jan.feb.mar11

8/7/2019 Jan.feb.Mar11

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/janfebmar11 1/20

Volume LXIV Number 3

Jan/Feb/March 2011



The TACT Quarterly eBulletinJan/Feb/March 2011 - Volume LXIV Number 3

In this quarter’s TACT newsletter...

Letter from the Presidentby Gary Coulton

Executive Director’s Reportby Chuck Hempstead

Pressure Building on Faculty to IncreaseGraduation Ratesby Frank Fair

Some Fear Budget Cuts Could Erode EducationGains in Texasby Lori Stahl

New Member Benet: Legislative Tracker

Is There Hope for Higher Education?by Cindy Simpson

TACT: Around Town

GRF Contributions

Membership

Page 3

Page 5

Page 8

Page 12

Page 14

Page 15

Page 18

Page 19

0

TACT Board of Directors2010-2011

PresidentGary CoultonUniversity of Texas -San Antonio

President-ElectPeter HugillTexas A&M

VP of Financial AffairsFrank Fair Sam Houston State Universit

VP of MembershipMark GausSam Houston State Universit

VP of Legislative AffairsCindy SimpsonSam Houston State Universit

Directors At LargeElizabeth Lewandowski

Midwestern State University

Allen MartinUniversity of Texas - Tyler

Debra PriceSam Houston State Universit

Executive Director Chuck Hempstead(512) 873-7404

Texas Association of College Teachers5750 Balcones Dr., Suite 201 Austin, Texas 78731

[email protected]

[p] (512) 873-7404[f] (512) 873-7423

Copyright © 2011 by the Texas Association of College Teachers. All rights reserved.No part of this publication may be produced in any form without permission; Chuck Hempstead, Editor.

TACT

mailto:tact%40bizaustin.rr.com?subject=




Contact us!

5750 Balcones Dr., Suite 201

Austin, TX 78731

[email protected]

[p] (512) 873-7404

[f] (512) 873-7423

Cover Page

Index

Letter from thePresident

Executive Director’sReport

Pressure Building toIncrease Graduation

Rates

Budget Cuts MayErode Education

Gains

New Member Beneft:Legislative Tracker

Hope for HigherEducation?

TACT: Around Town

GRF Contributions

Membership

CONTENTS

3

The TACT Quarterly eBulletinTexas Association of College TeachersDefending Academic Freedom

TACT

President’s Letter: A $10,000 Bachelor’s Degree?

by Gary CoultonTACT President

In his recent State of the State Address, Governor Perry posed a very unusual

challenge to Texas’ University Systems. He challenged them to develop Bachelor’s

degree programs that cost students dramatically less than the current state average

tuition and fees, which is approximately $26,500 for those who complete their degreein four years (this gure extrapolated from Texas Higher Education Coordinating

Board data by Matthew McGowan; Lubbock Avalanche-Journal ). The gure does no

include textbooks, which according to a College Textbook Cost Study (James Koch,

2006) add $1,000 or more to fulltime students’ annual educational expenses.

More specically, Perry’s challenge was for public institutions of higher education to

offer bachelor’s degree programs for $10,000 (textbooks included). The Governor’s

stated target is for institutions to offer at least 10% of undergraduate degrees in this

price range (Melissa Ludwig, San Antonio Express-News).

As to Governor Perry’s motivation, Reeve Hamilton of the Texas Tribune draws a

connection between Perry’s challenge proposed and an address made in 2010 by

Microsoft founder Bill Gates. Gates predicted that advances in technology could

reduce the cost of a college education to $2,000. According to Ralph Haurwitz ( Aus-

tin American-Statesmen), Gates believes that the $2,000 Bachelor’s degree could be

achieved largely through web-based instruction.

It may surprise you (as it did me) that Texas already has several Bachelor’s degree

programs that come in around the Governor’s $10,000 target. According to the Texas

Tribune, three community colleges in Texas offer Bachelor’s of Applied Technology.

Those programs offer students who hold Associate of Science degrees theopportunity to earn a Bachelor’s degree (a rare opportunity since most colleges and

universities don’t give academic credit for many courses in Associate of Science

programs). Melissa Ludwig of the San Antonio Express-News reported that, ironically,

in the House’s base budget, all funding would be cut to one of these institutions and

all of the Applied Technology Bachelor’s programs are slated to be de-funded, but

that’s another story.

Of course, it’s rather rare for community colleges to offer degrees beyond the

Associate’s. I think it’s safe to assume that most academics would agree that





Contact us!


