100.0 Because of the diversity of responses to this statement, the Faculty Committee decided to follow up the questionnaire with phone interviews to faculty previously involved in the University tenure process. Interviews were conducted with the current and former chairs of the Standing Faculty Tenure Committee, as well as with other faculty who had at one time served on the Committee during the decade of the nineties. Only in one instance did anyone recall a member of the faculty’s charging the University with abuses and/or improprieties in the administration of the tenure process. That charge originated with a member of the Music faculty who was denied tenure in 1991 and subsequently filed a Grievance against the chair of his department. The Faculty Grievance Committee ruled that policies and procedures during the tenure process were properly administered. The faculty member who was denied tenure then filed a civil grievance in district court. Ultimately the court ruled in favor of the University.
The following year, the Faculty Tenure Review Committee was asked to review current policies and procedures related to the tenure process at SHSU. From this review came the recommendations that within the tenure process at the department level, meetings of the tenured faculty for the purpose of having a discussion and vote on the qualifications of a particular candidate should be conducted by the senior tenured member of the department and that the chair of the department should not attend these meetings. This restriction removes any potential for conflict of interest relative to the position of the chair regarding the qualifications of the candidate. The chair will later have the opportunity as chief administrator of the department to express her or his recommendation concerning the candidate’s tenure. (Complete documentation of the grievance case and the subsequent recommendation of the Faculty Tenure Review Committee is available in the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs.)
In summary, data collected by Faculty Committee members demonstrate that policies and procedures relating to professional security are in place, clearly described, and effectively disseminated. Faculty agree in general that SHSU provides adequate safeguards for the protection of both academic freedom and professional security.
The Faculty Committee determined that the University complies with the imperatives in this section of the Criteria; the University provides adequate safeguards for the protection of both academic freedom and professional security. Therefore, there are no recommendations. In order to improve communication on matters of academic freedom and professional security, however, the Committee offers the following suggestion:
Academic department chairs/coordinators should develop a format for holding discussions with their faculty as early in the school year as practical regarding specific interpretations and implementations of policies and procedures relating to academic freedom and professional security.
For the purposes of this discussion the terms "professional growth" and "faculty development" are used more or less synonymously. While "professional growth" may be specifically applied to the activities of individual faculty members as they seek to improve themselves and "faculty development" may be taken to apply to the development of the collective body of the faculty, the collective and individual processes are so intertwined as to justify treatment as one and the same.
1. An institution must provide faculty members the opportunity to continue their professional development throughout their careers . . . (Criteria 52).
The Committee determined that the University complies with this imperative. Compliance was confirmed both by the results of the recent self-study faculty survey and by a review of University policies. These findings follow:
Faculty Survey
Table 4.8.7.a indicates responses to faculty survey questions regarding University support for faculty development and professional growth:
Table 4.8.7.a
Professional Growth: Faculty Survey1
Statements
Totally Disagree (%)
Strongly Disagree
(%)
Dis-agree
(%)
Neither Disagree nor Agree
(%)
Agree
(%)
Strongly agree
(%)
Totally Agree (%)
NA
(%)
1. My department actively encourages professional growth. 14.851 3.960 10.891 12.871 38.119 33.663 71.782 .495 2. My department provides opportunities for faculty development. 19.307 8.416 10.891 18.317 37.624 22.277 59.901 2.475 3. SHSU actively promotes professional growth. 23.763 6.436 17.327 28.218 35.149 12.871 48.020 2.475 4. SHSU adequately publicizes professional growth opportunities. 25.743 5.941 19.802 33.663 31.188 8.911 40.099 .495 5. SHSU adequately publicizes the availability of funding for professional growth. 41.089 11.386 29.703 29.703 22.277 5.941 28.218 .990 6. SHSU adequately funds professional growth and development activities. 56.435 22.277 34.158 24.257 13.366 3.465 16.831 2.475 7. I regularly participate in University funded professional growth activities. 27.723 9.901 17.822 25.480 27.723 12.871 40.594 6.436 8. I regularly participate in personally funded professional growth activities. 10.891 2.475 8.416 14.356 41.584 32.673 74.257 .495 9. SHSU provides ample opportunity for in-service training in special skills needed for professional growth (e.g. computer usage, grant writing, etc.). 18.317 7.426 10.891 27.228 38.119 13.366 51.485 2.970 1
In each of the samples in the table, a substantial number answered "neither agree nor disagree." This response leaves some doubt as to whether the respondents viewed the answer scale as a continuum from very positive to very negative with regard to the question at hand or whether they had no opinion. Given the distributions, it seems likely that the answers, in general, fit a continuum because the number of responses in this gray area tend to be transitional between disagreement and agreement and because the NA response was available.Responses to Item 6 of the survey indicate substantial dissatisfaction among the faculty with University funding for professional growth, showing that less than 17% agree that SHSU adequately funds professional growth while 56% disagree or strongly disagree. By a large margin (71%), faculty members feel that within their own departments they are encouraged to participate in growth activities (Item 1), and nearly 60% agree or strongly agree that their departments provide opportunities for development (Item 2). Item 8 shows that nearly three-quarters of the faculty regularly fund their own professional growth and well less than 50% regularly receive University support for their growth activities (Item 7).
Since opportunities for professional growth within a department may come in the form of research and creative activities which are inherent in the conduct of the position, or in training and education opportunities provided by the unit, Item 1 does not necessarily reflect direct financial support for professional growth activities by the departments. Rather, Items 1, 6, 7, and 8, taken together, seem to indicate that faculty members are satisfied with their individual departments’ commitment to professional growth, but dissatisfied with University funding for professional growth activities.
Less than 50% of the faculty agree or strongly agree that the University promotes faculty growth (Item 3), and anecdotal evidence suggests that many faculty members do not perceive professional growth to be a high priority in the central administration. Nearly one-third find the University to be neutral in its promotion of professional growth (Item 3), and about one-fourth disagree or strongly disagree that the University actively promotes professional growth. While these results are less favorable than would be desired, they show substantial improvement over the results of the 1987-88 self-study in which a majority of faculty members indicated that they would pursue employment elsewhere as a result of the very poor support for faculty development they perceived at that time.
About 40% agree or strongly agree that the University adequately publicizes professional growth opportunities (Item 4), while one-third find the University efforts in this area to be neither good nor bad, and 20% find the University’s effort less than adequate. At present, University efforts to publicize professional growth opportunities center on two World Wide Web search engines made available through the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs. Ninety-three faculty and/or staff members currently receive daily e-mail alerts pertaining to funding announcements based on their individual research profiles. These programs are fairly new, and it appears that more faculty members need to be made aware of their availability. Professional growth is an area in which improvement has been made over the past ten years, but further improvement is still needed.
University Policies
A. Faculty Development Leave
Academic Policy Statement 800328, "Faculty Development Leave Policy," specifically states that its purpose is to meet the objectives of faculty development as outlined in the Texas Education Code, Sec. 51.102, to provide a sound program of faculty development leaves of absence designed to enable the faculty member to engage in study, research, writing, and similar projects for the purpose of adding to the knowledge available to the faculty member, the students and the institution. The conditions for this award are similar to those for sabbatical: A faculty member must have at least six years of service before being eligible for the leave and must propose a substantial project for evaluation by a peer review committee.
Historically, Sam Houston State University has awarded a very limited number of faculty development leaves because the University interpreted state law to mean that state funds could not be used to fund faculty development leaves. Over the past ten years the University has awarded on average one faculty development leave per academic year. For a full-time faculty of 376, this number is clearly not sufficient to meet the goals delineated in the Academic Policy Statement unless we are to take the expression "the faculty member" literally. Certainly at this rate, a very small percentage of the faculty will ever have the opportunity for a faculty development leave.
Recent developments suggest that the University is expanding its development leave awards. The new Vice President for Academic Affairs has approved three faculty development leaves for the 1998-99 academic year and has announced plans to increase that number to a maximum of ten for the 1999-2000 academic year and a maximum of fifteen to twenty thereafter. These increases are possible because the Vice President has demonstrated that state law allows the University to use state funds to finance a set percentage of faculty development leaves any given year. In the case of Sam Houston State University this interpretation of state law effectively permits up to twenty-five developmental leaves per year. This appears to be a radical departure from the historical understanding of the law and seems to indicate a new direction in the will of the University to see that faculty development is made a priority.
