Kevin Kiley | Inside Higher Education
August 26, 2011
Texas Governor Rick Perry is surging in polls for the Republican nomination for president, but Francisco Cigarroa might be the Texan with the biggest political victory this week.
At a meeting of the University of Texas System’s Board of Regents on Thursday, Cigarroa, the system’s chancellor, presented a framework, which the board adopted unanimously, designed to improve accountability, outcomes, and efficiency at the system’s nine academic institutions and six health centers.
Cigarroa's plan, much like the efforts being pushed by Perry and conservative think tanks in the state, involves much more public reporting about faculty performance and focuses on using technology as a way to drive down college costs. But unlike those plans, it gives considerable leeway to campuses to determine how they will evaluate faculty members. It also avoids some of the controversial assumptions made by other reform efforts -- such as the view that there is a clear relationship between grants obtained and the value of research, or that student evaluations are the best way to measure a faculty member's teaching -- to which faculty members have objected.
The new plan is ambitious in its scope -- encompassing everything from a public database to evaluate faculty productivity to a new resource to develop online courses -- but its biggest success might be the fact that, so far, it has the support of groups on multiple sides of what has been a contentious debate about the future of higher education in Texas. The framework provides a rough outline for the system, and campuses will be left to figure out the details of exactly how they will meet the chancellor's goals, which could create tension down the road. But the fact that Cigarroa is being praised by conservative think tanks, faculty members, and even Perry is a notable departure from the rhetoric that has dominated higher-education talk in Texas.
“Chancellor Cigarroa’s action plan is the first step of many that will be needed for Texas public universities to achieve the important goals of greater transparency and accountability, improved use of resources, more world-class research and high-quality graduates, and reduced cost of higher education to students and taxpayers,” said David Guenthner, senior communications director for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank whose reform proposals have been at the center of many of the debates. “Today’s positive presentation is the beginning of the reform process, not the end – but it is a very good start.”
At the same time, the plan received approval from the Texas Coalition for Excellence in Higher Education, a group formed in opposition to the reforms being pushed by the Texas Public Policy Foundation. “Chancellor Cigarroa’s plan is in direct contrast to the simplistic, ill-conceived, and untested so-called ‘solutions’ being promoted by outside interest groups,” the coalition said in a statement. Democratic and Republican lawmakers also weighed in, supporting the chancellor's efforts.
Tim Allen, a professor at the U.T. Health Science Center in Tyler and chair of the University of Texas System Faculty Advisory Council, said in a presentation following Cigarroa that faculty approved of the plan.
During the past few years, system administrators, university faculty members, alumni groups, politicians, and think tanks have been embroiled in discussions about college costs, accountability, faculty productivity, and the value of research. The Texas Public Policy Foundation has pushed a series of contentious reforms called the "seven solutions" that include separating research and teaching budgets, placing more emphasis on student evaluations, and creating a separate accrediting body. The group has numerous ties to the governor (who has great influence on the direction of the state's public universities, having appointed every member of the state's six boards of regents), who has partially endorsed its reforms.
Officials stressed that such issues have come up in other states as well, and that the issues of college costs and accountability are not unique to Texas, just more high-profile. “Texas finds itself at the epicenter of the national debate on the future of higher education,” Cigarroa said on Thursday.
Efforts to impose parts of those reforms have not sat well with some faculty and alumni groups, who see them as overly simplistic and detrimental to the system in the long run, and particularly to the research mission. But several people involved in the system say the broad support for Cigarroa's plan, and the comprehensive nature of the plan itself, will likely help quell the disputes.
"I think we're mostly past all that now," said Charles Miller, former chairman of the Board of Regents, of the heated rhetoric. He said that in the beginning of the debates about faculty productivity and college costs, some regents and staff quickly moved ahead to solve problems before there was agreement about what the problems were, creating a lot of tension. "In the beginning, the process wasn't well done. But these are smart, capable people on these boards, and when they're being told they're doing something wrong, they dig in and work harder."
Senator Judith Zaffirini, a Democrat from Laredo who chairs the Senate's Higher Education Committee, said she hopes the plan serves as a "unifying force that looks beyond yesterday’s controversies and toward a brighter future."
The plan Cigarroa laid out Thursday is designed to make sure that taxpayers and students are getting their money's worth out of the system -- particularly at a time of diminished state revenue and rising student costs -- which has been a major goal of the reform efforts. "Our primary goal here is enhancing the University of Texas for students and their parents, maintaining high quality, while at the same time, figuring out how to reduce overall costs and cost per student," said Gene Powell, chairman of the Board of Regents, in an interview.
The reforms incorporate suggestions developed by two regents' committees created at the beginning of the year: one on productivity and efficiency, and another on blended and online learning. Faculty members and administrators, feeling like the board was trying to micromanage campus operations, objected to those committees. The board then vested more authority in Cigarroa to create the plan.
In presenting the framework Thursday, Cigarroa stressed that he didn't want to take a "one size fits all" approach. Instead he laid out broad goals while letting each campus determine the actual benchmarks it would use. "Innovation happens at the campus level," he said in an interview. "We're not going to be prescriptive, but we are going to hold them accountable on developing strategies."
In terms of undergraduate students, the framework calls on campuses to improve four-year graduation rates, increase the number of degrees granted, and reduce the financial impact of tuition on families. For each of these, the plan outlines smaller action items, such as tuition policies that encourage four-year graduation, and identifies individuals responsible for carrying them out on each campus.
One of the major pushes in the framework, growing out of the regents' committee, is a call to increase blended and online learning to drive down costs. The board authorized an investment of up to $50 million to create a new Institute for Transformational Learning. The institute will work with campuses to develop online learning resources.
The announcement comes slightly more than a year after the system shuttered the UT TeleCampus, a centralized office for distance-education programs. Administrators said that unlike TeleCampus, the new institute will be a bottom-up approach, with programs originating on campuses, which they hope will spur greater innovation.
It will be left to the individual campuses to hammer out the details for many of the reforms advanced for improving faculty accountability and productivity, including strengthening annual evaluations and post-tenure review and implementing incentive-based compensation.
The system is already working on developing a publicly available dashboard that will present detailed information about department and individual professor productivity that administrators can use to make decisions. Cigarroa stressed that the exact information included in the dashboard has yet to be determined and that each campus will be able to determine its own set of metrics.
The selection of metrics will likely be a contentious issue down the road. Recent efforts to hold professors more accountable, such as lists of professors based on how many students they teach compared to their salaries, have not been greeted warmly by faculty members, who said they felt like they were under attack.
Other reforms include finding new ways to fund and collaborate on research projects, promote shorter completion times for Ph.D.s, and develop health and educational opportunities in South Texas -- including investment in UT-Brownsville, which used to operate jointly with a community college, to make the university a stand-alone four-year institution.
Actual implementation of the plans will take place over the next few years, as campus presidents and administrators determine actual metrics on which to measure performance and productivity.
Miller, who said he has been pushing for similar reforms for years and has been critical of both sides of the debate, said the board and Cigarroa deserve praise for tackling a politically dangerous issue. "There are quite a few people who should take responsibility for not having this discussion sooner," he said."This kind of thing takes leadership at the state policy level, at all levels, and the board should be commended for what they've done.
Showing posts with label accountability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label accountability. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Monday, October 10, 2011
Number of Texas schools not meeting federal requirements skyrockets
By TAWNELL D. HOBBS | Dallas Morning News
04 August 2011
The number of Texas schools failing to make adequate progress under federal law skyrocketed partly because the state eliminated a rule that allowed some students who failed state exams to be counted as passing.
The dramatic rise was also driven by federal standards that become more difficult to clear each year.
Texas schools failing to make “adequate yearly progress” under the No Child Left Behind Act increased to 2,233 from 368 last year, according to preliminary results released Thursday by the Texas Education Agency.
Districts didn’t fare much better — 605 missed the standard, up from 250. That means 49 percent of districts are not in compliance.
The number of Dallas ISD nonqualifying schools increased to 83 from 30. Houston ISD increased to 75 from 20, while Fort Worth increased to 76 from 20.
Texas Education Agency officials said the elimination of the Texas Projection Measure probably played a big role coupled with the climbing federal standards. The projection measure gave schools credit for students who failed the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills but were predicted to pass in the future.
Last year, 78 percent of schools that met the federal standard benefited from the projection measure, said TEA spokeswoman DeEtta Culbertson. She added that student passage rates on state tests help determine if adequate yearly progress is met under the federal definition.
The required passing rates under federal guidelines this year were 80 percent in reading and 75 percent in math. Individual student groups, such as white, black, and Hispanic, also had to meet the requirements. Last year, the required passing rates were 73 percent in reading and 67 percent in math.
The law requires that 100 percent of students be proficient in both subjects by 2014.
Other factors taken into consideration include attendance and graduation rates.
Culbertson said that the basic federal standards this year are similar to standards required to achieve the state’s second-highest performance rating, “recognized.” But even some schools that did well in the state rating system this year did not meet the federal requirement, including Liberty High School in Frisco and Allen High School, which both received the state’s “recognized” rating last week but did not meet the federal standard.
Despite the increase in schools on the list, Culbertson noted that a majority of them met the federal standard.
“We still have two-thirds of our campuses meeting AYP,” she said.
Schools that don’t meet the federal standard and receive Title 1 federal funding are subject to corrective action, from restructuring and replacing staff to closure.
Campuses must meet the federal standard for two consecutive schools years to be considered making progress.
Dallas ISD Interim Superintendent Alan King said in a news release Thursday that the district makes no excuses for student performance under the federal guidelines. But he noted that 2011 TAKS results for DISD showed overall gains in math and a half-point decline in reading.
“The annual ratcheting up of standards is catching up with our district and does not necessarily reflect on the quality of teaching or opportunities available to students whose campuses did not meet AYP status,” he said.
04 August 2011
The number of Texas schools failing to make adequate progress under federal law skyrocketed partly because the state eliminated a rule that allowed some students who failed state exams to be counted as passing.
The dramatic rise was also driven by federal standards that become more difficult to clear each year.
Texas schools failing to make “adequate yearly progress” under the No Child Left Behind Act increased to 2,233 from 368 last year, according to preliminary results released Thursday by the Texas Education Agency.
Districts didn’t fare much better — 605 missed the standard, up from 250. That means 49 percent of districts are not in compliance.
The number of Dallas ISD nonqualifying schools increased to 83 from 30. Houston ISD increased to 75 from 20, while Fort Worth increased to 76 from 20.
Texas Education Agency officials said the elimination of the Texas Projection Measure probably played a big role coupled with the climbing federal standards. The projection measure gave schools credit for students who failed the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills but were predicted to pass in the future.
Last year, 78 percent of schools that met the federal standard benefited from the projection measure, said TEA spokeswoman DeEtta Culbertson. She added that student passage rates on state tests help determine if adequate yearly progress is met under the federal definition.
The required passing rates under federal guidelines this year were 80 percent in reading and 75 percent in math. Individual student groups, such as white, black, and Hispanic, also had to meet the requirements. Last year, the required passing rates were 73 percent in reading and 67 percent in math.
The law requires that 100 percent of students be proficient in both subjects by 2014.
Other factors taken into consideration include attendance and graduation rates.
Culbertson said that the basic federal standards this year are similar to standards required to achieve the state’s second-highest performance rating, “recognized.” But even some schools that did well in the state rating system this year did not meet the federal requirement, including Liberty High School in Frisco and Allen High School, which both received the state’s “recognized” rating last week but did not meet the federal standard.
Despite the increase in schools on the list, Culbertson noted that a majority of them met the federal standard.
“We still have two-thirds of our campuses meeting AYP,” she said.
Schools that don’t meet the federal standard and receive Title 1 federal funding are subject to corrective action, from restructuring and replacing staff to closure.
Campuses must meet the federal standard for two consecutive schools years to be considered making progress.
Dallas ISD Interim Superintendent Alan King said in a news release Thursday that the district makes no excuses for student performance under the federal guidelines. But he noted that 2011 TAKS results for DISD showed overall gains in math and a half-point decline in reading.
“The annual ratcheting up of standards is catching up with our district and does not necessarily reflect on the quality of teaching or opportunities available to students whose campuses did not meet AYP status,” he said.
Schools struggle to catch up to No Child rules
By JENNIFER RADCLIFFE | HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Aug. 4, 2011,
A record number of school districts missed federal standards as Texas continued its uphill march toward No Child Left Behind targets.
Statewide, 605 districts — or 49.3 percent - failed to make "adequate yearly progress" during the 2010-2011 school year as defined by No Child Left Behind, according to data released Thursday by the Texas Education Agency.
Houston and North Forest are on the list of repeat failures. Galena Park, Galveston, Pasadena and Clear Creek ISDs also failed to make adequate progress for at least two consecutive years.
Several districts, including HISD and Klein, failed because they exceeded a federal limit by testing more than 3 percent of special education students with alternative assessments.
"It is unfortunate that when the number of special education students reaches the predetermined cap, students beyond the cap are considered to have failed the test, even if in reality, they achieved a passing score," Klein Superintendent Jim Cain said.
Tougher to pass
The number of failing districts more than doubled since last year, when the so-called Texas Projection measure spared 175 districts. That growth measure, which credited students for expected future progress, was discontinued this year. Districts also faced tougher passing standards.
Eighty percent of students needed to pass the language arts test, compared to 73 percent in 2010. The passing rate for the math test jumped to 75 percent, from 67 percent in 2010.
U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan warned Congress earlier this year that 82 percent of schools nationwide were on pace to fail. In Texas, individual campuses fared better, with just 26 percent missing the mark.
Florida and New Mexico topped that with failure rates of 89 and 87 percent, respectively.
Other states had much lower rates: Only 11 percent of Wisconsin schools and 20 percent of Rhode Island schools failed to meet the standard.
Several HISD schools, including Jones, Lee, Westbury, Wheatley, Worthing and Yates high schools, face sanctions for the first or second year.
"We'll make sure we're in compliance with the requirements," HISD spokesman Jason Spencer said.
All students are expected to pass reading and math exams by 2014 under the federal law championed by former President George W. Bush in 2001. Schools are also rated either on attendance or graduation rates.
Scott Imberman, a University of Houston economics professor, called the goal unrealistic and the ratings meaningless.
"I personally just ignore them," he said, adding that a more accurate measure would include a student growth component.
'Eye-opening'
While parents would have a hard time using the ratings to judge schools, the focus on standardized testing over the last decade has had a tremendous impact on teachers and schools, said Melissa Pierson, associate dean for the College of Education at the University of Houston.
Many of the changes are beneficial - the high-stake climate is even prompting UH to raise admissions standards for teachers-to-be. Teachers must be able to produce results, she said.
"We need to be able to produce teachers who know how to use data and read data," Pierson said. "It's very eye-opening."
Districts have until Sept. 2 to appeal the ratings.
jennifer.radcliffe@chron.com
Aug. 4, 2011,
A record number of school districts missed federal standards as Texas continued its uphill march toward No Child Left Behind targets.
Statewide, 605 districts — or 49.3 percent - failed to make "adequate yearly progress" during the 2010-2011 school year as defined by No Child Left Behind, according to data released Thursday by the Texas Education Agency.
Houston and North Forest are on the list of repeat failures. Galena Park, Galveston, Pasadena and Clear Creek ISDs also failed to make adequate progress for at least two consecutive years.
Several districts, including HISD and Klein, failed because they exceeded a federal limit by testing more than 3 percent of special education students with alternative assessments.
"It is unfortunate that when the number of special education students reaches the predetermined cap, students beyond the cap are considered to have failed the test, even if in reality, they achieved a passing score," Klein Superintendent Jim Cain said.
Tougher to pass
The number of failing districts more than doubled since last year, when the so-called Texas Projection measure spared 175 districts. That growth measure, which credited students for expected future progress, was discontinued this year. Districts also faced tougher passing standards.
Eighty percent of students needed to pass the language arts test, compared to 73 percent in 2010. The passing rate for the math test jumped to 75 percent, from 67 percent in 2010.
U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan warned Congress earlier this year that 82 percent of schools nationwide were on pace to fail. In Texas, individual campuses fared better, with just 26 percent missing the mark.
Florida and New Mexico topped that with failure rates of 89 and 87 percent, respectively.