Austin, TX 78731

[email protected]

[p] (512) 873-7404

[f] (512) 873-7423

Cover Page

Index




Rates


Gains



TACT: Around Town

GRF Contributions

Membership

CONTENTS

4


TACT

offering Bachelor’s degrees is not part of the traditional mission of community

colleges. However, according to the San Antonio Express-News, Bachelor’s degrees

are offered by at least some community colleges in 16 states besides Texas. But that’s

a topic for another column.

So what is my point here? I guess I have several:

1. Certainly non-traditional students don’t require dorms and perhaps most don’t

care about recreational facilities (which should mean savings for universities). But

traditional students (and undoubtedly some non-traditional students) value such

resources. Also, most Academics would likely agree that “Student Life” (which

requires recreational facilities and the like) is an important facet of a quality

undergraduate education. The bottom line here is that one size doesn’t t all.

2. Academic institutions have learned is that sophisticated educational technol-

ogy can be valuable. However, a hard lesson that was also learned is that when it

comes to technology, expectations often exceed outcomes. In particular, on-line

courses do not produce major savings. Why not? One reason is that no matter

how advanced the technology is, (at least with current available technologies) a

human being is still required to conduct/teach the course.

3. Lastly, the only way I can imagine for us to offer legitimate Bachelor’s degrees for

the amount Governor Perry desires would be to greatly reduce tuition and/or

student fees (which certainly isn’t what Governor Perry has in mind, and which is

pure fantasy considering current economic conditions).

Executive Director’s Report

(cont’d.)





Contact us!


Austin, TX 78731

[email protected]

[p] (512) 873-7404

[f] (512) 873-7423

Cover Page

Index




Rates


Gains



TACT: Around Town

GRF Contributions

Membership

CONTENTS

5


TACT

Executive Director’s Reportby Chuck HempsteadTACT Executive Director

As I write, it is too early to add any legislative developments beyond what we and

other media have already shared about the dismal state of the draft Texas budget for

the upcoming biennium. But be assured I will be making our opinions heard at this

week’s Senate Finance Committee hearings on Article III (education). Particularly“interesting” will be Wednesday’s edition during which many of us will suggest that

reducing contributions to TRS and ORP to the constitutional minimum of 6 percent is

another step toward an uncompetitive position.

Two charts are available on the website of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating

Board which contain data formerly compiled by TACT.

One chart is good news. (See Figure 1.) Many readers will remember that for four

legislative sessions, TACT found legislative sponsors to le bills suggesting that

Texas faculty salaries should be brought up to the average of the other ten most populous states, which are the ones with which Texas universities most directly

compete for talent. The bills didn’t pass, but created many opportunities for TACT

to discuss the importance of competitive salaries.

The primary obstacle to passage was that creating parity immediately was too

expensive to accomplish immediately and legislators responded to TACT’s

suggestion that it be an eight year process by citing the prohibition of legislators

committing future Legislatures to any specic appropriations.

What you will see in the salaries chart is that we have been making progress! The

reason may be that other states are more broke than we are, but the results are a 5 percent disparity compared with double digits in some previous years. Go Texas!

The other chart is not so pretty. (See Figure 2.)

Since TACT was instrumental in creating Optional Retirement System in Texas to

offer a transportable retirement program for faculty, the state contributions have been

on a two-decade slide. TACT and the Texas Community College Teachers

Association, formerly assisted by lobbyists for mutual fund and insurance

companies, are practically the only advocates for ORP.





Contact us!


Austin, TX 78731

[email protected]

[p] (512) 873-7404

[f] (512) 873-7423

Cover Page

Index




Rates


Gains



TACT: Around Town

GRF Contributions

Membership

CONTENTS

6


TACT

Figure 1.


(cont’d.)

Average Faculty Salary Comparison - Texas Public Universities and Ten Most Populous StatesFiscal Year 2010

Professor AssociateProfessor

AssistantProfessor

Instructor Lecturer Total -Includes All

Ranks

Total -Excludes No-

Rank

History

Professor AssociateProfessor

AssistantProfessor

Instructor All RanksWeighted

Average

Texas All Ranks Weighted AverageCompared to Ten States

Texas 111,944 77,044 67,057 45,251 50,860 78,505 78,884

California 117,380 81,280 71,636 53,476 63,227 93,286 93,299

Florida 106,432 74,240 64,169 47,345 54,228 76,148 76,730

Georgia 108,585 76,361 64,911 43,680 49,736 78,604 78,604

Illinois 108,158 75,439 66,329 41,063 45,451 77,517 78,202

Michigan 114,630 80,149 67,346 45,568 49,835 83,872 84,668

New Jersey 130,408 92,878 74,626 50,793 60,092 98,940 99,269New York 112,303 83,552 68,456 54,571 59,026 85,499 85,499

