Policies on Faculty Reward Structures: Report from the States -- Policy Implications

Policies on Faculty Reward Structures: Report from the States

Policy Implications

FUNDING FOR RESULTS

Missouri is developing a results oriented agenda by integrating planning with its budget policies. Through Funding for Results (FFR) public institutions receive an increase in their base budget for the achievement of statewide goals. Between FY 1994 and FY 1998, funding through this initiative totaled $31 million for public four-year institutions and $4.9 million for public two-year institutions. Included in this amount is a $3.8 million annual appropriation in support of teaching/learning improvement projects. Institutions are rewarded for designing and implementing locally controlled performance funding programs that emphasize teaching and learning. Rewards for teaching/learning improvements are becoming a total campus conversation, as institutions are encouraged to set goals, establish an appropriate unit of analysis, and then release rewards once goals have been met.

Program strengths include: (1) shifting the state policy dialogue to teaching/learning, (2) connecting the state budget process to improved teaching and learning, (3) building campus ownership of statewide goals, (4) permitting flexibility across institutions, (5) emphasizing accountability, (6) promoting networking across institutions, (7) recognizing and showcasing best teaching and learning practices, and (8) serving as an effective reward system.

Teaching and learning innovations include:

Use of student competencies rather than course completion to determine graduation,

Development of an intercollegiate on-line chemistry course, and

Use of equipment to link direct observation of motion to the graph that describes that motion.

Contact: Robert B. Stein, Assistant Commissioner, Coordinating Board for Higher Education, (573) 751-1798; robert?cbhe400@admin.mochbe.gov

ALTHOUGH state policymakers rank faculty reward structures important compared to most of the pressing issues facing higher education, they expect relatively little activity in this arena in the current legislative session. As activity does get underway, experience suggests that:

Given the role that faculty belief structures play in their behavior, dialogue with faculty regarding public concerns is more likely to
lead to effective policy than efforts to address issues in an adversarial way.

Most faculty say that they would like to be rewarded for teaching, yet what institutions actually reward is research. States can play a role in changing this.

Given the extent to which faculty are seen as integral to the majority of issues facing higher education, policymakers should not attempt to influence faculty reward systems in a piecemeal fashion. Instead, policymakers need to support the development of clear descriptions of faculty responsibilities that respond to the needed reforms before examining reward structures.

Salaries often increase the most when a faculty member leaves one institution for another. Merit pay and salary increases are not likely to influence faculty activity unless intrastate and interstate differences in institutional rewards are addressed.

MULTIPARTY INTEREST-BASED NEGOTIATIONS

Montana is experimenting with a strategy that invites more parties as well as issues into collective bargaining. In the past, collective bargaining was conducted between representatives of the state system, students, and union officials and dealt only with salary issues. The most recent bargaining agreement brought a number of accountability and productivity issues to the table and involved players key to obtaining legislative as well as system-wide support.

The agreement focused on the need to bring faculty salaries up to the average of peer institutions. The pay increases were tied to agreements to: (1) increase institutional productivity, (2) increase both enrollment and tuition, and (3) improve services to students. Funding for the pay increases was to be drawn from larger budget allocations from the legislature, increased revenues generated by increased enrollment and tuition, and savings reaped from increased productivity.

Examples of performance measures tied to the increased salaries include:

A four-year graduation guarantee or reimbursement for additional costs created by the unavailability of courses. Students agree to take 15 hours per semester, maintain an acceptable grade point average, and not change their majors.

Productivity increases scaled to institutional size. Smaller institutions were expected to increase class size; larger institutions were expected to increase teaching loads.

Improved advising and internal allocation of funds to libraries and technology.

Contact: Stuart Knapp, Deputy Commissioner for Academic Affairs, Montana Higher Education Systems, (406) 444-6570 or e-mail at sknapp@oche.oche.montana.edu