September 6, 1996
TO: Mr. Larry Wilson, Chairman, and Members,
Performance Indicator Task Force on Academids
FROM: Dr. Gail M. Morrison
Agenda and Materials for Task Force Meeting
September 10, 1996
As previously agreed upon, our next meeting will be held on Tuesday, September
10, 1996, here in the Commission's main conference room, from 1:30 p.m. to
approximately 5:30 p.m.
A suggested agenda is as follows:
l. Consideration of Minutes of September 3, 1996
2. Consideration of Draft Performance Indicators from September 3
3. Consideration of "Best Practices" documents for Performance Review
and Post-Tenure Review
4. Review of Brief Summary of Student Evaluation Information
5. Discussion of New Performance Indicators/Observation on Background
2(F) community and public service activities for which no extra
compensation is paid
3(C) ratio of full-time faculty as compared to other full-time
3(D) acccreditation of degree-granting programs
3(E) institutional emphasis on quality of teacher educaion and
Please let me know if you require additional information for the next Task
Force meeting. I look forward to seeing you then.
cc: Members, Advisory Committee on Academic Programs
Fred R. Sheheen
ACADEMICS TASK FORCE
September 3, 1996
CHE Conference Room
Task Force Members Present: Mr. Stephen Avery, Dr. John Britton, Ms. Juanita
Bulloch, Mr. Frank Gilbert, Dr. Martha Herbert, Mr. Douglas McKay, Dr. John
Stockwell, Mr. Larry Wilson (Chairman).
Task Force Resource Persons Present: Dr. Wanda Hayes (USC-Aiken); Dr. Joe Prus
(Winthrop University); Dr. Gail Morrison, CHE Associate Commissioner for Academic
Affairs; Dr. Mike Smith, CHE Associate Commissioner for Special Projects; Dr. Lynn
Kelley, as recorder (CHE-Academic Affairs);
Also present: Mr. Fred Sheheen, CHE Commissioner; faculty and staff
representatives of the institutions of higher education; and state government
Mr. Wilson opened the meeting by stating that Dr. Layton McCurdy has not been
able to attend meetings of the Task Force because he had had surgery. The
following procedural matters were discussed:
1. The Task Force agreed to post minutes on the Internet; if minutes have not
been approved, that will be noted. [Note: These minutes will be posted following
2. Mike Smith distributed a paper from the Chair of the Council of Faculty
Chairs which included items of concern from that group.
Mr. Wilson then requested a motion for approval of minutes. Several changes
were suggested which the Task Force accepted. Dr. Britton then moved (seconded,
McKay) that the minutes be approved as amended. The motion was approved
Review of Performance Indicators From Prior Meeting
The Task Force turned its attention to (1)Mission Focus (B)Curricula offered
to achieve mission. After considerable discussion and an affirmation that Act 359
provided for everything contained in the draft,
Mr. Wilson asked for a motion to accept. Dr. Britton moved (seconded, Mr. Gilbert)
to accept the draft language of the Performance Indicator on (1) Mission Focus (B)
Curricula Offered to Achieve Mission. The motion passed unanimously.
The Task Force next examined the draft for the performance indicator on (2)
Quality of Faculty (A) Academic and Other Credentials of Professors and
Instructors. To meet concerns expressed about theunique position of technical
program faculty in the technical colleges concerning "b," the Task Force agreed to
include a footnote to this Performance Indicator to make such a nuance clear.
Concerns were raised about the meaning, interpretation, and possible use of
"b." After considerable discussion, the Task Force agreed that this "b" was
necessary to provide a qualitative dimension to this performance indicator which
"a" could not provide.
Dr. Stockwell then moved (seconded, Avery) that the Performance Indicator (2)
Quality of Faculty (A) Academic and Other Credentials of Professors and Instructors
be adopted. The motion was approved unanimously.