North Carolina 110,977 79,272 66,985 58,952 47,082 79,533 81,737

Ohio 108,100 76,126 65,113 43,144 45,960 80,051 80,431

Pennsylvania 115,397 82,296 65,666 47,325 47,105 81,072 81,646

10 States Average 113,763 79,931 67,607 46,400 54,855 84,126 84,706

National Average 107,831 76,921 64,952 45,057 51,537 79,425 79,769

Texas 111,944 77,044 67,057 45,251 78,505 -5%FY 2010

Ten States 113,763 79,931 67,607 46,400 84,126

Texas 109,235 75,467 66,140 44,338 76,981 -6%FY 2009

Ten States 111,625 78,713 66,359 45,383 82,250

Texas 104,518 72,612 63,795 43,484 74,076 -7%FY 2008Ten States 107,935 75,943 64,057 43,918 79,596

Texas 99,683 69,646 61,159 41,943 71,608 -6%FY 2007

Ten States 102,752 72,593 60,982 42,488 76,197

Texas 95,970 67,173 59,187 40,118 69,118 -6%FY 2006

Ten States 98,610 69,918 58,704 40,674 73,622

Texas 91,529 64,400 56,026 39,512 66,582 -7%FY 2005

Ten States 95,517 67,974 56,921 39,427 71,896

Texas 86,130 60,914 53,190 37,869 63,449 -10%FY 2004

Ten States 93,668 66,703 55,508 38,300 70,824

Texas 85,405 60,450 52,051 36,948 62,671 -10%FY 2003

Ten States 91,244 65,689 54,395 37,860 69,565

Texas 84,449 58,942 50,468 34,783 61,965 -7%FY 2002

Ten States 87,164 63,076 51,895 37,262 66,623

Texas 76,192 54,026 45,742 34,195 57,352 -9%FY 2000

Ten States 80,563 58,990 48,008 34,361 62,782

Texas 70,350 50,310 42,520 32,470 53,360 -9%FY 1998Ten States 73,830 54,660 44,720 32,490 58,620

Texas 63,660 39,988 39,085 29,176 48,490 -13%FY 1996

Ten States 69,101 51,608 42,697 30,789 55,499

Texas 60,695 43,887 37,561 28,035 46,228 -11%FY 1994

Ten States 64,220 37,561 39,988 29,033 51,730

Source: AAUP Survey, Includes all public I, IIA, and IIB institutions reporting to AAUP (24 of 34 in Texas). Salaries adjusted tostandard nine month salary. Report excludes data where institutions reported one individual for a given institution.





Contact us!


Austin, TX 78731

[email protected]

[p] (512) 873-7404

[f] (512) 873-7423

Cover Page

Index




Rates


Gains



TACT: Around Town

GRF Contributions

Membership

CONTENTS

7


TACT

Figure 2.

I may condently state that our efforts have delayed the contribution reductions, but

our job may be effectively nished if the current proposal reduces the state share to

the constitutional base.

Similarly, dropping the Teacher Retirement System inputs to 6 percent slows the

retirement fund’s return to health. The good news is that a much larger coalition

talks about this issue, but they are balancing that plank with health and other total

compensation issues. Don’t expect a retiree benet increase any time soon.

Gloomy enough, yet? It only gets worse if widespread nancial exigency is

declared, as the public schools are predicting, to remove faculty salaries from the

bottom line of the prot and loss statement.

If you have stomached reading this far, maybe it’s time to share this with your

colleague in the next ofce and suggest they see what we are doing at

www.tact.org, join the cause and participate in our legislative visits planned

for the morning of February 25.

Texas Public Higher Education Retirement Contributions(as a percentage of salary)

Fiscal

Year

TRS ORP

Employee State Employee State

FY69 6% (of first $8,400) 6% (of first $8,400) 6% (of first $8,400) 6% (of first $8,400)

FY70-FY77 6% (of first $25,000) 6% (of first $25,000) 6% (of first $25,000) 6% (of first $25,000)

FY78-FY79 6.65% (of first $25,000) 7.5% (of first $25,000) 6.65% (of first $25,000) 7.5% (of first $25,000)

FY80-FY83 6.65% 8.5% 6.65% 8.5%

FY84-FY85 6.0% 7.1% 6.65% 8.5%

FY86-FY87 6.4% 8.0% 6.65% 8.5%

FY88-FY89 6.4% 7.2% 6.65% 8.5%

FY90-FY91 6.4% 7.65% 6.65% 8.5%

FY92-FY95 6.4% 7.31% 6.65% 7.31%3

FY96-FY07 6.4% 6.0% 6.65% 6.0%3

FY08-FY09 6.4% 6.58% 6.65% 6.58%3

FY10-FY11 6.4% 6.4%1

6.65% 6.4%3

TRS state rate may be increased to 6.644% pending Attorney General’s Opinion regarding a one-time retiree supplement.