Other states had much lower rates: Only 11 percent of Wisconsin schools and 20 percent of Rhode Island schools failed to meet the standard.
Several HISD schools, including Jones, Lee, Westbury, Wheatley, Worthing and Yates high schools, face sanctions for the first or second year.
"We'll make sure we're in compliance with the requirements," HISD spokesman Jason Spencer said.
All students are expected to pass reading and math exams by 2014 under the federal law championed by former President George W. Bush in 2001. Schools are also rated either on attendance or graduation rates.
Scott Imberman, a University of Houston economics professor, called the goal unrealistic and the ratings meaningless.
"I personally just ignore them," he said, adding that a more accurate measure would include a student growth component.
'Eye-opening'
While parents would have a hard time using the ratings to judge schools, the focus on standardized testing over the last decade has had a tremendous impact on teachers and schools, said Melissa Pierson, associate dean for the College of Education at the University of Houston.
Many of the changes are beneficial - the high-stake climate is even prompting UH to raise admissions standards for teachers-to-be. Teachers must be able to produce results, she said.
"We need to be able to produce teachers who know how to use data and read data," Pierson said. "It's very eye-opening."
Districts have until Sept. 2 to appeal the ratings.
jennifer.radcliffe@chron.com
Sunday, July 31, 2011
‘Unacceptable’ schools grow fivefold in Texas
New standards have parents scratching heads
By ERICKA MELLON | HOUSTON CHRONICLE
July 30, 2011
The number of academically unacceptable public schools in Texas increased more than fivefold this year after the state raised standards, leaving parents with a confusing picture of districts' progress.
Houston-area schools saw a similar shake-up in their accountability ratings, which the state released Friday. Fewer campuses earned the highest honors, and more landed on the troubled list.
The ratings plunge is largely due to the state no longer using a statistical measure that gave credit for failing test scores if the students were on track to pass in coming years.
"It's very important for parents to remember that the standards substantially increased this year," said Debbie Ratcliffe, spokeswoman for the Texas Education Agency.
In the Houston Independent School District, the "unacceptable" campuses more than tripled to 25 — or 9 percent of its rated schools.
Statewide, about 7 percent of schools netted the lowest rating this year. The unacceptable list grew from 104 schools to 569.
Four of the nine schools in HISD's Apollo reform program were "unacceptable" despite millions of extra dollars spent on improvement. HISD spokesman Jason Spencer said the turnaround effort is a three-year initiative, and Apollo is entering its second year.
Kashmere and Jones high schools and Attucks and Ryan middle schools were the low performers among the Apollo campuses. Kashmere has been rated unacceptable for three straight years. Lee and Sharpstown high schools and Key Middle School came off the state's worst list, moving from unacceptable to acceptable.
Schools and districts with the lowest standing face sanctions from the TEA such as appointed monitors and mandatory staff overhauls.
The ratings, from best to worst, are exemplary, recognized, acceptable and unacceptable.
Cypress-Fairbanks ISD, honored last year as the state's largest "recognized" district, dropped to "acceptable." HISD, the biggest district, also was "acceptable."
Among the area's other large districts, Katy, Pasadena, Conroe, Alief, Klein, Clear Creek, Humble, Lamar Consolidated, Galena Park and Pearland earned "recognized" status.
"This is a significant accomplishment for our district considering we achieved it under much stricter and higher accountability standards," said Alief Superintendent H.D. Chambers, who took the helm of the district in April.
The ratings are based mostly on how well students perform on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills exams in reading, writing, math, science and social studies. Schools must hit targets for all students and for different racial and socioeconomic groups. Schools' graduation and dropout rates also count.
Changes to the accountability system, in addition to the end of the so-called Texas Projection Measure, made it harder for districts to meet the standards.
All the test scores of special-education students were counted for the first time. Schools also had to ensure that at least 60 percent of their students with limited English skills passed the state exams to earn the two highest ratings. And the passing standards on the math and science tests — traditionally the hardest for students — increased by five percentage points.
This is the last year for the TAKS testing program, which began in 2003. Schools will get a one-year reprieve from ratings as students take the new exams, expected to be more challenging.
Test scores traditionally rise over the years as teachers and students get used to the format of an exam. Statewide, at least 90 percent of students passed the TAKS in reading, writing and social studies this year. At least 80 percent passed in math and science.
HISD saw its scores remain mostly flat this year. The district's passing rate in math rose two points to 83 percent, while writing dropped two points to 91 percent.
"Schools have a pretty good routine based on the TAKS," said state Rep. Rob Eissler, a Republican from The Woodlands who chairs the House Public Education Committee. "It will change when we get to the (new) end-of-course exams and the STAAR tests."
The State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness will replace the TAKS.
Friendswood ISD was the only traditional school district in the greater Houston area to earn the state's highest rating of "exemplary." The charter schools YES Prep, Harmony School of Science, Harmony School of Excellence and Houston Heights Learning Academy also earned the top status.
Statewide, 14.5 percent of charter schools were dubbed "unacceptable," compared with 6 percent of traditional campuses. Charter schools are public schools with certain freedoms from state law.
KIPP, one of Houston's most popular charter school networks, had its first "unacceptable" campus. Three schools earned the highest rating, and the other 14 were split between "recognized" and "acceptable."
Mike Feinberg, KIPP's co-founder, said he was not surprised that KIPP's Sunnyside High School rated low because it opened in 2010 with 120 ninth-graders. He said it takes time to catch up the students.
"If this was a full-sized high school, I would be in the hospital right now having a stroke," he said. "But it's the first year out of the gate."
Three area districts — Hitchcock, La Marque and North Forest — were rated "unacceptable" overall. The TEA is planning to close North Forest ISD in 2012 after its streak of poor academic and financial marks.
By ERICKA MELLON | HOUSTON CHRONICLE
July 30, 2011
The number of academically unacceptable public schools in Texas increased more than fivefold this year after the state raised standards, leaving parents with a confusing picture of districts' progress.
Houston-area schools saw a similar shake-up in their accountability ratings, which the state released Friday. Fewer campuses earned the highest honors, and more landed on the troubled list.
The ratings plunge is largely due to the state no longer using a statistical measure that gave credit for failing test scores if the students were on track to pass in coming years.
"It's very important for parents to remember that the standards substantially increased this year," said Debbie Ratcliffe, spokeswoman for the Texas Education Agency.
In the Houston Independent School District, the "unacceptable" campuses more than tripled to 25 — or 9 percent of its rated schools.
Statewide, about 7 percent of schools netted the lowest rating this year. The unacceptable list grew from 104 schools to 569.
Four of the nine schools in HISD's Apollo reform program were "unacceptable" despite millions of extra dollars spent on improvement. HISD spokesman Jason Spencer said the turnaround effort is a three-year initiative, and Apollo is entering its second year.
Kashmere and Jones high schools and Attucks and Ryan middle schools were the low performers among the Apollo campuses. Kashmere has been rated unacceptable for three straight years. Lee and Sharpstown high schools and Key Middle School came off the state's worst list, moving from unacceptable to acceptable.
Schools and districts with the lowest standing face sanctions from the TEA such as appointed monitors and mandatory staff overhauls.
The ratings, from best to worst, are exemplary, recognized, acceptable and unacceptable.
Cypress-Fairbanks ISD, honored last year as the state's largest "recognized" district, dropped to "acceptable." HISD, the biggest district, also was "acceptable."
Among the area's other large districts, Katy, Pasadena, Conroe, Alief, Klein, Clear Creek, Humble, Lamar Consolidated, Galena Park and Pearland earned "recognized" status.
"This is a significant accomplishment for our district considering we achieved it under much stricter and higher accountability standards," said Alief Superintendent H.D. Chambers, who took the helm of the district in April.
The ratings are based mostly on how well students perform on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills exams in reading, writing, math, science and social studies. Schools must hit targets for all students and for different racial and socioeconomic groups. Schools' graduation and dropout rates also count.
Changes to the accountability system, in addition to the end of the so-called Texas Projection Measure, made it harder for districts to meet the standards.
All the test scores of special-education students were counted for the first time. Schools also had to ensure that at least 60 percent of their students with limited English skills passed the state exams to earn the two highest ratings. And the passing standards on the math and science tests — traditionally the hardest for students — increased by five percentage points.
This is the last year for the TAKS testing program, which began in 2003. Schools will get a one-year reprieve from ratings as students take the new exams, expected to be more challenging.
Test scores traditionally rise over the years as teachers and students get used to the format of an exam. Statewide, at least 90 percent of students passed the TAKS in reading, writing and social studies this year. At least 80 percent passed in math and science.
HISD saw its scores remain mostly flat this year. The district's passing rate in math rose two points to 83 percent, while writing dropped two points to 91 percent.
"Schools have a pretty good routine based on the TAKS," said state Rep. Rob Eissler, a Republican from The Woodlands who chairs the House Public Education Committee. "It will change when we get to the (new) end-of-course exams and the STAAR tests."
The State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness will replace the TAKS.
Friendswood ISD was the only traditional school district in the greater Houston area to earn the state's highest rating of "exemplary." The charter schools YES Prep, Harmony School of Science, Harmony School of Excellence and Houston Heights Learning Academy also earned the top status.
Statewide, 14.5 percent of charter schools were dubbed "unacceptable," compared with 6 percent of traditional campuses. Charter schools are public schools with certain freedoms from state law.
KIPP, one of Houston's most popular charter school networks, had its first "unacceptable" campus. Three schools earned the highest rating, and the other 14 were split between "recognized" and "acceptable."
Mike Feinberg, KIPP's co-founder, said he was not surprised that KIPP's Sunnyside High School rated low because it opened in 2010 with 120 ninth-graders. He said it takes time to catch up the students.
"If this was a full-sized high school, I would be in the hospital right now having a stroke," he said. "But it's the first year out of the gate."
Three area districts — Hitchcock, La Marque and North Forest — were rated "unacceptable" overall. The TEA is planning to close North Forest ISD in 2012 after its streak of poor academic and financial marks.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Why UT and A&M Need to Change Their Ways
Texas has two middling public universities. It's time they reward professors who can actually teach.
by Wick Allison | D Magazine AUG 2011
7.20.2011
The chancellor at Texas A&M is forced to retire. A special adviser hired by the UT Board of Regents lasts 49 days before he is fired.
The turmoil that has roiled Texas’ top public universities for three years shows no signs of abating—and for a very good reason. Across the nation, student costs are soaring, graduation rates are declining, and the quality of graduates is being challenged by employers. Remarking on the disparity between rising costs and declining performance, the president of Ohio State, which ranks between UT Austin and A&M in the U.S. News & World Report list of best national schools, said that “higher education faces a simple choice: reinvention or extinction.”
In Texas, we have one great research university, Rice, which consistently ranks among the top 20 universities in the United States. We also have two middling ones, UT Austin and Texas A&M, which usually rank somewhere in the top 70.
Research universities are economic engines, there’s no doubt about it. But it took an Austin entrepreneur and teacher named Jeff Sandefer to ask a question that is starting to reverberate in Texas and throughout the nation. Sandefer’s question is: what is it about a research university that makes it an economic engine?
Is it the actual research itself? Or is it the professors who are attracted to a university because of its research? Is it quantitative research, the lab work of biologists and engineers and computer scientists? Is it the ability to attract grants from the federal government and foundations? Is it the ability to turn laboratory ideas into commercial applications? What is the contribution of qualitative research, the ongoing scholarship of English and history and philosophy professors?
Might it be, Sandefer asked, that teaching is the greatest economic contribution a research university can make? Could it be that accomplished students are worth more to Texas than research grants?
In 2001, when Larry Summers took over as president of Harvard University, he found a situation not unlike what exists today at UT and A&M. Tenured professors had delegated teaching to graduate assistants while they pursued their specialized subjects. Undergraduates were considered a nuisance. Research and publishing were the keys to academic recognition. Summers challenged professors to get back into the classroom. His position was unpopular. But it probably saved Harvard’s reputation as the best undergraduate college in America.
Today at Harvard, as at Rice, tenured professors teach freshmen, sometimes in seminars as small as eight to 15 students. The days are gone when a great research university could attract faculty and allow them only to pursue ever more specialized study, which, when they had to teach, they then inflicted on undergraduates.
Sandefer has proposed a series of reforms for Texas that would reset faculty standards. He suggests splitting research and teaching budgets to encourage excellence in both. More important—and this is where a culture change really takes effect—he thinks evidence of teaching skill should be required for tenure. And he thinks our universities should publicly recognize and reward professors who demonstrate extraordinary teaching ability.
The reaction has been heated. University administrators have circled the wagons. They’ve pulled in the Association of American Universities (a consortium of university presidents and chancellors), contacted major donors, and gone to the Legislature. A widely publicized study by the Center for College Affordability and Productivity in support of the reforms turned out to have conflated data on part-time and full-time professors, making it seem as if 20 percent of the faculty did 57 percent of the teaching (which is not true). The mistake gave the administration the ammunition it needed just at the moment it needed it most.
I sympathize with the administrators and the faculty. It is tough to work one’s entire professional career under one set of standards and expectations, only to be told that they no longer apply. (I know. I’m in the media business.) But the fact is, the system of measurements and rewards will change. It has to. The present incentives lead in the wrong direction. The costs of faculty-run universities are too high. Neither our state government nor the middle class these universities were built to serve can afford them.
Jeff Sandefer has been ahead of the curve. It is urgent that our two major public universities get ahead of the curve themselves.
Write to wick@dmagazine.com
Texas bucks U.S. trend on standardized scoring
It will tally multiracial students but not report their scores separately
By JENNIFER RADCLIFFE | HOUSTON CHRONICLE
July 25, 2011
Multiracial students are being tallied for the first time in Texas history, but their standardized test scores won't appear as a separate group when accountability ratings are released Friday.
As it grapples with increasing diversity, Texas has opted not to measure the scores of the state's 78,419 multiracial, non-Hispanic students as an ethnic subgroup whose performance matters in determining whether a school made "adequate yearly progress."
Instead, they'll join the ranks of the 180,000 Asian students lumped in with their schools' entire student body for accountability purposes.
Texas continues to only hold three racial subgroups accountable: whites, blacks and Hispanics. Other states have expanded their systems to measure as many as eight ethnic and racial groups.
"I don't know why Texas would go back, while the rest of the country is going forward," said Susan Graham, a founder of Project RACE, a California-based group that advocates for multiracial students.
Racial and ethnic categories are important not only to students' sense of identity, but also to the researchers and educators who depend on accurate data on high-stakes tests to determine campus rankings and bonus pay, among other decisions. Schools can face sanctions as serious as being closed based on the performance of students in one ethnic subgroup.
A 2007 federal mandate now requires all states to ask student whether they are Hispanic or not Hispanic, and then whether they are white, black, Asian, American Indian or one of two new categories — Native Hawaiian or two or more races.
While Hispanic students may identify themselves as multiracial, the federal government has ruled that they won't be included in that tally. They want accurate results, but they don't want to gather cumbersome amounts of data.
"Through this system, there will be no double reporting of persons identifying with multiple races," according to a U.S. Department of Education document on the decision.
It's up to each state, however, to decide which racial groups to measure separately in its ratings. The Texas Education Agency has said a racial group should make up at least 10 percent of the state's student population to trigger inclusion.
African Americans, the smallest group in Texas, slipped to 13 percent in 2010, down 1 percentage point with the introduction of the multiracial category.
About 1.6 percent of Texas students identify themselves as "two or more races." (The percentage jumps to 3.4 when you exclude the 2.5 million Hispanic students who are ineligible under the federal guidelines.)
While Texas is sticking to its three racial categories, California - where 1.8 percent of student are multiracial - is among those expanding to include the group. Any California school with more than 100 multiracial students will be measured on those students' performance. State officials weren't sure how many campuses, if any, had a high enough concentration to be included in the ratings, which will be released there in August.
Some scores moved
As Texas transitions to the new categories this year, state officials have opted to return some multiracial students' scores to their previous category, if records indicate that the student was originally listed as white or African American. Their scores will only count in that previous category if they improve the school's rating.
State officials said they're aware of the concerns that could be created this year by allowing students to be moved between categories. The TEA will analyze data from districts and campuses with significant discrepancies in the percentages of multiracial students between fall 2010 and spring 2011, spokeswoman DeEtta Culbertson said.
