`PUBLISH OR PERISH' HURTS THE QUALITY OF TEACHING

A "publish or perish" syndrome on many university campuses has led to a decline in the quality of teaching. We fear Southeast Missouri State University may be embracing the publication bandwagon to the detriment of classroom instruction.

The case of Richard Hansen, an associate professor of economics, illustrates the point. Despite glowing classroom evaluations, the university is sending Hansen packing because he had not cranked out enough published scholarly research. Former students say Hansen is a good teacher. He consistently received good administrative reviews until 1991, when the need for more research was raised.

As late as last September, Hansen had been singled out for praise in a survey of Southeast alumni. In response, interim Provost Sheila Caskey and university President Kala Stroup praised Hansen, saying his "professional commitment and dedication to our students really does make a difference. Thanks for a job well done." Only months later, he was denied tenure.

But this case merely highlights a disturbing trend. Other faculty members have privately complained for years about the emphasis on scholarly research in both tenure and promotion.

The principal mission of Southeast should remain education of students in the classroom. Southeast is a comprehensive regional institution, not a large land grant university whose mission clearly encompasses research. By putting so much emphasis on research at Southeast, it becomes a numbers game. Many of the research papers are published for quantity and not quality.

Ironically, Southeast's former provost, Leslie Cochran, published a book called "Publish or Perish" on this very topic in 1992. He pointed out that "a publication frenzy" has developed across the nation, with little or no effort to assess the extent to which such scholarship is applied in the classroom. Cochran said that too often, prestige and promotion in higher education is gained only through research and publication. He conducted a national survey of 1,300 chief academic officers and found a high level of frustration with a low level of commitment made to teaching.

That is coupled with low confidence by the public toward education, both at the elementary/secondary and higher education levels. The public is demanding accountability in our schools. Good teachers turn out better students. That's why they should be rewarded for their abilities in the classroom.

This should not be seen as an enthusiastic endorsement of tenure in general. Few other professions have such a job guarantee. For promotion and retention, most of us are judged on the quality of our work. But if our teachers are to work within the realm of tenure, then those who are the best educators should earn this reward.

University officials pay lip service to good teaching, while tenure and promotion decisions contradict that goal. It sends a confusing message to faculty, students and the public. This is a policy issue that the Board of Regents should address. Now might be a good time to review the policy, with the new provost, Charles Kupchella, coming on board in the coming weeks.

The university has its roots as a teacher's college, which obviously emphasizes classroom teaching. Surely, we do not want to move away from this basic foundation. It's time for Southeast to disown this "publish or perish" syndrome and reward good teachers.