Discussion of the Second Set of Performance Indicators
Mr. Wilson thanked the staff for providing a summary of legislative intent for
Act 359, based upon the November 1995-February 1996 discussions of the blue ribbon
committee on higher education reform. Copies of this summary were distributed to
the Task Force members and members of the audience (copy attached).
The Task Force next moved to consider performance indicator (2) (B):
Performance review system for faculty to include student and peer evaluations.
Introductory remarks from Dr. Morrison showed that there is no statewide standard
for performance review, although all institutions have this as a regular process.
Discussion which followed showed that the Task Force members and technical support
personnel support inclusion of tenured faculty in this performance indicator and
support inclusion of flexibility in it so that it can be tailored to individual
institutions' missions and departmental goals and objectives. There was consensus
that it should be mission-driven, comprehensive in scope, and systematic in
process; and that it be linked with faculty development and faculty reward systems.
Concerns were also expressed that if the indicator were to be met with a
yes/no format, administrators might find it difficult to provide low ratings to
faculty. However, these concerns were alleviated by the agreement of the Task
Force that the process must contain student evaluations as well as peer and
administrative components. This performance indicator is to answer the question,
"Is the appropriate process in place to be able to render a judgment?" rather than
to address the question of "What is the judgment?"
The Task Force discussed the difference between this performance indicator and
a similar section in Act 255. The Act 255 element focuses on institutional
assessment, whereas this indicator is focused on the quality of individual faculty
members as classroom instructors.
Discussion also ensued about the performance indicator formulated by the
Statewide Committee on Planning. It was pointed out that the group had not formally
voted on the document or endorsed it. The Task Force agreed with the expressed
comment that if the Task Force were to set a genuine standard, the faculty at the
institutions will meet it. They agreed that such an indicator was important, given
the perception of the General Assembly that there is not much evaluation of
faculty, especially those who are tenured. The Task Force then requested staff to
get standards/criteria for what exists in the literature of evaluation and to
develop a draft of this performance indicator for the next meeting in which a "best
practices" scenario might be included. The Task Force requested that this material
be sent out so that it could be received prior to the next meeting.
The Task Force next considered item (2) (C) Post-Tenure Review for Tenured
Faculty. Mr. Wilson asked if processes were in place that sufficiently answered
the question of whether continuation of a person's tenure was justified. Dr.
Morrison and Dr. Mike Smith pointed out that the technical colleges do not have
tenure, so that this indicator will not apply to them.
Dr. Morrison responded to questions about the extent to which post-tenure
review exists by saying that there is not as much post-tenure review as there are
other types of review of faculty; that post-tenure review policies and practices
differ widely among institutions; and that the debate in the 1996 General Assembly
to consider the abolition of all tenure was causing a rethinking of the issue of
post-tenure review on the public campuses.
There was much discussion about the possibility and likelihood of revocation
of tenure. From that discussion agreement emerged that while those who are tenured
are not immune to being asked to leave, the tenure process is designed to prevent
persons who are likely to be noncontributors or underachievers to move prior to the
tenure decision. Those who are not contributing and have become tenured are able
to be removed either through "show cause" (in effect, a kind of impeachment
proceeding) or, more often, through lack of salary increases, the addition of
undesired work schedules, providing job tip searches in other states, and so forth.
Salary raises are not automatic in any institution for faculty members.
A discussion was held on whether any expectations were held for faculty
contributions after tenure was achieved and whether faculty who are tenured have
different responsibilities from those who are not in terms of faculty governance.
Staff and institutional representatives present answered affirmatively on both
these questions. For example, capturing the wise use of sabbatical time in this
performance indicator is important, the Task Force agreed. The Task Force also
developed a consensus that this performance indicator should be crafted in such a
manner as to answer whether an institution is using best practices for post-tenure
review processes. This would permit the indicator to be evaluated as a yes/no
proposition and the benchmarking group could benchmark it at whatever percent it
might find reasonable. Several institutional representatives suggested that the
Task Force consider a statewide five-year time period for post-tenure review.
