State law should be amended to reduce state funding for universities that offer undersized classes and fail to meet minimum faculty teaching loads.
BackgroundTexas invests more than $1 billion each biennium in public university faculties. These appropriations are the primary source of the "teaching" portion of faculty salaries. Since universities are not held to the same reporting standards as state agencies, little information is available on how successfully universities manage this investment.
Of course, it should be recognized that classroom instruction is only part of a college professor's job, which involves research, writing, counseling, and various departmental activities as well. Nevertheless, in-class teaching is an activity state funding directly supports, creating a legitimate state interest in how it is conducted. A March 1996 study by the Center for Higher Education and Educational Finance found that 23 states have imposed various requirements for faculty workloads at public universities.[1] Since 1977, the Texas Education Code has required state universities to establish their own rules and regulations concerning faculty workloads.[2]
Even so, a 1994 State Auditor's Office (SAO) report on faculty teaching activities for four departments at four Texas public universities found that their professors taught an average of just two courses per semester, despite the universities' minimum workload policies of three courses (nine hours) per semester.[3]
Carnegie Classifications and national standards
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, an influential educational policy group, maintains the Carnegie Classification system, which ranks universities as comprehensive, doctoral, or research institutions based on their number and type of doctoral programs and federal research support. The system often is used to compare faculty time devoted to teaching and research. A 1994 study by the American Association of University Professors found that faculties at doctoral and research universities reported spending about 25 percent and 30 percent respectively of their in-semester time on research, in keeping with these institutions' greater emphasis on activities other than teaching. Faculty at comprehensive universities spent an average of 10 percent of their time on research.[4]
Although definitions and methodologies may vary somewhat, such surveys suggest a standard that institutions can use to judge their own use of faculty resources. The National Center for Education Statistics' (NCES) National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty found that university faculty averaged between six and 11 teaching hours per week, or from about 2 to 3.5 classes; universities with the greatest research emphasis had the lowest average course load (Exhibit 1).[5]
Teaching load by program area
Using the NCES study as a guide, TPR developed a conservative standard for comparing semester classroom teaching loads: two courses per professor at research schools, 2.5 courses for those at doctoral institutions, and 3.25 classes for each professor at comprehensive institutions. This standard was employed in TPR's analysis of 10 typical general program areas at 32 Texas universities, representing more than 60 percent of all courses taught by "tenure-track" faculty members--that is, full, associate, and
Exhibit 1
National Study of Faculty Teaching Loads by Carnegie Classification Type of Institution Average Hours In Classroom Average Number Of Courses Taught* Public Research 6.6 2.2 Public Doctoral 8.0 2.7 Public Comprehensive 10.5 3.5 * Calculated by TPR by dividing hours by 3.
Source: National Center for Education Statistics.
assistant professors, as opposed to teaching assistants, lecturers, and other instructors. When classroom teaching loads were calculated for each of the 32 institutions, TPR found that the majority fell at or above the relevant TPR standard; 14 of 32 universities fell below standard.
Tenure-track faculty at research universities average 1.9 courses per semester. Teaching load ranged from 1.7 to 2.3 courses. Texas' six doctoral institutions average 2.5 courses per semester, the TPR course standard. Half of the institutions were above the 2.5 course standard. Of Texas' 22 comprehensive institutions, nine fell below the 3.25 courses-per-semester standard.
Given the conservative methodology used by TPR, the number of institutions below the standard is surprising. Since teaching loads for all 10 program areas were calculated collectively at each institution, the impact of faculty with reduced teaching loads should be balanced by faculty with greater teaching responsibilities.
Such findings illustrate that mandated workload policies and legislative performance measures have not ensured the cost-effective use of faculty teaching resources. In addition to poor management, these results suggest inadequate accountability and lost opportunities for Texas students.
Actions in other states
The University of California, Florida State University, and University of Wisconsin systems make annual reports of faculty workloads as part of larger accountability reports. All three accountability reports provide historical teaching load information.
The University of California System provides its legislature a five-year analysis of classes taught per full-time equivalent (FTE) professor, as well as peer comparisons with research institutions.[6] The Florida State University System's Accountability Report lists teaching workloads at each public university and measures performance against productivity targets.[7] Wisconsin's higher education institutions make annual reports on their achievements toward 18 accountability goals, including six measures of faculty instructional workload.[8]
A State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) case study suggested how Arizona, faced with a projected rise in enrollment of 50 percent over the next 18 years, could improve budget efficiency through increased faculty workloads. SHEEO calculated the effect of increasing average faculty workloads from 2.5 classes to three classes per semester; the study indicates that such a measure would reduce the number of faculty needed at a 10,000-student campus by 17 percent.[9]
Pay for performance
Some medical schools, faced with shrinking patient revenues and increased competition for research grants, are changing the way professors are paid. Tenured faculty members are expected to help support themselves with patient revenues or grants.
