Tenure at the Alamo Colleges: A Recommendation Report

Prepared for Alamo Community College District Board of Trustees Prepared by Alamo Colleges Super Senate Tenure Task Force

1

Table of Contents

Introduction 2

Research Plan 3

Results 4 Definition, Role, and Value of Tenure 4 Tenure and Community Colleges/Issues Specific to Alamo Colleges 6 Current Tenure and Post-Tenure Review Processes 8 Recent Efforts for Improving the Tenure and Post-Tenure Review Processes 12 Alamo Colleges Faculty Members’ Perceptions about Tenure 13 Conclusions 14

Recommendations 16

Works Cited 18

Appendix: Faculty Perspectives on Tenure Survey 20

2

Introduction At the May 17, 2011 ACCD Board of Trustees meeting, Chancellor Bruce Leslie brought to the attention of the board that the Alamo Colleges does not currently have a tenure policy in place. The board’s Policy and Long-Range Planning Committee directed Dr. Leslie to create a report on tenure. Dr. Leslie then directed the Super Senate to prepare its own report on the topic so that the board could receive multiple informed perspectives before making a policy decision. Tenure has a long history within American higher education, and it has been a part of Alamo Colleges’ practices ever since the District came into existence. The tenure policy appears to have been inadvertently removed from the District’s list of policies during the Texas Association of School Boards (TASB) format reorganization; however, several other policies and procedures which refer to tenure are still in place. This reflects the importance of tenure within our culture. Moreover, some confusion exists over the purpose for tenure, the role it plays in student success, and the status it confers faculty members. Considering these problems, we researched the history and purpose of tenure as well as its value. We examined the current processes in place for tenure and post-tenure review. We evaluated the research showing the positive effects of tenure in terms of benefits to students and institutions of higher education. Currently tenured and tenure-track faculty were also surveyed to gather their perceptions about tenure. We concluded that tenure is a vital part of our system at Alamo Colleges, but room for improvement exists in the post-tenure review process. In the following sections, we will discuss in greater detail our research, the results we obtained, the conclusions we reached from our results, and our recommendation.

3

Research Plan To better understand tenure, we performed the following research:

1. Researched the definition and role of tenure in higher education in general. Faculty members from across the Alamo Colleges were invited to submit research about tenure from reputable publications. Task force members determined which articles contained pertinent general information, read these articles, and distilled relevant points from them.

2. Identified important information regarding the need for tenure in community colleges and specific issues affecting the Alamo Colleges. Using the same pool of articles from Step 1, as well as Dr. Leslie’s report to the Alamo Colleges Board of Trustees, the task force filtered those articles which applied specifically to community colleges in general and the Alamo Colleges in particular and repeated the other sub-steps under #1 above. We also examined other current policies and procedures in place which are related to tenure at the Alamo Colleges.

3. Investigated the current tenure and post-tenure review processes. Although Dr. Leslie provided some information regarding Alamo Colleges’ current process, his work was incomplete because it did not include all administrative information or reference the recently adopted progressive discipline policy. We filled in the gaps by locating that information and including it as part of the process.

4. Examined recent work completed in support of improving the tenure and post-tenure review processes. A year-long effort by the Promotion, Tenure and Faculty Evaluation Procedures Review Task Team, which included participation by administrators, chairpersons, and faculty from all five colleges, examined the tenure policy. We read and summarized that group’s recommendations.

5. Surveyed current tenured and tenure-track faculty to discern their perceptions about tenure’s importance to their work and the strengthening of post-tenure review. Using Surveypoint, we worked with the Office of Technology Services at San Antonio College to design and administer a survey to currently tenured and tenure-track faculty.

4

Results Definition, Role, and Value of Tenure

For the purposes of this report, we define tenure as a status earned by faculty through a rigorously designed institutional process. The earning of tenure confers continuous employment for the faculty member with exceptions for just cause (such as not performing one’s duties) or financial exigency. This definition is in keeping with the principles of the American Association of University Professors’ “1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure” (addressed below). Tenure’s roots connect directly to the idea of academic freedom, a concept embodied by Plato’s Apology, in which Socrates asserts the right of the people to discuss issues of controversy which those in power may find unacceptable. This ideal was later embodied in Plato’s founding of the Academy, which, as Gutenberg College professor David Crabtree notes, was specifically designed for the pursuit of truth for its own sake: “[A]cademic freedom was rooted in the belief that the pursuit of truth was a calling. . . which transcended the reach of any earthly authority.” By the early 20th century, American universities began to institutionalize the protection of academic freedom through tenure. Around the time of the Industrial Revolution, as captains of industry began to establish their own universities, faculty increasingly saw the need to protect the integrity of their work in order to keep it independent of outside influences. Former Harvard University President Derek Bok points out that tenure became the ultimate shield for academic freedom which would “prevent the university administration from establishing official orthodoxies that it might use, directly or indirectly, to inhibit professors from expressing unsettling ideas and unpopular opinions” (5). In 1940, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) codified a set of regulations for tenure which has been slightly modified over the years but is still in place today. This statement links tenure to two key principles: academic freedom and “a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability.” Tenure thus serves as both a guardian of education free of undue outside influences and a recruitment and retention tool for the best and brightest faculty members.

