Why Bylaws? • They are required by the BOT [BOT Resolution for BT0006, 18 Mar 2018] 3. (b) … Departments shall submit the required procedures [for Appendix A: Tenure] for approval no later than November 30, 2018 and shall be effective beginning with the next tenure review cycle following approval. BUT WHY?
Public Perception of Tenure
Public Perception of Tenure
Some of our Perceptions of Tenure?
Some of our Perceptions of Tenure?
Why Bylaws? • They are required by the BOT • They help protect the due process of tenure and academic freedom • They can support openness, fairness and collegiality
“ … having a set of bylaws to address promotion and tenure within the university framework instructs outside evaluators what the department considers important among the criteria for T&P. It was that specific issue that led to us developing bylaws back when I was dean. The performing arts people needed it the most as did several of our departments in A&S.” “Bylaws also codify rules for selecting department chairs and for committee structures. There are good reasons departments and colleges should have their own rules in this age of over bureaucratizing things.”
What Else Belongs in Bylaws? • Rules to make the bylaws hard to change • Information all must know and which rarely changes • clear solid walls
What Does Not Belong? • Long quotes from other sources • Web links to specific documents. • anything that will keep changing (Don’t get defensive yet, please wait until the next slide.) CC 3
Suggestion: Simplify Using Hierarchy When Possible Federal and BOT Policy State Law Faculty Campus Handbook Procedures Departmental College Bylaws Bylaws
Just Remember … • The deadline is close (Sept 7, 21) • Tenure (Appendix A) is Key • Everything can be fixed later.
Watch Pres. DiPietro’s video from BOT (< 5 min)
Checklist Walk Through • Group yourselves into units (departments and disciplines) • As we look at each item you will have group time to answer: • Is it there? If so, place a checkmark in first box. (Extra credit: add reference or page) • Does it seem to be a problem, maybe unclear or possibly false? If so, place a checkmark in the query box. • We will work together and discuss each item. List 1
• Why? (Uniqueness? Protection?) • Any danger in being too precise, too imprecise? • Consistent with college / campus procedures? • Are your criteria clear enough? • Who has a good example to share? • Any advice based on experience?
Discussion Question What are (or should be) the differences between the standards for tenure and for promotion to associate professor? • Is one harder to get than the other? • Why might someone get tenured but not promoted? • Why might someone get promoted but not tenured? • How is this difference reflected in your bylaws?
• Did your deans address external reviews in their bylaws? • Short reference (except maybe f)? • Note defaults to the majority of the committee (not voters). • Should require that all committee members sign.
External Reviews Approved New Handbook Text: (In the white 25 page June BOT Excerpt)
• Anyone going to address this in their bylaws? • If so, what are you going to say?
Enhanced Tenure Track Review (ETTR) All tenure-track faculty members shall submit a dossier to be reviewed in either the third or fourth year of the faculty member’s probationary period (to be determined by the department chair) for an Enhanced Tenure Track Review (ETTR) to be conducted by department faculty and the department chair following the same committee structure, voting procedures as tenure with the exception that external reviews are not required. The department faculty will record their vote and write a recommendation including suggestions for furthering the progression towards tenure, and a minority and majority report if required using the form at the Academic Affairs website. The department chair will meet with the faculty member to share the report of the department faculty, as well as his or her own written assessment, then discuss plans enhancing the faculty member’s progression toward tenure. The committee report and the chair’s assessment will be shared with the college dean. PPC meets August 30, Senate votes September 25, … , BOT votes November 2 .
QUICK BREAK (?)
• Find the (Beige) template for PPPT • Address almost all issues • Will be on Acad. Affairs site • Due to the System October 15 • Board of Trustees Nov 1-2
• How many have already done this? • Have your deans given you any guidance? • Any questions before we look at it? • Consistent with college / campus procedures? • Are your criteria clear enough? • Who has a good example to share? • Any advice based on experience?
• Both are required by Handbook but if FEP becomes sufficient that could be adjusted. • I am not 100% sure what salary adjustment is. Merit pay? Annual raises? Raises with promotion?
[Faculty Handbook 3.4.1] The criteria for evaluating non-tenure-track faculty for purposes of hiring and retention must be approved by the departmental faculty and published in the departmental bylaws.
• Any questions?