Houston-area officials said they aren't sure what the new categories will mean to their ratings. Many districts have small numbers of multiracial students - Galena Park reported 110 - so chances are they would be inconsequential this year.
But the category is expected to grow quickly. Texas had 679,001 people self-identify as "two or more races" in the 2010 Census, up 32 percent from 2000.
'Part of both of us'
Advocates worry that the new guidelines don't allow students to accurately and specifically report their race and ethnicity. Many Hispanics, for instance, feel discounted because they cannot be considered multiracial, Graham said.
West Orange-Cove ISD parent Evelyn Smith is glad she no longer has to decide whether she should mark her mixed-race children as white or African-American. While they may look more like their father, Smith said she didn't like being cut out of the genetic equation.
"They're part of both of us," she said.
But the additional category is a hurdle for researchers attempting to track trends over time, said Bob Sanborn, CEO of Children at Risk, a Houston-based advocacy group.
"If you're trying to understand school performance under a microscope, mixed race is not really helpful," he said. "Multiracial doesn't act in a particular way."
Educators could, however, use the category to hide children whose performance could hurt another subgroup, he said.
"I like the idea of a mixed race category. I think it's a reflection of reality," Sanborn said. "It's a good thing for society. Researchers are going to have to adjust."
Resources
NEW NUMBERS
The latest standardized tests in Texas add two subgroups.
2010-11 enrollment
• Hispanic: 2,480,000
• White: 1,538,409
• Black: 637,722
• Asian: 169,338
• 2 or More Races: 78,419
• American Indian: 23,602
• Native Hawaiian: 6,127
2009-10 Enrollment
• Hispanic: 2,354,042
• White: 1,615,459
• Black: 679,351
• Native American: 18,984
• Asian / Pacific Islander: 180,008
Different mixes
2010 breakdown for Texas' non-Hispanic "2 or more race" students
• 29,770 were Black/African American and white
• 14,980 were white and Asian
• 14,810 were American Indian/Alaska Native and white
• Remainder were distributed among 23 other combinations
jennifer.radcliffe@chron.com
By JENNIFER RADCLIFFE | HOUSTON CHRONICLE
July 25, 2011
Multiracial students are being tallied for the first time in Texas history, but their standardized test scores won't appear as a separate group when accountability ratings are released Friday.
As it grapples with increasing diversity, Texas has opted not to measure the scores of the state's 78,419 multiracial, non-Hispanic students as an ethnic subgroup whose performance matters in determining whether a school made "adequate yearly progress."
Instead, they'll join the ranks of the 180,000 Asian students lumped in with their schools' entire student body for accountability purposes.
Texas continues to only hold three racial subgroups accountable: whites, blacks and Hispanics. Other states have expanded their systems to measure as many as eight ethnic and racial groups.
"I don't know why Texas would go back, while the rest of the country is going forward," said Susan Graham, a founder of Project RACE, a California-based group that advocates for multiracial students.
Racial and ethnic categories are important not only to students' sense of identity, but also to the researchers and educators who depend on accurate data on high-stakes tests to determine campus rankings and bonus pay, among other decisions. Schools can face sanctions as serious as being closed based on the performance of students in one ethnic subgroup.
A 2007 federal mandate now requires all states to ask student whether they are Hispanic or not Hispanic, and then whether they are white, black, Asian, American Indian or one of two new categories — Native Hawaiian or two or more races.
While Hispanic students may identify themselves as multiracial, the federal government has ruled that they won't be included in that tally. They want accurate results, but they don't want to gather cumbersome amounts of data.
"Through this system, there will be no double reporting of persons identifying with multiple races," according to a U.S. Department of Education document on the decision.
It's up to each state, however, to decide which racial groups to measure separately in its ratings. The Texas Education Agency has said a racial group should make up at least 10 percent of the state's student population to trigger inclusion.
African Americans, the smallest group in Texas, slipped to 13 percent in 2010, down 1 percentage point with the introduction of the multiracial category.
About 1.6 percent of Texas students identify themselves as "two or more races." (The percentage jumps to 3.4 when you exclude the 2.5 million Hispanic students who are ineligible under the federal guidelines.)
While Texas is sticking to its three racial categories, California - where 1.8 percent of student are multiracial - is among those expanding to include the group. Any California school with more than 100 multiracial students will be measured on those students' performance. State officials weren't sure how many campuses, if any, had a high enough concentration to be included in the ratings, which will be released there in August.
Some scores moved
As Texas transitions to the new categories this year, state officials have opted to return some multiracial students' scores to their previous category, if records indicate that the student was originally listed as white or African American. Their scores will only count in that previous category if they improve the school's rating.
State officials said they're aware of the concerns that could be created this year by allowing students to be moved between categories. The TEA will analyze data from districts and campuses with significant discrepancies in the percentages of multiracial students between fall 2010 and spring 2011, spokeswoman DeEtta Culbertson said.
Houston-area officials said they aren't sure what the new categories will mean to their ratings. Many districts have small numbers of multiracial students - Galena Park reported 110 - so chances are they would be inconsequential this year.
But the category is expected to grow quickly. Texas had 679,001 people self-identify as "two or more races" in the 2010 Census, up 32 percent from 2000.
'Part of both of us'
Advocates worry that the new guidelines don't allow students to accurately and specifically report their race and ethnicity. Many Hispanics, for instance, feel discounted because they cannot be considered multiracial, Graham said.
West Orange-Cove ISD parent Evelyn Smith is glad she no longer has to decide whether she should mark her mixed-race children as white or African-American. While they may look more like their father, Smith said she didn't like being cut out of the genetic equation.
"They're part of both of us," she said.
But the additional category is a hurdle for researchers attempting to track trends over time, said Bob Sanborn, CEO of Children at Risk, a Houston-based advocacy group.
"If you're trying to understand school performance under a microscope, mixed race is not really helpful," he said. "Multiracial doesn't act in a particular way."
Educators could, however, use the category to hide children whose performance could hurt another subgroup, he said.
"I like the idea of a mixed race category. I think it's a reflection of reality," Sanborn said. "It's a good thing for society. Researchers are going to have to adjust."
Resources
NEW NUMBERS
The latest standardized tests in Texas add two subgroups.
2010-11 enrollment
• Hispanic: 2,480,000
• White: 1,538,409
• Black: 637,722
• Asian: 169,338
• 2 or More Races: 78,419
• American Indian: 23,602
• Native Hawaiian: 6,127
2009-10 Enrollment
• Hispanic: 2,354,042
• White: 1,615,459
• Black: 679,351
• Native American: 18,984
• Asian / Pacific Islander: 180,008
Different mixes
2010 breakdown for Texas' non-Hispanic "2 or more race" students
• 29,770 were Black/African American and white
• 14,980 were white and Asian
• 14,810 were American Indian/Alaska Native and white
• Remainder were distributed among 23 other combinations
jennifer.radcliffe@chron.com
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Higher Education Coalition attack on Perry raises eyebrows
William Lutz | Lone Star Report
7/8/2011
The Coalition for Excellence in Higher Education – a group that supports higher education reform ideas offered by the state’s university presidents and chancellors and has expressed concerns with some higher education reform ideas offered from outside academia – fired a rhetorical howitzer at Gov. Rick Perry yesterday. Political observers in Texas are left wondering why the organization chose to attack Perry by name and how this will play out.
The coalition’s main communications consultants used to work for U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and former president George W. Bush, two elected officials whose political interests have not always aligned perfectly with those of Perry. A member of the coalition’s operating committee, former ambassador and Higher Education Coordinating Board Chair Pamela Willeford, said she has supported Perry, and the organization is bipartisan and is about higher education, not partisan politics. She also said that decisions about what statements to issue are made by the organization’s operating committee, not its consultants.
Wednesday, the University of Texas at Austin College of Liberal Arts Dean Randy Diehl issued a report blasting “7 Breakthrough Solutions for Higher Education” proposed by Texas philanthropist Jeff Sandefer and supported by the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The coalition issued a statement supporting the report and calling on elected officials to distance themselves from the 7 Solutions.
Perry’s communications director Mark Miner issued a statement expressing disappointment that University of Texas administrators are so resistant to the governor’s cost control and reform ideas. "University faculty and their allies should join the reform efforts and recommend ways to innovate, improve graduation rates, and enhance accountability and efficiency at Texas colleges and universities,” Miner said. “We all have an obligation to meet the needs of Texas students, employers, taxpayers and our fast-growing economy. Resisting reform and accountability is an unsustainable recipe for mediocrity and stagnation. Texas deserves better."
Some Austin observers thought that finished that story.
But then on Thursday, the Coalition sent out a response to Miner’s statement that has grass-roots conservatives scratching their heads. The statement both attacks Perry by name and also attacks the Texas K-12 education system. This marks one of the first examples of this higher education debate, which previously centered on TPPF and comments made by University of Texas Regent Gene Powell, venturing into K-12 education. The attack on Perry and his K-12 education record comes right as conservatives nationwide are encouraging the governor to throw his hat into the presidential ring.
“It's unfortunate that the same week that the University of Texas at Austin’s President Powers announced a major initiative to improve college graduation rates, Governor Perry's spokesman chose to denigrate Texas universities rather than support their efforts to improve and reform,” read the Coalition’s statement forwarded to the press by Julie Shussler, a public relations official with the firm of Burson-Marsteller.“… If Governor Perry truly wants to reduce costs and improve productivity of higher education in Texas, he should start by focusing on improving the college readiness of Texas students. Unfortunately, Texas ranks a dismal 36th in the nation for high school graduation rates and 50th for percentage of Texans with a high school diploma. Today, Texas taxpayers are being double-charged—first to fund high school, then to fund remedial programs when students are unprepared to succeed in college.”
Willeford said the coalition worked hard to recruit a bipartisan base of support and that the group is focused on higher education. "Volunteers have come forward because they believe the discussion and the process is not what we want it to be," Willeford said. "I think that trying to throw it into a political statement; it's just not true."
When asked about the statement attacking Perry by name and why it was issued, Shussler replied, “The statement was a response from the Coalition, which includes more than 200 leading Texans, including many supporters of Governor Perry, who are concerned about the negative impact of some of his higher education proposals.”
Some grassroots conservatives are troubled. “I know that Perry’s uncompromising commitment to fiscal and social conservatism doesn’t always sit well with some of the more moderate members of the Republican Party,” said State Republican Executive Committee member Jason Moore, a talk radio talk show host on KWEL in Midland. “But I’m surprised that some of the business leaders who have joined this coalition would condone these kinds of cheap shots at Perry.”
Most of the coalition’s press releases are distributed by Jenifer Sarver, who used to work on Hutchison’s staff. Sarver is chief of staff to Karen Hughes, who used to work for Gov. and later President George W. Bush. Both currently work at the Austin office of Burson-Marsteller.
Willeford said that the Burson-Marsteller firm is a paid consultant to the coalition. “As far as what is put out by the coalition and what is posted on our website, all that goes through our operating committee,” she said. Willeford said the operating committee included herself, C. Patrick Oles, Jr., Kenneth Jastrow II, Melinda Hill Perrin, Gordon Appleman, and Charles W. Matthews. Willeford later added that “I have supported the governor [Perry] as long has he’s been running. “
But some Republican activists hope that this coalition will avoid messages that might be perceived as political attacks. “I sure hope that this coalition doesn’t allow former staffers for Hutchison and Bush to use the organization to attack Perry personally by name or harm his presidential chances in any way,” said Toby Marie Walker, a tea party activist in Waco, Texas. “Given the problems President Obama has created for our nation, the stakes are too high for that.”
When asked directly whether Perry’s presidential ambitions had anything to do with the statement the coalition issued attacking Perry by name, Willeford said, “Absolutely not. We are a group that is concerned with the debate about higher education and the direction higher education is going. We want to be sure that it’s a transparent process, as far as ideas that are being brought forward, and that is our focus.”
LSR also asked Willeford about the organization choosing to highlight the shortcomings of Texas’s K-12 education system. After all, when Hughes worked for Bush, she was one of the most passionate defenders of the state’s K-12 education system. (For example, Hughes told The New York Times Oct. 25, 2000: “indisputable independent data all show without a doubt that Texas leads the nation when it comes to improving student performance.”)
“This is a statement by the coalition. This is not a statement by Karen Hughes,” said Willeford when asked about whether a coalition whose communications consultant is Karen Hughes is in a position to highlight the shortcomings of the state’s public schools.
“We talked about K-12, because a lot of the problems that we have in higher education as far as graduation rates [are because] we’re getting kids [who] are not prepared coming into the system, and it’s taking a lot of remedial education,” added that she hoped the governor will focus on improving college preparation.
Later, LSR asked why – given that much of this debate has focused on the University of Texas at Austin – did the coalition choose to talk about the high number of students in developmental education. (State law requires students who do not achieve college-ready test scores to take developmental courses.)
Community colleges have many students in developmental education. But UT accepts only the best from Texas high school students. According to the School of Undergraduate Studies annual report, a mere 83 UT students required assistance in 2010 for failure to meet state college readiness standards.
“We’re talking about all of higher education in the state,” Willeford said, noting that Miner’s statement referenced the statewide four-year graduation rate, not the University of Texas at Austin graduation rate, which is substantially higher.
Many grass-roots conservatives, meanwhile, are praising Perry for taking on the higher education bureaucracy. “Those of us who are attending our state's universities or who have recently graduated know that our current system of higher education is morally bankrupt,” said Tony McDonald, senior vice president of the Young Conservatives of Texas. “The system puts undergraduate education on a back-burner in favor of the mass publication of largely useless scholarly articles. The system consumes large sums of tax revenue, while saddling graduates with massive student-loan debt. It is refreshing to see Governor Perry take the bold step of calling out our universities and demanding that they implement reform and accountability measures which will serve to protect both students and taxpayers.”
Here’s one thing we do know: the Coalition, and its supporters some of whom are prominent members of the Texas business community, has upped the ante by singling out Perry by name and responding to his chief spokesman in that manner.
\When asked about this issue by LSR, the governor’s office replied that the purpose of the statement was merely to underscore the governor’s priorities for Texas public colleges and universities. “[The governor’s plan] for higher education is to improve accountability, affordability, transparency, and accessibility,” said Catherine Frazier with the Governor’s Press Office. “Where we are right now is not cutting it … The governor is simply calling on university leaders to adopt these goals and work towards finding the best way to accomplish them for their respective universities. And he will continue holding those universities accountable to pursuing those goals until progress is made.”
7/8/2011
The Coalition for Excellence in Higher Education – a group that supports higher education reform ideas offered by the state’s university presidents and chancellors and has expressed concerns with some higher education reform ideas offered from outside academia – fired a rhetorical howitzer at Gov. Rick Perry yesterday. Political observers in Texas are left wondering why the organization chose to attack Perry by name and how this will play out.
The coalition’s main communications consultants used to work for U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and former president George W. Bush, two elected officials whose political interests have not always aligned perfectly with those of Perry. A member of the coalition’s operating committee, former ambassador and Higher Education Coordinating Board Chair Pamela Willeford, said she has supported Perry, and the organization is bipartisan and is about higher education, not partisan politics. She also said that decisions about what statements to issue are made by the organization’s operating committee, not its consultants.
Wednesday, the University of Texas at Austin College of Liberal Arts Dean Randy Diehl issued a report blasting “7 Breakthrough Solutions for Higher Education” proposed by Texas philanthropist Jeff Sandefer and supported by the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The coalition issued a statement supporting the report and calling on elected officials to distance themselves from the 7 Solutions.
Perry’s communications director Mark Miner issued a statement expressing disappointment that University of Texas administrators are so resistant to the governor’s cost control and reform ideas. "University faculty and their allies should join the reform efforts and recommend ways to innovate, improve graduation rates, and enhance accountability and efficiency at Texas colleges and universities,” Miner said. “We all have an obligation to meet the needs of Texas students, employers, taxpayers and our fast-growing economy. Resisting reform and accountability is an unsustainable recipe for mediocrity and stagnation. Texas deserves better."
Some Austin observers thought that finished that story.
