Institutions are rewarded for designing and implementing locally controlled performance funding programs that emphasize teaching and learning. 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. 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. 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.