Sam Houston State University (SHSU) (a) publishes and implements policies on authority of faculty in academic and governance matters, (b) demonstrates that educational programs for which academic credit is awarded are approved consistent with institutional policy, and (c) places primary responsibility for the content, quality, and effectiveness of the curriculum with its faculty.
Authority of Faculty in Academic and Governance Matters
SHSU publishes policies and clearly defines the responsibility and authority of faculty in academic and governance matters as demonstrated by the policies of the University and the actions of the University Faculty Senate and its committees. Faculty input into important decisions is actively and systematically sought. In addition to the University Faculty Senate, faculty play key roles on University, college, and department committees dealing with such matters as tenure, promotion, and curricular issues. Although the membership of most University-wide committees is based on recommendations from the University Faculty Senate, faculty may also be called upon by administration to serve on ad hoc committees. Faculty and administrators at SHSU work as partners to provide the best educational experience possible for the student.
The University Faculty Senate
The University assures that faculty determine and govern the course of academic affairs on campus through representation on the University Faculty Senate and on institutional academic committees [1] [2]. The University Faculty Senate consists of faculty members elected from each of the seven colleges at the University and one representative from the Newton Gresham Library. Persons holding the rank of program coordinator or above are not eligible to serve. The University Faculty Senate, operating independently from the University administration, sets its own agenda and advises the Provost and President. Administrators, faculty, students, and senators can bring forward items for consideration by the University Faculty Senate. The University Faculty Senate maintains a website to keep faculty informed of its work [1]. The University Faculty Senate Charter [3] and Bylaws [4] appear in the Faculty Handbook [5] and on the University Faculty Senate website [6].
Senate elections are held each spring and terms begin each fall. Each member serves a staggered 3-year term. Full-time faculty members designate, in writing, their willingness to be a candidate for election to the Senate. Each college then elects senators from candidates in that unit. All faculty members, full- and part-time, are eligible to vote on Senate membership. If for any reason a member of the Senate cannot serve a full term, the vacancy is filled by the person from that college who received the next highest number of votes. The number of representatives for a given college is proportional to the number of tenure/tenure-track faculty in the unit, as delineated by the University Faculty Senate Bylaws [4]. The University Faculty Senate is empowered to establish bylaws and form committees by its members as it deems advisable for carrying out its responsibilities. The Senate meets a minimum of four times each semester during the regular semesters of the academic year.
Senators are assigned to one of four standing committees. The standing committees are the Academic Affairs Committee, the University Affairs Committee, the Faculty Affairs Committee, and the Committee on Committees and Surveys. Minutes of Senate meetings are posted on the University Faculty Senate website [7] [8]. The Chair of the Senate submits recommendations passed by the Senate to the appropriate administrative officer. The Chair and Chair-elect of the Senate regularly meet with the Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs, and the Chair attends selected Council of Academic Deans meetings.
Committees
Faculty are invited each spring to indicate to the Committee on Committees of the University Faculty Senate their preferences for service on committees at the University. As detailed in the committee descriptions viewed within the University’s Committee Book located on the University website [2], the University Faculty Senate provides nominations for appointments to most committees. Faculty are represented on 46 of the 54 University committees [9]. The University’s Committee Book [2], updated annually, lists committees and their purposes, the methods of appointment to these committees, methods of reporting, and the makeup of membership, including the number of faculty and a roster of members with the dates on which their terms expire. These committees work closely with the administration and provide advisory services to the Provost and President concerning items such as the budget, strategic planning, curriculum, diversity, grievances, etc. The University Faculty Senate Chair also sits on numerous committees, working in conjunction with the administration and representing the faculty on these committees. Examples of the important committees, both standing and ad hoc committees, on which the University Faculty Senate Chair serves are the Academic Calendar Advisory Committee, Academic Affairs Council, and Strategic Planning Committee.
Appointments, Reappointments, Tenure, Promotions, and Evaluations
Faculty are an integral component of the processes related to faculty hiring, tenure, promotion, evaluations, and grievances. The following published and implemented policies govern these processes at SHSU:
The reader is referred to Standard 6.3 for an in-depth description of each of these policies. Provided below is a brief description of the faculty role in these processes. All of the policies are available online in the Academic Policy Manual [15], available through the Academic Affairs website and the Faculty Handbook [16].