Music Example: Proposed amendments to these bylaws must be brought to Math Example: These Bylaws may be amended at any regular or special Departmental faculty meeting for which particular notice has been given. A the full faculty by the Advisory Committee, which will accept suggestions from any faculty member. Proposed changes must be distributed electronically to the simple majority vote is required to amend any provision. Any amendments will full faculty at least 10 business days prior to a vote. be forwarded to the Dean and the VCAA. The bylaws may be amended by a simple majority vote at any departmental meeting; faculty members who are unable to attend may submit their vote on Ed Studies: These by-laws may be amended at any regular or special any amendment(s) to the Chair in advance of the meeting. Amendments must Departmental faculty meeting for which particular notice has been given. be approved by the Dean of the College of Humanities and Fine Arts and the Amendment of any provision requires a simple majority vote. Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. https://www.utm.edu/departments/educate/documents.php https://www.utm.edu/departments/music/
Music Example: 2.4 Voting. Full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty are eligible to vote on all motions and matters brought before Math/Stat Example: Membership and Voting: All faculty members Ed Studies Example: Membership and Voting: All term, tenured, or the department. Full-time lecturers may vote on all issues with the who are serving as full-time faculty or have budgeted part-time tenure-track faculty with 50% or more teaching responsibility who are exception of those dealing with personnel. Part-time, adjunct faculty, teaching responsibilities within the Department pursuant to an serving as full-time faculty within the Department of Educational and faculty with visiting appointments are not eligible to vote. If a appropriate appointment by the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Studies pursuant to an appropriate appointment by the Vice faculty member cannot attend a meeting, they may submit their vote (VCAA) are entitled to vote, subject to University guidelines, on all Chancellor for Academic Affairs (VCAA) are entitled to vote, subject on an issue or proposal to the Department Chair. matters for which faculty input is sought. Administrative staff who to University guidelines, on all matters for which faculty input is have faculty rank in the department are considered voting members of sought. All faculty members are similarly expected to participate fully Proposals must be vetted and approved by the appropriate committee the faculty during those semesters in which they are teaching. in all Departmental responsibilities. prior to consideration by the faculty. The committee chair must distribute proposals … A simple majority vote with a quorum will decide all issues. …
[BT0006 App B. 2 p. 23] The department head shall direct the tenured departmental faculty to consider the faculty member’s performance in teaching, research, and service and, by an anonymously cast vote taken in accordance with applicable department or college bylaws, to make a recommendation on the question of whether the faculty member’s performance constitutes Adequate Cause for termination. [Question: Does this imply bylaws must proscribe the method?]
“What important questions remain unanswered?”
Remainder of Morning Session (if any) Built in Work Time LUNCH 11:30am-1:30pm Afternoon Session 1:30pm-4:30pm Beta Groups, Deans
Developing your (beta) Faculty Evaluation Process Chris K Caldwell 16 Aug 2018
C FEC (G UIDEBOOK P AGE 8) The Campus-wide Faculty Evaluation Committee (cFEC) is the faculty group that will continue to oversee and adjust this evaluation process. They will: 1. Listen 2. Provide Guidance 3. Collect Data 4. Adjust They will continue to work with the Senate’s PPC. 57
D EVELOPING A C OMPREHENSIVE F ACULTY E VALUATION S YSTEM W ORKSHOP 58 Raoul A. Arreola, PhD Professor Emeritus The University of Tennessee Health Science Center
SECTIONS: 1. BIG PICTURE FIRST 2. D EVELOP Y OUR S YSTEM 59 ( LONG ) 3. W RAP - UP
A N ON - OPTION 60
R EMINDER F ROM THE G UIDEBOOK (P AGE 1) •two outcomes •numerical score between 1.00 and 4.00 •one of four BOT categories •numerical scores consistent across campus •no fixed translation “Until we have used this process once or twice, there will be no fixed translation between these two types of outcomes (numeric and categorical).” 61
F OUR C ATEGORIES ( G UIDEBOOK PAGES 13-14) •Exceeds Exectations Exemplary Performance for Rank Professional Level for Rank •Meets Expectations •Needs Improvement •Unsatisfactory 62
F OUR C ATEGORIES ( G UIDEBOOK PAGE 14) Professional Level for Rank “Applies to faculty who, during this rating period, consistently met the campus, college and departments’ standards for professional performance. These faculty are the excellent and valued professionals on whom UT Martin relies for the continued success of our programs, missions, and goals; and should include the clear majority of our faculty.”