The primary difficulty in implementing these leaves will be covering the teaching load of the professor who is away, because no state money is available to fund salaries for interim faculty replacements. The Vice President’s preferred solution to this problem is that the faculty member take one-half salary for a two-semester leave. This solution would make the remaining half of the faculty member’s salary available for part-time faculty members to cover the teaching load. To some extent this alternative exacerbates the problem of over-use of part-time faculty, but it may be argued that on the whole the result will be positive for the entire academic community because it will provide more informed, inspired and effective professorial leadership.
B. Faculty Development Travel
Travel to conferences and workshops is an important aspect of faculty growth and development. It reflects the level of activity and engagement of the faculty in the broader academic community and the commitment of the University to this aspect of professional growth.
There appears to be considerable variation in faculty travel funding depending on the college and/or academic department in which the faculty member works. This variation is due on one level to the fact that the University does not have a specific budgetary item for faculty travel. The Vice President for Academic Affairs establishes budgets for the colleges, and the deans establish departmental budgets consisting primarily of Operations and Maintenance (O&M) accounts. Generally each academic unit is allowed to establish its own spending priorities regarding the use of O&M funds. In some cases, the Vice President for Finance provides augmented travel funds from local accounts. A developing level of assistance is also available from the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (ORSP). This funding, which comes from outside sources, is available by means of a separate application process. (The activities of the ORSP are discussed in more detail below.)
Other causes of disparity in travel budgets result from differences in the function and economics of the academic units and the relative importance of the unit with regard to the University mission. Because some units use materials and supplies more heavily, they have less O&M for travel. Others are considered "flagship" units and draw correspondingly larger budgets.
The College of Criminal Justice has established a budget of $30,000 for faculty travel, with $1,300 designated for each of twenty-five faculty members. The College of Business Administration has established a $37,000 budget for travel and has a fairly well-developed set of priorities and conditions for funding. The college maintains a funding limit of $950 for out-of-state or out-of-country travel and a limit of $650 for in-state travel. The College of Education and Applied Science has a travel budget of around $9,700. It also maintains a local account, the College of Education and Applied Science Enrichment Fund, that supplements funding for meals and registration fees. These funds are available by application through the departments and through the dean’s office. The Newton Gresham library has a travel fund of $7,000 for a faculty and staff of forty-one. The College of Arts and Sciences has no specific travel budget; rather, department chairs establish travel funds from their O&M accounts. Within the college, funding per individual faculty varies from $150 to about $500, depending on the department. These figures and the priorities that they reflect are, of course, driven by many considerations.
O&M budgets, assigned from state funding, have seen very little increase over the last ten years. New technology, increased productivity expectations, and funding of program development, however, have caused O&M costs to increase. As a result, faculty travel has been pinched by the ongoing material needs of the departments and programs. Moreover, the state legislature has dictated that travel using state funds be reduced by 10% in 1997-98 and again in 1998-99. In response to these limits, some departments have established specifically designated local accounts for travel funds. Local accounts generate funding by means of alternative sources such as donors, fundraising events, grants, or campus fees.
Administrators in each of the four colleges and the Newton Gresham Library voiced support for the idea that faculty travel as an aspect of faculty growth and as an aspect of University vitality is a very important issue. Several expressed concern with the level of funding now available, and all were concerned with the legislated reductions in state spending for travel.
C. Reassigned Time
Academic Policy Statement 900420, "Reassigned Time for Faculty Members Pursuing Research and Artistic Endeavors," is justified in the Academic Policy Manual as being in place in the "interest of academic development . . . to enhance the faculty member’s expertise and the academic reputation of the University." The policy allows for a faculty member to be reassigned for one course per semester from the standard load to pursue research or creative projects.
To receive reassigned time the faculty member must submit a proposal which is reviewed to the level of the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Approval depends on merit of the proposal, prior achievements of the faculty member, potential benefit resulting from the reassigned time, and financial and workload impact on the unit.
Reassigned time is granted to about 10% to 15% of the faculty in any given semester. As with faculty development leaves, reassignment causes some problems in staffing classes for which faculty members have received reassigned time, because standing procedure specifies that hiring part-time faculty to cover the load is not permitted. Ostensibly this means that the students who would be in classes for which the faculty member has received reassigned time must be admitted to other faculty members’ classes or must wait until another semester to take the course.
University Programs
A. Office of Research and Sponsored Programs
The University established the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (ORSP) in direct response to the 1988-89 SACS Self-Study, which determined not only that University efforts in this area were inadequate, but also that this inadequacy had a detrimental impact on faculty morale, teaching effectiveness, and overall institutional effectiveness. The newly created office was specifically charged with developing faculty research funds and assisting faculty members in designing fundable projects and preparing grant applications.
In 1990, its initial year of operation, the office accounted for approximately $700,000 in research funds. By 1997 that sum had increased to over $5,500,000. The office has clearly been effective in increasing faculty research funds and improving the overall atmosphere of scholarly inquiry in the institution.
Predictably, a large number of grant awards are made in the sciences: The Texas Research Institute for Environmental Studies (TRIES), a major contract with the United States Army for technology transfer, and numerous awards from the National Science Foundation constitute major portions of the annual totals. The College of Criminal Justice has also been successful in attracting grants for the Law Enforcement Management Institute of Texas and other special initiatives. Funding in the arts and humanities is less plentiful, and the total amounts of funding in these areas are correspondingly smaller. Appendix D lists all grants, award recipients, disciplines, and grantors for 1998. (The same information for years 1994-1997 can be found in the addenda to the self-study report.)
The Sponsored Programs Information Network (SPINS) and the SPIN/ Matching and Researcher Transferal System (SMARTS) web search engines which are administered by the ORSP provide a substantial amount of information regarding grant availability in all disciplines. Perhaps as these resources are exploited, research funding and faculty development activities in the arts and humanities will improve.
B. Faculty Excellence Awards
The University encourages faculty growth and development by awarding recognition in three fundamental areas of professional activity: research, teaching, and service. These awards are based on nominations from colleagues and students and reviewed by a peer panel. Each honor brings with it a monetary award: $1,200 for Excellence in Teaching, $1,000 for Excellence in Research, and $800 for Excellence in Service.
2. [The institution] must demonstrate that such development occurs (Criteria 52).
The Faculty Committee determined that the University complies with this criterion.
Faculty development is documented by both the Faculty Evaluation System (FES) and the annual listing of faculty research and creative accomplishments:
Faculty Evaluation System
Academic Policy Statement 820317 outlines the Faculty Evaluation System for the University, specifying in section 1.01 that among other goals, "[t]he evaluation system is important for the purposes of faculty development." To this end, each and every faculty member compiles an annual report of all professional activities associated with his or her position. Specifically each faculty member provides documentation of publications, creative works, presentations of scholarly works, and professional growth activities in which she or he has participated. In the Colleges of Arts and Sciences, Education and Applied Science, and Business Administration, each department maintains files on current faculty; in the College of Criminal Justice the office of the dean maintains these files.
Faculty Research and Creative Accomplishments
Each year the University publishes a document listing faculty research and creative accomplishments. The document does not address professional growth activities such as post-doctoral study or special study in other formats. It is designed more specifically to show that the faculty is productive in areas of research and creativity. In this sense, then, it is not a comprehensive demonstration of professional growth among the faculty. This document is circulated to the University community and to the governing bodies of the institution.
3. The general tone and policies of an institution must make it clear that individual faculty members are to take the initiative in promoting their own growth as teachers, scholars and, especially in professional and occupational fields, practitioners (Criteria 52).
The Committee determined that the University complies with this imperative.
Faculty Survey
Responses to Items 7 and 8 of the faculty survey (Table 4.8.7.a) indicate compliance with the "must" statement; 40% of the faculty do participate in University-funded activities and nearly 75% personally fund growth activities. What is not clear from these results is whether this compliance issues from University policies and guidelines or from an innate sense of responsibility and interest on the part of faculty members.
