DRAFT

Preliminary Internal Report of the MSP Committee on Tenure System Teaching

University of Massachusetts, Amherst

For MSP: Lee Badgett, Robert Paynter, Mary Fletcher, Diane Raczkowski

19 February 2002

Executive Summary

There has been a decline in the number of students taught by tenure system faculty since 1993-94. Since the number of students at the Amherst campus has increased over this time, instructors of various other types, but principally non-tenure system faculty, have filled in the gap. The Committee considers this to be detrimental to the educational experience of students at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

The Charge to the Committee (from MSP Contract)

Introduction

This preliminary study reports on the numbers of fte undergraduates, the numbers of fte undergraduates taught by tenure system faculty, and the numbers of fte undergraduates taught by all other instructors for the academic years (AYs) 1993-94 through 1999-00 at the campus and college/school levels. In addition to the contract-mandated variables, the study also reports on changes in the student/teacher ratio and the proportion of undergraduates taught by tenure system faculty and all other instructors over this same time period. We studied these measures in addition to the contract-mandated variables because they give a clearer sense of the quality of education at the University. The student/teacher ratio gives a sense of how many students are in the average classroom of a tenure system faculty member. The percentage of students taught by tenure system faculty and all other instructors gives a sense of the likelihood that a student will be taught by a member of the core faculty.

The committee did not generate new data to conduct this preliminary study, instead relying on previously available data form the Office of Institutional Research’s (OIR) Web site. The Fact Sheets entitled "Student/Faculty Ratios" were particularly useful. There are advantages as well as problems in working with the available data. One advantage is that the Fact Sheets allowed us to break the general category of "All Other Instructors" into components. For instance, we were able to work with the subcategories of non-tenure system teaching faculty, teaching assistants, and other instructors. A disadvantage is that they only provide data on AYs 1993-94 through 1999-2000, not the contract-mandated years of 1987-88 through 2000-01. In addition, the committee is concerned that these data are not the most accurate accounting of the tenure system faculty and all other instructors. Furthermore, the MSP is of the opinion that analyzing head counts and full-time equivalents (ftes) provides the best insight into changes in students’ educational experiences, and these are not yet available.

These issues and limitations make it impossible to proceed at this point to the full study mandated by the contract. The administration and MSP are working to overcome these difficulties, generate data appropriate for the goals of this study, and produce a full report later in the spring of 2002. However, the current budgetary crisis is raising serious issues about the composition of the faculty and the quality of education in the near future. Releasing a timely, if preliminary study on the long-term institutional trends in tenure system faculty/student numerical relations can only aid in thoughtful planning. Therefore, the MSP has decided to release its preliminary document to inform the discussions now taking place.

Data

Table 1 reports an overview of teaching by various categories of teachers for AYs 1993-94 through 1999-00 for the entire campus. The data is taken from the OIR Fact Sheet titled "Student/Faculty Ratios, Campus Summary." The contract-mandated variables are reported in boldface. Undergraduate students are counted as full time equivalent instructed students (fteis) and tenure system faculty and all other instructors are also reported as ftes, resulting in the fractional numbers of students and teachers. Total tenure system faculty is defined in this data as

Hence, these analyses are working with an overcount of tenure-system faculty, a matter to be rectified in the future full report. The "Tenure Teaching System Faculty" on Table 1 is the tenure system faculty who had teaching responsibilities in any given year. "All Other Instructors" includes non-tenure system faculty, teaching assistants, and other instructors (e.g., administrators or Five College faculty). Non-tenure system faculty are defined as "Visiting, post-retirement and other temporary faculty teaching credit bearing sections; excludes the proportion of FTE paid from non-state funds." This is a likely undercount of non-tenure system faculty teaching, a matter to be further investigated by the committee. The average students per tenure system faculty is computed from the student fteis divided by the teaching tenure system faculty fte.

Table 2 reports the percentage of students taught by various categories of teachers and is drawn from OIR Fact Sheet titled "Student/Faculty Ratios, Campus Summary." It draws on the same OIR Fact Sheet used for Table 1 and reports the same contract-mandated data. In addition it reports the number of undergraduates taught by non-tenure system faculty. Percentages of undergraduates taught by tenure system faculty, all other instructors and non-tenure system faculty are computed by dividing lines 2-4 by the student fteis.

Table 3 reports headcount numbers of tenure system and non-tenure system faculty for the years 1987 to 1999. These data are drawn from the OIR Fact Sheet entitled "Number and Average Salary of Full-Time Instructional Faculty by Academic Rank Fall 1980-Fall 1999." Instructional faculty is defined as "Faculty whose primary responsibility is instruction; includes department heads and faculty who are on sabbatical or have release time for research; excludes faculty on leave without pay."

Table 4 reports the percentage of undergraduates taught by tenure system and non-tenure system faculty for each of the 9 colleges/schools for the years 1993-94 through 1999-00. These data are drawn from college and school summary Fact Sheets entitled "Student/Faculty Ratios, [College Name]." The definitions of underlying variables are the same used for Tables 1 and 2.

Discussion

The numbers immediately reveal a climate of decline in tenure system faculty at the Amherst campus. Table 1 reports that from 1993-94 until 1999-00 the number of undergraduate students has grown from 16,218.5 to 17,249.1, an increase of 6.4%. Over the same period the number of students taught by tenure system faculty has declined by 3%, from 10,909.8 to 10,581.5 while the number of students taught by all other instructors has increased by 25.6%, from 5,308.7 to 6,667.6. The underlying cause for this shift is a decline in the number of tenure system faculty. Since 1993-94 the number of tenure system teaching faculty shrank by 5.2% from 963.2 to 913.0 while the number of all other instructors has increased by 23.8% from 282.2 to 349.5. Of this latter group, the number of non-tenure system faculty has especially grown from 100.5 to 167.7, an increase of 66.9%.