But then on Thursday, the Coalition sent out a response to Miner’s statement that has grass-roots conservatives scratching their heads. The statement both attacks Perry by name and also attacks the Texas K-12 education system. This marks one of the first examples of this higher education debate, which previously centered on TPPF and comments made by University of Texas Regent Gene Powell, venturing into K-12 education. The attack on Perry and his K-12 education record comes right as conservatives nationwide are encouraging the governor to throw his hat into the presidential ring.
“It's unfortunate that the same week that the University of Texas at Austin’s President Powers announced a major initiative to improve college graduation rates, Governor Perry's spokesman chose to denigrate Texas universities rather than support their efforts to improve and reform,” read the Coalition’s statement forwarded to the press by Julie Shussler, a public relations official with the firm of Burson-Marsteller.“… If Governor Perry truly wants to reduce costs and improve productivity of higher education in Texas, he should start by focusing on improving the college readiness of Texas students. Unfortunately, Texas ranks a dismal 36th in the nation for high school graduation rates and 50th for percentage of Texans with a high school diploma. Today, Texas taxpayers are being double-charged—first to fund high school, then to fund remedial programs when students are unprepared to succeed in college.”
Willeford said the coalition worked hard to recruit a bipartisan base of support and that the group is focused on higher education. "Volunteers have come forward because they believe the discussion and the process is not what we want it to be," Willeford said. "I think that trying to throw it into a political statement; it's just not true."
When asked about the statement attacking Perry by name and why it was issued, Shussler replied, “The statement was a response from the Coalition, which includes more than 200 leading Texans, including many supporters of Governor Perry, who are concerned about the negative impact of some of his higher education proposals.”
Some grassroots conservatives are troubled. “I know that Perry’s uncompromising commitment to fiscal and social conservatism doesn’t always sit well with some of the more moderate members of the Republican Party,” said State Republican Executive Committee member Jason Moore, a talk radio talk show host on KWEL in Midland. “But I’m surprised that some of the business leaders who have joined this coalition would condone these kinds of cheap shots at Perry.”
Most of the coalition’s press releases are distributed by Jenifer Sarver, who used to work on Hutchison’s staff. Sarver is chief of staff to Karen Hughes, who used to work for Gov. and later President George W. Bush. Both currently work at the Austin office of Burson-Marsteller.
Willeford said that the Burson-Marsteller firm is a paid consultant to the coalition. “As far as what is put out by the coalition and what is posted on our website, all that goes through our operating committee,” she said. Willeford said the operating committee included herself, C. Patrick Oles, Jr., Kenneth Jastrow II, Melinda Hill Perrin, Gordon Appleman, and Charles W. Matthews. Willeford later added that “I have supported the governor [Perry] as long has he’s been running. “
But some Republican activists hope that this coalition will avoid messages that might be perceived as political attacks. “I sure hope that this coalition doesn’t allow former staffers for Hutchison and Bush to use the organization to attack Perry personally by name or harm his presidential chances in any way,” said Toby Marie Walker, a tea party activist in Waco, Texas. “Given the problems President Obama has created for our nation, the stakes are too high for that.”
When asked directly whether Perry’s presidential ambitions had anything to do with the statement the coalition issued attacking Perry by name, Willeford said, “Absolutely not. We are a group that is concerned with the debate about higher education and the direction higher education is going. We want to be sure that it’s a transparent process, as far as ideas that are being brought forward, and that is our focus.”
LSR also asked Willeford about the organization choosing to highlight the shortcomings of Texas’s K-12 education system. After all, when Hughes worked for Bush, she was one of the most passionate defenders of the state’s K-12 education system. (For example, Hughes told The New York Times Oct. 25, 2000: “indisputable independent data all show without a doubt that Texas leads the nation when it comes to improving student performance.”)
“This is a statement by the coalition. This is not a statement by Karen Hughes,” said Willeford when asked about whether a coalition whose communications consultant is Karen Hughes is in a position to highlight the shortcomings of the state’s public schools.
“We talked about K-12, because a lot of the problems that we have in higher education as far as graduation rates [are because] we’re getting kids [who] are not prepared coming into the system, and it’s taking a lot of remedial education,” added that she hoped the governor will focus on improving college preparation.
Later, LSR asked why – given that much of this debate has focused on the University of Texas at Austin – did the coalition choose to talk about the high number of students in developmental education. (State law requires students who do not achieve college-ready test scores to take developmental courses.)
Community colleges have many students in developmental education. But UT accepts only the best from Texas high school students. According to the School of Undergraduate Studies annual report, a mere 83 UT students required assistance in 2010 for failure to meet state college readiness standards.
“We’re talking about all of higher education in the state,” Willeford said, noting that Miner’s statement referenced the statewide four-year graduation rate, not the University of Texas at Austin graduation rate, which is substantially higher.
Many grass-roots conservatives, meanwhile, are praising Perry for taking on the higher education bureaucracy. “Those of us who are attending our state's universities or who have recently graduated know that our current system of higher education is morally bankrupt,” said Tony McDonald, senior vice president of the Young Conservatives of Texas. “The system puts undergraduate education on a back-burner in favor of the mass publication of largely useless scholarly articles. The system consumes large sums of tax revenue, while saddling graduates with massive student-loan debt. It is refreshing to see Governor Perry take the bold step of calling out our universities and demanding that they implement reform and accountability measures which will serve to protect both students and taxpayers.”
Here’s one thing we do know: the Coalition, and its supporters some of whom are prominent members of the Texas business community, has upped the ante by singling out Perry by name and responding to his chief spokesman in that manner.
\When asked about this issue by LSR, the governor’s office replied that the purpose of the statement was merely to underscore the governor’s priorities for Texas public colleges and universities. “[The governor’s plan] for higher education is to improve accountability, affordability, transparency, and accessibility,” said Catherine Frazier with the Governor’s Press Office. “Where we are right now is not cutting it … The governor is simply calling on university leaders to adopt these goals and work towards finding the best way to accomplish them for their respective universities. And he will continue holding those universities accountable to pursuing those goals until progress is made.”
Parsing the History of Perry's Higher Ed Battles
by Reeve Hamilton | Texas Tribune
July 12, 2011
In 2003, Gov. Rick Perry signed off one of the most significant policy changes in the history of Texas higher education. With both the state and its public universities strapped for cash, the decision was made to grant universities the autonomy to set tuition rates, freeing them from government regulation that had artificially kept Texas public higher education affordable for generations.
As expected, college costs in Texas ticked upward — a trend that looks likely to persist as the state’s contribution continues to decline. Texas Tech University in Lubbock, for example, has seen the state-funded portion of its budget drop from 56 percent in 1990 to 36 percent in 2010. After taking another cut this year, the Texas Tech University System regents — all Perry appointees — just hiked the tuition at their main campus by 5.9 percent and at Angelo State University by 9.9 percent. At the state’s flagship institutions, the numbers are even worse: State contributions make up 24 percent of Texas A&M University’s budget and 14 percent of the University of Texas' budget, down from 52 percent 30 years ago
It’s not the sort of trend that Perry — who often notes in his stump speeches that he is an animal-science graduate from Texas A&M — wants to be associated with. More recently, he has ramped up a public push for lower tuition while shifting blame to the universities by urging them to reduce inefficiencies.
“There are serious improvements that need to be made to our higher education system,” Perry spokeswoman Catherine Frazier says. “We have a great higher education system, but there are steps that need to be taken to improve it, and we can’t ignore what those needs are."
In recent months, the various forces in Perry’s conflicted higher ed history have come to a head. The result: an overwrought public identity crisis in the state’s higher education community, the resolution of which will likely define the governor’s legacy on the topic and could be a factor in any potential bid for higher office.
Among the issues at hand: Can access to higher education be expanded and tuition lowered without sacrificing quality? What role should academic research play at public universities? Who should and shouldn’t be managing the state’s educational institutions — and how are the current leaders doing so far?
Even before taking the helm of the state in late 2000, Perry showed interest in higher education. In 1999, as lieutenant governor, he established a Special Commission on 21st Century Colleges and Universities “to take a long-term look at improving higher education — its mission, its role in the new economy, and its accessibility and its affordability.”
The next year, worried about the quality of Texas’ higher education system and that it was lagging too far behind the country’s leaders, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, which monitors the implementation of the state’s higher ed policy, launched a 15-year initiative to bring the state up to a level of parity. Encouraged by the governor, it has seen success in some areas. But headed into the final four-year homestretch, challenges remain.
“Texas has done a much better job on access,” observes Bill Hammond, president of the Texas Association of Business. “Now we need to turn the directions toward completions.”
While Texas students are heading to college in greater number (and Texas Higher Education Commissioner Raymund Paredes anticipates they will reach the 2015 enrollment goal), they still struggle to come out of the system with a degree or certificate. As Mark Miner, the governor’s spokesman, noted in a recent press release calling on universities to “join the reform efforts,” the statewide four-year graduation rate is about 28.6 percent compared to a national average closer to 40 percent. Degrees conferred in science, technology, engineering and math fields are particularly behind in reaching the state’s goals, as are teacher certifications.
Hammond says the long-term workforce implications of such success rates should be of more concern than rising tuition. “It’s higher than anyone would like it to be, and that’s a hindrance,” he said, “but I don’t think that’s the issue.” For one thing, Hammond points out, before the cuts made in the just-ended legislative session, funds going toward financial aid had been increasing. Also, tuition in Texas remains relatively low — in the case of community colleges, extremely so.
Average tuition at a public two-year institution in Texas is $1,796, which is 45th among all the states. With an average tuition cost of $5,623, Texas’ public four-year institutions rank 28th. According to recently released U.S. Department of Education statistics, South Texas College in McAllen and the University of Texas-Pan American in Edinburg are the two most affordable colleges in the country.
And not everyone is troubled by recent trends. Randy Diehl, the dean of the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Texas at Austin, concedes that tuition increases have outpaced inflation, but argues that the average yearly increase in tuition since deregulation is less than average yearly increases in the decade preceding it.
Also, he says, if tuition were lowered, in order to maintain access, the portion of tuition that is currently set aside for financial aid would have to be replaced with increased funding from regressive sales taxes. “So in terms of what’s fair, socially and economically,” he says, “I would trade a higher tuition for a lower state contribution any day.”
In his State of the State address this year and in subsequent public remarks, Perry called for three things for higher education: a funding system that rewards outcomes, a four-year tuition freeze and the creation of a $10,000 bachelor’s degree — books included. But the proposals that have ended up getting the most attention are “seven breakthrough solutions” for higher education that Perry has been promoting behind the scenes for the last three years.
The proposals — which focus on the widely agreed upon goals of emphasizing quality teaching, efficiency and productivity — were written by Jeff Sandefer, a wealthy oil investor and founder of a private business school in Austin. He was one of the initial members of Lt. Gov. Perry’s special commission. After Sandefer’s proposals were unveiled at a summit in 2008, Perry made it clear that regents would be judged by what they did with the suggestions, and his office later emphasized that the initiatives — which have been deeply unpopular in academic circles — should be “regent driven."
The chief source of influence the governor has at a university stems from his power to appoint the members of the boards of regents, who are charged with the oversight of university systems including matters such as tuition increases and the hiring and firing of administrators.
Perry’s appointees haven’t always voted his way, one famous example being the most recent selection of the chancellor for the University of Texas System in 2009. Perry wanted former state Sen. John Montford, but the regents went with Dr. Francisco Cigarroa, who holds the post to this day. Scott Caven, who was the chairman of the UT board at the time, said it was the only issue he ever heard from Perry about while he served in that role. And even then, Caven recalls, Perry only said he was disappointed in the outcome.
“There was never any direct retribution on me,” Caven says, though that may not be true for others. A public dressing-down of UT regent Bob Rowling, the wealthy founder of TRT Holdings, by members of the Senate Finance Committee at a 2009 hearing, ostensibly about bonuses paid to employees of the UT System’s investment management company of which Rowling was serving as chairman, was widely viewed as his comeuppance for either supporting Cigarroa, or U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, in what was then an upcoming run at Perry’s seat, or both.
Perry’s influence has been detected by many in other administrative moves, such as the ousting of Elsa Murano as Texas A&M University president in 2009 and — though the current regent leaders deny it — the recent departure of A&M System Chancellor Mike McKinney, a former chief of staff to Perry who, perhaps ironically, as chancellor played a significant role in pushing Murano out.
McKinney and the A&M board of regents were the most active in implementing Sandefer’s “solutions,” though the few steps they did make did not meet with Sandefer’s approval — or the approval of the academic community. A spreadsheet of all the system’s faculty members that illustrated which ones brought in money and which didn’t drew a rebuke from the American Association of Universities, a prestigious group of research institutions. A program that gave cash awards to professors based solely on evaluations met with disapproval, and its termination was announced earlier this month.
The Texas Tech University System, which has thus far remained largely untouched by the back-and-forth, drafted a report similar to A&M’s in response to the proposals, but it did not delve into the specifics of individual faculty. Under pressure, the UT System published a massive spreadsheet of its faculty “productivity” earlier this year. As the implementation has progressed, especially at UT, so has the controversy.
Other proposals, such as the separation of teaching and research budgets, have been called “anti-research,” though Perry staffers are quick to point out that he has encouraged the commercialization of research. Though academics point out that much research cannot and is not meant to be commercialized. In 2009, Perry signed a landmark bill by House Higher Education Chairman Dan Branch, R-Dallas, that dedicated money to the creation of more public tier-one research universities (of which Texas only has two) throughout the state.
Branch is now a co-chairman, along with Senate Higher Education Chairwoman Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, of a new Joint Oversight Committee on Higher Education Governance, Excellence, and Transparency, which was created by the legislative leadership out of concern for the direction recently appointed regents — which many view to be more proactive than the governor’s previous selections — might take with regard to the “solutions.”
Some former regents, including Caven, who was at the initial rollout of the “seven breakthrough solutions” (at the time, his impression was that they were optional), helped with the creation of a new Texas Coalition for Excellence in Higher Education, a bipartisan group of prominent Texans who oppose Sandefer’s “solutions" (as the group's detractors point out, a number of the members also opposed the governor in during his re-election bid).
How the governor and his appointed regents handle the new legislative committee, which was created against Perry’s will, and the debate between the various outside organizations that are now focusing on the issue remains to be seen. As rising student debt becomes a national issue, the push for belt-tightening and lower tuition may strike a chord, even while the specific steps taken may be questioned.
“I certainly don’t think Rick Perry is the anti-education governor,” Caven says. “I just think that the of the proposals he and some of his appointees are suggesting seem to be overly simplistic solutions to very complex issues.”
Frazier, Perry’s spokeswoman, says that while the governor supports the goals of the “seven solutions,” he believes universities should find approaches to those goals that work best for their respective institutions. “The governor has always worked with lawmakers on all these issues. His focus right now is working with all of these respective parties to promote the goals of accessibility, affordability and transparency to bring tuition down and improve graduation rates.”
July 12, 2011
In 2003, Gov. Rick Perry signed off one of the most significant policy changes in the history of Texas higher education. With both the state and its public universities strapped for cash, the decision was made to grant universities the autonomy to set tuition rates, freeing them from government regulation that had artificially kept Texas public higher education affordable for generations.
As expected, college costs in Texas ticked upward — a trend that looks likely to persist as the state’s contribution continues to decline. Texas Tech University in Lubbock, for example, has seen the state-funded portion of its budget drop from 56 percent in 1990 to 36 percent in 2010. After taking another cut this year, the Texas Tech University System regents — all Perry appointees — just hiked the tuition at their main campus by 5.9 percent and at Angelo State University by 9.9 percent. At the state’s flagship institutions, the numbers are even worse: State contributions make up 24 percent of Texas A&M University’s budget and 14 percent of the University of Texas' budget, down from 52 percent 30 years ago
It’s not the sort of trend that Perry — who often notes in his stump speeches that he is an animal-science graduate from Texas A&M — wants to be associated with. More recently, he has ramped up a public push for lower tuition while shifting blame to the universities by urging them to reduce inefficiencies.
“There are serious improvements that need to be made to our higher education system,” Perry spokeswoman Catherine Frazier says. “We have a great higher education system, but there are steps that need to be taken to improve it, and we can’t ignore what those needs are."
In recent months, the various forces in Perry’s conflicted higher ed history have come to a head. The result: an overwrought public identity crisis in the state’s higher education community, the resolution of which will likely define the governor’s legacy on the topic and could be a factor in any potential bid for higher office.