The Faculty Handbook
The Faculty Handbook addresses issues of faculty growth and development in the following areas: section B-15, "Faculty Evaluation System"; section B-16, "Faculty Development Leave and Faculty Study"; and section B-19, "Research by Faculty." These policies are further detailed in policy statements contained in Appendix V of the handbook under the designations "Faculty Administrative Leave Policy," "Faculty Development Leave Policy," "Faculty Evaluation System," and "Promotions in Rank and Merit Advances in Salary within Rank." The language of these policies implies that the individual faculty member must take the initiative in promoting his or her own professional growth by pursuing incentives available by application only. However, these documents do not explicitly state that the individual faculty member is responsible for initiating her or his own growth activities.Conclusions
To summarize Sam Houston State University’s policies regarding professional growth: The Faculty Evaluation System demonstrates adequately that the University complies with "must" statement number two in section 4.8.7 of the Criteria. Given the existence of FES documentation, it must be recognized that faculty members do have the opportunity to continue their professional development. Compliance with the second imperative presupposes compliance with the first. However, the dissatisfaction of the faculty on the whole with University efforts to promote and support professional growth and development must also be noted.
In the view of the faculty, as gleaned from both the faculty survey and from personal interviews, there is ample space for improvement in terms of overall support of faculty growth and development. Since sabbatical leaves are expressly forbidden by state law, one of the time-honored and valued means of faculty development is unavailable to members of the SHSU faculty. As a result, faculty members may be susceptible to burnout and loss of currency in their fields. These results can affect teaching effectiveness and reduce the amount of new information generated by research and subsequently made available to the student. Moreover, generally limited travel funds also cause many faculty members to feel constrained in their ability to participate in the scholarly community of their field. There is reason for optimism, however, in comparing the existing situation to that of ten years ago and in looking at substantial plans which are now in place, and to a limited extent being put into effect, with regard to faculty development leaves. If effectively implemented, these plans may have a significant positive impact on professional growth and development at Sam Houston State University.
The Faculty Handbook and the Academic Policy Manual are not explicit enough in making it clear that the responsibility for initiating professional growth activities lies with the individual faculty member. Whereas the University complies with "must" statement number three, there is concern that the general tenor and level of performance expectation delineated in these documents could be strengthened.
Having determined that the University complies with all "must" statements in this section of the Criteria, the Faculty Committee has no recommendations; in the light of the conclusions stated above, however, the Committee offers three suggestions:
The University should assure that the plans for faculty development leaves, as recommended by the Vice President for Academic Affairs, are adequately funded and implemented.
The Office of University Advancement should specifically target the area of travel funding and initiate a campaign to increase the amount of local travel funds available to support faculty participation in professional growth activities.
The University should develop sections in the Academic Policy Manual and The Faculty Handbook which specifically treat faculty growth and development. These sections would directly address the faculty member’s individual responsibilities for initiating professional growth activities, would define the nature of the activities that would be considered for the purposes of tenure and promotion, and would delineate University programs and support for these activities.
1. Primary responsibility for the quality of the educational program must reside with the faculty (Criteria 52).
2. The extent of the participation and jurisdiction of the faculty in academic affairs must be clearly set forth and published. Much of their business will normally be conducted through such structures as committees, councils, and senates, operating within the broad policies determined by the administration and governing board (Criteria 52).
The Faculty Committee determined that Sam Houston State University complies with these criteria.
The University assures that faculty determine and govern the course of academic affairs on campus through representation on the Faculty Senate and on committees.
Faculty Senate
As stated in section A-9 of The Faculty Handbook, the Faculty Senate allows for the development of full freedom of discussion, participation, and examination of ideas by the faculty. The Senate is free to consider matters of general welfare to the University as placed before it by members of the faculty, members and committees of the Senate, the Student Government Association, the President of the University, and other administrative officers of the University. The role of the Faculty Senate is advisory in nature, and decisions on all such matters, final only when approved by the President of the University, are subject to the authority of The Texas State University System Board of Regents and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.
The Faculty Senate is composed of full-time faculty members. Persons holding the rank of program coordinator or above are not eligible to serve. Positions on the Faculty Senate are apportioned among the major administrative units of the University, the four colleges, and the Newton Gresham Library. Each unit has a minimum of one senator, and the body is limited to twenty-five members.
Senators are elected each spring to serve a term of three consecutive years. Full-time faculty members designate, in writing, their willingness to be a candidate for election to the Senate. Each administrative unit then elects senators from candidates in that unit. All faculty members, full- and part-time, are eligible to vote on Senate membership. If for any reason a member of the Senate cannot serve a full term, the vacancy is filled by the person from that administrative unit who received the next highest number of votes.
The Faculty Senate is empowered to establish by-laws and such committees from its members as it deems advisable for carrying out its responsibilities. The Senate meets a minimum of one time each month during the regular semesters of the academic year. Faculty Senate by-laws are stated in Section A-11 of The Faculty Handbook.
While members of the faculty may bring before the Faculty Senate matters of concern to the general faculty, the Senate may also consider requests from students or student groups.
The Senate creates four standing committees from its membership. The standing committees are the Academic Affairs Committee, the University Affairs Committee, the Faculty Affairs Committee, and the Committee on Committees and Surveys. The Senate also creates an Election Committee.
Written accounts of Senate meetings are distributed to the faculty, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the President. The Chair of the Senate submits recommendations passed by the Senate to the appropriate administrative officer.
Polling faculty for their perceptions of the Senate, Item 56 of the SACS faculty survey asked for responses to the statement: "The Faculty Senate has adequate input concerning: academic affairs, budgetary process, admission policies." Of the respondents, 45% agreed or strongly agreed that the Senate has adequate input in academic affairs, 12% disagreed or strongly disagreed, 21% neither agreed nor disagreed, and 23% checked "not applicable" or "I do not know." While 45% of faculty members agreed that their interests are served by the Faculty Senate, only 12% disagree. It should be noted that 49% did not agree or disagree. The results may suggest a lack of understanding by some faculty of the role of the Senate.
Responding to another statement about the influence of the Faculty Senate, 29% of the faculty respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the Senate has adequate influence in the budgeting process, 21% disagreed or strongly disagreed, 26% neither agreed nor disagreed, and 23% checked "not applicable" or "I do not know." Finally, 38% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the Senate has adequate input in formulation of admissions policies, 14% disagreed or strongly disagreed, 24% neither agreed nor disagreed, and 24% checked "not applicable" or "I do not know."
Committee Structure of the University
The University’s Committee Book, updated annually, lists campus committees and their purposes, the methods of appointment to these committees, methods of reporting, and the makeup of membership, including the number of faculty and a roster of members, with the dates on which their terms expire. Copies of the Committee Book are located in the offices of the academic deans, offices of department chairs, and in the Newton Gresham Library; the document is also accessible on the University Home Page.
As the Committee Book indicates, seventy-four of the seventy-seven committees have faculty representation.
Item 58 of the SHSU SACS Self-Study Survey asked for response to the statement, "SHSU adequately delineates the jurisdiction of faculty in academic affairs." Of the faculty responding, 26% agreed or strongly agreed, 19% disagreed or strongly disagreed, 29% neither agreed nor disagreed, and 23% checked "not applicable" or "I do not know."
Curriculum Development and Revision
The University is actively committed to ongoing curriculum development and revision which invites further faculty involvement in academic affairs.
Section A-8 of The Faculty Handbook, "Department Chairs," states: "Aided by the counsel of the faculty, he/she develops and revises the curricula of the department in a manner consistent with both current and long-range requirements." Section B-11 of the handbook defines the faculty involvement in this curriculum development, which comprehends department curriculum committees, college curriculum committees, and a University curriculum committee. In keeping with the University mission, these sections of the handbook assign the faculty primary responsibility for developing and providing a current curriculum which will ensure that students become "informed, thoughtful, and productive citizens with the skills necessary to evaluate issues critically and to appreciate the cultural and aesthetic values of life" (1998-2000 Undergraduate Catalogue 92).
Responses to the SACS Self-Study faculty survey indicate convincingly that faculty feel that they are involved in the processes of determining curricula. Responding to Item 24 of the SACS Self-Study faculty survey, 91% of the respondents agreed that "[f]aculty are primarily responsible for course content," only 3% disagreed or strongly disagreed, 2% neither agreed nor disagreed, and 2% checked "not applicable" or "I do not know." Responding to Item 25, 85% agreed or strongly agreed that the "[f]aculty assumes primary responsibility for the quality of its departmental educational programs," 3% disagreed or strongly disagreed, 10% neither agreed nor disagreed, and 2% checked "not applicable" or "I do not know."