Academic Instructional Staffing
It is the policy of SHSU to initiate the faulty hiring processes in the academic departments. Through departmental hiring committees, faculty participate actively in the recruitment and hiring process, from the development of the job description and posting announcements to the screening of applicants, interviews of prospective hires, and selection of the candidate.
Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion
Each tenure track faculty member is evaluated each year within the “tenure unit” in which the faculty member teaches, or chiefly teaches. Each tenure unit forms a Department Promotion and Tenure Advisory Committee (DPTAC). The DPTAC is an advisory body, ordinarily composed of all of the tenured faculty members appointed in the tenure unit. The dean appoints the chair for this committee. In the case of a probationary faculty member, the members of the DPTAC are appointed to review the performance of the probationary faculty member every year beginning with the second year of employment and continuing until a final recommendation concerning tenure is made. In the case of promotions, the members of the DPTAC are appointed to review the performance of the faculty member every year beginning with the second year after the previous promotion and continuing until a final recommendation concerning promotion is made. The full DPTAC limits its recommendations to tenure decisions. Decisions about promotion are made by all members of the DPTAC holding at least the rank for which the candidate is being considered for promotion. A separate record of the vote count for tenure and/or promotion from the DPTAC members shall be transmitted to the appropriate administrator and to the University’s Standing Faculty Tenure Committee [17].
Graduate Faculty Status
Through their role on the Graduate Council, faculty are an integral component of the review and approval of faculty appointments to the Graduate Faculty. Nominations for appointment may be submitted at any time in a faculty member’s career and are not connected to the reappointment timelines. Nominations are initiated by the individual faculty member, the appropriate departmental/school chair, and/or the appropriate academic dean. The nomination form and a current curriculum vita will be routed through the departmental/school chair, academic dean, Graduate Council, and the Dean of Graduate Studies. The Graduate Council will review the candidate’s credentials and make a recommendation to the Dean of Graduate Studies for final appointment.
Evaluations
In addition to promotion and tenure recommendations, faculty, as members of the DPTAC, participate in formative reviews of their peers through an ongoing process. In addition to annual reviews, an extensive review is conducted during the spring semester of the faculty member’s third academic year of probationary service. The primary purpose of the review is to provide the candidate and the University with guidance concerning the likelihood of the candidate obtaining tenure. If the faculty member’s performance is not meeting departmental expectations, guidance is provided as to what needs to be done to increase the likelihood of a successful tenure decision. The review includes an indication of the degree of consensus of the DPTAC, in the form of a preview vote, regarding the probationary faculty member's progress toward tenure.
Faculty, through their role on the DPTAC, also perform post-tenure reviews on tenured colleagues. Every tenured faculty member is given a comprehensive performance evaluation every fifth year after receiving tenure, receiving a promotion, or returning to a faculty position following an administrative assignment. The periodic comprehensive performance evaluation focuses on helping the faculty member improve performance in the conduct of professional duties.
In addition to their role in the evaluation of their peers, faculty have the opportunity to evaluate department chairs each year [18] [19]. Additionally, the University Faculty Senate provides an annual survey that allows faculty to evaluate the performance of deans, vice presidents, the president, and other administrative officials [20].
Educational Programs Approved Consistent with Institutional Policy
The faculty and administration at SHSU approve each educational program for which academic credit is awarded. Starting at the faculty level, ideas for new programs are proposed, evaluated, and referred on to department-, college-, University-, administrative-, and system-level committees for approval. For new programs and substantive changes to degree programs, the University follows the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) rules as set out in the Texas Administrative Code, Title 19, Part 1, Chapter 5, Subchapter B, §5.25 [21].
The curriculum process at SHSU follows all applicable THECB policies and the Texas State University System (TSUS) [22] Rules and Regulations as described in detail below.
Before any new course or program may be delivered, it must be reviewed and approved through the Department Curriculum Committee, College Curriculum Committee, Academic Affairs Council, Provost, President, TSUS Board of Regents, and the THECB.
Proposed New Programs
The proposal and approval process for all new programs and accompanying courses originates at the faculty level and proceed through a series of committees comprised of faculty and administrators before submission to the Provost, President, Board of Regents, and the THECB. The University utilizes the THECB’s degree program request forms for internal review and consideration of all proposed degree programs at the undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral levels. The degree proposals, regardless of curricular modality, require thorough descriptions of the program and its curriculum, as well as documentation of student demand, market need, and institutional resources. New bachelor’s and master’s degree program proposals are reviewed and submitted using the THECB’s New Program Request Form for Bachelor and Master’s Degrees [23]. Doctoral program proposals require the New Doctoral Degree Proposal [24] and must adhere to the Guidelines for Institutions Submitting Proposals for New Doctoral Programs [25].