Among the issues at hand: Can access to higher education be expanded and tuition lowered without sacrificing quality? What role should academic research play at public universities? Who should and shouldn’t be managing the state’s educational institutions — and how are the current leaders doing so far?
Even before taking the helm of the state in late 2000, Perry showed interest in higher education. In 1999, as lieutenant governor, he established a Special Commission on 21st Century Colleges and Universities “to take a long-term look at improving higher education — its mission, its role in the new economy, and its accessibility and its affordability.”
The next year, worried about the quality of Texas’ higher education system and that it was lagging too far behind the country’s leaders, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, which monitors the implementation of the state’s higher ed policy, launched a 15-year initiative to bring the state up to a level of parity. Encouraged by the governor, it has seen success in some areas. But headed into the final four-year homestretch, challenges remain.
“Texas has done a much better job on access,” observes Bill Hammond, president of the Texas Association of Business. “Now we need to turn the directions toward completions.”
While Texas students are heading to college in greater number (and Texas Higher Education Commissioner Raymund Paredes anticipates they will reach the 2015 enrollment goal), they still struggle to come out of the system with a degree or certificate. As Mark Miner, the governor’s spokesman, noted in a recent press release calling on universities to “join the reform efforts,” the statewide four-year graduation rate is about 28.6 percent compared to a national average closer to 40 percent. Degrees conferred in science, technology, engineering and math fields are particularly behind in reaching the state’s goals, as are teacher certifications.
Hammond says the long-term workforce implications of such success rates should be of more concern than rising tuition. “It’s higher than anyone would like it to be, and that’s a hindrance,” he said, “but I don’t think that’s the issue.” For one thing, Hammond points out, before the cuts made in the just-ended legislative session, funds going toward financial aid had been increasing. Also, tuition in Texas remains relatively low — in the case of community colleges, extremely so.
Average tuition at a public two-year institution in Texas is $1,796, which is 45th among all the states. With an average tuition cost of $5,623, Texas’ public four-year institutions rank 28th. According to recently released U.S. Department of Education statistics, South Texas College in McAllen and the University of Texas-Pan American in Edinburg are the two most affordable colleges in the country.
And not everyone is troubled by recent trends. Randy Diehl, the dean of the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Texas at Austin, concedes that tuition increases have outpaced inflation, but argues that the average yearly increase in tuition since deregulation is less than average yearly increases in the decade preceding it.
Also, he says, if tuition were lowered, in order to maintain access, the portion of tuition that is currently set aside for financial aid would have to be replaced with increased funding from regressive sales taxes. “So in terms of what’s fair, socially and economically,” he says, “I would trade a higher tuition for a lower state contribution any day.”
In his State of the State address this year and in subsequent public remarks, Perry called for three things for higher education: a funding system that rewards outcomes, a four-year tuition freeze and the creation of a $10,000 bachelor’s degree — books included. But the proposals that have ended up getting the most attention are “seven breakthrough solutions” for higher education that Perry has been promoting behind the scenes for the last three years.
The proposals — which focus on the widely agreed upon goals of emphasizing quality teaching, efficiency and productivity — were written by Jeff Sandefer, a wealthy oil investor and founder of a private business school in Austin. He was one of the initial members of Lt. Gov. Perry’s special commission. After Sandefer’s proposals were unveiled at a summit in 2008, Perry made it clear that regents would be judged by what they did with the suggestions, and his office later emphasized that the initiatives — which have been deeply unpopular in academic circles — should be “regent driven."
The chief source of influence the governor has at a university stems from his power to appoint the members of the boards of regents, who are charged with the oversight of university systems including matters such as tuition increases and the hiring and firing of administrators.
Perry’s appointees haven’t always voted his way, one famous example being the most recent selection of the chancellor for the University of Texas System in 2009. Perry wanted former state Sen. John Montford, but the regents went with Dr. Francisco Cigarroa, who holds the post to this day. Scott Caven, who was the chairman of the UT board at the time, said it was the only issue he ever heard from Perry about while he served in that role. And even then, Caven recalls, Perry only said he was disappointed in the outcome.
“There was never any direct retribution on me,” Caven says, though that may not be true for others. A public dressing-down of UT regent Bob Rowling, the wealthy founder of TRT Holdings, by members of the Senate Finance Committee at a 2009 hearing, ostensibly about bonuses paid to employees of the UT System’s investment management company of which Rowling was serving as chairman, was widely viewed as his comeuppance for either supporting Cigarroa, or U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, in what was then an upcoming run at Perry’s seat, or both.
Perry’s influence has been detected by many in other administrative moves, such as the ousting of Elsa Murano as Texas A&M University president in 2009 and — though the current regent leaders deny it — the recent departure of A&M System Chancellor Mike McKinney, a former chief of staff to Perry who, perhaps ironically, as chancellor played a significant role in pushing Murano out.
McKinney and the A&M board of regents were the most active in implementing Sandefer’s “solutions,” though the few steps they did make did not meet with Sandefer’s approval — or the approval of the academic community. A spreadsheet of all the system’s faculty members that illustrated which ones brought in money and which didn’t drew a rebuke from the American Association of Universities, a prestigious group of research institutions. A program that gave cash awards to professors based solely on evaluations met with disapproval, and its termination was announced earlier this month.
The Texas Tech University System, which has thus far remained largely untouched by the back-and-forth, drafted a report similar to A&M’s in response to the proposals, but it did not delve into the specifics of individual faculty. Under pressure, the UT System published a massive spreadsheet of its faculty “productivity” earlier this year. As the implementation has progressed, especially at UT, so has the controversy.
Other proposals, such as the separation of teaching and research budgets, have been called “anti-research,” though Perry staffers are quick to point out that he has encouraged the commercialization of research. Though academics point out that much research cannot and is not meant to be commercialized. In 2009, Perry signed a landmark bill by House Higher Education Chairman Dan Branch, R-Dallas, that dedicated money to the creation of more public tier-one research universities (of which Texas only has two) throughout the state.
Branch is now a co-chairman, along with Senate Higher Education Chairwoman Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, of a new Joint Oversight Committee on Higher Education Governance, Excellence, and Transparency, which was created by the legislative leadership out of concern for the direction recently appointed regents — which many view to be more proactive than the governor’s previous selections — might take with regard to the “solutions.”
Some former regents, including Caven, who was at the initial rollout of the “seven breakthrough solutions” (at the time, his impression was that they were optional), helped with the creation of a new Texas Coalition for Excellence in Higher Education, a bipartisan group of prominent Texans who oppose Sandefer’s “solutions" (as the group's detractors point out, a number of the members also opposed the governor in during his re-election bid).
How the governor and his appointed regents handle the new legislative committee, which was created against Perry’s will, and the debate between the various outside organizations that are now focusing on the issue remains to be seen. As rising student debt becomes a national issue, the push for belt-tightening and lower tuition may strike a chord, even while the specific steps taken may be questioned.
“I certainly don’t think Rick Perry is the anti-education governor,” Caven says. “I just think that the of the proposals he and some of his appointees are suggesting seem to be overly simplistic solutions to very complex issues.”
Frazier, Perry’s spokeswoman, says that while the governor supports the goals of the “seven solutions,” he believes universities should find approaches to those goals that work best for their respective institutions. “The governor has always worked with lawmakers on all these issues. His focus right now is working with all of these respective parties to promote the goals of accessibility, affordability and transparency to bring tuition down and improve graduation rates.”
Monday, July 11, 2011
Higher ed critics target elusive 'lazy professor'
Reformers call for more teaching and less research
By MELISSA LUDWIG | STAFF WRITER
July 10, 2011,
Lazy professor, beware.
Your time delivering droning lectures and writing overwrought articles for obscure journals draws nigh. A posse of free-market thinkers led by a conservative Austin think tank wants to hold higher education accountable by weeding out bad teachers and unproductive researchers.
But how do you corner these elusive creatures? Their peers characterize the lazy professor as a rarity, quietly culled from the herd before earning tenure.
Critics, however, believe they are far more commonplace, and can be exposed by crunching numbers on teaching loads, research grants and student evaluations.
Some would like to do away with tenure, reasoning that professors would work harder if their contract came up every few years. Others, including Gov. Rick Perry, have suggested that professors should stick to research that "delivers real dollars."
Yet academics and a new coalition of higher education boosters say critics are on the wrong track if their goal is to improve Texas universities.
Those kinds of remarks about research, coupled with the release of reams of detailed salary and workload data for thousands of professors in the Texas A&M University and University of Texas Systems, have already bruised the national reputation of two well-regarded university systems, said John Curtis, director of research and public policy at the American Association of University Professors.
"People around the country are watching that and would be leery of taking a job at A&M or UT," Curtis said. "If it continues that way, it may be a detriment for all of public higher education."
Return on investment
Those who seek greater productivity insist the scrutiny is long overdue.
"All we've ever wanted to do with this issue is just have an open discussion about 'Are the taxpayers of the state of Texas getting a good return on their investment?' " Perry has said. "To be honest with you, we can't answer that unless we have openness and transparency in higher ed, and there's some that just block that."
In addition to the governor, the roster of change-seekers includes several university regents, some conservative lawmakers and wealthy Austin entrepreneur Jeff Sandefer. Many have ties to the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative Austin think tank that has acted as the movement's brain trust.
David Guenthner, a TPPF spokesman, said the cost of higher education has spiraled out of control, and many students are questioning whether it's a worthy investment.
In his view, tuition and state dollars subsidize the time professors spend writing journal articles of questionable value to society.
The system, he said, is set up to reward research with higher pay, professional kudos and a job for life, while good teaching often goes unrecognized.
As a result, Guenthner declared, students who pay top dollar for a flagship education spend a good deal of their first two years in huge lecture halls being taught by adjuncts rather than by tenured professors.
"The pendulum has probably swung more in the direction of research in recent years, to the detriment of teaching," he said. "We think there needs to be a better balance for the sake of Texas students."
Defining 'research'
Most universities break down the job of a professor as 40 percent teaching, 40 percent research, and 20 percent service.
Service is a broad category, but typically involves sitting on governance committees, which give tenured and tenure-track faculty a voice in hiring and other decision-making at the university.
Most professors will say it's dreary work and there are too many committees. But no one seems to be fighting over the 20 percent of time professors spend on service.
The debate has centered squarely on teaching and research.
The term "research" conjures images of professors in white coats playing with beakers, but for most scholars it means publishing books or articles in academic journals.
Ideally, these writings illuminate new knowledge in the field, whether a theory about the origins of hominids or consumer behavior in modern Latin America.
But in the opinion of the change-seekers — and more quietly, some within the ranks of academia - much of this scholarly output is of questionable worth.
"I would say that 90 percent of it is a waste," said J. Ronald Carey, professor emeritus of marketing at Our Lady of the Lake University. "I am hesitant to call it research."
Carey received his doctorate from UT-Austin and taught at George Washington University, which has high research activity, before taking a job at the Pentagon and later at OLLU in San Antonio. For Carey and his colleagues, "research" was issuing questionnaires to sophomores and spinning their answers into multiple publications.
"We would get the data and say, 'How many line items do you think we can get out of this?' " he said.
Playing the research game has its benefits, Carey said.
"The people producing research have lower class sizes, more favorable schedules and they get teaching assistants," he noted. "And if they are doing really well, they get offers from other schools and can lobby for higher pay. Teachers do not have that leverage."
Few would argue with the premise that research is critical for promotion, but many disagree that most of it is fireplace fodder.
"No one thought the double helix would have any practical value," said William Powers, president of UT-Austin. "The value is not always recognizable at the time. It's a little like your stock portfolio; you don't know what the winners and losers are going to be."
Defending 'soft research'
Research, especially in the sciences, is also a huge enterprise for Texas institutions, generating nearly $1.7 billion annually. A portion goes directly to the university to cover overhead, fund laboratory infrastructure, pay faculty salaries and support fellowships for graduate students.
But few are picking on research that can be measured in dollars. It's the ones that can't be measured that troubles some.
Academics defend so-called "soft research," saying it advances knowledge. The act of getting out in the field, reading new material, attending conferences and exchanging ideas helps professors keep curriculum fresh and up-to-date, to the benefit of students.
"It is very easy to teach the same thing over and over," said Renee Rubin, a professor of education who retired this year from UT- Brownsville. "I would not want to see the research component go."
However, Rubin said she would welcome more flexibility about what counts as research.
UTB is primarily a teaching institution, yet her bosses raised the bar on publications in recent years, expecting two or more a year from professors who teach four classes per semester.
"Personally, I am more of a teacher. That is why I went into it," Rubin said.
In the University of Texas System, regents require an average faculty teaching load of three classes per semester, but that doesn't mean every professor teaches exactly three.
A scientist at a Tier One research institution - especially if backed by a large grant - may not teach at all, while a professor such as Rubin may teach four courses and do a little scholarly work. However, that scientist may supervise a dozen master's degree and doctoral students in a lab, a task that's hard to separate from "teaching."
Averaged across the UT System from 2007 to 2010, faculty members exceeded the minimum, spending from 29 to 39 actual weekly clock hours on instruction, including grading papers and preparing for class, according to the system's records.
Solutions spelled out
Critics still complain, however, that tenured and tenure-track professors prefer small, upper-level seminars, leaving the grunt work of teaching broad introductory classes to instructors, adjuncts and teaching assistants.
Statewide, 65 percent of full-time equivalent faculty were tenured or tenure-track in 2010, yet they taught only 39 percent of lower division credit hours, according to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.
That isn't how it should be, according to Naomi Schaefer Riley, a former editor at the Wall Street Journal and author of The Faculty Lounges … And Other Reasons Why You Won't Get the College Education You Pay For.
"You want the most experienced teachers in front of the introductory classes because that is where it is hardest to engage students," Riley said.
The ideas are spelled out in Seven Breakthrough Solutions, written by Sandefer, promoted by TPPF and embraced by Perry.
Emails obtained through open records laws show that Perry and Sandefer have been leaning on university regents to implement the solutions since 2008, when they were introduced at an Austin summit.
Bonuses panned, dropped
The Texas A&M University System implemented the teaching bonuses, but they were panned by faculty at the flagship campus as a popularity contest. Research has shown that evaluations correlate closely with the grade students received in the class, and most administrators also rely on peer review when evaluating a professor's teaching skills.
Last week, the new interim A&M chancellor discontinued the teaching awards.
UT-Austin has taken a more targeted approach to the problem.
To give freshmen and sophomores more contact with senior faculty, UT has created seminar classes and research opportunities for those students.
Also, many large introductory courses are being redesigned to promote more active learning and improve success rates.
"These reforms have been going on for the last five years. Our faculty are behind (them)," Powers said.
By MELISSA LUDWIG | STAFF WRITER
July 10, 2011,
Lazy professor, beware.
Your time delivering droning lectures and writing overwrought articles for obscure journals draws nigh. A posse of free-market thinkers led by a conservative Austin think tank wants to hold higher education accountable by weeding out bad teachers and unproductive researchers.
But how do you corner these elusive creatures? Their peers characterize the lazy professor as a rarity, quietly culled from the herd before earning tenure.
Critics, however, believe they are far more commonplace, and can be exposed by crunching numbers on teaching loads, research grants and student evaluations.
Some would like to do away with tenure, reasoning that professors would work harder if their contract came up every few years. Others, including Gov. Rick Perry, have suggested that professors should stick to research that "delivers real dollars."
Yet academics and a new coalition of higher education boosters say critics are on the wrong track if their goal is to improve Texas universities.
Those kinds of remarks about research, coupled with the release of reams of detailed salary and workload data for thousands of professors in the Texas A&M University and University of Texas Systems, have already bruised the national reputation of two well-regarded university systems, said John Curtis, director of research and public policy at the American Association of University Professors.
"People around the country are watching that and would be leery of taking a job at A&M or UT," Curtis said. "If it continues that way, it may be a detriment for all of public higher education."
Return on investment
Those who seek greater productivity insist the scrutiny is long overdue.
"All we've ever wanted to do with this issue is just have an open discussion about 'Are the taxpayers of the state of Texas getting a good return on their investment?' " Perry has said. "To be honest with you, we can't answer that unless we have openness and transparency in higher ed, and there's some that just block that."