Average of three highest annual salaries for members meeting 2005 grandfathering criteria—see page 6.

Institutions may supplement the state rate under certain conditions up to a maximum contribution of 8.5%.


(cont’d.)


http://www.tact.org/

http://www.tact.org/




Contact us!


Austin, TX 78731

[email protected]

[p] (512) 873-7404

[f] (512) 873-7423

Cover Page

Index




Rates


Gains



TACT: Around Town

GRF Contributions

Membership

CONTENTS

8


TACT

“Pressure Building on Faculty to Increase Graduation Rates.” That was the headline

from the Austin American-Statesman on January 9, 2011. My rst reaction was one

of bewilderment. I’ve been teaching in a state university in Texas since 1971, and in

all that time what I have seen from my fellow faculty members is--often strenuous--efforts to enable students to succeed. The idea that faculty members are some sort

of barrier that needs to be blasted out of the way by increased pressure was bizarrely

out-of-kilter with my experience.

But then I read farther and discovered that we were being scolded for not understand-

ing “that all of us work for the state, that the state is in a nancial crisis, and that we

have to get better results for the same amount of money or even less money.” OK, I

get it now. It’s a message we’ve been hearing for some time: “Do more with less.”

At my university and in my particular program, we’ve been hearing the message for

a number of years, and we’ve responded. We’ve increasingly gone to the very large

lecture sections for courses, a move which mandated machine-graded testing for what the students are supposed to be learning, and we’ve hired a number of adjunct

faculty that we don’t pay very well to do the teaching.

We cross our ngers and hope that the students are learning just as much in this

situation (though it is hard to see how they have a chance to become better writers

in a class of 150 or more) as they would in a “traditional” classroom. Ah, but then I

come to understand that the real concern is the six-year completion rate. So the “bet-

ter results” is not about students learning more, but about more of them exiting from

the university faster with a credential in hand. However, now I am really perplexed.

No one I know on faculty wants to keep students here a single minute beyond what ittakes them to achieve the appropriate level of learning. We actually are very happy

to see students graduate. After all, their success is our success.

Maybe it’s time to consult an expert about what factors have an impact on increasing

the chances that a student will succeed in graduating in six years or less after starting

college. And that expert would be Dr. Clifford Adelman. Dr. Adelman conducted a

massive study which he reported on as Answers in the Tool Box: Academic Intensity,

Attendance Patterns, and Bachelor’s Degree Attainment (available from the Depart-

ment of Education). What’s more, Dr. Adelman did a second massive study with a

later cohort of students The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion from

Pressure Building on Faculty toIncrease Graduation Rates

by Frank FairTACT VP of Financial AffairsSam Houston State University





Contact us!


Austin, TX 78731

[email protected]

[p] (512) 873-7404

[f] (512) 873-7423

Cover Page

Index




Rates


Gains



TACT: Around Town

GRF Contributions

Membership

CONTENTS

9


TACT

High School Through College (also available from the Department of Education).

Toolbox Revisited has a lengthy executive summary for those of us who don’t want to

slog through page after page of statistical tables. Here is an important nding:

“The academic intensity of the student’s high school curriculum still counts

more than anything else in precollegiate history in providing momentum

toward completing a bachelor’s degree.” (Toolbox Revisited , p. xviii)

Not exactly a surprising nding, but one that is carefully documented with a nicely-spelled-out explanation of what academic intensity involves in terms of units of

English, mathematics, history, foreign languages, science, etc. accumulated. My

colleagues in mathematics would, I suspect, strongly agree that a student that had

earned 3.75 Carnegie units of mathematics is much more likely to get through

college more quickly than someone who has to take one or both of the two different

remedial math courses we require of students who do not do test out. Indeed, of the

126 undergraduate mathematics courses offered at my university in Spring 2011, 41

were either Developmental Math I or Developmental Math II. That means that fully

one third of the mathematics instruction in undergraduate classes offered at my

institution is remedial--and we’re not alone.