The ideals of tenure are best summarized by the following quote from Clark Byse and Louis Joughin:

“Academic freedom and tenure do not exist because of a peculiar solicitude for the human beings who staff our academic institutions. They exist, instead, in order that society may have the benefit of honest judgment and independent criticism which

5

otherwise might be withheld because of fear of offending a dominant social group or transient social attitude” (5).

A body of research also supports the role of tenure in creating student success. Professor Paul Umbach of the North Carolina State University Department of Adult and Higher Education presented a paper on the effects of contingent faculty use at the 33rd Annual Conference of the Association for the Study of Higher Education. Although contingent usually equates to part-time, Umbach specifies that anyone without work which was “performed full-time and was thought to continue indefinitely” (3) falls into his conceptual framework. Thus faculty with recurring contracts and no tenure would fit into his analysis. Among his findings were that those without an institutional commitment were less likely to be loyal employees, more likely to perform at a lower level, and less likely to engage students frequently in classroom activities that enhance student learning (5). Audrey Jaeger’s research demonstrates similar concepts. She notes that taking courses from contingent faculty also adversely affects community college students’ transfer rates to four-year institutions. A 10 % increase in students earning credits from contingent faculty results in about a 2% less likelihood of transferring to a four-year school. Thus, students who take 50% of their courses from contingent faculty members are 10 % less likely to transfer. Students who had all of their courses taught by contingent faculty were nearly 20% less likely to transfer (42-3). Peter Schmidt of The Chronicle of Higher Education emphasizes that students at community colleges are more likely to be low-income students and need more advising. He quotes Ernst Benjamin, a former director of research at the AAUP, who voices his concern that “the students who need help the most are not getting it.” All these articles contain numerous other references to studies demonstrating the value of faculty’s institutional commitment to student success. Some concern has been raised about the board’s regarding the cost issue of tenure. Tenure itself costs nothing as no one receives a raise upon earning that status. Nevertheless, it is true that as faculty members remain employed and continue to better themselves through the promotion process by attaining further education and experience, their salaries will rise. However, faculty members typically have lower salaries than their counterparts outside academia with comparable levels of education and experience. They tend to stay in the professoriate because it is more of a calling than just a job. That experience can serve our students well if the faculty members continue their professional development throughout their career. Much has been made of the “$100,000 faculty member,” but few of them exist, and those who do are usually chairpersons with doctorates and decades of experience. They also teach overloads, thus putting their paid time on par with upper-level administrators, employees who make far more in many cases. Rolling contracts would increase the likelihood of turnover, and colleges with rolling contracts often have to pay their faculty more to reduce this risk. This might save some money initially, but repeated advertising, recruiting, hiring, training, and enculturation processes would ultimately be more costly to the colleges and the taxpayers, not to mention the students, who would lose a wealth of institutional memory and experience.

6

Moreover, non-renewal of contracts for older faculty could be perceived as age discrimination and bring about a new set of lawsuits, another costly expenditure. Tenure and Community Colleges/Issues Specific to Alamo Colleges Tenure has been a part of the Alamo Colleges since the beginnings of the District. Indeed, despite the omission of a revised tenure policy during the TASB reformatting, several policies still exist within the Board of Trustees site which refer to tenure. Specifically, those policies are as follows:

B.5.1, which states the Chancellor shall “[c]onsider and act upon administrative recommendations concerning appointment, retention, or dismissal of other administrators, and of tenured and tenure track faculty.”

D.2.5, which states, “The Board shall hire the Chancellor and the District Director

of Internal Audit. The Chancellor shall recommend all other administrator and tenured/tenure track faculty contracts to the Board for approval.”

D.9.1, which states, “The Chancellor shall develop and implement procedures for

progressive discipline, which may include a separate list of infractions and resulting disciplinary actions for tenured and non-tenured faculty, administrators, and for professional, classified, and other employees.”