In addition to the governor, the roster of change-seekers includes several university regents, some conservative lawmakers and wealthy Austin entrepreneur Jeff Sandefer. Many have ties to the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative Austin think tank that has acted as the movement's brain trust.
David Guenthner, a TPPF spokesman, said the cost of higher education has spiraled out of control, and many students are questioning whether it's a worthy investment.
In his view, tuition and state dollars subsidize the time professors spend writing journal articles of questionable value to society.
The system, he said, is set up to reward research with higher pay, professional kudos and a job for life, while good teaching often goes unrecognized.
As a result, Guenthner declared, students who pay top dollar for a flagship education spend a good deal of their first two years in huge lecture halls being taught by adjuncts rather than by tenured professors.
"The pendulum has probably swung more in the direction of research in recent years, to the detriment of teaching," he said. "We think there needs to be a better balance for the sake of Texas students."
Defining 'research'
Most universities break down the job of a professor as 40 percent teaching, 40 percent research, and 20 percent service.
Service is a broad category, but typically involves sitting on governance committees, which give tenured and tenure-track faculty a voice in hiring and other decision-making at the university.
Most professors will say it's dreary work and there are too many committees. But no one seems to be fighting over the 20 percent of time professors spend on service.
The debate has centered squarely on teaching and research.
The term "research" conjures images of professors in white coats playing with beakers, but for most scholars it means publishing books or articles in academic journals.
Ideally, these writings illuminate new knowledge in the field, whether a theory about the origins of hominids or consumer behavior in modern Latin America.
But in the opinion of the change-seekers — and more quietly, some within the ranks of academia - much of this scholarly output is of questionable worth.
"I would say that 90 percent of it is a waste," said J. Ronald Carey, professor emeritus of marketing at Our Lady of the Lake University. "I am hesitant to call it research."
Carey received his doctorate from UT-Austin and taught at George Washington University, which has high research activity, before taking a job at the Pentagon and later at OLLU in San Antonio. For Carey and his colleagues, "research" was issuing questionnaires to sophomores and spinning their answers into multiple publications.
"We would get the data and say, 'How many line items do you think we can get out of this?' " he said.
Playing the research game has its benefits, Carey said.
"The people producing research have lower class sizes, more favorable schedules and they get teaching assistants," he noted. "And if they are doing really well, they get offers from other schools and can lobby for higher pay. Teachers do not have that leverage."
Few would argue with the premise that research is critical for promotion, but many disagree that most of it is fireplace fodder.
"No one thought the double helix would have any practical value," said William Powers, president of UT-Austin. "The value is not always recognizable at the time. It's a little like your stock portfolio; you don't know what the winners and losers are going to be."
Defending 'soft research'
Research, especially in the sciences, is also a huge enterprise for Texas institutions, generating nearly $1.7 billion annually. A portion goes directly to the university to cover overhead, fund laboratory infrastructure, pay faculty salaries and support fellowships for graduate students.
But few are picking on research that can be measured in dollars. It's the ones that can't be measured that troubles some.
Academics defend so-called "soft research," saying it advances knowledge. The act of getting out in the field, reading new material, attending conferences and exchanging ideas helps professors keep curriculum fresh and up-to-date, to the benefit of students.
"It is very easy to teach the same thing over and over," said Renee Rubin, a professor of education who retired this year from UT- Brownsville. "I would not want to see the research component go."
However, Rubin said she would welcome more flexibility about what counts as research.
UTB is primarily a teaching institution, yet her bosses raised the bar on publications in recent years, expecting two or more a year from professors who teach four classes per semester.
"Personally, I am more of a teacher. That is why I went into it," Rubin said.
In the University of Texas System, regents require an average faculty teaching load of three classes per semester, but that doesn't mean every professor teaches exactly three.
A scientist at a Tier One research institution - especially if backed by a large grant - may not teach at all, while a professor such as Rubin may teach four courses and do a little scholarly work. However, that scientist may supervise a dozen master's degree and doctoral students in a lab, a task that's hard to separate from "teaching."
Averaged across the UT System from 2007 to 2010, faculty members exceeded the minimum, spending from 29 to 39 actual weekly clock hours on instruction, including grading papers and preparing for class, according to the system's records.
Solutions spelled out
Critics still complain, however, that tenured and tenure-track professors prefer small, upper-level seminars, leaving the grunt work of teaching broad introductory classes to instructors, adjuncts and teaching assistants.
Statewide, 65 percent of full-time equivalent faculty were tenured or tenure-track in 2010, yet they taught only 39 percent of lower division credit hours, according to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.
That isn't how it should be, according to Naomi Schaefer Riley, a former editor at the Wall Street Journal and author of The Faculty Lounges … And Other Reasons Why You Won't Get the College Education You Pay For.
"You want the most experienced teachers in front of the introductory classes because that is where it is hardest to engage students," Riley said.
The ideas are spelled out in Seven Breakthrough Solutions, written by Sandefer, promoted by TPPF and embraced by Perry.
Emails obtained through open records laws show that Perry and Sandefer have been leaning on university regents to implement the solutions since 2008, when they were introduced at an Austin summit.
Bonuses panned, dropped
The Texas A&M University System implemented the teaching bonuses, but they were panned by faculty at the flagship campus as a popularity contest. Research has shown that evaluations correlate closely with the grade students received in the class, and most administrators also rely on peer review when evaluating a professor's teaching skills.
Last week, the new interim A&M chancellor discontinued the teaching awards.
UT-Austin has taken a more targeted approach to the problem.
To give freshmen and sophomores more contact with senior faculty, UT has created seminar classes and research opportunities for those students.
Also, many large introductory courses are being redesigned to promote more active learning and improve success rates.
"These reforms have been going on for the last five years. Our faculty are behind (them)," Powers said.
Monday, July 4, 2011
Attacking the Cost of College, From the Outside
In response to this article, check out this March 2011 article from the Daily Texan, "Program to redesign entry-level courses" that shows some of the teaching and curricular efforts UT is making. It parallels with what Dr. Ritter mentions below.
-Patricia
by Reeve Hamilton | Texas Tribune
July 4, 2011
If there was a theme to the just-concluded 82nd legislative session it was do more with less, and Rep. Dan Branch, Dallas Republican and chairman of the House Higher Education Committee, embraced it by attacking the cost of college from multiple angles. He pushed through legislation to try to lower what students spend on textbooks and to encourage that undergraduate students file — and stick to — degree plans.
Four miles away, on the second floor of a South Austin office building, Michael Crosno is working on the same issues by applying pressure from the outside. He is not a policy wonk. He is a businessman who has built and sold a string of successful software companies.
Not long ago, Crosno, 59, thought he would make the move into the education arena as a college instructor in business. But he did not have the influence he had hoped he would have.
“What I learned through teaching and being associated with educational institutions,” he said, “is you need more. A bunch of good teachers is wonderful, but it’s not going to solve the problems in higher ed.”
Crosno’s newest venture could make him a national player in efforts to reduce the time it takes a student to graduate — perhaps the most effective cost-savings method there is. Slightly more than half of all college students nationally graduate — if they graduate at all — in six years, not four.
“That’s one statistic that just drove me bozo,” Crosno said. “My goal is very simple: get more kids to go to college.”
In 2008, Crosno teamed with Chris Chilek and John Cunningham, two Texas A&M University graduates running Pick- a-Prof, a Web site best known for allowing students to rate their professors. The following year, the company was rebranded MyEdu, and its mission became more comprehensive.
“Just rating a professor is meaningless to me,” Crosno said. “It’s not going to help my daughter graduate. At the end of the day, what’s really important is how do you balance semester by semester, course by course, the workload over four or five years.”
The company’s revamped site still allows for professor ratings, but students can also customize a degree plan that matches their desired workload in each semester and, if they choose, can help them devise the quickest path to graduation. The company, which was recently featured in a United States Chamber of Commerce re- port on the future of higher education, claims that 70 percent of users graduate on time, nearly double the national average.
MyEdu now includes 775 colleges and universities, up from about 60 when Crosno joined. In the first five months of this year, he said, the site logged about 2.5 million users.
MyEdu also lets students compare textbook costs. Part of the money from sales made through the site comes back to the company, one revenue stream alongside contextual advertising and sponsored content. Crosno said early efforts to charge for MyEdu services fell flat.
But he is not convinced that shaving textbook costs will create the most meaningful savings for a student. For example, he said, more savings can be gained by taking advanced placement classes to reduce the courses that need to be taken on a degree plan.
The Austin office includes dozens of computer-science-minded 20-somethings engaged in constant, widespread data collection. Crosno said that of about 60 staff members, half focused on data collection — by scraping in- formation from public Web sites, submitting open-records re- quests, perusing course catalogs and gathering student comments — and the other half focused on turning that data into user- friendly applications.
“It’s a gold mine of data,” said Margaret Spellings, a former United States secretary of education, who is considering a formal business relationship with MyEdu.
“I don’t think Michael even knows what a powerful policy tool that thing can be, not only for consumers but for policy makers and for institutions themselves.” Spellings said.
About a year ago, Gretchen Ritter, a vice provost at the University of Texas at Austin, suggested to the registrar’s office that it pay attention to MyEdu with the hope of imitating some of its services. The university is currently revising its degree audit system, and Ritter hopes to include degree-planning features in the final product.
MyEdu “tells us where there is a felt need by our students for help or services,” she said.
She would not rule out using outside vendors, but said, “Most large universities tend to have a culture of ‘grow your own,’ when it comes to technology tools.”
Ritter said such technology could let advisers, swamped with students as enrollments increase and funding decreases, devote less time to paperwork and more to working with students on a developmental level.
Crosno said he anticipated that with resources likely to re- main scarce, public universities would be looking for more out- side partners. He also said he believes that the pressure from out- side private technology companies will have a more vivid impact on cost reduction than will legislation.
“Show me an industry where technology has not disrupted or made it more efficient,” he said, “and I’ll show you an archaic industry.”
-Patricia
by Reeve Hamilton | Texas Tribune
July 4, 2011
If there was a theme to the just-concluded 82nd legislative session it was do more with less, and Rep. Dan Branch, Dallas Republican and chairman of the House Higher Education Committee, embraced it by attacking the cost of college from multiple angles. He pushed through legislation to try to lower what students spend on textbooks and to encourage that undergraduate students file — and stick to — degree plans.
Four miles away, on the second floor of a South Austin office building, Michael Crosno is working on the same issues by applying pressure from the outside. He is not a policy wonk. He is a businessman who has built and sold a string of successful software companies.
Not long ago, Crosno, 59, thought he would make the move into the education arena as a college instructor in business. But he did not have the influence he had hoped he would have.
“What I learned through teaching and being associated with educational institutions,” he said, “is you need more. A bunch of good teachers is wonderful, but it’s not going to solve the problems in higher ed.”
Crosno’s newest venture could make him a national player in efforts to reduce the time it takes a student to graduate — perhaps the most effective cost-savings method there is. Slightly more than half of all college students nationally graduate — if they graduate at all — in six years, not four.
“That’s one statistic that just drove me bozo,” Crosno said. “My goal is very simple: get more kids to go to college.”
In 2008, Crosno teamed with Chris Chilek and John Cunningham, two Texas A&M University graduates running Pick- a-Prof, a Web site best known for allowing students to rate their professors. The following year, the company was rebranded MyEdu, and its mission became more comprehensive.
“Just rating a professor is meaningless to me,” Crosno said. “It’s not going to help my daughter graduate. At the end of the day, what’s really important is how do you balance semester by semester, course by course, the workload over four or five years.”
The company’s revamped site still allows for professor ratings, but students can also customize a degree plan that matches their desired workload in each semester and, if they choose, can help them devise the quickest path to graduation. The company, which was recently featured in a United States Chamber of Commerce re- port on the future of higher education, claims that 70 percent of users graduate on time, nearly double the national average.
MyEdu now includes 775 colleges and universities, up from about 60 when Crosno joined. In the first five months of this year, he said, the site logged about 2.5 million users.
MyEdu also lets students compare textbook costs. Part of the money from sales made through the site comes back to the company, one revenue stream alongside contextual advertising and sponsored content. Crosno said early efforts to charge for MyEdu services fell flat.
But he is not convinced that shaving textbook costs will create the most meaningful savings for a student. For example, he said, more savings can be gained by taking advanced placement classes to reduce the courses that need to be taken on a degree plan.
The Austin office includes dozens of computer-science-minded 20-somethings engaged in constant, widespread data collection. Crosno said that of about 60 staff members, half focused on data collection — by scraping in- formation from public Web sites, submitting open-records re- quests, perusing course catalogs and gathering student comments — and the other half focused on turning that data into user- friendly applications.
“It’s a gold mine of data,” said Margaret Spellings, a former United States secretary of education, who is considering a formal business relationship with MyEdu.
“I don’t think Michael even knows what a powerful policy tool that thing can be, not only for consumers but for policy makers and for institutions themselves.” Spellings said.
About a year ago, Gretchen Ritter, a vice provost at the University of Texas at Austin, suggested to the registrar’s office that it pay attention to MyEdu with the hope of imitating some of its services. The university is currently revising its degree audit system, and Ritter hopes to include degree-planning features in the final product.
MyEdu “tells us where there is a felt need by our students for help or services,” she said.
She would not rule out using outside vendors, but said, “Most large universities tend to have a culture of ‘grow your own,’ when it comes to technology tools.”
Ritter said such technology could let advisers, swamped with students as enrollments increase and funding decreases, devote less time to paperwork and more to working with students on a developmental level.
Crosno said he anticipated that with resources likely to re- main scarce, public universities would be looking for more out- side partners. He also said he believes that the pressure from out- side private technology companies will have a more vivid impact on cost reduction than will legislation.
“Show me an industry where technology has not disrupted or made it more efficient,” he said, “and I’ll show you an archaic industry.”
Monday, June 6, 2011
Switch to Outcomes-Based Higher Ed Funding Taking Time
by Reeve Hamilton | Texas Tribune
June 6, 2011
During the regular session, Gov. Rick Perry’s top legislative priority for higher education was the implementation of a new funding system that rewards universities for graduating more students, not just for getting students into classes. To reach its 2015 goals, Texas needs to increase the number of degrees awarded by 46,000 each year.
A financing system that includes more “outcomes-based funding” has strong support, including from Raymund Paredes, the Texas Higher Education Commissioner, and business leaders such as Woody Hunt of El Paso, who chairs the Governor’s Business Council. But policy makers have struggled to agree on which outcomes to measure, how to encourage them and if they should alter the funding formulas while budgets are being slashed.
House Higher Education Chairman Dan Branch, R-Dallas, passed a major bill on the subject this session. The final version approved by the full Legislature, however, stops short of actually implementing an outcomes-based system, and instead provides guidelines for the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and instructs the board to return next session with new proposals.
With the session over, Senate Higher Education Chairwoman Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, said the question was still “if, not when,” Texas might adopt such a system. The state’s current financing formula is based on course enrollment.
Even getting to this point has been difficult. Lawmakers rebuffed Paredes’ initial proposals for failing to target the right outcomes. His plan focused on course completions instead of graduations. After a new proposal was drawn, Branch had to convince House leaders that the approach was not related to controversial strategies pushed by Perry and the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative research group.
“This is serious higher education reform that a lot of folks have had input on,” Branch said. Some lawmakers concerns were also diminished by including requirements in the bill that reports be submitted to a new higher education oversight committee created in response to the controversy.
The Coordinating Board’s last proposal would tie financing to total degrees awarded, as well as to degrees awarded to at-risk students and in critical fields. It also would reward each institution for surpassing predicted graduation levels or penalize them for falling short. Under this proposal, some of the institutions that produce the most graduates, including the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University, appear to lose funding.
“How is it that an outcomes-based approach ends up diverting money away from the two most productive institutions in the state? That’s a puzzle,” said UT President Bill Powers.
Paredes says the coordinating has analyzed the changes universities could make to improve their results under this system, and he said, “Everything institutions need to do is good for Texas.”
The proposal was part of the original House version of the budget, but was omitted from the final product. Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, who chairs a key subcommittee, said it was included to express support for the idea — not for the methodology. “It’s such a mess — it’s sort of a black box,” he said. “I know the equations have been all laid out, but it’s hard to know what they all mean.”
Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin, concerned about pitting universities against each other in a “zero-sum game” during a time when budgets are shrinking, was among those who pushed for taking more time to find a better formula. “We want to do the appropriate, correct, visionary things to increase positive outcomes,” he said.
Watson emphasized the need for the Coordinating Board to offer options that rewarded outcomes without altering the baseline funding for universities, as well as options — like the one Paredes has pushed — that do make such changes. Other guidelines ultimately included in the bill were that no more than 10 percent of funding can be outcomes-based, and the coordinating board must ensure that it does not have a negative affect on graduate education.
Still, Paredes considers passage of the bill a success, and looks forward to strengthening his case for the most recent proposal and giving universities time to make necessary changes over the next two years. “We’ve essentially come to a concurrence that outcomes-based funding is something that we ought to do,” he said.
Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for Perry, said, “If it doesn’t accomplish what he wanted to, he’ll look forward to continuing to pursue that in the future.”
Meanwhile, referencing the public school finance debate that threw a wrench in the end of the regular session and is now continuing in a special session, Hochberg added, “It’s interesting to see that small variations in funding at the university are perceived to drive significant performance change, and large variations in funding at the K-12 level get written off as ‘Oh, stop griping, you’re just jealous.’”
University of Texas faculty workloads vary widely
By Richard Vedder | SPECIAL TO THE AMERICAN-STATESMAN
Saturday, June 4, 2011
The release of data on University of Texas faculty teaching loads, research grants and compensation has led to a firestorm of commentary, fanned in part by a Center for College Affordability and Productivity study by two of my colleagues, Jonathan Robe and Christopher Matgouranis, and myself, doing a preliminary analysis of some of the data. In that study, we argue that a reconfiguration of what faculty do at UT-Austin has great promise as a means of containing costs to both students and taxpayers.
The UT data reveal a dirty little secret that academics are loath to disclose: A relatively small portion of the faculty does most of the work. Twenty percent of them teach 57 percent of the students, for example, and the same proportion, 20 percent, generate an astonishing 99.8 percent of the external research funding received. But what about the other 60 percent of faculty (actually more, since some of the top researchers also have surprisingly high teaching loads)? They teach relatively modest numbers of students and receive little or no research money.
Professors in the humanities correctly argue that their disciplines generate little external research support. Yet a recent study by Canadian scholar Jeffrey Litwin suggests, after examining research at more than 70 top universities (including Texas A&M), that the average cost of producing a single published academic paper exceeds $72,000 (the figure for Texas A&M of more than $128,000 is the second highest of all universities examined). My guess is the typical article is read by perhaps 300 people, since a large portion of academic journals have a circulation of less than 1,000, so the average cost of producing an article runs more than $240 for every single reader. In short, we are producing a lot of marginal research at great cost but of dubious value.
The law of diminishing returns has reached higher education — Mark Bauerlein of Emory University tells us that we have published over 21,000 papers on William Shakespeare from 1980 to 2006. Wouldn't 5,000 papers have been enough? Are we really extending our knowledge and strengthening Western civilization by publishing those extra 16,000 papers?
If the 20 percent of faculty at UT teaching the most students were told to "keep doing what you are doing," and the rest were told to "teach half as much as those teaching the most," the number of faculty needed would be drastically reduced, potentially allowing tuition to be cut in half, state appropriations to be cut by an even greater percentage, or some combination of both (roughly 30 percent reductions in both tuition and appropriations).
Is that unreasonable? What is suggested is that the bulk of the faculty teaches on average around 450 credit hours a year, or roughly 150 students. A professor could do this by teaching a survey course to 100 students, two advanced undergraduate or graduate classes to 20 students each, and a graduate seminar to 10 students, being in the classroom six hours weekly for 32 weeks of the year. Some might be asked to teach a bit more to allow for reduced loads for those shouldering administrative duties like serving as department chair.
I managed to teach more than that over an active professional career and still published a number of books and scores of academic journal articles, and served as a visiting professor at schools rated higher than UT in magazine college rankings, etc. I did it by doing what other professionals (such as accountants, lawyers and physicians) do: I went to work at 8 or 9 in the morning and went home at 5:30 or so each evening, and I worked all but three or four weeks a year.
On a recent 10 a.m. Tuesday stroll past 24 offices in my department, I found three occupied. To be sure, two or three more colleagues probably were in class, meetings, or giving a paper elsewhere. Nonetheless, professors do not have the same work discipline as other professionals, and the slack is a major reason why faculty costs are so high.
I am not alone in believing this. Commenting in the American-Statesman on April 17, John Silber, a former dean of arts and sciences at UT and, at Boston University, one of the most esteemed university presidents of modern times, said: "I think the cost of education is largely a function of the reduction of productivity in the faculty and also the huge engorgement of administration. Today — in a typical university like Boston University — professors will teach one or two courses per semester. Well, that's not enough." He is absolutely right.
Changing teaching loads can be done in a way that adds to both efficiency and fairness. In some cases, the desired results can be obtained by the use of "carrots" (financial rewards) rather than "sticks" (compulsion). Some savings from reconfiguring teaching loads can be used to reward those who teach a lot and/or teach well.
One thing that the controversy over the data release and our interpretation of it has demonstrated is the radical disconnect between the views of people in the academy and other residents. A recent Pew Research Center poll showed 57 percent of respondents surveyed thought colleges delivered only poor or fair value to students, while 76 percent of university presidents thought these schools delivered excellent or good value. While we want to allow universities some independence to allow unpopular, diverse ideas to flourish, a big cost of this is the increasing divergence between what colleges do and what the public thinks they should be doing.
The "publish or perish" nature of the modern research university is revealed in the data. Salaries are far higher at research-intensive UT-Austin than at more teaching-oriented schools like UT-El Paso or UT-San Antonio. Beyond that, there are huge variations within UT-Austin, partly because of differences in research efforts but also partly because of huge pay differentials between disciplines (the typical accounting faculty member makes well over twice as much as the typical English professor, for example).
One result of the intense research orientation arising from huge financial incentives for research is that young faculty seem disengaged from teaching — the average teaching load of tenure-track faculty who have not yet been awarded tenure (most young assistant professors) is actually lower than that of tenured (and mostly older) faculty. The National Survey of Student Engagement data for UT-Austin suggest only 38 percent of students feel the faculty are "available, helpful and sympathetic"; students at UT-Austin rate their relationships with faculty at a lower level than students at some of the less research-oriented schools within the system.
Undergraduate students are being asked to shoulder a larger share of the cost of college, but they still are on average relatively neglected by faculty who shower attention on graduate students helping them with their research.
The most deplorable thing that has struck me, however, is not the evidence that many faculty seem to work at less than full capacity. Rather it is the attitude of the UT administration. Universities are in the business of transmitting and creating knowledge, but the UT administration has bitterly fought the release of data rightfully requested by the regents. For the school to put on every page of the 821-page compendium of data this — "The attached data spreadsheet in its current draft form are incomplete and have not yet been fully verified or cross referenced (and in) its present raw form it cannot yield accurate analysis, interpretations or conclusions" — is an affront to transparency and disclosure.
The statement of UT President William Powers Jr. that the study by the Center for College Affordability and Productivity was "inappropriate" is revealing in that it shows with crystal clarity the real problem, namely that the university leadership is either clueless or indifferent to the feelings and financial pressures faced by the people of the Lone Star State.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
The release of data on University of Texas faculty teaching loads, research grants and compensation has led to a firestorm of commentary, fanned in part by a Center for College Affordability and Productivity study by two of my colleagues, Jonathan Robe and Christopher Matgouranis, and myself, doing a preliminary analysis of some of the data. In that study, we argue that a reconfiguration of what faculty do at UT-Austin has great promise as a means of containing costs to both students and taxpayers.
The UT data reveal a dirty little secret that academics are loath to disclose: A relatively small portion of the faculty does most of the work. Twenty percent of them teach 57 percent of the students, for example, and the same proportion, 20 percent, generate an astonishing 99.8 percent of the external research funding received. But what about the other 60 percent of faculty (actually more, since some of the top researchers also have surprisingly high teaching loads)? They teach relatively modest numbers of students and receive little or no research money.
Professors in the humanities correctly argue that their disciplines generate little external research support. Yet a recent study by Canadian scholar Jeffrey Litwin suggests, after examining research at more than 70 top universities (including Texas A&M), that the average cost of producing a single published academic paper exceeds $72,000 (the figure for Texas A&M of more than $128,000 is the second highest of all universities examined). My guess is the typical article is read by perhaps 300 people, since a large portion of academic journals have a circulation of less than 1,000, so the average cost of producing an article runs more than $240 for every single reader. In short, we are producing a lot of marginal research at great cost but of dubious value.
The law of diminishing returns has reached higher education — Mark Bauerlein of Emory University tells us that we have published over 21,000 papers on William Shakespeare from 1980 to 2006. Wouldn't 5,000 papers have been enough? Are we really extending our knowledge and strengthening Western civilization by publishing those extra 16,000 papers?
If the 20 percent of faculty at UT teaching the most students were told to "keep doing what you are doing," and the rest were told to "teach half as much as those teaching the most," the number of faculty needed would be drastically reduced, potentially allowing tuition to be cut in half, state appropriations to be cut by an even greater percentage, or some combination of both (roughly 30 percent reductions in both tuition and appropriations).
Is that unreasonable? What is suggested is that the bulk of the faculty teaches on average around 450 credit hours a year, or roughly 150 students. A professor could do this by teaching a survey course to 100 students, two advanced undergraduate or graduate classes to 20 students each, and a graduate seminar to 10 students, being in the classroom six hours weekly for 32 weeks of the year. Some might be asked to teach a bit more to allow for reduced loads for those shouldering administrative duties like serving as department chair.
I managed to teach more than that over an active professional career and still published a number of books and scores of academic journal articles, and served as a visiting professor at schools rated higher than UT in magazine college rankings, etc. I did it by doing what other professionals (such as accountants, lawyers and physicians) do: I went to work at 8 or 9 in the morning and went home at 5:30 or so each evening, and I worked all but three or four weeks a year.
On a recent 10 a.m. Tuesday stroll past 24 offices in my department, I found three occupied. To be sure, two or three more colleagues probably were in class, meetings, or giving a paper elsewhere. Nonetheless, professors do not have the same work discipline as other professionals, and the slack is a major reason why faculty costs are so high.
I am not alone in believing this. Commenting in the American-Statesman on April 17, John Silber, a former dean of arts and sciences at UT and, at Boston University, one of the most esteemed university presidents of modern times, said: "I think the cost of education is largely a function of the reduction of productivity in the faculty and also the huge engorgement of administration. Today — in a typical university like Boston University — professors will teach one or two courses per semester. Well, that's not enough." He is absolutely right.
Changing teaching loads can be done in a way that adds to both efficiency and fairness. In some cases, the desired results can be obtained by the use of "carrots" (financial rewards) rather than "sticks" (compulsion). Some savings from reconfiguring teaching loads can be used to reward those who teach a lot and/or teach well.
One thing that the controversy over the data release and our interpretation of it has demonstrated is the radical disconnect between the views of people in the academy and other residents. A recent Pew Research Center poll showed 57 percent of respondents surveyed thought colleges delivered only poor or fair value to students, while 76 percent of university presidents thought these schools delivered excellent or good value. While we want to allow universities some independence to allow unpopular, diverse ideas to flourish, a big cost of this is the increasing divergence between what colleges do and what the public thinks they should be doing.
The "publish or perish" nature of the modern research university is revealed in the data. Salaries are far higher at research-intensive UT-Austin than at more teaching-oriented schools like UT-El Paso or UT-San Antonio. Beyond that, there are huge variations within UT-Austin, partly because of differences in research efforts but also partly because of huge pay differentials between disciplines (the typical accounting faculty member makes well over twice as much as the typical English professor, for example).
One result of the intense research orientation arising from huge financial incentives for research is that young faculty seem disengaged from teaching — the average teaching load of tenure-track faculty who have not yet been awarded tenure (most young assistant professors) is actually lower than that of tenured (and mostly older) faculty. The National Survey of Student Engagement data for UT-Austin suggest only 38 percent of students feel the faculty are "available, helpful and sympathetic"; students at UT-Austin rate their relationships with faculty at a lower level than students at some of the less research-oriented schools within the system.
Undergraduate students are being asked to shoulder a larger share of the cost of college, but they still are on average relatively neglected by faculty who shower attention on graduate students helping them with their research.
The most deplorable thing that has struck me, however, is not the evidence that many faculty seem to work at less than full capacity. Rather it is the attitude of the UT administration. Universities are in the business of transmitting and creating knowledge, but the UT administration has bitterly fought the release of data rightfully requested by the regents. For the school to put on every page of the 821-page compendium of data this — "The attached data spreadsheet in its current draft form are incomplete and have not yet been fully verified or cross referenced (and in) its present raw form it cannot yield accurate analysis, interpretations or conclusions" — is an affront to transparency and disclosure.
The statement of UT President William Powers Jr. that the study by the Center for College Affordability and Productivity was "inappropriate" is revealing in that it shows with crystal clarity the real problem, namely that the university leadership is either clueless or indifferent to the feelings and financial pressures faced by the people of the Lone Star State.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Policy Report Says Reform Critical to Viability of U.S. Higher Education
Interesting article on both higher education accountability and degree completion. Everyone is jumping to weigh in. Check out the full report "Front and Center: Critical Choices for Higher Education."
-Patricia
by Jamaal Abdul-Alim , May 26, 2011
In order for public colleges and universities to remain viable and effective in the coming years, higher education leaders must revamp the way they do business and refocus on delivery modes that lead to higher rates of completion.
Such are the main messages in a new report titled Front and Center: Critical Choices for Higher Education.
Produced by the Miller Center at the University of Virginia, the report calls on higher education leaders to “take several actions, none of them comfortable.”
Those recommendations essentially call for a leaner, meaner higher education system, if you will, that focuses more on accountability, using online and other technology to get better results, de-emphasizing “general education” and keeping a tight rein on research.
The report—borne largely through a meeting convened in December 2010 in Charlottesville, Va., by the Miller Center, the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices—drew both praise and sharp criticism in various quarters of higher education.
Dr. Carol Geary Schneider, president of the Association of American Colleges and Universities, called the report “essentially schizophrenic” for its endorsement of liberal education on the one hand but then calling for certain students to bypass liberal education altogether.
“Whatever you’re majoring in, whether medical records or engineering, everybody needs big-picture knowledge,” Geary Schneider said, explaining that liberal education inculcates essential things such as critical thinking and ethics.
Stan Jones, founder and president of Complete College America, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that works to increase degree attainment, particularly for traditionally underrepresented populations, credited the report with calling attention to the role that government can play.
However, he said he disagreed with the report’s suggestion that the federal government act as a “convener” of state leaders on higher education.
“I don’t think that makes much sense,” said Jones, explaining that the power to determine things such as tuition, appropriations and charters is reserved by the states.
The report also evoked some skepticism for its not-so-subtle presupposition that its recommendations will radically change America’s higher education and economic landscape.
“I do not think that state or federal policy-makers can enact changes in policy that will cure the problems of cost, degree completion and employment,” said Bill Barrett, Executive Director of the Association of Independent Colleges of Art & Design and a vocal critic of various efforts to formulate more standards.
“These issues are way too complicated and interwoven with global forces beyond our control, for a simple gathering like the one at the Miller Center to have any meaningful effect,” Barrett said.
The primary recommendation of the Miller report is to “promote and reward institutional changes that advance the completion agenda.”
But this also includes allocating greater percentages of operating budgets to instruction, reducing the number of adjuncts and requiring permanent faculty to teach more courses while letting go of other interests or assignments.
The report also calls for colleges and universities to “evaluate and reduce administrative overhead” and shifting the savings to the area of advising.
“Many institutions have grown used to spending their money on things that may not reflect the needs of the states or regions that they are supposed to serve,” the report states.
The report also calls on states and the federal government to “focus research efforts at fewer institutions” and say clearly that the “research” obligation of the great majority of faculty members is simply to remain in their current fields.
“Relatively few of them,” the report says, “are going to make historic contributions to human knowledge.”
The report states further: “The past few decades have seen far too many colleges and universities engage in a rush toward elite status. The more selective an institution is, the better. The more research money it collects, the better. The higher it ranks in national and international publications, the better. But what has the race for status contributed to the public good?”