But that’s all before a student darkens the door of our classrooms. What about factors

that affect their likelihood of completing a Bachelor’s degree after they are here? It

will not be a big surprise to learn that a higher GPA is related to a greater chance of

degree completion (Toolbox Revisited , p. xxii). But then there is this strongly-assert-

ed conclusion:

“...One of the most degree crippling features of undergraduate histories is an

excessive volume of courses from which the student withdrew without

penalty and those the student repeated.” (Toolbox Revisited , p. xxii)

Adelman follows up with this explanation:

“Think of it this way: Every non-penalty withdrawal and no-credit repeat

means that a set in a course is not available to someone else. Add those seats

up, and admission may not be available to someone else.”

(Toolbox Revisited , p. xxiii)

Now, I have to wonder about the applicability of this lesson to Texas public universi-

ties for several reasons. (1) While UT-Austin and TAMU have been under enrollment

caps for some time, the rest of us will take any and every student whose check does

Pressure Building on Faculty

(cont’d.)





Contact us!


Austin, TX 78731

[email protected]

[p] (512) 873-7404

[f] (512) 873-7423

Cover Page

Index




Rates


Gains



TACT: Around Town

GRF Contributions

Membership

CONTENTS

10


TACT

not bounce and who meets the minimum requirements, so no one loses a place. (2)

Students in Texas are permitted a maximum of only 6 “Q-drops” or fewer if an

institution so decides. In fact, our rule is no more than 5. That hardly seems exces-

sive. (3) Also, it has been our experience that a student who drops a course before the

end of the semester and thereby avoids getting an “F” on his or her transcript is more

likely to return because their GPA did not “take the hit” from an “F.”

What does make a difference in Texas as far as the six-year completion rate is

concerned? It does not take a statistician’s tools to understand that the two public

universities with the highest six-year completion rates, UT-Austin and TAMU, arealso two with high average SAT scores, so academic preparation is, unsurprisingly,

a factor. But then there is a story that, I’m glad to say, my university illustrates. In

2002 our six-year graduation rate, according the Texas Higher Education Coordinat-

ing Board, was an anemic 34.60%. In 2007 it was a much healthier 43.70%. Note an

increase of nearly 1/3. Still not as good as one would like, but much improved. What

happened to bring this about? Did we become more selective in whom we enroll? Not

so, since the change in SAT was from 1,000 to 1,010. What then? The likeliest

explanation is that we put in place in 2003 a systematic advising and mentoring

program. The SAM Center, as it is called, houses a number of trained advisors who

try to make sure that students get the guidance they need in selecting courses. This

includes mandatory advisement for incoming freshmen and transfer students, for

those with academic problems, and for those nearing graduation. The SAM Center

also house academic support programs that work intensively with students in

academic difculty, helping them with training in study skills, references to tutorial

support and career counseling, etc. And this was all paid for by a per capita fee

collected every semester and dedicated strictly to the advisement and mentoring

function, a fee approved by our student government.

Finally, it is not a mystery that many of our students, in a state whose median

family income was $56,607 in 2009 (according to the Census Bureau), must work to

pay their bills. And when tuitions go up, as they have and they will, they need to worklonger hours. The utterly predictable outcome of that process is lower GPAs and a

more difcult road to completion in six years. An often-cited study of students’ work

in relation to grades sums it up this way:

“A statistically signicant negative relationship was found between working

more than 20 hours per week and grades, even after controlling for students’

characteristics and levels of engagement.” (Pike, G. et al., First-year students’

employment, engagement, and academic achievement: untangling the

relationship between work and grades. NASPA Journal, 45, 4, 560-582, 2008)


(cont’d.)





Contact us!


Austin, TX 78731

[email protected]

[p] (512) 873-7404

[f] (512) 873-7423

Cover Page

Index




Rates


Gains



TACT: Around Town

GRF Contributions

Membership

CONTENTS

11


TACT

The moral of my story should be plain. Faculty members at public universities in

Texas have no special power to control students’ prior academic preparation and have

no role in lessening the students’ need to work more as tuition increases. With regard

to student advising and mentoring, those of us who have seen successful programs,

programs that measurably help students to succeed, are strongly supportive of such

programs.

Faculty members are only too happy to adopt best practices that will help more of our

students to succeed and to succeed more quickly. But we need to be shown that

whatever is recommended to us is something that is relevant to Texas and that willreally help our students learn better and more quickly. Simply getting more people

out the door with a credential in their hands can never be the goal.


(cont’d.)





Contact us!