Numerous other procedures in conjunction with these policies also refer to tenured or tenure-track faculty. Thus, tenure is not only a part of our history but also an intrinsic element to the way we operate. In Dr. Leslie’s Introductory Report on Tenure, he states that community college professors do not need the protection of tenure because we “are not contractually obligated to engage in research” (4). This statement is not correct. In fact, research is a regular part of the community college professor’s duties. Although we are not required to have a set number of publications or conference presentations, as is the case in research-oriented universities, we are in fact evaluated in part on our engagement in research. On the Faculty Evaluation by Chairperson form, each faculty member is rated on whether he or she “[m]aintains knowledge and skills through study and research in discipline and through involvement in professional organizations” (2). As part of the annual faculty self-evaluation, we are also required to “[l]ist professional activities: (e.g. conferences/seminars attended, publications, presentation, curricula and/or course development, Faculty Development participation)” (2). Therefore we are clearly evaluated in part on our research, which is a crucial part of maintaining current knowledge in our disciplines. Many of us do in fact present research at conferences or even publish work as part of our academic lives to fulfill these requirements. Moreover, Dr. Leslie states that “the importance of tenure as a protection to engage in controversial issues comes into question in this environment” (4). Although research is one aspect of academic life in which controversy plays a role, it certainly is not the only one. As columnist Rob Jenkins, a community college professor and regular contributor

7

to The Chronicle of Higher Education explains, instructors often encounter such issues in the classroom – sometimes by choice, but often simply because of the material covered in the course. Instructors must be free to address these topics without fear of interference or censorship from administrators. Upon reading Dr. Leslie’s report, many faculty members came forward with their own stories of controversy over content taught in subjects as diverse as humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, and physical sciences. These subjects lend themselves to sensitive topics which may expose students to ideas contrary to their religious, aesthetic, or political beliefs. Instructors repeatedly expressed the need to present a variety of ideas without fear of reprisal from administrators or other outside influences. Teaching pedagogy may also be questioned or influenced by administrators; for example, within this district, the Northwest Vista College administration has expressed preferences for the particular teaching methods of cooperative and collaborative learning. Although these methods have proven to be valuable tools, ultimately, as Jenkins emphasizes, each faculty member must feel free to teach in the way he or she believes is the most effective method for the students. Other potential issues exist for controversy as well. As SACS Accreditation Principle 3.4.12 states, “The institution places primary responsibility for the content, quality, and effectiveness of its curriculum with its faculty.” Jenkins concurs, stating faculty members are the content experts within their respective disciplines, and as such have the primary responsibility for oversight of the curriculum and for making sure that what is presented in the classroom is in the best interests of the students. They must be free to speak their minds in department meetings and in college and district committees with regard to course content. In a community college, where teaching is our primary mission, this freedom becomes even more important. Loss of tenure at the community college level has implications for four-year institutions as well. Without the protection of tenure, curriculum standards at two-year institutions may be eroded if the number of faculty with a vested interest in the college is reduced. This puts the curriculum at risk of being manipulated by state and local legislators who may be politically motivated to ensure that subjects are taught in the preferred manner of their political base (and by administrators who wish to please these lawmakers to keep their jobs), as Jenkins points out. If the skills and knowledge of community college students who transfer to four-year schools gradually decline, what would be the motivation of these four-year institutions to continue accepting transfer students? If tenure is abolished at two-year colleges, will articulation agreements with four-year institutions be at risk? One issue specifically related to Alamo Colleges is the perceived difficulty of removing tenured faculty members for cause. Dr. Leslie repeatedly cites the Miller case and focuses on two points: the problems of terminating a tenured faculty member regardless of teaching ability and the inconvenience of having a faculty committee involved in tenure dismissal proceedings.