In response to the positive things said about maintenance of tenure in South
Carolina's public institutions, Mr. Wilson noted that we need a public relations
campaign to get this idea of the relationship of tenure to recruitment and
retention of excellent faculty members and their creativity to be understood more
fully by critical publics.
A brief recess was held in the proceedings beginning at 3:30 and ending at
3:45 P.M. The Task Force then turned its attention to (2)(D) Compensation of the
Faculty. After listening to considerable discussion on the issue of recruiting
faculty from national pools and hearing Mr. Sheheen recount that Act 359 stipulates
that South Carolina is to be not just a national but a global leader in higher
education, the Task Force decided the goal of the compensation indicator should be
to have compensation reach national norms.
Dr. Stockwell agreed with Mr. Sheheen's assessment and suggested that the same
logic should be applied to other issues. He said we cannot look at South
Carolina's institutions at any level as common denominators. For example, USC-Spartanburg sees itself as one of 50 "metropolitan universities" nationwide;
Clemson is one of approximately the same number of land grant universities; USC-Columbia compares itself to the American Association of Universities group; and so
forth. So, USC-Spartanburg, although a "comprehensive four-year university,"
should not be compared with The Citadel and Winthrop which are also in this
category, but rather with other national metropolitan universities of which there
are six that are highly regarded. Similar national norming groups are what should
constitute the benchmark groups to be used for assessing all the public
institutions in South Carolina under this legislation, he said. Mr. Wilson agreed
and stated that unless there was some objection this part of the minutes should be
placed in bold type so that the benchmarking committees do not lose sight of its
There was tacit agreement with the sentiment that South Carolina does not
compare favorably with North Carolina in higher education salaries. While the Task
Force listened to institutional representatives discuss a variety of reasons for
low faculty salaries, the Task Force agreed that through Act 359 the General
Assembly has stipulated with this performance indicator one way institutions might
strive to provide high faculty salaries if they wish to be funded under this
performance indicator. Discussion centered around the idea that an upward trend-line over a five-year period would allow an institution to be rewarded more through
Likewise, the Task Force agreed that this performance indicator could be
crafted so that one mean average could be calculated for the entire faculty of each
institution, even though data would be collected by discipline and professorial
rank. The Task Force further agreed that this single measure should be the
weighted mean of all the standard deviations.
Discussion was held about whether "compensation" should include benefits. It
was pointed out that while benefits packages in South Carolina are only
approximately 17 percent (and average between 23-30 percent nationally), they are
nevertheless tied automatically to salary by law and institutions have no control
over them. Therefore, at best this measure would be redundant; and, at worst, might
be difficult to collect. Finally then, the Task Force decided to look solely at
The Task Force focused next on the performance indicator (2) (E) Quality of
Faculty: Availability Outside the Classroom. It was agreed after discussion that
this indicator is both one of "user-friendliness" and intimately related to an
evaluation of the faculty advising system on our campuses. Although the technical
college faculty members are required to be in offices eight hours per week, there
were reported to be real problems with this arrangement and similar ones on four-year campuses. Faculty and administrators present from the institutions argued
that the development of e-mail, internet, voice mail, distance education, and other
sophisticated electronic equipment, coupled with the development of large numbers
of nonresidential/nontraditional students, make the enforced office hours solution
both archaic and unresponsive to student needs. Mr. Sheheen stated that his view
was that the General Assembly wanted to see real faculty members meeting with real
students in real time at least as a part of this indicator. Dr. Stockwell and
others stated that the real issue was student satisfaction with faculty
availability outside classroom hours, whatever form that contact might take.