Austin, TX 78731

[email protected]

[p] (512) 873-7404

[f] (512) 873-7423

Cover Page

Index




Rates


Gains



TACT: Around Town

GRF Contributions

Membership

CONTENTS

12


TACT

Reprinted with permission of the Dallas Morning News

State ofcials have been pushing to get more Texans — especially minorities —

through college for more than a decade. Although signicant progress has been made,

experts now say threatened budget cuts will likely hurt efforts to close the

achievement gap.

The issue has far-reaching implications since Texas, one of the most populous statesin the country, consistently ranks among the least educated.

About 27 percent of Dallas County residents have earned bachelor’s degrees,

according to a new breakdown of U.S. census data by the Chronicle of Higher

Education.

But when viewed by race, only 18.26 percent of the state’s black adults and 8.19

percent of Hispanics have earned a college degree.

That gap between the educational attainments of different races is particularly

signicant because much of the area’s explosive population growth is driven bythose with the least education.

That can ultimately be a drag on the local economy.

“The single biggest predictor of income is education,” said Steve Murdock,

demography expert and a sociology professor at Rice University.

State ofcials recognized the need to improve college enrollment rates in 2000, when

they adopted “Closing the Gaps by 2015.” It called for a multifaceted approach that

included more college-prep support for public high school students and more aid to

students from low-income families.

“It was put into place particularly because of the education gap between Texas and

other states and between ethnic groups within Texas,” said Susan Brown, assistant

commissioner for planning and accountability at the Texas Higher Education

Coordinating Board.

By 2005, a series of progress reports showed that the huge population growth would

make it hard to achieve the state’s goals without an extra boost.

Some Fear Budget Cuts Could ErodeEducation Gains in Texasby Lori Stahl





Contact us!


Austin, TX 78731

[email protected]

[p] (512) 873-7404

[f] (512) 873-7423

Cover Page

Index




Rates


Gains



TACT: Around Town

GRF Contributions

Membership

CONTENTS

13


TACT

In response, state ofcials redoubled their efforts to align the public school

curriculum to better match what colleges demand. They also increased outreach to

minority students and designed programs to promote a college-bound culture.

College enrollment increased, particularly at community colleges, which are often the

entry point for disadvantaged students.

At the Dallas County Community College District, enrollment has steadily risen

among Hispanics and blacks over the past decade. But ofcials say the situationcould change dramatically if Texas legislators stick to the budget cuts they outlined

last month.

“While we can’t say in any specic terms, it’s very clear that all of higher education,

community colleges included, will see a reduction in state funding of between 13 and

15 percent,” said DCCCD chancellor Wright Lassiter. “That’s a part of reality.”

Aid to students will likely also be on the chopping block. Without continued funding

for tuition assistance, outreach, mentorship programs and other tools to get

underserved student populations in college — and keep them there — experts say it

will be difcult to maintain progress toward a better-educated generation.

“That’s going to make it tougher all the way around. We still need nancial aid,” said

Brown of the Higher Education board. “The people who had a lot of money were

already going to college.”

Budget Cuts Could Erode Education Gains

(cont’d.)





Contact us!


Austin, TX 78731

[email protected]

[p] (512) 873-7404

[f] (512) 873-7423

Cover Page

Index




Rates


Gains



TACT: Around Town

GRF Contributions

Membership

CONTENTS

14


TACT

New Member Beneft: TACT Legislative Tracker

TACT is here to serve you, and that means you don’t have to search through

thousands of House and Senate bills in order to keep yourself upated about

what legislation affects you: we’re doing all of that for you.

Visit www.tact.org/legislative to see the new Legislative Tracker, a frequently

updated list of higher-education-related bills and their current status. This

information is right at your ngertips, and will keep you informed as the

82nd Legislative Session progresses.

Have a question or comment about the Legislative Tracker?Log in to the TACT website and comment on news items, or take the

New Poll to let us know how we’re doing.


http://www.tact.org/legislative

http://www.tact.org/legislative




Contact us!


Austin, TX 78731

[email protected]

[p] (512) 873-7404

[f] (512) 873-7423

Cover Page

Index




Rates


Gains



TACT: Around Town

GRF Contributions

Membership

CONTENTS

15


TACT

As the VP of Legislative Affairs for TACT, I am continuously monitoring the actions

of our senators and representatives. I follow bills that eventually become law,

advocate for academic freedom, higher salaries for faculty members, and higher contributions for ORP/TRS. I also advocate for keeping course loads manageable,

proper allocation of faculty resources, and that the TEXAS grant will continue to

provide for our many students who struggle nancially to complete their college

degrees. I argue against handguns on campus, increased budget cuts, and a “report

card” that rates faculty members based on their “worth.” However, not a day goes by

that I am not pushed up against a brick wall that I am fearful I won’t be able to break

through. However, I still rise up and face those challenges that lie ahead. I do this

because, I do, without a doubt, believe that there is hope for higher education.