8

It is important to note that Professor Miller’s dismissal charges were not in fact for poor teaching but for accusations of sexual harassment. Although the faculty committee which examined the evidence against him decided that while Dr. Miller’s actions were reprehensible, they did not meet the definition of “moral turpitude,” part of the reason for this decision was that the ACCD administration did not follow its own policies and procedures to conduct an investigation into the matter and present sufficient evidence. Ultimately the District lost the case against Miller because it did not follow its own rules, as affirmed by Judge Catherine Stone in her appellate decision. A stronger set of post-tenure review rules and a commitment by all parties to implement stated polices through established procedures would have been far more effective to prevent this situation than the removal of tenured status. In Dr. Leslie’s report, he also contends that “[a]lthough the Alamo Colleges has a post-tenure review process that evaluates a tenured faculty member every two years, faculty leadership has acknowledged that it is ineffective. There is no evidence at the Alamo Colleges that a tenured faculty member has ever been dismissed for poor teaching” (5). The committee’s research supports Dr. Leslie’s statement that no tenured faculty member at the Alamo Colleges has ever been dismissed for poor teaching; however, this should be viewed as proof of the effectiveness of the tenure process at the Alamo Colleges. Because of the process in place, according to our survey of VPAAs at the colleges, several faculty members have been denied tenure or have not had their tenure-track status renewed due to poor teaching and other discrepancies in their bodies of work. The process currently in place is as long as those found in many four-year institutions. Those who make it through are highly qualified and have demonstrated both a talent for and a dedication to teaching. Further discussion of this point can be found in the following section on our current processes for tenure and post-tenure review. Current faculty leadership has not made any comment concerning the effectiveness of the post-tenure review process, and no citation was provided to confirm that past faculty leadership had indeed referred to the current process as “ineffective.” In the past two years, faculty leaders have commented they would support enhanced post-tenure review for improvement purposes and that they believed progressive discipline would assist in enhancing this process. Current Tenure and Post-Tenure Review Processes To restrict an examination of the Alamo Colleges’ current tenure and post tenure review process to only the policies that fall under that exact nomenclature would be a mistake. A complete review of the impact and nature of our tenure system necessitates the inclusion of other policies and practices which intersect, influence, and instruct its operation. The tenure process actually begins when a tenure-track position is advertised. The existence of tenure helps attract quality candidates for that position, as noted earlier in this submission. A typical opening at one of our colleges creates a pool of applicants that

9

is noteworthy for its quantitative depth and qualitative scope. As an example, a recent call for a history professor drew 65 aspirants. The process begins with a departmental committee screening of the submitted applications. Those packets arrive with transcripts, references, curricula vitae, statements of teaching philosophy and additional information, and the committee selects the best to be interviewed. The interview typically includes an examination to determine not just whether or not a candidate is knowledgeable in their discipline, but whether that person understands the unique mission of a community college and possesses the skills to succeed in our academic environment. A teaching demonstration is a key component in these investigations, allowing the committee to see how the individual’s credentials on paper translate to delivery in the classroom.

Quite frequently, screening committees select active adjuncts from their department as finalists for consideration. This merits special mention as we shall see later.

After the screening committee completes its phase of the process, recommendations are forwarded to the chairperson. The chairperson then carefully considers the committee’s action and makes a recommendation. This in turn is advanced to the dean, VPAA, and President, all of whom may at any time affirm or deny the previous decisions. The administrative review then proceeds all the way to the Board of Trustees for the final vote, thus giving the process multiple areas of oversight. Before anyone is even under the authority of the district’s tenure policy, a rigorous filtering process has occurred.

After a person has been appointed to a tenure track position, policy calls for a four-pronged review consisting of classroom observations, self-evaluations, chairperson evaluations, and peer reviews. The classroom observations must be conducted annually for each year of the instructor’s probationary period. That period, under current policy, is six years. The self-evaluation is designed to be a critical reflection of the strengths and weaknesses uncovered in the academic term and a conscious assessment of how well one has tailored professional activities with the goals of the college. The evaluation by the chairperson is completed according to a district template which is designed to critique the faculty member on the full range of professional activities, behaviors and competencies. Finally, the peer review is composed of three sections: another classroom observation, an examination of materials that the instructor delivers to students through any and all media, and an analysis of the individual’s self-evaluation. This peer review is designed to provide feedback to the probationary faculty member from the perspective of experienced, tenured members of the department.

Additionally, in compliance with state law, all courses must be subject to student evaluations. This means a full-time faculty member will have collected a minimum of 60 course evaluation summaries for the dossier at the end of the probationary period.

This body of work, compiled over six years, constructed by the applicant’s immediate supervisor, panels of experienced peers, student evaluations, and mandated self-examination, must be included in the application for tenure. A full-time faculty member who won a tenure-track appointment after serving as an adjunct will have an even more extensive packet for consideration as classroom observations are mandated by policy for

10

instructors of that status. The other three evaluation instruments are recommended for adjuncts, but not required.

The policy calls for all the documentation outlined above to accompany a request for consideration for tenure.

The tenure application process itself involves consideration of the aforementioned documentation by a faculty committee which then makes a recommendation on the application to the chairperson. The chairperson may concur with the recommendation or dissent. Disagreements between departmental committees and chairpersons do occur. The chairperson’s recommendation then is advanced to each level of the administration with the accumulated tally of each decision point recorded. The final decision on each application for tenure rests with the board. An appeals process is available for those who are denied and wish to seek relief.