The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that the University of Texas medical schools at Galveston and Houston have adopted compensation plans that divide salaries for some faculty into "core" and "at risk" portions. The Galveston campus sets the core, or guaranteed, portion as a percentage of the average salary reported by the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) for professors in comparable jobs. The campus currently guarantees 80 percent of the AAMC average. The at-risk portion of the salary fluctuates depending on the productivity of faculty members and their departments.[10]
A similar idea has been suggested at the general academic level. A 1992 joint report of the State Higher Education Executive Officers and Education Commission of the States outlined "An Agenda for Reshaping Faculty Productivity." One of the ideas included was to "dramatically increase the proportion of annual personal rewards which must be earned each year." A base salary would be guaranteed and the remainder of the annual salary would be earned by achieving specific accomplishments for the year.[11]
Small classes
Small classes represent another inefficient use of faculty resources. Concern about small classes may seem odd given national concern over large classes; nevertheless, classes with two or three graduate students, or five or six undergraduate students, are common enough to represent a drain on faculty productivity.
The Texas Education Code defines "small" classes as undergraduate-level courses with less than ten registrations and graduate-level courses with less than five. The Code requires that "No small classes shall be offered in any institution except as authorized by the appropriate governing board, within the guidelines established by the Coordinating Board."[12] Using the statutory definitions, fall 1995 small classes cut across institutional levels. Seventy-seven percent of state-funded small classes were at the undergraduate level, 13 percent at the masters level, and 10 percent at the doctoral level.[13]
Small classes essentially are--or should be--a concern for college managers. While the number of classes offered does not affect state support, undersized classes do affect institutional costs. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board estimates that a 1 percent reduction in the number of classes offered by Texas universities could potentially make $7 million available for other purposes.[14]
Class size also affects faculty teaching loads. A faculty member teaching two graduate classes of four students each would fulfill workload requirements at some research institutions. Ironically, as Texas developed performance measures to discourage overly large classes and encourage more undergraduate teaching by tenured faculty, it contributed to funding unrealistically small classes.
At least one institution has attempted to address the proliferation of small classes; Arizona State University's College of Liberal Arts and Sciences has changed its definition for undersized graduate classes from five to ten students. If course enrollment drops below ten, the class is dropped and the instructor is assigned to another class.[15]
Recommendations
A. State law should require the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) to establish classroom (lectures and seminars) teaching load standards for professors, associate professors, and assistant professors at all general academic institutions by September 1, 1998. THECB standards should be used to evaluate and make funding adjustments for funding base periods beginning summer 1998. Until that time, the standards derived by TPR should be used to evaluate faculty teaching loads and make funding adjustments.
The new standards should be developed according to Carnegie Classifications. To establish reliable peer comparisons, THECB should gather current information on practices in other states, although this should not be the only criterion considered. THECB should consider input from both academic and non-academic representatives to ensure that it develops reasonable standards. The methodology used to develop the standards, and variances from the TPR recommended standards, should be documented.
TPR standards should be in effect for the formula funding base period for fiscal 1998 and 1999 appropriations and should be used to evaluate teaching loads and make funding adjustments for the 32 institutions included in the TPR review. THECB standards should apply to formula funding base periods beginning with the fiscal 2000 appropriations for all general academic institutions.
B. State law should direct THECB to determine annually for each general academic institution, the number of classes and semester credit hours taught by tenure-track faculty. Institutions whose teaching loads fall below standard should be identified.
This information should be reported in a comparative format annually (by institution) to the Legislature and to each general academic institution (with general program area detail). Until consistent reporting requirements are established for all general program areas, reporting should be limited to the 10 areas reviewed by TPR.
THECB also should review and revise, as necessary, its reporting requirements and definitions to ensure consistent reporting for all program areas. If the new reporting requirements go into effect for the formula funding base period beginning summer 2000, data reported should be consistent across all program areas beginning with fiscal 2002 appropriations.
C. State law should reduce formula-funded general revenue appropriations for general academic institutions not meeting minimum classroom teaching loads. The reductions should be in proportion to the difference between the actual and standard teaching loads. TPR standards should be used for fiscal 1998 and 1999 appropriations, and THECB standards thereafter.