I know as many of you read your daily newspapers or watch the local news and

see the allegations of mismanaged funds, rising tuition costs, or shootings whichescalated from a faculty member’s denial of tenure, you must question the future of

higher education. You must wonder if there is really hope. I have been around long

enough to understand the bureaucracies of administration and have seen the impact

that political decisions have on the recruitment and retention of strong faculty mem-

bers. I see how certain pieces of legislation have left faculty members feeling isolated

in their attempts to teach our students to the best of their abilities while simultane-

ously maintaining their research and service to the universities where they teach and

the communities in which they serve. I feel for junior faculty who seek tenure in a

time when travel funds are cut short and grant money is more competitive. I hear the

fears they have about the large class sizes and the push to provide the same quality of

education to 100 students that they provide to a class of 45. Will it overwhelm them

to the degree that they are driven out of higher education? It is certainly a possibility.

But, despite this, I do believe that there is hope for higher education.

We all see the published polls which suggest that the general public has a perception

that tenured faculty are not accountable for their actions or whereabouts. My belief

in society and my hope for future generations drives me to question this. I personally

witness how hard faculty work, how much they travel, and how often they meet with

students. It is evident to me that most faculty want what is best for their students;

they want to see their students achieving academic success. My colleagues around

Is There Hope for Higher Education?by Cindy SimpsonTACT VP of Legislative Affairs





Contact us!


Austin, TX 78731

[email protected]

[p] (512) 873-7404

[f] (512) 873-7423

Cover Page

Index




Rates


Gains



TACT: Around Town

GRF Contributions

Membership

CONTENTS

16


TACT

Hope for Higher Education?

(cont’d.)

the world are continuously striving for improvements in higher education. They

leave their families behind to obtain professional development and to present cutting

edge research. They have devoted their lives to our children and to the future of our

society. I also applaud the efforts of the university faculty members who have sup-

ported the increase in the number of minorities and rst generation college students

completing degrees, efforts which often go unrecognized. Faculty members who

serve those students with disabilities in their college classrooms and make accommo-

dations to ensure their success are also often unrecognized.

Additionally, the college professors who seek out innovative technological advancesor prepare future educators are often left with little recognition. A frightening thought

exists that universities frequently overlook the gems in their possessions and seek

out external solutions when their own faculty members have so much to offer. But

faculty members still come to work, share their knowledge and expertise, and

continue to use research to improve the lives of individuals throughout the world. I

applaud professional organizations that do recognize the many accomplishments of

their membership as I know small acts of recognition are often a key to retention of

personnel in any eld.

The actions of legislators and some administrators alone are enough to drive faculty

away from teaching in higher education. Teacher preparation faculty often are

questioned as to why unprepared teachers are placed in our school systems… is this

the fault of faculty or is it the result of the same aforementioned political decisions

that are creating this crisis? History always has a way of repeating itself and the

need for “back to the basics” will hopefully resurface. What was the original intent

of higher education? Are we moving so fast in technological advances and outcome

driven planning that we have lost sight of the core foundation of higher education?

But, again, despite this, I do believe there is hope for higher education.

This legislative session has awakened the worst in many people. Possibly this is the

result of fear of losing jobs or the increased workloads as faculty positions of thoseleaving higher education are not reallocated. Although I share similar concerns, I

remain true to my beliefs.

I have a challenge for each of you: Let the brick walls we face bring out the best in

you. Let it invigorate your creativity as you seek solutions to overcome the

challenges. Think about the one faculty member or the one administrator who made

a bad decision that resulted in a negative perception of higher education. Can you say

he or she is like the one student who rolled out of bed and came to class in his or her

pajamas? It happens, but you teach them anyway in hopes that one day they will see





Contact us!


Austin, TX 78731

[email protected]

[p] (512) 873-7404

[f] (512) 873-7423

Cover Page

Index




Rates


Gains



TACT: Around Town

GRF Contributions

Membership

CONTENTS

17


TACT

the value of education and start wearing “real” clothes to class. I am not saying that

legislators or administrators are like students in PJ’s, but rather more like the progres-

sion they follow after being educated. I don’t believe the public, our state legislatures,

or the students we serve will give up on higher education. Faculty members don’t give

up on pajama-clad students. We do what we do because we believe our students

deserve the best and we believe that the system will not fail us or our students.