Hiring always involves an element of risk. That risk is minimized by the Alamo Colleges’ hiring gauntlet. That risk is further minimized by the pervasive practice across the district of frequently hiring those with observed and documented experience as adjunct instructors. The risk of awarding tenure to someone who successfully navigates the hiring process but is undeserving of tenure status is minimized by the six-year probationary period.

Under this current policy, a high percentage of applications for tenure are granted. It is important to remember, however, the other influences we have outlined that impact the process before this point is reached. First, a robust selection stage, drawing on a deep pool of applicants, allows the process to winnow out weak candidates before they are selected to continue the next step. Secondly, a rigorous interview process utilizing the judgment of experienced faculty further narrows the field. Next, the unique perspective of chairpersons, the oversight of campus and district administrators, and, finally, the concerns of the board, identify frailties of those who survive the earlier sifts. Additionally, those candidates who approach the end of their probationary period with poor performance recorded generally realize they will not successfully navigate the system and voluntarily leave without applying for tenure. This too influences the percentage of applications which are successful.

After a faculty member has achieved tenure, professional conduct continues to be reviewed. Current policy mandates a classroom observation when the department chairperson deems it to be appropriate or necessary, if it is requested by the tenured faculty member, or if a promotion request is imminent.

The self-evaluation is due every other year and in the term prior to an application for promotion. Policy allows chairpersons to require this more frequently, and many do.

Chairpersons evaluate tenured faculty a minimum of every other year, although they can conduct them more frequently at their discretion. The faculty member may also request that an evaluation be administered at any time. Again, as with the other instruments, this must be completed in preparation for an application for promotion.

11

Peer reviews also play a key element in post-tenure evaluation. They may be initiated at any time by the chair, requested by the faculty member at any time; furthermore, they must be completed in conjunction with application for promotion.

And, in accordance with statutory requirements, student evaluations continue to be received by the chairperson indicating that constituency’s appraisal of the professor. Student evaluations are also regularly discussed between faculty members and their chairpersons during the self-evaluation and chairperson evaluation processed.

The actions, reviews, and determinations outlined above are specific parts of the evaluation policy leading towards, active in, and subsequent to the process of awarding tenure. Any and all policies regarding disciplinary action for district employees also apply to faculty, regardless of tenure status.

As we have outlined, the tenure process is a blending of policies which manifestly address that issue, such as the required documentation of probationary status tenure track faculty members during their first six years as employees and the specified procedure that leads to a recommendation before the board. But it also involves other tangential policies, such as a rigorous application process, a thorough vetting of a quantitatively large and qualitatively impressive field of aspirants, (made possible, in part, by the attraction of the existence of a tenure system), a robust interview protocol, and vigorous administrative oversight. The progressive disciplinary policies in place may eliminate a tenure-track candidate from ever applying for tenure. Likewise, poor performance reviews from chairpersons and/or peer review committees induce professors to leave our district before tenure is ever applied for and often negate the necessity of a denied request.

12

Recent Efforts for Improving the Tenure and Post-Tenure Review Processes

For the purposes of this report, we define post-tenure review as a system of periodic evaluation which goes beyond the many traditional forms of continuous evaluation utilized in most colleges and universities. These traditional forms of evaluation vary in their formality and comprehensiveness. They include annual reports for purposes of determining salary and promotion. More narrowly focused reviews include course-by-course student teaching evaluations, peer review, classroom observations, self-evaluations, and chairperson evaluations.

Recent efforts for improving post-tenure review include a year-long study of the current tenure process. The Promotion, Tenure, and Faculty Evaluation Procedures Review Task Team consisted of both faculty and administration from all five colleges. The task team was charged with identifying and reviewing existing Alamo Colleges (District) and individual college procedures concerning promotion, tenure and evaluation. Additionally, the task team was asked to provide a review of the proposed progressive discipline procedure. The Task Team also reviewed any forms associated with faculty promotion, tenure and evaluation. The team was asked to make recommendation to clarify existing procedures and to create unified district-wide procedures for all colleges to utilize. The group made recommendations concerning the nature of training or orientation for faculty members, as well as how to provide materials to each college for the appropriate delivery of faculty promotion, tenure, and ongoing evaluation procedures. The focus of the review was not to change existing policy but rather to develop enhanced procedures for promotion, tenure, and evaluation processes. The process was then forwarded to VPAAs and faculty as a whole for comments. Numerous suggestions came about as a result of this process. After the comments were reviewed, the tenure process was voted on and approved at PVC. The following general statements were a result of this process:

1. The basic criterion on which all employees will be evaluated is the description of the job for which they are currently employed along with specific duties which may be assigned. Accurate and updated position descriptions and lists of specific duties must be available to the employee and supervisor prior to the evaluation process.