Geary Schneider, of AAC&U, said it’s wholly wrongheaded and shortsighted to view research in such a way.
“The U.S. investment in research and the advancement of knowledge as a core mission of higher education is what helped us become a world leader in higher education in all fields,” Geary Schneider said, “and it’s simply folly to imagine the United States can pull back its investment in research and advance knowledge and still be a world-class higher education system and society.”
Not everyone agreed. Barrett, for instance, said he was aligned with the report’s stance on research, increased faculty responsibilities and other issues.
“I generally agree that we will need to focus research at fewer, mega universities; we will need to increase teaching loads at most other colleges; we will surely need more flexible delivery systems, and we will need more coordination, cooperation and data,” Barrett said.
-Patricia
by Jamaal Abdul-Alim , May 26, 2011
In order for public colleges and universities to remain viable and effective in the coming years, higher education leaders must revamp the way they do business and refocus on delivery modes that lead to higher rates of completion.
Such are the main messages in a new report titled Front and Center: Critical Choices for Higher Education.
Produced by the Miller Center at the University of Virginia, the report calls on higher education leaders to “take several actions, none of them comfortable.”
Those recommendations essentially call for a leaner, meaner higher education system, if you will, that focuses more on accountability, using online and other technology to get better results, de-emphasizing “general education” and keeping a tight rein on research.
The report—borne largely through a meeting convened in December 2010 in Charlottesville, Va., by the Miller Center, the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices—drew both praise and sharp criticism in various quarters of higher education.
Dr. Carol Geary Schneider, president of the Association of American Colleges and Universities, called the report “essentially schizophrenic” for its endorsement of liberal education on the one hand but then calling for certain students to bypass liberal education altogether.
“Whatever you’re majoring in, whether medical records or engineering, everybody needs big-picture knowledge,” Geary Schneider said, explaining that liberal education inculcates essential things such as critical thinking and ethics.
Stan Jones, founder and president of Complete College America, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that works to increase degree attainment, particularly for traditionally underrepresented populations, credited the report with calling attention to the role that government can play.
However, he said he disagreed with the report’s suggestion that the federal government act as a “convener” of state leaders on higher education.
“I don’t think that makes much sense,” said Jones, explaining that the power to determine things such as tuition, appropriations and charters is reserved by the states.
The report also evoked some skepticism for its not-so-subtle presupposition that its recommendations will radically change America’s higher education and economic landscape.
“I do not think that state or federal policy-makers can enact changes in policy that will cure the problems of cost, degree completion and employment,” said Bill Barrett, Executive Director of the Association of Independent Colleges of Art & Design and a vocal critic of various efforts to formulate more standards.
“These issues are way too complicated and interwoven with global forces beyond our control, for a simple gathering like the one at the Miller Center to have any meaningful effect,” Barrett said.
The primary recommendation of the Miller report is to “promote and reward institutional changes that advance the completion agenda.”
But this also includes allocating greater percentages of operating budgets to instruction, reducing the number of adjuncts and requiring permanent faculty to teach more courses while letting go of other interests or assignments.
The report also calls for colleges and universities to “evaluate and reduce administrative overhead” and shifting the savings to the area of advising.
“Many institutions have grown used to spending their money on things that may not reflect the needs of the states or regions that they are supposed to serve,” the report states.
The report also calls on states and the federal government to “focus research efforts at fewer institutions” and say clearly that the “research” obligation of the great majority of faculty members is simply to remain in their current fields.
“Relatively few of them,” the report says, “are going to make historic contributions to human knowledge.”
The report states further: “The past few decades have seen far too many colleges and universities engage in a rush toward elite status. The more selective an institution is, the better. The more research money it collects, the better. The higher it ranks in national and international publications, the better. But what has the race for status contributed to the public good?”
Geary Schneider, of AAC&U, said it’s wholly wrongheaded and shortsighted to view research in such a way.
“The U.S. investment in research and the advancement of knowledge as a core mission of higher education is what helped us become a world leader in higher education in all fields,” Geary Schneider said, “and it’s simply folly to imagine the United States can pull back its investment in research and advance knowledge and still be a world-class higher education system and society.”
Not everyone agreed. Barrett, for instance, said he was aligned with the report’s stance on research, increased faculty responsibilities and other issues.
“I generally agree that we will need to focus research at fewer, mega universities; we will need to increase teaching loads at most other colleges; we will surely need more flexible delivery systems, and we will need more coordination, cooperation and data,” Barrett said.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Outcomes-Based Higher Ed Funding Bill Passes Senate
by Reeve Hamilton | Texas Tribune
May 24, 2011
A bill that could alter the state's formula funding for institutions of higher education to allow some of it to be based on outcomes such as graduation rates rather than simply enrollment cleared the Senate this evening.
Gov. Rick Perry has made outcomes-based funding one of his legislative priorities with regard to higher education, and the bill — House Bill 9 by House Higher Education Chairman Dan Branch, R-Dallas — appears to be moving toward the governor's desk.
The bill, which already passed the House, was kicked out of the Senate this evening with minor alterations. Now, the House must either concur with the changes or head to conference before it can finally be sent to the governor.
The concept has drawn some opposition. The Texas Faculty Association has expressed concern that it will create a need for institutions to boost graduation rates "by any means necessary," such as lowering standards and course requirements.
While HB 9 limits the portion of base funding that can be based on outcomes to 10 percent, it provides flexibility to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, which supports the concept, to determine the specifics of the formula. The coordinating board would also be required to regularly review its outcomes-based system with institutions.
"A collaborative approach is key to the success of any outcomes-based funding initiative," said Senate Higher Education Chairwoman Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, who has been outspoken in her opposition of significant changes to higher education being pushed without public scrutiny and legislative input. "Instead of serving as an edict from on high, this bill would encourage cooperation between colleges and universities, the coordinating board and the Legislature. What's more, it would engage institutions in identifying and evaluating the most effective measures of student success."
Zaffirini, who sponsored HB 9 in the Senate, and Branch co-chair a recently created Joint Oversight Committee on Higher Education Governance, Excellence and Transparency. The bill would require the coordinating board to develop a report that identifies best practices for those issues and submit it to the committee.
May 24, 2011
A bill that could alter the state's formula funding for institutions of higher education to allow some of it to be based on outcomes such as graduation rates rather than simply enrollment cleared the Senate this evening.
Gov. Rick Perry has made outcomes-based funding one of his legislative priorities with regard to higher education, and the bill — House Bill 9 by House Higher Education Chairman Dan Branch, R-Dallas — appears to be moving toward the governor's desk.
The bill, which already passed the House, was kicked out of the Senate this evening with minor alterations. Now, the House must either concur with the changes or head to conference before it can finally be sent to the governor.
The concept has drawn some opposition. The Texas Faculty Association has expressed concern that it will create a need for institutions to boost graduation rates "by any means necessary," such as lowering standards and course requirements.
While HB 9 limits the portion of base funding that can be based on outcomes to 10 percent, it provides flexibility to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, which supports the concept, to determine the specifics of the formula. The coordinating board would also be required to regularly review its outcomes-based system with institutions.
"A collaborative approach is key to the success of any outcomes-based funding initiative," said Senate Higher Education Chairwoman Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, who has been outspoken in her opposition of significant changes to higher education being pushed without public scrutiny and legislative input. "Instead of serving as an edict from on high, this bill would encourage cooperation between colleges and universities, the coordinating board and the Legislature. What's more, it would engage institutions in identifying and evaluating the most effective measures of student success."
Zaffirini, who sponsored HB 9 in the Senate, and Branch co-chair a recently created Joint Oversight Committee on Higher Education Governance, Excellence and Transparency. The bill would require the coordinating board to develop a report that identifies best practices for those issues and submit it to the committee.
NEWS RELEASE: Data Shows Massive Disparity in Professor Productivity at UT-Austin
Attached and below is a news release announcing the release of a study by the
Center for College Affordability and Productivity that finds UT Austin could
make tuition vastly more affordable by moderately increasing faculty emphasis on
teaching. We worked with the Austin American-Statesman this weekend on the
story published this morning. Note that the report is being posted online within
the hour and we will send the link once posted.
Dr. Richard Vedder, a study author and director of the Center for College
Affordability and Productivity, is available and located in Ohio but Senator Dan
Patrick, former Vice Chair of the Higher Education committee, has been briefed
on the study and is available for comment. Senator Brian Birdwell has also been
briefed on the study. David Guenthner at the Texas Public Policy Foundation
(TPPF); and Peggy Venable, state director of Americans for Prosperity
Foundation’s Texas chapter, are also available for comment.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Bill Noble / Emily Songy
Monday, May 23, 2011
(512) 474-2005
Office
(512) 296-4651 Cell
bnoble@noblestrategic.com
esongy@noblestrategic.com
Data Shows Massive Disparity in Professor Productivity at UT-Austin
If bottom 80 percent were half as productive as top 20 percent,
tuition could be cut in half
AUSTIN – At a time of alarming tuition costs and economic uncertainties, an
analysis of the preliminary data released earlier this month by the University
of Texas System shows one of the state’s flagship universities could make
tuition vastly more affordable by moderately increasing faculty emphasis on
teaching.
The Center for College Affordability and Productivity conducted the study titled
“Faculty Productivity and Costs at The University of Texas at Austin.” The study
assesses faculty productivity at UT-Austin in terms of both research and
teaching by delving into the data on faculty compensation, teaching loads and
external research grant awards released by the University of Texas system.
“Our analysis shows that there is clearly room for improvement in terms of
faculty productivity at UT Austin,” said Dr. Richard Vedder, director of the
Center for College Affordability and Productivity and a co-author of the study.
“Simply by having faculty teach more students or courses, students and taxpayers
will benefit significantly by reduced university costs.”
The study reveals substantial disparities in the work professors actually
perform and the compensation they receive for their services. The data show a
relatively small portion of faculty
carry the majority of the teaching load, teaching a sizable majority of students
and while maintaining their research nearly at the same level as their peers.
A significant proportion of the faculty is far less productive, with small
teaching loads and little external research dollars generated. The data
suggests that increasing teaching responsibilities for the majority of faculty
would only marginally impact external research funding or productivity, while
significantly reducing the cost of a degree at UT-Austin.
“Given the rising tuition costs at UT Austin and other public universities in
Texas, this report clearly demonstrates how increases in faculty teaching can
result in significant cost savings to students, parents and taxpayers,” said
Senator Dan Patrick (R-Houston), former Vice Chair of the Higher Education
committee. “All Texans, students and taxpayers deserve the best value for their
investment in higher education – a system where professors are engaged and held
accountable for their teaching productivity and performance.”
The study’s analysis comes in the wake of often heated debate on the value of
looking closely at teaching and research productivity at Texas’ public colleges
and universities.
“Our goal in conducting this analysis was to provide a resource for university
leaders and policy makers as they make decisions on enhancing university systems
to provide the highest-quality education at an affordable price for students,”
said Vedder. “The findings at UT-Austin are not unique as tuition and fees
skyrocket at public universities across the nation, raising the question of who
is really working to control costs for parents and taxpayers during the worst
economic recession in 70 years.”
Additional highlights of the study include:
* 20 percent of UT Austin faculty are teaching 57 percent of student credit
hours. They also generate 18 percent of the campus’s research funding. This
suggests that these faculty are not jeopardizing their status as researchers by
assuming such a high level of teaching responsibility.
* Conversely, the least productive 20 percent of faculty teach only 2 percent
of all student credit hours and generate a disproportionately smaller percentage
of external research funding than do other segments of the faculty.
* Research grant funds go almost entirely (99.8 percent) to a small minority
(20 percent) of the faculty; only 2 percent of the faculty conduct 57 percent of
funded research.
* Non-tenured track faculty teach a majority of undergraduate enrollments and a
surprising 31 percent of graduate enrollments.
* The most active researchers teach nearly the average of all faculty;
increasing teaching loads of others would trivially impact outside research
support.
###
***Study authors are available to comment or provide remarks for radio
programming. Call 512.474.2005 to schedule an interview.
Center for College Affordability and Productivity that finds UT Austin could
make tuition vastly more affordable by moderately increasing faculty emphasis on
teaching. We worked with the Austin American-Statesman this weekend on the
story published this morning. Note that the report is being posted online within
the hour and we will send the link once posted.
Dr. Richard Vedder, a study author and director of the Center for College
Affordability and Productivity, is available and located in Ohio but Senator Dan
Patrick, former Vice Chair of the Higher Education committee, has been briefed
on the study and is available for comment. Senator Brian Birdwell has also been
briefed on the study. David Guenthner at the Texas Public Policy Foundation
(TPPF); and Peggy Venable, state director of Americans for Prosperity
Foundation’s Texas chapter, are also available for comment.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Bill Noble / Emily Songy
Monday, May 23, 2011
(512) 474-2005
Office
(512) 296-4651 Cell
bnoble@noblestrategic.com
esongy@noblestrategic.com
Data Shows Massive Disparity in Professor Productivity at UT-Austin
If bottom 80 percent were half as productive as top 20 percent,
tuition could be cut in half
AUSTIN – At a time of alarming tuition costs and economic uncertainties, an
analysis of the preliminary data released earlier this month by the University
of Texas System shows one of the state’s flagship universities could make
tuition vastly more affordable by moderately increasing faculty emphasis on
teaching.
The Center for College Affordability and Productivity conducted the study titled
“Faculty Productivity and Costs at The University of Texas at Austin.” The study
assesses faculty productivity at UT-Austin in terms of both research and
teaching by delving into the data on faculty compensation, teaching loads and
external research grant awards released by the University of Texas system.
“Our analysis shows that there is clearly room for improvement in terms of
faculty productivity at UT Austin,” said Dr. Richard Vedder, director of the
Center for College Affordability and Productivity and a co-author of the study.
“Simply by having faculty teach more students or courses, students and taxpayers
will benefit significantly by reduced university costs.”
The study reveals substantial disparities in the work professors actually
perform and the compensation they receive for their services. The data show a
relatively small portion of faculty
carry the majority of the teaching load, teaching a sizable majority of students
and while maintaining their research nearly at the same level as their peers.
A significant proportion of the faculty is far less productive, with small
teaching loads and little external research dollars generated. The data
suggests that increasing teaching responsibilities for the majority of faculty
would only marginally impact external research funding or productivity, while
significantly reducing the cost of a degree at UT-Austin.
“Given the rising tuition costs at UT Austin and other public universities in
Texas, this report clearly demonstrates how increases in faculty teaching can
result in significant cost savings to students, parents and taxpayers,” said
Senator Dan Patrick (R-Houston), former Vice Chair of the Higher Education
committee. “All Texans, students and taxpayers deserve the best value for their
investment in higher education – a system where professors are engaged and held
accountable for their teaching productivity and performance.”
The study’s analysis comes in the wake of often heated debate on the value of
looking closely at teaching and research productivity at Texas’ public colleges
and universities.
“Our goal in conducting this analysis was to provide a resource for university
leaders and policy makers as they make decisions on enhancing university systems
to provide the highest-quality education at an affordable price for students,”
said Vedder. “The findings at UT-Austin are not unique as tuition and fees
skyrocket at public universities across the nation, raising the question of who
is really working to control costs for parents and taxpayers during the worst
economic recession in 70 years.”
Additional highlights of the study include:
* 20 percent of UT Austin faculty are teaching 57 percent of student credit
hours. They also generate 18 percent of the campus’s research funding. This
suggests that these faculty are not jeopardizing their status as researchers by
assuming such a high level of teaching responsibility.
* Conversely, the least productive 20 percent of faculty teach only 2 percent
of all student credit hours and generate a disproportionately smaller percentage
of external research funding than do other segments of the faculty.
* Research grant funds go almost entirely (99.8 percent) to a small minority
(20 percent) of the faculty; only 2 percent of the faculty conduct 57 percent of
funded research.
* Non-tenured track faculty teach a majority of undergraduate enrollments and a
surprising 31 percent of graduate enrollments.
* The most active researchers teach nearly the average of all faculty;
increasing teaching loads of others would trivially impact outside research
support.
###
***Study authors are available to comment or provide remarks for radio
programming. Call 512.474.2005 to schedule an interview.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)