Society likes to focus on negative aspects, what is wrong, what failed, but all too

often people forget all the good that occurs. Higher education faculty work with stu-

dents and create problem-solvers, critical thinkers, and future leaders. Despite limitedresources, they strive to be the best and continue encouraging and inspiring students.

Some say that higher education is on a downward spiral. I say it is holding fast and

will rise again.

So, regardless of the legislative outcomes, I do believe that there is hope for higher

education . Pat yourself on the back because you, our membership, are the reason I

will continue to believe this. Keep doing what you are doing and I will keep advocat-

ing for the rights you deserve as a faculty member. Take on the challenge of using this

legislative session as a means to educate those around you. . Don’t stop believing that

there is hope for higher education.

Now, is there hope that the budget won’t be cut? I would say I have given up on that

prospect, but higher education in general...there is hope for higher education.

Hope for Higher Education?

(cont’d.)





Contact us!


Austin, TX 78731

[email protected]

[p] (512) 873-7404

[f] (512) 873-7423

Cover Page

Index




Rates


Gains



TACT: Around Town

GRF Contributions

Membership

CONTENTS

18


TACT

Executive Director Chuck Hempstead and TACT President-Elect Dr. Peter Hugill

visited the capitol on February 15, 2011.

They extended an invitation to Representative Dan Branch, Chairman of the House

Higher Education Committee, and to Senator Kirk Watson, Senate Higher Education

Committee member, to speak at the TACT/TCFS/ Texas-AAUP Joint Spring

Conference on February 25th and 26th.

Chuck and Peter also briefed the staff of Senator Steve Ogden, Chairman of theSenate Finance Committee, regarding the wonderful job that universities are already

doing to measure teaching through the tenure-track process.

TACT: Around Town

TACT President-Elect Dr. Peter Hugill at the Capitol.





Contact us!


Austin, TX 78731

[email protected]

[p] (512) 873-7404

[f] (512) 873-7423

Cover Page

Index




Rates


Gains



TACT: Around Town

GRF Contributions

Membership

CONTENTS

19


TACT

The James M. Puckett, Ph. D.Government Relations FundThe TACT Dr. James M. Puckett, Ph.D. Government Relations Fund is a result of optional

contributions made by those committed to TACT’s heightened public affairs program. It is

not used for candidate contributions, but for activities that will increase awareness of TACT

among opinion leaders of public policy. Your contribution will assist in TACT’s legislative

efforts to improve Texas higher education. All expenditures are approved in advance by

TACT’s President, President-elect and Legislative Committee Chair.

Click Here to Contribute!

Thank you to the following contributors

Al Burrs

Gary Coulton

Jonathan Coopersmith

Mary Lynn DeShazo

Frank Fair

Clarke Garnsey

Bob Harmel

Chuck Hempstead

Harvey Johnson

Elizabeth Lewandowski

George ParangimalilDebra Price

Robert Strader

Andrea Williams


http://www.hempsteadassociates.com/tact/node/add/grf?reset=1&id=1?reset=1&id=1&reset=1&id=1

http://www.hempsteadassociates.com/tact/node/add/grf?reset=1&id=1?reset=1&id=1&reset=1&id=1




Contact us!


Austin, TX 78731

[email protected]

[p] (512) 873-7404

[f] (512) 873-7423

Cover Page

Index




Rates


Gains



TACT: Around Town

GRF Contributions

Membership

CONTENTS


TACT

Visit www.tact.org, and

join TACT Today!

Please note the recent changes in our membership rates through the end of this

membership year.

• $125 Regular Membership. Professional staff, full-time faculty, librarians,

administrators and other professionals. Includes Educators’ Professional

Liability Insurance starting 11/1/2010 and ending 10/31/2011.

• $95 Afliate Membership. Administrative assistants, retired faculty, part-

time faculty, graduate students, subscription members and libraries. Includes

Educators’ Professional Liability Insurance starting 11/1/2010 and ending

10/31/2011.

• $250 Annual Business Membership.

Renew your TACT membership online by visiting “Join TACT”

or renew over the phone by calling (512) 873-7404.

Membership


https://hempsteadassociates.com/tact/node/add/membership?reset=1&id=3

http://hempsteadassociates.com/tact/node/add/membership?reset=1&id=3&reset=1&id=3

http://hempsteadassociates.com/tact/node/add/membership?reset=1&id=3&reset=1&id=3

https://hempsteadassociates.com/tact/node/add/membership?reset=1&id=3


jan.feb.mar11

Documents