Conclusions
The role of the faculty at Sam Houston State University in developing and presenting a quality educational experience is clearly stated in The Faculty Handbook and Committee Book. SHSU SACS Self-Study Survey data indicate that 45% of faculty members agree that their interests are served by the Faculty Senate and that only 12% disagree. It should be noted, however, that 49% did not agree or disagree. This response may indicate a lack of understanding by some faculty of the role of the Senate.
Though more responding faculty agree (26%) than disagree (19%) that SHSU delineates the jurisdiction of faculty in academic affairs, 52% indicated that they neither agree nor disagree, or they checked "not applicable" or "I do not know." This response may indicate a lack of understanding by some faculty about the committee opportunities provided and/or a lack of participation in committees.
Survey data indicate that the faculty agree they have the primary responsibility for course content (91%) and the quality of the educational program offered in their department (85%).
The Committee found that the University complies with the imperatives in this section of the Criteria; to improve communication between faculty and Faculty Senate on academic policy matters, the Committee offers the following suggestion:
The Faculty Senate should continue its efforts to inform the general faculty of its contributions toward the formulation of academic policy.
1. An institution must provide a faculty of adequate size to support its purpose (Criteria 52).
2. It must have procedures for equitable and reasonable assignment of faculty responsibilities—including classroom instruction, academic advising, committee membership, guidance of student organizations. and research and service to the public (Criteria 52).
3. The institution should have policies to protect faculty members from assuming or being assigned internal or external responsibilities which might encroach upon the quality or the quantity of the work they are employed to perform for the institution (Criteria 52).
4. The calculation of instructional loads should take into account such factors as number of preparations, number of students taught, nature of the subject, and help available from secretaries and teaching assistants (Criteria 52).
The Faculty Committee determined that the University complies with all of these imperatives.
During the 1997-98 academic year, Sam Houston State University employed 524 faculty; of those, 364 were full-time and 160 were part-time. Student enrollment in the fall semester was 12,713 and in the spring semester 11,339. Using the Board of Regents’ formula for computing faculty-to-student ratios, these figures average out to approximately 1:20 (see Appendix E). Given these figures; given that the University has enjoyed during the past five years almost unlimited success in accreditation and certification efforts within a variety of academic areas (including AACSB accreditation for the College of Business and NCATE certification for the College of Education and Applied Science); given that in the past two years the Coordinating Board has approved the addition of two doctoral programs; and given that a significant number of departments throughout the University have received approval to add courses to their curriculum without a need to add additional faculty, it is more than apparent that SHSU employs a faculty of adequate size to support the purpose of the University.
The University operates under the authority of a workload policy as stated below:
The faculty workload policy for Sam Houston State University is designed to comply with H.B. No. 1012 of the 65th Legislature and to conform to the general policies endorsed on July 14, 1978, by the Coordinating Board, Texas College and University System, and approved by the Board of Regents, The Texas State University System. These guidelines reflect the essential nature of the university as a teaching institution but provide flexibility to permit accommodation of related activities essential to the effective operation of a multi-purpose regional university. (The Faculty Handbook Appendix V)
Because Sam Houston State is a state-supported, "enrollment-seeking" institution, the size of the faculty is determined to a great extent by the annual FTE enrollment. Recent twelfth-day class figures illustrate the University’s effort to increase the number of full-time faculty and enhance the quality of work performance while at the same time reducing dependence upon part-time faculty who have only temporary appointments.
Despite this weight of evidence, among faculty there nevertheless exists concern regarding the adequacy of faculty size. Responding to Item 42 of the SACS Self-Study Faculty Survey, for example, 26.7% agreed or strongly agreed that "SHSU employs an adequate number of faculty to fulfill its mission." However, 51.9% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and almost 20% chose neither to agree nor disagree. A possible explanation for this anomaly is a general perception among some faculty that the University’s commitment to become an even stronger comprehensive institution should be accompanied by a plan to increase the number of full-time faculty, especially in programs currently growing in student enrollment.
Sam Houston State’s Faculty Workload Policy, stated in The Faculty Handbook, establishes guidelines which reflect the University’s primary commitment to teaching, but also support its function as a multi-purpose institution of higher education. In addition, the handbook also provides guidelines for the equitable and reasonable assignment of faculty responsibilities. Chairs of academic departments throughout the University generally assign such responsibilities, while the deans of the various colleges assure that such duties are distributed equitably and reasonably.
The typical teaching load for full-time faculty is four courses per semester; however, these assignments vary among colleges and departments and may cross undergraduate/graduate lines. Exceptions to the policy must be justified by the chair of the faculty member’s department and approved by the appropriate dean of the college.
In departments in which graduate programs play a significant role in the overall offerings of the program, a faculty member may be assigned a three-course load if she or he is teaching two or three master’s level classes or a two-course load in a doctoral program. Faculty teaching loads may also be reduced for such important activities as administrative assignments, chairing a significant number of theses and/or dissertation committees, directing a major musical or theatrical production, and in special cases, teaching a class with a particularly large student enrollment (usually one hundred or more students).
Faculty survey item #41 confirms that faculty in general are satisfied with the weight, fairness, and distribution of responsibilities associated with faculty appointments (Table 4.8.9):
Table 4.8.9
Faculty Satisfaction with Appointments: Faculty Survey
Agree or Strongly Agree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Disagree or Strongly Disagree
Not Applicable or Do Not Know
TOTALS
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Classroom Instruction Assignments 116 57.425 44 21.782 30 14.851 12 5.941 202 99.9 Teaching Loads 89 44.059 37 18.317 68 33.663 8 3.960 202 99.9 Academic Advisement 61 30.198 47 23.267 82 40.594 12 5.941 202 100 Committee Membership 84 41.584 57 28.218 47 23.268 14 6.931 202 100 Working with Student Groups 80 39.604 72 35.644 28 13.861 22 10.891 202 100 Research 75 37.129 50 24.752 63 31.188 14 6.931 202 100 Public Service 79 39.109 66 32.673 37 18.316 20 9.901 202 99.9 Three areas of concern are reflected in the data. First, a significant percentage of faculty obviously feel that policies related to academic advisement are a problem. This response most likely stems primarily from the University’s Mandatory Advisement System, adopted in the fall of 1996, which automatically placed a heavier burden of advising on faculty than in previous years. The second and third areas of concern—teaching loads and research—are clearly related. While the faculty survey did not address the specifics of how teaching loads and research responsibilities are inextricably linked, one can reasonably assume that much of the concern results from what is perceived as a collision between teaching and research demands: While faculty are expected to produce significant research to make themselves credible in the larger academic community, they are at the same time expected to teach the traditional four courses per semester.
In recent years the University has implemented two policies designed to provide additional opportunities for research/creative activity. The first of these, "Reassigned Time for Faculty Members Pursuing Research and Artistic Endeavors," has afforded significant numbers of faculty reassigned time to pursue their specific endeavors. The second, the "University Faculty Development Leave Policy," which for many years had been limited in availability, is now being extended, and plans are in place for further extension in the future.
Having determined that the University complies with the "must" statements in this section of the Criteria, the Faculty Committee has no recommendations. The Committee makes the following suggestion:
The administration should conduct a thorough study of ways to balance the increasing emphasis on the research component of faculty responsibilities with the current expectations of faculty in the areas of instruction, advisement, and public service.
1. An institution must conduct periodic evaluations of the performance of individual faculty members (Criteria 53).
The Faculty Committee determined that Sam Houston State University complies with this "must" statement.
The faculty evaluation process is outlined in the regents’ approved Academic Policy Statement 820317, "The Faculty Evaluation System," and distributed in The Faculty Handbook , available in hard copy and accessible on-line (available http//www.shsu.edu/administration/ faculty/handbook.html). Faculty are evaluated annually for a variety of purposes: faculty development, promotion in rank, and merit adjustments for salary increases. Probationary faculty are reviewed for tenure, and nontenure-track faculty are reviewed for contract renewals.