Much questioning followed concerning the amount, timing, and type of surveying
and the student populations to be surveyed in order to assure an accurate measuring
of this performance indicator. As a result of the discussion, the Task Force
agreed that it was important to have many students involved in the surveying
instrument representing different levels, including freshmen where retention is a
concern. The issue of nonfaculty advisors doing academic advising was raised by a
few institutional representatives present. Mr. Wilson then proposed that the
following measure be given approval by the Task Force for this indicator:
the percent of teaching faculty for whom students report satisfaction with
their availability outside the classroom; and
the percent of students reporting satisfaction with availability of their
The membership of the Task Force requested that the staff develop this idea in
preparation for the next meeting, including preparation of definitions for
"availability outside the classroom" and "faculty advisor."
Finally, at the request of Mr. Avery, the Task Force again discussed the
performance indicator (2)(B) concerning the relative weight to be attached to the
evaluations of students, administrators, and peers. There were two competing
concerns which were expressed in the discussion which followed: 1) that student
input concerning faculty performance not be lost; and 2) that the empowerment of
administrators to move faculty in particular directions for the good of the
institution not be impeded or disregarded, as might happen if student evaluations
were weighted too heavily.
Task Force members agreed that weighting of student evaluations should be
significant but did not reach consensus on what that weighing should be in more
Dr. Morrison offered to prepare some information on student evaluations for
the next meeting in line with the "best practices" research to be conducted on
Mr. Wilson closed the discussion by observing that in his view the inclusion
of "best practices" would bring both these positions together in the final
determination of the performance indicator and its benchmarking.
Dr. Smith then distributed a chart to show in summary fashion what some other
states are doing on performance indicators. Mr. Wilson thanked him and Dr.
Morrison for their assistance. He asked if there were further comments. Hearing
none, he declared the meeting adjourned at 5:26 P.M.
DRAFT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
ACADEMICS TASK FORCE
SEPTEMBER 3, 1996
(2) Quality of Faculty (B) Performance review system for faculty to include student
and peer evaluations
The quality of the faculty as evidenced by the institution's
performance review system is to be measured as:
the percent of the criteria stipulated in the "Best
Practices for a Performance Review System for Faculty"
document (Attachment 1) which are incorporated into
the institution's own performance review system.
(2) Quality of Faculty (C) Post-tenure review for tenured faculty
The quality of the faculty as evidenced by the institution's
post-tenure review system for tenured faculty is to be measured
the percent of the criteria stipulated in the Best
Practices for Post-tenure Review" document (Attachment 2)
which are incorporated into the institution's own performance
(2) Quality of Faculty (D) Compensation
The quality of the faculty as indicated by compensation is to be
the average deviation (expressed in standardized units) of faculty salaries by
rank, discipline, and type of institution from national averages.
(2) Quality of Faculty (E) Availability of faculty to students outside the
The quality of the faculty as indicated by their availability to students
outside the classroom is to be measured as:
a. the percent of instructional faculty who receive a
mean rating of "satisfied" or above on related
question(s) on anonymous student evaluations which are
submitted for all courses;
b. the percent of students who report satisfaction with
the availability of academic advisors outside the
classroom as shown by a mean rating of "satisfied" or
above on an anonymous evaluation instrument completed
at a minimum during the fall term by a representative
sample of freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors.
Definitions: "Availability outside the classroom" includes personal contact
between faculty and students during office hours and other scheduled appointments
as well as contact through e-mail, Internet, telephone, correspondence and other
media. "Faculty advisors" refer to those faculty or staff who advise students with
respect to their course schedules and degree requirements as well as to those
institutional personnel who interact with students in such contexts as sponsorships
of student clubs, honor societies, publications, research projects, and other
student extracurricular activities in which there is faculty participation.
Finally, for your information, I have included some brief information about
student evaluations (Attachment 3).
Agenda Item 4
Student Evaluations of Faculty Teaching
Numerous investigations have been undertaken concerning the validity of
student evaluation of faculty teaching. In their 1993 article Marsh and Bailey
provided an overview of this research and determined that such evaluations are: (1)
reliable and stable; (2) primarily a function of the instructor who teaches a
course rather than of the course that is taught; (3) relatively valid against a
variety of indicators of effective teaching; (4) relatively unaffected by a variety
of variables hypothesized as potential biases to the ratings; (5) seen to be useful
by faculty as feedback about their teaching, by students for use in course
selection, by administrators for use in personnel decisions, and by researchers.