Each new degree program request is submitted to the Departmental Curriculum Committee for review and approval. Each department’s committee will report to the appropriate department chair. It is the responsibility of the department committee to review the curriculum, to make suggestions for changes in existing curricula, and to present recommendations for new courses and degree programs. The department chair is ultimately responsible for the quality of the department’s curriculum report [26].
If approved at the department level, the proposal is subsequently forwarded to the college curriculum committee for review and approval. The college curriculum committee's function is to review all requests originating in the departments in the college’s administrative area. The committee will ascertain whether the proposed requests are in harmony with the various roles and scopes of the departments in the college, as well as in congruence with the statement of mission of the college itself. It is a concern of the committee that the requests do not in any way foster an overlapping of offerings among the departments within the college. The academic dean determines support of the program and indicates willingness to allocate resources to support the program prior to submission to the University Curriculum Committee [26].
The University Curriculum Committee, comprised of faculty and administrators from each of the seven colleges, is charged with reviewing the proposals to ensure there is a documented need and no unnecessary duplication [27]. The committee is charged with reviewing for academic integrity the curriculum reports to resolve conflicts to the extent possible. This includes responsibility for carefully reviewing the curriculum submissions to determine if information provided for all requests for new programs and/or courses is complete, to analyze proposed additions and changes in courses in the interest of identifying areas of possible overlap or duplication, and to work toward a resolution of potential problems before the matters come up for discussion by the Academic Affairs Council [28]. Petitions for programs are evaluated on the basis of program demands and the qualifications of the faculty. It is expected that committee members will be knowledgeable of the details of the curriculum submissions from their respective colleges in the interest of responding to most questions that will arise in committee meetings.
Finally, all proposed changes are submitted to the Provost and the Academic Affairs Council [29], with the University Curriculum Committee’s recommendation to approve or deny each request [30]. The AAC consists of the Provost, all academic deans and associate deans, departmental chairs, program coordinators, representatives from key academic support units and the Chair of the Faculty Senate. Upon endorsement by the Provost and AAC, approved curriculum submissions are presented to the President, The Texas State University System’s Board of Regents [31], and The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board for review and approval [32]. All doctoral proposals, bachelor’s and master’s proposals in engineering, and other bachelor’s or master’s proposals with costs exceeding $2 million dollars during the first five years of operation are subject to full review by the THECB [33]. For bachelor’s and master’s degree program proposals not requiring full THECB review, SHSU forwards only the Certification Form for New Baccalaureate and Master Programs [34] to the THECB.
New Courses Required to Support Programs
As with new degree program proposals, all new course proposals begin at the faculty level. The University utilizes a standardized request form that accompanies each request for a new course [35] [36] [37]. On this form, the proposed course is identified by prefix and number, title, and a course description. It specifies the number of credit hours to be awarded, as well as any course prerequisites. The proposal also identifies the audience to which the course is being offered. The most important part of the proposal is the statement of need and program compatibility. The faculty must make a case as to why the course is needed and whether or not the course will duplicate any existing course(s), both within the department and across campus. A course outline and course objectives are also included.. Finally, the proposal addresses the question as to whether the University has adequate faculty, technological, and library resources to support the course.
If a courses is recommended for approval by a Departmental Curriculum Committee, the proposal is submitted to the respective College Curriculum Committee. This committee again considers these requests to insure that these additions or deletions are consistent with the institution’s mission and goals. Avoidance of unnecessary duplication and the assurance of academic integrity are key components of this review process. If deemed appropriate by the College Curriculum Committee, the proposal is forwarded to the University Curriculum Committee, which shares the same mission as the college curriculum committees, but with University-wide input and consideration. The role of the University Curriculum Committee is to review the course submissions to determine if information provided is complete, to analyze proposed additions and changes in course titles to avoid possible overlap or duplication, and to work toward potential problem solutions before the matters are discussed by the Academic Affairs Council. Further the committee is charged with ensuring adherence to the requirements of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board [38].
The recommendations of the University Curriculum Committee are then forwarded to the Provost and Academic Affairs Council for its review and recommendation [30]. Upon approval by the Provost, the proposed change is submitted to the President and ultimately to the TSUS Board of Regents for final approval [39].