The evaluation process recognizes four criteria: teaching effectiveness, scholarly and artistic endeavor, professional growth and activities, and non-teaching/service activities. The criteria for the "Promotion in Rank and Merit Advances in Salary Within Rank," Academic Policy Statement 800722, are the same as those defined in "The Faculty Evaluation System." The evaluation procedures approved by the Board of Regents for promotion/merit and tenure are found in Appendix V of The Faculty Handbook.
2. The evaluation must include a statement of the criteria against which the performance of each faculty member will be measured (Criteria 53).
3. The criteria must be consistent with the purpose and goals of the institution and made known to all concerned (Criteria 53).
The Committee found that the University complies with these imperatives.
The evaluation criteria established in accordance with the University’s mission and goals are defined in The Faculty Handbook. Focusing on the four aforementioned categories (teaching effectiveness, scholarly and artistic endeavor, professional growth and activities, and non-teaching/service activities), the University evaluates every faculty member annually. The guidelines for academic rank and promotion within rank are set forth in Academic Policy Statement 800722. At SHSU the evaluation process combines student evaluations with the evaluation of the department’s chair and self-reporting by the faculty member of scholarly/artistic, professional, and service activities. The evaluative criteria for each category used to determine promotion or merit advances can be found in Academic Policy Statement 820317, and each department has established specific activities and performance criteria statements. Each criterion is weighted against others depending on the way the faculty member divides his or her time; the weights are calculated by a computerized linear formula system designed to maximize the faculty member’s FES scores. (See Academic Policy Statement 820317 and the Faculty Access Menu FES Maximization Pgm—Form 6 and Form 1—available on the SHSU computer system.) Recommendations for promotion and merit are forwarded for review by the appropriate dean or the Director of Library Services.
In addition to the annual FES evaluations, faculty members who have not been tenured are evaluated by members of the tenured faculty within each tenure unit. The tenure process is outlined in Academic Policy Statement 900417 ("Faculty Tenure and Tenure Election Procedures"). Some departments have documents specifying the criteria for tenure. The written or oral evaluations of the probationary faculty are summarized by the department chair. The department chair holds a conference with the probationary faculty to provide information regarding progress toward tenure.
A process for evaluating acceptable performance of tenured faculty, currently being developed by the University, is outlined in the "Academic Policy Statement on the Performance Evaluation of Tenured Faculty" (available http//www. shsu.edu/~org_sen/ ptr.html). The specific standards for minimum performance by tenured faculty will be developed within the tenure unit. The standards for each tenure unit will be forwarded for review and approval to the appropriate dean or to the Director of Library Services and then to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. These standards will be in keeping with the mission of the University. The process will be connected to the Faculty Evaluation System in order to minimize duplication. An appeals process is outlined in the statement.
Performance criteria was a focus of "The Report of the Review of the Faculty Merit Committee," 1997 (available http//www.shsu.edu/~org_ sen/merit3.html), which found that while performance criteria exist in all departments there is variation in performance expectation; this variation leads to dissatisfaction with the present system.
In responding to Item 28 of the SACS Self-Study faculty survey, approximately 45% agreed that the FES process is based on well-established criteria, while 34% disagreed. Slightly over half of the faculty responding to Item 30 of the survey indicated that evaluation criteria are not applied uniformly through all departments. In responding to Item 31, faculty indicated that they are not sure that the FES process is consistent with the University’s mission: 37.5% agreed that the system is consistent with the University’s mission; 29.6% disagreed with the statement, while 24% neither agreed nor disagreed. These responses would indicate that the present departmental criteria should be carefully reviewed by departmental faculty and, where necessary, the relationship of those criteria to the University’s mission should be clarified. This review should identify areas where more detailed performance criteria could be developed. All departmental faculty should participate in this process.
The "Report of the Review of the Faculty Merit Committee" (available http//www.shsu.edu/~org_sen/ merit3.html) recommended that student evaluations be separated from the FES process, but still be taken as sources of information regarding "areas of improvement or changes in their classroom conduct." The response to Item 34 of the survey supports this finding. Fifty-seven percent of the 202 faculty who responded to the SACS Self-Study faculty survey indicated that they do not regard student evaluation as an adequate measure of teaching effectiveness. During the spring semester of 1998, the Faculty Senate voted to continue using student evaluations as a component of the FES process.
According to Academic Policy Statement 820830, if a faculty member has a grievance after the FES process is completed, he or she "has the right to appeal an administrative decision that directly affects him or her as a faculty member and that is considered to be a violation of University policy, or a violation of professional rights and responsibilities." If the grievance cannot be settled within the department or college, a standing Faculty Grievance Committee of seven members will convene to investigate the allegations and try to resolve the issue. If the grievance is not dismissed or resolved, the faculty member can request a formal hearing. The Faculty Grievance Committee will notify the faculty member and the President of the University of its findings and recommendations.
4. The institution must demonstrate that it uses the results of this evaluation for the improvement of the faculty and educational program (Criteria 53).
The Faculty Committee determined that the University complies with this criterion.
The self-study faculty survey indicated that the faculty can identify areas in which the evaluation process is used for their improvement. Responses to Item 34 of the survey indicate that the student evaluation instrument provides information which can be used to improve teaching (47.9% agreed with this statement). Forty-seven and a half percent of the faculty responding to Item 32a felt that the results are used to improve their professional development. In responding to whether the FES process is used for improvement of the educational program (Item 32b), more of the faculty agreed that the process is used to improve the program than disagreed.
Having determined that the University complies with all of the imperatives in this section of the Criteria, the Faculty Committee has no recommendations. The Committee offers the following three suggestions, however:
Where inadequate performance criteria exist, departments should develop thorough descriptive criteria in order to increase faculty satisfaction with evaluation processes; all members of the department should be involved in the development of these criteria.
Chairs and deans should provide descriptive information as to how the FES process improves the educational programs; this information should be incorporated into the evaluation process.
In light of the response to Item 34 of the faculty survey, the best use of student evaluations should be reevaluated.