F OUR C ATEGORIES ( G UIDEBOOK PAGE 13) Exemplary Performance for Rank “Applies to faculty who, during this single rating period, consistently and substantially exceeded the campus standards of professional performance. This rating is reserved for those rare faculty members who are true models of peak academic performance and who make significant contributions to their departments, university, academic field, and society.”
P URPOSES OF F ACULTY E VALUATION (1 OF 2) “To provide meaningful feedback for individual professional growth: • Enhance current professional performance • Detect any emerging deficiencies and provide information for correcting them. ” 65
P URPOSES OF F ACULTY E VALUATION (2 OF 2) “Provide accurate & reliable summative information based on a pattern of performance over time on which to base personnel decisions (Promotion, Tenure, Merit Pay, etc.).” 66
R EMINDER F ROM THE G UIDEBOOK (P AGE 6) 1.2. Tenure and Promotion “The results from this annual faculty evaluation process will inform decisions about tenure and promotion in the same way the results from the old evaluation processes did, but they will not directly change any of the current tenure and promotion requirements or processes .”
F ROM A RREOLA ’ S T RAINING The development of a successful faculty evaluation system requires integrating the technical requirements of good measurement with the political process of building consensus around shared values. 68
SECTIONS: 1. B IG P ICTURE F IRST 2. DEVELOP YOUR 69 SYSTEM 3. W RAP - UP
T HE 8-S TEP P ROCESS - O VERVIEW 1. Establish the Faculty Role Model 2. Determine Role Parameter Values 3. Define Each Role’s Components 4. Establish the Role Component Weights 5. Determine Appropriate Sources 6. Establish Source Weights 7. Determine How to Gather Information 8. Design or Select Appropriate Forms 70
S TEP 1: E STABLISH THE F ACULTY R OLE M ODEL Faculty Role Model Teaching Scholarship Service 71
S TEP 2: D ETERMINE R OLE P ARAMETER V ALUES minimum maximum Faculty Role Model weight weight 50% Teaching 90% 5% 40% Scholarship 5% Service 40% 72
E XAMPLE : M ATH /S TAT R OLE P ARAMETERS minimum maximum Faculty Role Model weight weight 50% Teaching 90% 15% 40% Scholarship 15% Service 40% 73
R EMINDER F ROM THE G UIDEBOOK (P AGE 12) 2.3. Setting the Weights of Components “It is important to note that these weights are measures of value and are not the same as workload. The value of an activity is often independent of the amount of time it took. It is entirely possible that some faculty teaching only one-quarter time may still prefer to have half of their evaluation based on the quality of their teaching. However, it is expected that workload will be considered in the weight negotiation.” 74
S TEP 2: A CTIVITY O NE (5 M INUTES ) Locate and Verify your unit’s parameters • Are they possible? • To whom do they apply? • Anyone using multiple versions? • Explore min/max 75
S TEP 3: D EFINE E ACH R OLE ’ S C OMPONENTS (Definition of the roles and their components are found in the Guidebook) Chapter Three! • What is translation? • What is proficiency? • Where does mentoring students go? • Where does mentoring faculty go? 76
STEP 4 : E STABLISH R OLE C OMPONENT W EIGHTS cFEC fixed the components of teaching, but left others with 0 to 100% 77
STEP 4: C OMPONENT W EIGHTS FOR T EACHING SOURCES fixed Rol ? ? Component ? Components Weights e Instructional ? ? ? 30% Design Instructional 30% Delivery Instructional 25% Assessment Course 15% Management Total Source 100% 78 Impact Weights
STEP 4: M ATH /S TAT W EIGHTS FOR S CHOLARSHIP SOURCES Role Component ? ? ? Weights Components Proficiency ? ? ? 20 – 60% Discovery 20 – Creativity / 60% 20 – Dissemination 60% – Translation 0 40% Total Source 100% 79 Impact Weights
S TEP 4: P OLITICAL S CIENCE W EIGHTS FOR S CHOLARSHIP SOURCES Role Component ? ? ? Weights Components Proficiency ? ? ? 20% Discovery 0% Creativity / 80% Dissemination 0% Translation Total Source 100% 80 Impact Weights
S TEP 4: O THER BSBA W EIGHTS FOR S CHOLARSHIP SOURCES Role Componen ? ? ? t Weigh Components ts Proficiency ? ? ? 20 - 40% Discovery 20 - 40% Creativity / 30 - 50% Disseminatio n 0 - 5% Translation Total Source 100% 81 Impact Weights