2. A formal session between faculty and supervisor/chairperson will be held annually for the purpose of discussing mutual expectations and progress of employees. Informal sessions between faculty and chairperson are encouraged, especially when reservations about performance exist.

3. All faculty shall receive a written evaluation from the appropriate supervisor/chairperson either annually or every two years as required.

13

4. During each portion of the evaluation process, the faculty member shall submit all material requested in the process.

5. Faculty chairpersons/supervisors will be evaluated according to guidelines established specifically for chairpersons/supervisors.

Although these recommendations are minor variations on the existing policies and procedures, they do represent a starting point for further discussion on the nature of tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review.

Alamo Colleges Faculty Members’ Perceptions about Tenure In cooperation with San Antonio College’s Office of Technology Services, we conducted a survey of tenure-track and tenured faculty throughout the Alamo Colleges from October 6-11, 2011 using Surveypoint. According to the chart Dr. Leslie presented in his report, 887 faculty members are currently either tenured or on the tenure track. Over a three-week period, we attempted to obtain a complete list of the names and ACES email addresses of those individuals from Human Resources. As we were unsuccessful in doing so, Dr. David Wood, Director of SAC’s Institutional Research, found a work-around which allowed us to obtain partial information from another source and send direct survey link invitations to 674 of those individuals. Using the All-Faculty distribution tool, Dr. Dawn Elmore-McCrary, Alamo Colleges Super Senate President, then sent a notification to faculty members that the link had gone out and that they should contact her if they had not received an invitation. An additional 39 faculty members contacted Dr. Elmore-McCrary, who then verified their status and emailed them a survey link, thus bringing our total of surveys sent to 713, reaching 80% of the intended population. Of the 713 faculty to whom survey links were sent, 426 responded, a participation rate of 60%. This is a very good result considering the short five-day period for which the survey was open (two of which were on a weekend), the fact that some faculty members had technical difficulties with the link but did not report issues until after the survey closed, and the unfortunate issues Alamo Colleges faces with morale. Several faculty members contacted their Senate leaders or Usha Venkat, SAC’s Director of Information and Communication Technologies, who initiated the survey links, to state they would not take the survey either because they did not believe the administration really cared about their perceptions or because they were not yet tenured and feared that if they voiced an opinion, their responses would be linked to their email addresses and retaliation was a possibility. In addition, the confusion over when the report was due and when the presentation would take place occurred due to conflicting information on the Alamo Colleges website, information given to the Super Senate by Dr. Leslie, and dates which came through Board Liaison Sandra Mora. October has been an atypical month for scheduling, so the dates given to the task force for completing the report and making the presentation changed three times. This in turn hindered our ability to conduct the survey for as long as we would have liked. Key findings from the survey are as follows:

14

1. Respondents included a good mix of colleges, teaching disciplines and

tenured/tenure track status, thus giving a good representative sample.

2. 71% of faculty disagree with the chancellor’s contention that a statement guaranteeing academic freedom is sufficient protection of that right and believe tenure is necessary to do so.

3. 87% disagree with the idea that tenure means someone can choose to do less work on behalf of the college.

4. 91% disagree that tenure should protect someone from being fired if that person has poor teaching skills.

5. 88% state that research is an important part of their work as faculty members.

6. 65% of faculty members teach controversial issues as part of their disciplines.

7. 81% support post-tenure review.

8. 85% agree that tenure-track status was one of the main reasons they applied for a position at Alamo Colleges.

9. 96% see tenure or the potential to earn tenure as a vital part of their employment here.

10. 95% see tenure as an asset which creates a more strongly committed relationship between themselves and their college.

For complete survey results and wording of questions, please see Appendix: Faculty Perspectives on Tenure Survey.

Conclusions Based on the research we conducted, we have reached the following conclusions:

1. Tenure is a vital part of the system of higher education. It is an asset to the institution, the faculty members, the students, and the community.

2. Most faculty, administrators, and board members want the same goals of high quality teaching, professional behavior, accountability, and continual improvement. The tenure process is an important part of achieving those goals.

3. Community college faculty members are in need of tenure just as much as our research university counterparts because we do teach controversial issues in our

15

classes, perform research in support of our disciplines, and can be pressured by outside influences to make politically motivated changes.