4.8.1: Selection of Faculty
Imperative | Statement of Compliance | Supporting Documentation |
| 1. An institution must show that it has an orderly process for recruiting and appointing its faculty. This process will normally involve developing a pool of qualified candidates and interviewing those who appear to be best qualified. Institutions are encouraged to recruit and select faculty whose highest degree is earned from a broad representation of institutions. | Compliance |
Academic Instructional Staffing Policy 800114 Self-Study Faculty Survey and Department Chair/Library Interview Surveys |
| 2. Recruitment and appointment procedures must be described in the faculty handbook or other published documents. | Compliance |
Academic Instructional Staffing Policy 800114 Self-Study Faculty Survey and Department Chair/Library Interview Surveys |
| 3. It is expected that an institution will employ faculty members whose highest earned degree presented as the credential qualifying the faculty member to teach at the institution is from a regionally accredited institution. | Compliance |
Faculty Personnel Files (Available in the Office of the President) Table 9, Self-Study Department/Library Interview Survey |
| 4. If an institution employs a faculty member whose highest earned degree is from a non-regionally accredited institution within the United States or an institution outside the United States, the institution must show evidence that the faculty member has appropriate academic preparation. | Compliance |
Faculty Personnel Files (Available in the Office of the President) Use of the International Handbook of Universities and The World of Learning to Validate Degrees from Institutions Outside the United States Table 9, Self-Study Department/Library Interview Survey |
| 5. Institutions must ensure that each faculty member employed is proficient in oral and written communication in the language in which assigned courses will be taught. | Compliance |
Interview Process during Faculty Recruitment, Required by the Texas Legislature and English Language Proficiency for Instructional Personnel Policy 871214 Table 11, Self-Study Department/Library Interview Survey |
4.8.2: Academic and Professional Preparation
Imperative | Statement of Compliance | Supporting Documentation |
| 1. Both full-time and part-time faculty must meet the following criteria for academic and professional preparation. | Compliance |
Faculty Personnel Files (Available in the Office of the President) Twelfth Class Day Reports for the 1997 Fall Semester and for the 1998 Spring Semester 1996-1998 Undergraduate Catalogue 1997-1999Graduate Catalogue Academic Policy Statement 801014 Annual Reports on Faculty Research and Creative Accomplishments Telephone Interviews with the Deans of the Colleges Telephone Interview with the Coordinator of Graduate Studies |
4.8.2.2: Academic and Professional Preparation--Baccalaureate
Imperative | Statement of Compliance | Supporting Documentation |
| 1. Each full-time and part-time faculty member teaching credit courses leading toward the baccalaureate degree, other than physical education activities courses, must have completed at least 18 graduate semester hours in the teaching discipline and hold at least a master’s degree, or hold the minimum of a master’s degree with a major in the teaching discipline. | Compliance |
Transcripts in Faculty Files (Available in the Office of the President) Twelfth Class Day Reports for the 1997 Fall Semester and for the 1998 Spring Semester 1998-2000Undergraduate Catalogue |
| 2. In exceptional cases, outstanding professional experience and demonstrated contributions to the teaching discipline may be presented in lieu of formal academic preparation. Such cases must be justified by the institution on an individual basis. | Compliance | Faculty Personnel Files (Available in the Office of the President) |
| 3. The Commission encourages interdisciplinary courses and recognizes that appropriate credentials for teaching may vary. The institution must document and justify the academic and professional preparation of faculty members teaching in such courses or programs. | Compliance |
Faculty Personnel Files (Available in the Office of the President) Twelfth Class Day Reports for the 1997 Fall Semester and for the 1998 Spring Semester 1998-2000Undergraduate Catalogue Telephone Interview with the Chair of the Department of Biological Sciences Interviews of Faculty Members Who Teach in the Environmental Science Program |
| 4. It is the responsibility of the institution to keep on file for all full-time and part-time faculty members documentation of academic preparation, such as official transcripts and, if appropriate for demonstrating competence, official documentation of professional and work experience, technical and performance competency, records of publications, certifications and other qualifications. | Compliance |
Transcripts in Faculty Files (Available in the Office of the President) 1998-2000Undergraduate Catalogue |
| 5. At least 25 percent of the discipline course hours in each undergraduate major must be taught by faculty members holding the terminal degree, usually the earned doctorate, in that discipline. In some disciplines, the master’s degree in the discipline may be considered the terminal degree, such as the M.F.A., the M.S.W., and the M.L.S.; in others, a master’s degree in the discipline, coupled with a doctoral degree in a related discipline, is considered appropriate. | Compliance |
Transcripts in Faculty Files (Available in the Office of the President) Twelfth Class Day Reports for the 1997 Fall Semester and for the 1998 Spring Semester 1998-2000Undergraduate Catalogue |
| 6. [I]t is the responsibility of the institution to justify the master’s degree, or master’s in the teaching discipline coupled with a related doctorate, as the terminal degree for faculty members teaching in these disciplines. | Compliance |
Transcripts in Faculty Files (Available in the Office of the President) Twelfth Class Day Reports for the 1997 Fall Semester and for the 1998 Spring Semester 1998-2000Undergraduate Catalogue |
| 7. The above requirement also applies to each major offered through distance learning, including those offered at branches or other sites. | Compliance |
Transcripts in Faculty Files (Available in the Office of the President) Twelfth Class Day Reports for the 1997 Fall Semester and for the 1998 Spring Semester 1998-2000Undergraduate Catalogue |
| 8. Faculty members who teach in remedial programs must hold a baccalaureate degree in a discipline related to their teaching assignment and have either teaching experience in a discipline related to their assignment or graduate training in remedial education. | Compliance |
Transcripts and Resumes in Faculty Files (Available in the Office of the President) Twelfth Class Day Reports for the 1997 Fall Semester and for the 1998 Spring Semester 1998-2000 Undergraduate Catalogue Telephone Interviews with Chairs of the Departments of English and Mathematics |
4.8.2.3: Academic and Professional Preparation--Graduate
Imperative | Statement of Compliance | Supporting Documentation |
| 1. Institutions offering either master’s or specialist degrees must demonstrate a high level of faculty competence in teaching and scholarship. | Compliance |
Transcripts and Resumes in Faculty Files (Available in the Office of the President) Annual Reports on Faculty Research and Creative Accomplishments |
| 2. Institutions offering doctoral degrees must demonstrate the research capability of faculty members teaching in these programs. | Compliance |
Transcripts and Resumes in Faculty Files (Available in the Office of the President) Annual Reports on Faculty Research and Creative Accomplishments |
| 3. Eligibility requirements for faculty members teaching graduate courses must be clearly defined and publicized. | Compliance |
Academic Policy Statement 801014 1997-1999Graduate Catalogue Interview with the Coordinator of Graduate Studies Copies from the Office of Graduate Studies of Criteria for Membership on the Graduate/Associate Graduate Faculty |
| 4. All institutions must have adequate resources to attract and retain a qualified faculty, especially in the disciplines in which doctoral programs are offered. | Compliance |
Telephone Interviews with the Deans of the Colleges Interview with Faculty Member in the Educational Leadership Doctoral Program Annual Budgets Annual Merit Lists |
| 5. Faculty members responsible for the direction of doctoral research must be experienced in directing independent study. | Compliance |
Transcripts and Resumes in Faculty Files (Available in the Office of the President) Interview with the Interim Dean of the College of Criminal Justice Interview with the Dean of the College of Education and Applied Science |
| 6. Each faculty member teaching courses at the master’s and specialist degree level must hold the terminal degree, usually the earned doctorate, in the teaching discipline or a related discipline. In some instances, the master’s degree in the discipline may be considered the terminal degree, such as the M.F.A., the M.S.W., and the M.L.S.; in others, a master’s degree in the discipline coupled with a doctoral degree in a related discipline is considered appropriate. | Compliance |
Transcripts and Resumes in Faculty Files (Available in the Office of the President) 1997-1999Graduate Catalogue Twelfth Class Day Reports for the 1997 Fall Semester and for the 1998 Spring Semester |
| 7. It is the responsibility of the institution to justify the master’s degree, or master’s in the teaching discipline coupled with a related doctorate, as the terminal degree for faculty members teaching in those disciplines. | Compliance |
Transcripts and Resumes in Faculty Files (Available in the Office of the President) Twelfth Class Day Reports for the 1997 Fall Semester and for the 1998 Spring Semester 1998-2000Undergraduate Catalogue |
| 8. All faculty members teaching courses at the doctoral degree level must hold the earned doctorate in the teaching discipline or a related discipline. | Compliance |
Transcripts and Resumes in Faculty Files (Available in the Office of the President) Interview with the Interim Dean of the College of Criminal Justice Interview with the Dean of the College of Education and Applied Science 1997-1999Graduate Catalogue Twelfth Class Day Reports for the 1997 Fall Semester and for the 1998 Spring Semester |
| 9. The Commission recognizes that in unusual cases institutions may appropriately include as graduate faculty members those who have demonstrated exceptional scholarly or creative activity, or professional experience, but who may not possess the required academic credentials. There also may be an occasion when a new graduate discipline is in its formative stage in higher education and there are no faculty members available with academic credentials in the discipline. In either case, when an institution presents evidence of competence or academic credentials other than the doctorate in the discipline for its graduate faculty, it must justify the employment of such faculty. | Compliance | Faculty Personnel Files (Available in the Office of the President) |