D EF . OF T RANSLATION FROM G UIDEBOOK (P AGE 27) This component of scholarship is based on the general principle of utilizing research results within a discipline, not necessarily from your own research, and applying those results to the development of new products, services, performances, or artistic expressions of value or benefit to the professional or larger general social audience . 82
S TEP 4: AG W EIGHTS FOR S ERVICE SOURCES Role Component ? ? ? Weights Components To the ? ? ? 40 - 75% Institution To the 20 - 50% Profession To the 10 - 40% Community To the 0 - 70% Students Total Source 100% 83 Impact Weights
S TEP 4: B IOLOGICAL S C . W EIGHTS FOR S ERVICE SOURCES Component Role ? ? ? Weights Components To the ? ? ? 15 - 60% Institution To the 0 - 45% Profession To the 0 - 45% Community To the 15 - 60% Students Total Source 100% 84 Impact Weights
STEP 4: A CTIVITY T WO (10 M INUTES ) Verify your unit’s component weights and place them on the source matrices. • Are each of the values possible? • Is there consensus for the value statements they make? • Did anyone change (or want to change) their weights? 85
W EIGHT D ECLARATION F ORM Exciting features! • Version • Dean (temp) • Excel version • Based on PAR • Questions? 86
W EIGHT D ECLARATION F ORM Potential features: • Color • Planning • A draft! (cFEC) 87
S TEP 5 D ETERMINE A PPROPRIATE S OURCES Reach consensus on which 88 source(s) should provide the information on which the evaluation of each role will be based.
H OW N OT TO D ETERMINE A PPROPRIATE S OURCES A Bad Source Principle: 89
STEP 5: D ETERMINE A PPROPRIATE S OURCES The “Best Source Principle:” ✓ Obtain information from those who have first hand experience with the performance in question. 90
STEP 5: D ETERMINE A PPROPRIATE S OURCES Caldwell’s source principle: This is a beta year, do not bite off more than you can chew. 91
STEP 5 : S OURCE I DENTIFICATION M ATRIX FOR T EACHING Role Students Peers Chair Components Instructional YES NO NO Delivery Instructional YES YES NO Design Instructional NO YES YES Assessment Course NO NO YES Management 92
STEP 5: A CTIVITY T HREE (10 M INUTES ) Lightly (in pencil) place “yes” for sources you will use and “no” for those you will not . REACH CONSENSUS! (If you group is done early, start thinking about Step 7: what will be used to collect info from these sources: rubric? form? survey?) 93
STEP 5: A CTIVITY F OLLOW - UP Quick Questions: • Are there any of you who had trouble agreeing on these? • Did anyone use anything other than students for instructional delivery? • Anyone use self evaluations currently? • How will they be shaped and used? 94
S TEP 6 D ETERMINE S OURCE W EIGHTS Determine how much value or 95 weight should be placed on the information provided by the various selected sources
STEP 6: D ETERMINE S OURCE W EIGHTS Determine the impact the information from the various sources will have on the overall evaluation of each role. (“source impact weights”) 96
STEP 6: S OURCE W EIGHTS FOR T EACHING Role Component Chair Students Peers Components Weights 100 0 0 Instructional 30% YES NO NO Delivery 75 0 25 Instructional 30% YES YES NO Design 0 80 20 Instructional 25% NO YES YES Assessment 0 0 100 Course 15% NO NO YES Management Total Source 100% 97 Impact Weights
STEP 6: S OURCE I MPACT M ATRIX FOR T EACHING Role Component Students Peers Chair Components Weights 100 0 0 Instructional 30% 30% 0% 0% Delivery 25 75 0 Instructional 30% 8% 23% 0% Design 0 80 2 Instructional 25% 20% 0% 0 5% Assessment 0 0 100 Course 15% 15% 0% 0% Management Total Source 38% 43% 20% 100% Impact Weights 98
STEP 6: A CTIVITY F OUR (15 MIN ) Agree on source weights for your source matrices • Did anyone change any of their ‘Yes’s or ‘No’s? • Why did you change? • Does the impact of students, peers and chair seem reasonable for your unit? • Use pencil (you might want to change in the next step) • Do your rows add to 100%? • Change ‘Yes’s / ‘No’s if there is a new consensus 99
S TEP 7 D ETERMINE H OW TO G ATHER I NFORMATION Determine what type of form, 100 questionnaire, checklist, or other data gathering method will be used to obtain the specified information from each source.
Recommend
More recommend