Braskamp and Ory (1994) provide further data which validate the usefulness of
student evaluations of faculty teaching. Their study provides a table of factors
influencing student evaluation of faculty or course. These are summarized below:
Student anonymity Signed ratings are more positive than anonymous
Instructor Ratings more positive if instructor stays in class
Directions Ratings more positive if stated used in promotion
Timing Ratings lower if given during final exam rather
than during class
Nature of Course
Requires/elective Ratings higher in elective than required courses
Course level Ratings higher in higher-level courses
Class size Smaller classes tend to receive higher ratings but
low correlation between class size and student
Discipline In descending order, lower ratings for courses in
arts & humanities, biological & social sciences,
business, computer science, math, engineering, &
Rank Ratings higher for professors than teaching assist.
Gender No significant relationship; but ratings slightly
Personality Warmth/enthusiasm generally related to overall
rating of teacher competence
Years teaching Rank, age and years unrelated
Research productivity Positively correlated but minimal correlation
Expected grade Expecting high grade give higher rating than
expecting low grade
Major or minor Majors rate more positively than non-majors
Gender Student gender not related to overall evaluation,
but tend to rate same-sex faculty slightly higher
Personality No relation with student personality
Item placement No relationship
Number of scale points 6-point scales have slightly more varied responses
and higher reliability than 5-point scales
Negative wording No relationship
Labeling all scale Labelling only end-points gives slightly higher
Agenda Item 5
OBSERVATIONS ON BACKGROUND OF ACADEMICS TASK FORCE INDICATORS
1. Community and public service activities of faculty for which no extra
compensation is paid.
The study committee recognized that faculty have a variety of
responsibilities on campus for which they are compensated in their
basic salary. The committee also recognized that faculty accept
consulting jobs in government agencies and private industry for which
they receive compensation.
But the committee felt that an additional mark of desirable faculty would be
citizenship and civic contributions for which faculty receive no compensation,
not unlike the expectations held for outstanding citizens in other
professional and vocational fields.
2. Ratio of full-time faculty as compared to other full-time employees
This is again designed to be a measure of the relative emphasis on the
academic mission of the institution. Are there more administrative and
support personnel at the expense of investment in faculty? The desirable end
was perceived to be emphasis on faculty personnel to the maximum feasible
extent, which would benefit the instructional program, and ultimately
3. Accreditation of degree-granting programs
The General Assembly has long required the Commission to report on the
number and percentage of programs eligible for national accreditation
which achieve national accreditation. National accreditation is seen as a
basic hallmark of the quality of programs, recognized by higher
education peers in the country, by the business community, and by the
public. The Commission has required some programs to achieve national
accreditation to ensure minimum quality.
4. Institutional emphasis on quality teacher education and reform
One of the primary missions of colleges and universities is to prepare
teachers for the public school system in South Carolina. Therefore, the
quality of public schools, of tremendous concern to the General Assembly,is
directly linked to the quality of teacher education programs. Additionally, a
number of changes have been proposed in teacher education programs by
national study groups, and some changes have been mandated by the General
Assembly. This indicator is designed to ensure priority attention to this
function of higher education institutions and also to ensure that teacher
education programs are constantly updated to meet the new educational needs of
the public schools.
5. Transferability of credits to and from the institution
It is fair to say that perceived confusion about transfer of credits
among public institutions has been, for decades, one of the most
prominent irritant points in the General Assembly. Students, and their
parents, become extremely irate when courses do not transfer easily, and when
students have to repeat identical or similar courses because they do not
transfer among institutions.
Because of the prominence of the problem in the past, the General Assembly
recently granted substantial new mandatory authority to the Commission on this
subject. A comprehensive transfer policy has been adopted by the Commission,
the provisions of which are mandatory for public institutions in the state.