Faculty Responsibility for Curriculum
SHSU places the primary responsibility for the content, quality, and effectiveness of its curriculum with its faculty. The faculty, under the guidance of their respective chairs, deans, and academic committees, are charged with the creation of new courses, revision of existing courses, the removal of outdated material and courses, and the addition/deletion of degree programs. As described in detail above, all proposals for adding and deleting courses or programs must be reviewed and approved by departmental curriculum committees composed of faculty members and college and university curriculum committees composed of faculty and administrators. In a similar fashion, these same individuals and groups are charged with evaluating the effectiveness of their degree programs (See Standard 8.2.a).
Curriculum Development
The University‘s curriculum review cycle, described in the Faculty Handbook [40] and Academic Planning and Assessment website [26], includes an annual review of courses and programs by departmental committees. As described above, the curriculum review process applies to proposed changes either at the course level or the degree program level. The initial review and approval of all proposals for new courses and/or programs are the responsibility of the faculty through their respective departmental curriculum committees. Typically, faculty make suggestions to departmental committees as to the need for adding or deleting a course. Proposals for new courses require detailed faculty input on such issues as need, course duplication, and course content [35] [36] [37]. The Department Curriculum Committee may include all faculty in a department or may consist of a subset of the departmental faculty [26]. Each department committee makes recommendations for new courses and degree programs, as well as changes or deletions to existing courses or programs to their respective College Curriculum Committees.
All proposals approved by a departmental curriculum committee are forwarded to the respective college curriculum committee for a broader perspective review. Again, this committee is composed of faculty members and departmental chairs from across the college. The College Curriculum Committee serves in an advisory capacity to the dean. These committees review the requests from departments to ascertain whether the new proposals overlap with other offerings in the college or University, whether they adhere to the scope and role of the department, and whether they align with the college’s mission and goals.
New courses and degree programs gaining College Curriculum Committee approval are submitted to SHSU’s University Curriculum Committee for review. The University Curriculum Committee consists of 19 members with both a faculty member and an associate dean representing each of the seven colleges. The chair and chair-elect of the committee are faculty members nominated by the University Faculty Senate [27].
Through both its curriculum development process and the delivery of academic courses and programs, the University expects the faculty to be responsible for course content. One of the primary facets in meeting this responsibility is the selection of the textbook(s). The faculty bear primary responsibility for delivery of curriculum as evidenced by the “Curriculum Changes, Textbook Adoption, and Syllabi” section of the Faculty Handbook [41]. The handbook explicitly indicates that textbooks are selected by the teacher(s) of the course.
Additional support for the faculty responsibility for the curriculum is found in the Graduate Faculty Status Policy that states the following:
. . .the academic integrity of graduate programs rests primarily with the Graduate Faculty. The main responsibilities of the members of the Graduate Faculty are to (1) teach graduate students effectively. . . .(6) ensure graduate programs in their discipline are relevant and of high quality. [12]
Curriculum Review and Effectiveness
Currency of the University’s curriculum is maintained through the annual curriculum cycle and the annual review of the undergraduate and graduate catalogs. The academic sections of the catalog are forwarded to the respective departments (program coordinators and chairs) for the initial review and curricular revisions. As part of this catalog revision cycle, program coordinators and department chairs work through their department faculty to determine necessary curriculum revisions.
At the graduate level, faculty are further involved in curricular review. The Texas Administrative Code requires that all master’s and doctoral programs offered by public universities must undergo a formal review at least once every ten years [42]. Programs may submit reviews performed for licensure or accreditation or conduct a formal review involving subject matter experts “who are employed by institutions of higher education outside of Texas” who are “part of a program that is nationally recognized for excellence in the discipline” and possess no conflicts of interest with respect to the program under review. Program faculty are charged with serving on the self-study committee, contributing to the development the self-study, identifying program-specific issues to be addressed in the self-study, participating in program review meetings, and contributing to the development of the resultant action plan [43].
In addition to the curriculum and program review processes, the University’s assessment process provides an internal review of each degree program’s learning outcomes. All departments are required to assess the effectiveness of their degree programs. Faculty within each department are responsible for developing the goals, objectives, indicators, and criteria related to assessing student learning outcomes in their respective areas. Furthermore, the faculty develop, collect, and assess all relevant data associated with measuring the effectiveness of the curriculum as addressed in Standard 8.2.a.