Audit: More accountability needed for tenured faculty at Utah higher education institutions

SALT LAKE CITY — A legislative audit released Tuesday found that the current oversight of tenured faculty at Utah's public higher education institutions does little to ensure accountability, with some tenured professors described as "persistently poor" teachers.

The audit drew its findings from more than 120 interviews with administrators, deans and department chairs from the Utah System of Higher Education's degree-granting institutions, along with materials from 666 performance reviews of tenured professors.

"Persistently underperforming faculty continue to negatively impact Utah students because the prevailing department leadership model does not adequately address underperformance. Department chairs are responsible for evaluating their faculty but are not positioned to effectively lead their academic units," the audit said. "As a result, the leaders most aware of faculty performance issues are disincentivized from holding faculty accountable for their performance."

Here's a look at what the audit found and what the Utah Legislature might do about it.

'Many instances of poor teaching'

The audit noted that in most cases, faculty and academic leaders work earnestly to help Utah students, but when problems do come up, poor performance is often not corrected.

Of the 600-plus performance reviews of tenured faculty the audit team reviewed, only eight concluded that teaching performance needed improvement.

Despite this, the audit selected 40 cases where teaching was rated satisfactory, despite evidence to the contrary. This indicated that performance reviews "either ignored or did not detect many instances of poor teaching."

Students reported avoiding or withdrawing from courses taught by faculty in some of the 40 identified cases, and many of the faculty were assigned to teach required classes that students said they had to repeat.

Additionally, the audit said these instances were particularly prominent in fields like science and engineering, "possibly contributing to students abandoning fields that Utah is in high demand of."

Some faculty either dismiss or ignore student input, according to the audit. One professor, upon undergoing a post-tenure review, was asked to reflect on their recent course evaluations.

The faculty member's response was: "I have no answer to this. I haven't looked at student evaluations for some time," the audit said.

In this particular instance, the institution approved their post-tenure review.

Departmental accountability

Part of the tenured faculty issue could lie in the duties and incentives of department chairs. Chairs are usually selected (based on faculty input) to serve as temporary leaders for the department they represent before returning to their role as regular faculty after their term as chair.

"Chairs are given responsibility for evaluating and supervising the performance of their peers but are thwarted by both structural and cultural barriers," the audit said.

In fact, 67% of auditor interviews with department chairs contained concerns about the chair roles, design, authority, workload, incentives or training.

Most institutions operate around a temporary, rotational model for department chairs, a model the audit noted creates "structural disincentives" that discourage chairs from addressing poor faculty performance.

"Some chairs expressed reluctance to act against colleagues they will later work alongside when their term is over. This reluctance may be heightened among junior faculty whose continued employment, relationships, or future promotions depend on maintaining support of influential senior faculty," the audit said.

Another challenge noted in the audit is that chairs are often expected to perform most faculty responsibilities while also serving in the departmental leadership role, giving chairs insufficient time to attend to all aspects of their job.

Salt Lake Community College is the one exception, as it uses a permanent, non-rotational model for its first-line department supervisors.

"Administrators and leaders at SLCC describe a 'mentality shift' that comes from being held accountable as a leader for the student outcomes in their unit," the audit said.

Additionally, the audit's review of SLCC's documentation found higher levels of accountability than at other institutions.

To that end, the audit presented the following recommendations to the Board of Higher Education as ways to address the issues:

• Formally strengthen the supervisory role of academic department leaders across institutions to ensure they can effectively oversee faculty performance, address deficiencies, and promote continuous improvement.
• Redefine department chair roles across institutions to position department chairs primarily as academic leaders, rather than faculty members with secondary leadership responsibilities. Institutions should ensure that chairs have the time and support needed to carry out their leadership and supervisory responsibilities.
• Revise academic department leader selection processes across institutions to prioritize leadership capability and establish that chairs are appointed by, and are accountable to, institutional leadership for department performance. This will align the role's incentives and expectations with its supervisory responsibilities.
• Require institutional leadership to set and evaluate department chair performance using specific metrics that are clear, actionable and aligned with the institution's mission, as well as USHE's performance incentive metrics.

"Tenure serves important purposes in Utah's higher education system, including supporting academic freedom and helping institutions attract and retain qualified faculty," auditors wrote. "However, aspects of the current tenure framework can shield faculty from meaningful accountability for persistent underperformance or conduct issues, to the detriment of students."

The full audit can be found here.

Related topics