| 10. The Commission encourages interdisciplinary courses and recognizes that appropriate credentials for teaching may vary. The institution must document and justify the academic and professional preparation of faculty members teaching in such courses or programs. | Not Applicable | |
| 11. It is the responsibility of the institution to keep on file, for all full-time and part-time faculty members teaching graduate courses, documentation of academic preparation, such as official transcripts and, if appropriate for demonstrating competence, official documentation of professional and work experience, technical and performance competency, records of publications, and certifications and other qualifications. | Compliance |
Transcripts and Resumes in Faculty Files (Available in the Office of the President) Twelfth Class Day Reports for the 1997 Fall Semester and for the 1998 Spring Semester 1998-2000Undergraduate Catalogue |
| 12. An effective graduate program depends on the scholarly interaction of faculty. The appropriate number of faculty members to adequately support a program varies according to discipline and the scope of the program. However, for each graduate degree program, an institution must employ at least four qualified full-time faculty members whose responsibilities include teaching in the program. | Noncompliance |
Twelfth Class Day Reports for the 1997 Fall Semester and for the 1998 Spring Semester 1997-1999Graduate Catalogue List of Graduate and Associate Graduate Faculty Degree Inventory from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Interview with the Coordinator of Graduate Studies |
4.8.3: Part-Time Faculty
| Imperative | Statement of Compliance | Supporting Documentation |
| 1. The number of full-time faculty members must be adequate to provide effective teaching, advising, and scholarly or creative activity, and be appropriate in curriculum development, policy making, institutional planning, and governance. | Compliance |
Semester Reports from the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs; 1997-98 Report in Text Appendix to this Chapter of the Self-Study: Ten Year Comparison Chart for 1988-1998 Items 48b, 48c, 48d, 43a, 43b, 43c, 43d, Self-Study Faculty Survey |
| 2. The employment of part-time faculty members can provide expertise to enhance the educational effectiveness of an institution, but the number of part-time faculty members must be properly limited. | Compliance | Appendix to this Chapter of the Self-Study: Ten Year Comparison Chart for 1988-1998 |
| 3. Part-time faculty members teaching courses for credit must meet the same requirements for professional, experiential, and scholarly preparation as their full-time counterparts teaching in the same disciplines. | Compliance |
The Faculty Handbook Academic Policy Manual (File No. 6, Appendix V-5, Academic Policy Statement 890301, "Employment of Part-time Faculty") Hiring Procedures Documented from Department Level to College Level to the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs |
| 4. Each institution must establish and publish comprehensive policies concerning the employment of part-time faculty members. | Compliance |
The Faculty Handbook Academic Policy Manual (File No. 1, Appendix V-10, Academic Policy Statement 800114, "Appointment of Interim Faculty Members on an Emergency Basis") Item 44, Self-Study Faculty Survey |
| 5. The institution must also provide for appropriate orientation, supervision, and evaluation of all part-time faculty members. | Compliance |
The Faculty Handbook Academic Policy Manual (File No. 1, Appendix V-10, Academic Policy Statement 800114, "Appointment of Interim Faculty Members on an Emergency Basis") |
| 6. Procedures to ensure student access to part-time faculty members must be clearly stated and publicized. | Compliance |
The Faculty Handbook Academic Policy Manual (File No. 6, Appendix V-5, Academic Policy Statement 890301, "Employment of Part-time Faculty") Item 47, Self-Study Faculty Survey |
4.8.4: Graduate Teaching Assistants
Imperative | Statement of Compliance | Supporting Documentation |
| 1. The employment of graduate teaching assistants is a well-established practice in higher education, but should be carefully monitored. | Compliance |
Handbook for Graduate Students Annual Faculty Load Report Processing Procedure for Academic Affairs 15 Graduate Assistant Contracts |
| 2. An institution must avoid heavy dependence on graduate teaching assistants to conduct classroom instruction. | Compliance | Fall 1997 Semester Report (Available in the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs) |
| 3. Each institution employing graduate teaching assistants must provide a published set of guidelines for institution-wide graduate assistantship administration, including appointment criteria, remuneration, rights and responsibilities, evaluation and reappointment. | Compliance |
Academic Policy Manual (Academic Policy Statement 890303, "Employment of Graduate Assistants") 1997-1999Graduate Catalogue |
| 4. Graduate assistants who have primary responsibility for teaching a course for credit and/or for assigning final grades for such a course, and whose professional and scholarly preparation does not satisfy the provisions of Section 4.8.2 must have earned at least 18 graduate semester hours in their teaching discipline, be under the direct supervision of a faculty member experienced in the teaching discipline, receive regular in-service training and be evaluated regularly. | Compliance |
Academic Policy Manual (Academic Policy Statement 890303, "Employment of Graduate Assistants") Graduate Teaching Assistants Personnel Files in Each Academic Department |
| 5. Institutions may appoint graduate teaching assistants for whom English is a second language only when a test of spoken English, or other reliable evidence of the applicant’s proficiency in oral and written communication indicates that the appointment is appropriate. | Compliance |
Academic Policy Manual (Academic Policy Statement 890303, "Employment of Graduate Assistants") Academic Policy Manual (Academic Policy Statement 871214, "English Language Proficiency for Instructional Personnel") |
| 6. Institutions employing graduate teaching assistants must provide a structure for administrative oversight at a level above that of the individual academic units to ensure conformity with institutional policies and procedures. | Compliance | Academic Policy Manual (Academic Policy Statement 890303, "Employment of Graduate Assistants") |
4.8.5: Faculty Compensation
Imperative | Statement of Compliance | Supporting Documentation |
| 1. An institution should provide adequate salaries and benefits to attract and retain able faculty members. The institution should also provide a retirement plan, to which it contributes a reasonable percentage of the cost, and a plan for adequate insurance coverage. | Compliance |
Academic Policy Manual (Academic Policy Statement 800722, "Evaluative Criteria for Promotion in Rank or Merit Advances within Rank") Departmental and College Files |
| 2. Salary increases must be based on clearly stated criteria | Compliance |
Academic Policy Manual (Academic Policy Statement 800722, "Evaluative Criteria for Promotion in Rank or Merit Advances within Rank") Departmental and College Files |
4.8.6: Academic Freedom and Professional Security
Imperative | Statement of Compliance | Supporting Documentation |
| 1. Faculty and students must be free to examine all pertinent data, question assumptions, be guided by evidence of scholarly research, and teach and study the substance of a given discipline. | Compliance |
Rules and Regulations, The Texas State University System (Chapter V, "University Personnel," Subsections 4.3 and 4.4, PP 17 and 18) The Faculty Handbook ([October 1995], Section B, "Academic Policies and Procedures," P B1, and "Academic Freedom and Responsibility," PP B4 and B5) The Faculty Handbook ([October 1995], Section A, General Information, "Mission Statement," P A2) |
| 2. An institution must adopt and distribute to all faculty members a statement of the principles of academic freedom as established by the governing board, ensuring freedom in teaching, research and publication. | Compliance |
Rules and Regulations, The Texas State University System (Chapter V, "University Personnel," Subsections 4.3 and 4.4, PP 17 and 18) The Faculty Handbook ([October 1995], Section B, "Academic Policies and Procedures," P B1, and "Academic Freedom and Responsibility," PP B4 and B5) Item 18, Self-Study Faculty Survey |
| 3. Institutional policies must set forth the requirement for faculty members to carry out their duties in a professional, ethical and collegial manner that enhances the purpose of the institution. | Compliance |
Rules and Regulations, The Texas State University System (Chapter V, "University Personnel," Subsections 4.3 and 4.4, PP 17 and 18) The Faculty Handbook ([October 1995], Section B, "Academic Policies and Procedures," P B1, and "Academic Freedom and Responsibility," PP B4 and B5) |
| 4. Although tenure policy is not mandated, each institution must provide contracts, letters of appointment, or similar documents to faculty members clearly describing the terms and conditions of their employment. | Compliance |
The Faculty Handbook (Section B, "Academic Policies and Procedures, Contracts," P. B10) Item 19, Self-Study Faculty Survey |
| 5. All policies regarding employment, as established by the governing board, must be published and distributed to faculty. | Compliance |
Rules and Regulations, The Texas State University System (Chapter V, "University Personnel," PP 1-32) The Faculty Handbook (Section B, "Academic Policies and Procedures," PP B1-B23) Item 20, Self-Study Faculty Survey |
| 6. If the institution uses faculty ranks and tenure, the policies and procedures for promotion, for awarding tenure, for providing adequate notice on non-renewal of a probationary appointment, and for termination of appointments, including those for cause, must be clearly set forth in the faculty handbook or other official publication. | Compliance |
Rules and Regulations, The Texas State University System (Chapter V, "University Personnel") The Faculty Handbook (Appendix III, Section 4.2, "Tenure, Promotion, and Termination of Employment," PP 10-17) The Faculty Handbook (Appendix V, "Academic Policy Statements," Policy #800722, "Promotions in Rank and Merit Advances and Salary Within Rank"; Policy #900417, "Faculty Tenure and Tenure Election Procedures"; Section B, "Dismissal of Faculty," PP 12-14 ) (These policies cited in The Faculty Handbook are also found in the Academic Policy Manual) Item 21, Self-Study Faculty Survey |