This recommendation would not restrict institutions' ability to support reduced teaching loads from other resources, but would reduce the state's share of the burden. Reducing funding for institutions not meeting teaching load standards should encourage reasonable teaching loads and increased use of senior faculty in the classroom.
Institutions would be encouraged to manage their faculty resources to balance the impact of faculty with reduced teaching loads with faculty assigned heavier loads. The amount of the funding reduction is performance-based since it is determined by the size of the variance between the standard and actual classroom teaching loads.
As noted above, these reductions would apply to the 10 programs at 32 institutions reviewed by TPR until consistent reporting of data for all program areas is established. Since the faculty salary formula funding base period for both years of the biennium is the year immediately preceding the first year of the biennium, proportional calculations for all programs would not begin until fiscal 2002.[16]
D. State law should reduce formula-funded general revenue appropriations to each university by the number of semester credit hours generated by undergraduate courses with fewer than 10 enrolled students and graduate classes with fewer than five enrolled students.
This recommendation would not restrict institutions' ability to pay for undersized classes from other resources, but would reduce general revenue funding for them.
THECB should be allowed to exclude any program approved as part of the South Texas initiatives of the 1991 and 1993 Legislatures from class-size limitations if it determines a critical need for small classes exists.
Fiscal Impact
TPR compared THECB class (lectures and seminars) data to tenure-track faculty FTEs for 10 general program areas to determine teaching workloads for graduate and undergraduate classes. These results were compared to TPR's standards and multiplied by the relevant semester credit hours and formula rates to determine savings. The calculations were done at the institution level and included fall and spring data only.
Since formula appropriations to general academic institutions are based on semester credit hours for the academic year immediately preceding the first year of the biennium, the semester credit hours used for fiscal 2000 appropriations may reflect increased faculty teaching loads. If teaching patterns do improve for the next funding base period, estimated general revenue savings from this recommendation should be recalculated for the next biennium.
THECB data on small classes was used to calculate savings by funding program for each institution.
To achieve savings to the General Revenue Fund, the Legislature should reduce appropriations for each general academic institution accordingly.
Fiscal Year Savings to the General Revenue Fund 1998 $28,178,000 1999 28,178,000 2000 28,178,000 2001 28,178,000 2002 28,178,000
Footnotes[1] Center for Higher Education and Educational Finance, Illinois State University, State Policy & Faculty Workload, by Edward R. Hines and J. Russell Higham, III (Normal, Illinois, March, 1996), p. 8.
[2] V.T.C.A., Education Code SS51.402(b).
[3] State Auditor's Office, An Information Report on Faculty Workload Policies and the Use of Faculty Teaching Resources at Four Research Universities (Austin, Texas, May 1994), p. 2.
[4] "The Work of Faculty: Expectations, Priorities, and Rewards," ACADEME (Washington, D.C., January-February 1994), p. 39.
[5] National Center for Education Statistics, Profiles of Faculty in Higher Education Institutions (Washington, D.C., August 1991), p. 70.
[6] University of California, Undergraduate Instruction and Faculty Teaching Activities (Oakland, California, March 1996), pp. 21- 35.
[7] The Florida State University System, Accountability Report (Tallahassee, Florida, January 1996), pp. 2-10.
[8] The University of Wisconsin System, Accountability for Achievement 1995 Report on Accountability Indicators, pp. 11-13.
[9] State Higher Education Executive Officers and the Education Commission of the States, A Case Study of Faculty Workload Issues in Arizona: Implications for State Higher Education Policy, by Stephen M. Jordan and Daniel T. Layzell (Denver, Colorado, November 1992), pp. 15-17.
[10] Katherine S. Mangan, "Medical Schools are Reining In the Salaries of Faculty Members," The Chronicle of Higher Education (July 26, 1996), p. A-16.
[11] State Higher Education Executive Officers and the Education Commission of the States, An Agenda for Reshaping Faculty Productivity, by Richard B. Heydinger and Hasan Simsek (Denver, Colorado, November 1992), pp. 21-22.
[12] V.T.C.A., Education Code SS51.403(d).
[13] Based on TPR calculations using fall 1995 data from The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.
[14] Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Texas General Academic Institutions Class Size Report, Academic Year 1994-95 (Austin, Texas, July 1995), p. 1.
[15] Arizona Board of Regents, Issues in Higher Education, #10 (Phoenix, Arizona, March 1994), p. 4.
[16] Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Formula Funding for Texas Institutions of Higher Education Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999 (Austin, Texas, January 1996), pp. B2-B8.
| Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts | Window on State Government Contact Us Privacy and Security Policy |