Table 2 puts these numbers somewhat differently. In 1993-94 tenure system faculty taught 67.3% of the students but by 1999-00 this had declined to 61.3%. The difference was made up by other instructors who have increased from teaching 32.7% to 38.7% of the students. This latter increase is principally due to the increase in teaching by non-tenure system faculty, who have increased from teaching 13.8% of the students to 19.3%. In other words, students have seen fewer tenure system faculty as the instructors of their classes and more non-tenure system faculty, teaching assistants, and other instructors over the course of the 1990s.

Another way of thinking about this is to observe that tenure system faculty have responsibility for advising, mentoring, and working with more undergraduate students on average now than in the early 1990’s. The average number of undergraduates per tenure system faculty member (the ratio of all undergraduate ftes to tenure system faculty) increased from 16.8 in 1993-94 to 18.9 in 1999-2000 (Table 1).

This decline in the number of students taught by Tenure System Faculty between 1993-94 through 1999-2000 is part of a longer term, and even more dramatic, decline in the actual number of tenure system faculty at the Amherst campus. Though the data do not yet allow us to track the number of students taught by tenure system faculty starting in 1987-88, the OIR does have data on the change in the number of faculty of various categories since then. Compiled in Table 3, these data chart a remarkable 15% decline in the number of tenure system faculty (from 1244 to 1058). Over the same period there has been a 75% increase in the number of non-tenure system faculty (from 59 to 103).

The committee has yet to delve into the question of college/school level and department level causes of these changes. Some sense can be gained from Table 4. The decline in the percentage of undergraduates taught by tenure system faculty and the increase in undergraduates taught by non-tenure system faculty is not evenly distributed across the campus. Engineering is the only college/school that has seen an increase in the proportion of undergraduates taught by tenure system faculty and a decline in the share of undergraduates taught by non-tenure system faculty. Four colleges/schools mirror the campus’s situation and have seen a decline in the percentage of undergraduates taught by tenure system faculty and an increase in the percentage of undergraduates taught by non-tenure system faculty (HFA, Health Sciences, Nursing, and CSBS). The remaining four colleges/schools fit neither of these patterns. Education has seen an increase in the percentage of students taught by both tenure system and non-tenure system faculty. CFNR has seen a decline in the percentage of students taught by tenure system faculty and no change in non-tenure system faculty. SOM has seen no change in the percent taught by tenure system faculty, but an increase in the percent taught by non-tenure system faculty. NSM has seen no change in either category. Clearly more work is needed to understand how the University is coping with the 15% decrease in its tenure system faculty.

Conclusions

The number of tenure system faculty on the campus has declined by 15% since the fall of 1987. Students have seen their likelihood of having a short-term faculty member or teaching assistant as a teacher increase from 33% to now closer to 40%. This is a trend that does not contribute to the quality of the education offered to undergraduates at UMass, Amherst.

The MSP embarked on this study because we were concerned about the effect of the declining number of tenure system faculty on the quality of education at the Amherst campus. We have no quarrel with the quality of instruction provided by non-tenure system teachers in their specific classes. However, a quality undergraduate education involves more than just faculty-student interaction in a particular classroom, and this work falls on the tenure system faculty.

For individual students, full-time tenure system faculty provide an educational continuity. Some students choose to take more advanced courses with faculty encountered in their early years. In other instances, as students mature, they may find themselves collaborating with these same faculty members in independent research studies by their junior and senior years. Core faculty also directly serve students by being around for consultation outside of class time, for course advice during counseling periods, and for letters of recommendation, often requested many years after students had a taken a course. Students also benefit from tenure system faculty work, even if they never meet the faculty member in a class. For instance, tenure system faculty assure a quality education by serving on curriculum committees and advisory boards that oversee the courses and programs offered at the department, college and campus levels. Tenure system faculty also enhance an undergraduate’s experience by being a presence around campus, in the Campus Center, by the Pond, at athletic events, and eventually at Commencement. Tenure system faculty, people invested in the institution and its students over the long term, provide all of these services that are essential for creating a high quality educational experience at a residential campus.

What was initially perceived as a problem of the gradual erosion in tenure system faculty has been exacerbated by the budget problems of 2001-02. The 15% decline in tenure system faculty over the last 14 years may be duplicated with a 15% reduction in the next six months. The erosion of the undergraduate experience that has taken three or four cohorts of students to play itself out will hit the present and future cohorts like a ton of bricks. To effectively respond to this crisis in a way that allows the campus to build for the future, the administration and faculty need to see our present situation in its longer-term institutional setting. This study’s observation of the decline in the numbers of tenure system faculty is not encouraging. It suggests an institutional setting that will further drive down the numbers of tenure system faculty. It will take a conscious effort on the part of the administration, trustees, governor, and legislature to reverse the trend and restore the core faculty necessary for the quality education people have come to expect of the University’s flagship campus.

In the hope of providing this high quality education, MSP will continue this study, analyzing more fully the information on college and department level trends and tracking information back to the contractually mandated dates of 1987-1988. We will also seek to rectify differences in counting between the administration and MSP. We expect to issue a final report for 2002 by the end of the spring 2002 semester.