4. Litigation such as the Miller case is the exception rather than the rule. Though these cases may be more visible due to the effort the Board of Trustees must expend to handle them, this focus obscures the excellent work done by most tenure-track and tenured faculty members. Furthermore, cases such as this could be minimized or avoided by a clear set of processes and policies which define actions to be taken and then are followed meticulously, thus keeping litigation from moving forward.

5. Rigorous processes already exist for selection of faculty and achievement of tenure. These processes can be examined for further refinements.

6. A look at post-tenure review processes has begun but is still in its early stages. Faculty members agree this should be pursued further. The progressive discipline policy in conjunction with current evaluations is one step in this direction.

7. Faculty members are receptive to working with administrators and board members to improve processes, maintain professionalism, and strive for continual student success thorough a strong, effective, comprehensive tenure system.

The importance of tenure can best be concluded by the following quote from Professor John E. Savage of Brown University:

“Far from being a problem for the American system of higher education, I believe that tenure is the principal reason for its success. Tenure makes faculty members into stakeholders in their institutions; it gives them an incentive to maintain high standards, particularly in faculty appointments, promotions, and the granting of tenure. They stand to benefit as professionals from the maintenance of standards and suffer from their decline.

The importance of tenure is emphasized by considering the nature of academic units in colleges and universities. Such units are not businesses and that they cannot be run as such. The variety of course and research topics pursued by faculty members in a typical academic department is so large that it is impossible for one human being to master, let alone direct. The better model of an academic department is a community of responsible members.

Successful communities grant their members certain rights. Just as the U. S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights provide for freedom of expression and the right of assembly, the guarantee of tenure serves this role for academic departments: it grants individuals the protection they need to participate fully in the life of their departments without the risk of dismissal for holding unpopular views.”

16

Recommendations The faculty members of Alamo Colleges agree that tenure serves as an important screening process and provides the colleges with a valuable enticement for recruiting and retaining the best professors possible. Therefore, our position includes retaining a tenure process which enables each college to identify and retain the most highly qualified instructors available. Faculty members also agree that we should keep only knowledgeable, experienced instructors who continue to provide teaching and service to our community consistent with Alamo Colleges’ high standards; furthermore, we believe that the tenure system is one important component to accomplish this. A tenure-track system should enable the college to determine those qualified in their discipline and as instructors. To this end we propose the following: 1. A tenure process which evaluates each tenure-track faculty member in three critical

areas: instruction, service, and professional development. Alamo Colleges currently has a recommendation from a committee made up of administration and faculty to this end. The proposal provides excellent recommendations on improving the tenure process to the end that only qualified faculty would be granted tenure, thus retaining the best faculty for the colleges. As noted, tenure accomplishes several positive things for Alamo Colleges: it is an incentive to attract highly qualified candidates to teach here. When choosing between a tenure-track and non-tenure-track position, most candidates will apply for the tenure-track position. The tenure process also provides a means of ensuring academic freedom both contribute to a better learning environment for the students.

2. A post-tenure review process which would accomplish two important goals:

a. It would help ensure that tenured faculty members continue to strive for excellence in the three areas of teaching, service, and professional development. The tenure process is a critical step in evaluation of faculty. The review process would assist the faculty with regular feedback to verify continuation of the standards achieved in the earning of tenure.

b. This process would also allow the colleges to help faculty members improve any weaknesses in a timely manner and thus retain the level of quality those faculty members demonstrated during the initial tenure application process.

Post-tenure review is intended to be part of the evaluation process to provide direction to faculty members and serve as an empirical mechanism for demonstrating continued excellence.

3. A tenure summit which would include trustees, faculty, and administration coming together to cooperatively draft a tenure and post-tenure review policy in the context of a comprehensive evaluation and accountability process. The starting point for this

17

summit would be examination and evaluation of the policy and procedure documents created by last year’s task force.

The University of Illinois conducted an excellent seminar on tenure and published an extensively detailed paper with their results. The entire paper is worth reading, but its concluding sentence is perhaps the best recommendation of all: “Would faculty members living in perpetual fear that their very livelihood was at stake be more effective teachers, more thoughtful scholars, or more dedicated citizens of their institution in the absence of a tenure system? Our answer is no, and the state… itself, we believe, would be poorly served if that situation were to obtain any of the state's universities.”

18

Works Cited AAUP: 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure." American

Association of University Professors. American Association of University Professors. Web. 22 Oct. 2011. <http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/1940statement.htm>.

"Alamo Community College District Annual Report: Faculty Self-Evaluation." San

Antonio College Sharepoint. Alamo Colleges, 13 Sept. 2011. Web. 12 Oct. 2011. <http://share.alamo.edu/sac/docctr/FacultyResources/self_eval-11.pdf>.

