From Wanda Mills' TASCUBO newsletter(1996):
Recommendation # 5 proposed that each system "Establish a faculty evaluation policy that includes an annual review of the performance of all faculty, including tenured faculty in Texas. The review would include the use of peer and student evaluation. Below standard peer and student evaluations for two consecutive years would provide cause for tenure revocation or dismissal." Senator Ratliff stated that the senators might remember that during the debate on the public school bill, language had been added stating that two years of substandard performance was reason for dismissal of a teacher. Senator Ratliff said he saw no reason why the same standard could not apply to higher education and that he thought faculty members should be concerned if they were evaluated as substandard for two consecutive years. The Senator added that he knew people on tenure who needed to be doing something else - or at least something. After the laughter stopped, Senator Ratliff said he felt this issue needed to be addressed.
Senator Barrientos said the idea sounded good, but he wondered how it would be done - would all students evaluate the faculty and which peers would evaluate which professors? Senator Ratliff said each system would establish their own procedure. Senator Barrientos observed that more and more government standards were being placed on "those folks." Senator Ratliff said that higher education asked for substantially more funding for faculty each session, thus he felt the Legislature had the right to know if any of the faculty were substandard. Senator Barrientos asked, "How about standards for administrators?"
Senator Ratliff said that Senator Barrientos should propose that and he would support it because he was a great advocate of accountability. Senator Bivins said he thought there was a great deal of concern about tenure and he thought this recommendation would certainly generate discussion in the Legislature. He suggested, with a grin, that it might lighten the senators' mailbags if this recommendation was coupled with the Haywood recommendation to be considered later to improve faculty salaries.[This blackmail is exactly what happened. On January 3, 1997, Senate Finance Chairman Bill Ratliff said a weak proposal for reviewing tenured faculty would jeopardize increased funding for state universities and faculty.] Senator Nelson moved adoption of the proposal for inclusion in the committee's report. Senator Montford had returned to the room and he asked if a faculty member would be canned on the basis of student evaluations. SenatorRatliff said there would be both student and peer evaluations included in the process. He added that the language did not say that a professor had to be canned, but that a professor could lose the protection of tenure. Senator Luna said he was sure what tenure really meant, but he felt tenured professors had more liberty to express their opinions. He said he planned to pass on this proposal. Senator Nelson said she thought peer and student evaluations were taking place already. She asked Chancellor Cunningham in the audience to comment.
Dr. Cunningham said that the institutions in the UT System were not doing a good job on the peer evaluations and that most schools around the country weren't. He stated he would send her a note with more information. [Dr. Cunningham did not respond to a request from Dr. Crumbley to send any research as to why peer reviews were not working.] Senator Nelson stated she would like to see some consistency in the process. Senator Sibley asked if tenure was a property right. Chancellor Cunningham said he was not an attorney and the senator was, but he felt those professors with tenure currently saw it as a property right. Senator Ratliff commented there were questions about that. He stated that a professor could be dismissed for cause, but the question was whether adding this particular provision would violate property rights.
Senator Luna asked Dr. Cunningham if there were very efficient professors that were not popular. Dr. Cunningham replied affirmatively, adding that the reverse was also true. This generated joking among the committee members about the various combinations of popular, not popular, efficient and inefficient. It was necessary for the roll to be called on this item because there was objection to its inclusion. There were six ayes, one nay (Barrientos) and one present not voting (Luna).
Society for a Return to Academic Standards
Some Humor About Student Evaluations
Last Updated: 21 February 1997