| 7. Termination and non-renewal procedures must contain adequate safeguards for protection of academic freedom. | Compliance |
Rules and Regulations, The Texas State University System (Chapter V, "University Personnel") The Faculty Handbook (Appendix III, Section 4, "Tenure, Promotion, and Termination of Employment," PP 10-17) The Faculty Handbook (Appendix V, "Academic Policy Statements," Policy #820317, "General Features of the Faculty Evaluation System"; Policy #820830, "Faculty Grievance") (These policies cited in The Faculty Handbook are also found in the Academic Policy Manual) Item 22, Self-Study Faculty Survey |
4.8.7: Professional Growth
Imperative | Statement of Compliance | Supporting Documentation |
| 1. An institution must provide faculty members the opportunity to continue their professional development throughout their careers . . . . | Compliance |
Academic Policy Manual (Academic Policy Statement 800328, "Faculty Development Leave"; Academic Policy Statement 900420, "Reassigned Time for Faculty Members Pursuing Research and Artistic Endeavors") |
| 2. [The institution] must demonstrate that such development occurs. | Compliance |
Office of Research and Sponsored Programs Results of Faculty Research Grant Applications Faculty Evaluation System Reports Annual Reports on Faculty Research and Creative Accomplishments Items 10 and 11, Self-Study Faculty Survey |
| 3. The general tone and policies of an institution must make it clear that individual faculty members are to take the initiative in promoting their own growth as teachers, scholars and, especially in professional and occupational fields, practitioners. | Compliance |
The Faculty Handbook (Section B-15, "Faculty Evaluation System"; Section B-16, "Faculty Development Leave and Faculty Study"; Section B-19, "Research by Faculty") The Faculty Handbook (Appendix V, under "Faculty Administrative Leave Policy," "Faculty Development Leave Policy," "Faculty Evaluation System." and "Promotions in Rank and Merit Advances in Salary within Rank") |
4.8.8: The Role of the Faculty and Its Committees
Imperative | Statement of Compliance | Supporting Documentation |
| 1. Primary responsibility for the quality of the educational program must reside with the faculty. | Compliance |
The Faculty Handbook (Sections A-8 and B-11) Items 24 and 25, Self-Study Faculty Survey |
| 2. The extent of the participation and jurisdiction of the faculty in academic affairs must be clearly set forth and published. Much of their business will normally be conducted through such structures as committees, councils, and senates, operating within the broad policies determined by the administration and governing board. | Compliance |
The Faculty Handbook (Sections A-9 through A-16) Items 56 and 58, Self-Study Faculty Survey |
4.8.9: Faculty Loads
Imperative | Statement of Compliance | Supporting Documentation |
| 1. An institution must provide a faculty of adequate size to support its purpose. | Compliance |
Twelfth Day Class Report, Fall 1997 AACSB Accreditation Report SHSU Curriculum Report, 1997 NCATE Report for SHSU Certification Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Documents (Available in the Office of the President) Item 42, Self-Study Faculty Survey |
| 2. [The institution] must have procedures for equitable and reasonable assignment of faculty responsibilities—including classroom instruction, academic advising, committee membership, guidance of student organizations. and research and service to the public. | Compliance |
The Faculty Handbook ("Faculty Workload Policy") Item 41, Self-Study Faculty Survey Interviews with Chairs and Academic Deans Academic Policy Manual (Academic Policies 900420 and 800328 |
| 3. The institution should have policies to protect faculty members from assuming or being assigned internal or external responsibilities which might encroach upon the quality or the quantity of the work they are employed to perform for the institution. | Compliance |
The Faculty Handbook ("Faculty Workload Policy") Item 41, Self-Study Faculty Survey Interviews with Chairs and Academic Deans Academic Policy Manual (Academic Policies 900420 and 800328 |
| 4. The calculation of instructional loads should take into account such factors as number of preparations, number of students taught, nature of the subject, and help available from secretaries and teaching assistants. | Compliance |
The Faculty Handbook ("Faculty Workload Policy") Item 41, Self-Study Faculty Survey Interviews with Chairs and Academic Deans Academic Policy Manual (Academic Policies 900420 and 800328) |
4.8.10: Criteria and Procedures for Evaluation
Imperative | Statement of Compliance | Supporting Documentation |
| 1. An institution must conduct periodic evaluations of the performance of individual faculty members. | Compliance | The Faculty Handbook (Academic Policy Statement 820317; Academic Policy Statement 800722) |
| 2. The evaluation must include a statement of the criteria against which the performance of each faculty member will be measured. | Compliance |
Departmental and College Files The Faculty Handbook (Academic Policy Statement 820830) |
| 3. The criteria must be consistent with the purpose and goals of the institution and be made known to all concerned. | Compliance |
Departmental and College Files University Mission Statement |
| 4. The institution must demonstrate that it uses the results of this evaluation for the improvement of the faculty and educational program. | Compliance |
Departmental and College Files Items 32a, 32b, and 32c, Self-Study Faculty Survey |
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Dance Program must hire at least one full-time faculty member to teach in its graduate program.
SUGGESTIONS:
The University should study the option for earlier approval of position allowances to begin advertising of vacancies.
The University should evaluate the feasibility of establishing a pool of travel funds to use for bringing a larger number of prospective candidates to campus, and also of creating a teleconferencing facility to improve the candidate phone interview process.
The University should determine whether establishing a Texas Business Travel Account (BTA) will result in state travel discounts and preserve limited travel funds when the institution invites out-of-state faculty candidates for on-campus interviews.
Even though at least 25% of the discipline course hours in the Journalism Program are taught by faculty members holding the terminal degree in that discipline or other appropriate credentials, when vacancies occur in the future the department should make every effort to recruit and employ faculty members with terminal degrees in journalism.
The Office of Graduate Studies should investigate the possibility of offering research assistantships for graduate students in the doctoral programs.
Full-time faculty for each department should participate in the budget/planning processes for staffing courses to ensure that the need to use part-time faculty is anticipated but properly limited.
At the departmental level, the concerns of the faculty could be addressed with better communication about the issues of selection and hiring of part-time faculty.
Program administrators should develop strategies to keep all faculty apprised of procedures relating to the employment of part-time faculty.
Even though the salaries of assistant instructors at Sam Houston State University stand at the mid-point in comparison to those of assistant instructors at sister institutions, the salary increase recommended by the Faculty Senate would be beneficial in attracting graduate students.
Because noncompetitive faculty salaries in some programs are increasingly affecting the University’s ability to attract quality faculty to those departments, faculty salaries should be increased. Unless salary levels are reassessed, salaries could affect the quality of instruction and research in the newly added doctoral programs in Educational Leadership and Forensic Psychology.
The reasons for the disparity in faculty salaries by gender in each rank should be evaluated.
Academic department chairs/coordinators should develop a format for holding discussions with their faculty as early in the school year as practical regarding specific interpretations and implementations of policies and procedures relating to academic freedom and professional security.
The University should assure that the plans for faculty development leaves, as recommended by the Vice President for Academic Affairs, are adequately funded and implemented.
The Office of University Advancement should specifically target the area of travel funding and initiate a campaign to increase the amount of local travel funds available to support faculty participation in professional growth activities.
The University should develop sections in the Academic Policy Manual and The Faculty Handbook which specifically treat faculty growth and development. These sections would directly address the faculty member’s individual responsibilities for initiating professional growth activities, would define the nature of the activities that would be considered for the purposes of tenure and promotion, and would delineate University programs and support for these activities.
The Faculty Senate should continue its efforts to inform the general faculty of its contributions toward the formulation of academic policy.
The administration should conduct a thorough study of ways to balance the increasing emphasis on the research component of faculty responsibilities with the current expectations of faculty in the areas of instruction, advisement, and public service.
Where inadequate performance criteria exist, departments should develop thorough descriptive criteria in order to increase faculty satisfaction with evaluation processes; all members of the department should be involved in the development of these criteria.
Chairs and deans should provide descriptive information as to how the FES process improves the educational programs; this information should be incorporated into the evaluation process.
In light of the response to Item 34 of the faculty survey, the best use of student evaluations should be reevaluated.
APPENDIX A: Full-Time/Part-Time Comparisons by College, 1988-1998
APPENDIX B: Summary Record of Interviews Conducted on the Subject of Academic Freedom for Faculty at Sam Houston State
APPENDIX C: Contract Letter
APPENDIX D: List of Grants, Award Recipients, Disciplines, and Grantors for Fiscal Year 1998
APPENDIX E: Report to Board of Regents of Student "Headcount" for 1997-98 Academic Year