"Alamo Community College District Faculty Evaluation by Chairperson." San Antonio

College Sharepoint. Alamo Colleges, 7 Oct. 2011. Web. 12 Oct. 2011. <http://share.alamo.edu/sac/docctr/FacultyResources/chair_eval_a.pdf>.

"B.5.1 (Policy) Board Responsibilities." Alamo Colleges: Employees: Ethics: Policies. Alamo

Community College District, 18 Aug. 2009. Web. 18 Oct. 2011. <http://www.alamo.edu/uploadedFiles/District/Employees/Departments/Ethics/pdf/policies/B.5.1-Policy.pdf>.

Bok, Derek Curtis. Beyond the Ivory Tower: Social Responsibilities of the Modern University.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1982. Print. Byse, Clark, and Louis Joughin. Tenure in American Higher Education: Plans, Practices, and

the Law. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1959. Print. "Cooperative and Collaborative Learning." Northwest Vista College. Alamo Colleges.

Web. 23 Oct. 2011. <http://legacy.alamo.edu/nvc/students/learning/ask/CollabLrn.htm>.

Crabtree, David. "McKenzie Study Center » Academic Freedom." McKenzie Study Center.

Gutenberg College, 1 Dec. 2002. Web. 22 Oct. 2011. <http://mckenziestudycenter.org/2003/09/academic-freedom/>. "D.2.5 (Policy) Hiring Authority, Status, Assignments and Duties." Alamo Colleges:

Employees: Ethics: Policies. Alamo Community College District, 13 Jan. 2010. Web. 19 Oct. 2011.

<http://legacy.alamo.edu/district/ethics/searchfiles/D.2.5 Policy.pdf>. "D.9.1 (Policy) Progressive Discipline." Alamo Colleges: Employees: Ethics: Policies.

Alamo Community College District, 28 Apr. 2009. Web. 21 Oct. 2011. <http://www.alamo.edu/uploadedFiles/District/Employees/Departments/Ethics/pdf/policies/D.9.1-Policy.pdf>.

19

Jaeger, Audrey. "Contingent Faculty and Student Outcomes." Academe 94.6 (2008): 42-43.

Print. Jenkins, Rob. "On Hiring - Tenure Is Important at Community Colleges, Too." Home - The

Chronicle of Higher Education. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 15 June 2011. Web. 1 Oct. 2011. <http://chronicle.com/blogs/onhiring/tenure-is-important-at-community-colleges-too/29046>.

---. "Tenure and the Two-Year College - The Chronicle of Higher Education." Home - The

Chronicle of Higher Education. 11 June 2009. Web. 1 Oct. 2011. <http://chronicle.com/article/Tenurethe-Two-Year/44474>.

Leslie, Bruce. Introductory Report on Tenure. Alamo Colleges, 9 Sept. 2011. Web. Resource Manual for the Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement.

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, 6 Jan. 2006. Web. 22 Oct. 2011. <http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/handbooks/Exhibit%2031.Resource%20Manual.pdf>.

Savage, John E. "The Role of Tenure in Higher Education." Brown University Department

of Computer Science. Brown University, 3 Sept. 2001. Web. 22 Oct. 2011. <http://www.cs.brown.edu/~jes/papers/tenure.html>.

Schmidt, Peter. "Use of Part-Time Instructors Affects Student Success - Faculty - The

Chronicle of Higher Education." Home - The Chronicle of Higher Education. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 6 Nov. 2008. Web. 22 Sept. 2011. <http://chronicle.com/article/Use-of-Part-Time-Instructors/1307/>.

Umbach, Paul. "The Effects of Part-Time Faculty Appointments on Instructional

Techniques and Commitment to Teaching." North Carolina State University. North Carolina State University Department of Adult and Higher Education, 8 Nov. 2008. Web. 22 Oct. 2011. <http://www4.ncsu.edu/~pdumbach/part-time.pdf>.

United States of America. Court of Appeals of Texas. San Antonio Division. DR.

WILLIAM MILLER, Plaintiff, vs. ALAMO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-05-CA-762-FB. By Catherine Stone. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 20 Oct. 2011.

University of Illinois Tenure Seminar. "Report on the University of Illinois Seminar on

Tenure." University of Massachusetts. University of Illinois, 18 Jan. 2001. Web. 11 Oct. 2011. <http://people.umass.edu/jgk/PMYR/U-ILL_Tenure_Seminar.htm>.

20

Appendix: Faculty Perspectives on Tenure Survey

Survey of Faculty Attitude about Tenure

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31