Promotion and Tenure Issues with Proposed Amendments

Promotion and Tenure Issues with Proposed Amendments.

A. Standards to be used on the evaluation of teaching can be improved with recommendations from the Task Force on the Assessment of Teaching and Learning. Several amendments add language from the Task Force’s report.

ü That the evaluation of teaching should be based on multiple types of information; the primary types should include faculty evaluations of the intellectual aspects of teaching, candidates’ own views of teaching performance and student learning, as well as the views of current and former students.

ü “Peer review of teaching” needs to be defined.

ü Multiple peer reviews over time should be required.

ü An additional criterion for the evaluation of teaching should be added to 6.2.2.2. It should relate to efforts to improve teaching. (Similar language is already in the blue form without basis in Article VI).

ü Evaluative feedback may be collected from graduates who were formerly in one or more of the candidate’s classes.

ü [The 2007-08 FacEx directed the SPPT Committee to prepare amendments to Article VI on procedures relating to the selection of external reviewers (see 6.5.3.1.).]

The following amendments are therefore proposed:

Section 2 – Promotion and Tenure Standards

6.2.1. General Principles. The award of tenure and/or promotion in rank acknowledges meritorious performance in the areas of teaching or professional performance, scholarship, and service. The standards set forth in this section and written criteria adopted pursuant to it shall be the controlling standards and criteria for evaluating candidates for promotion and tenure.

6.2.1.2. Teaching faculty may hold the rank of assistant professor, associate professor, or (full) professor. For purposes of promotion and tenure:

(a) assistant librarian I, assistant research or clinical professor, and assistant scientist, curator, or specialist are equivalent in rank to assistant professor;

(b) associate librarian II, associate research or clinical professor; and associate scientist, curator, or specialist are equivalent in rank to associate professor; and

(c) librarian ~~III,~~ research or clinical professor, and senior scientist, curator, or specialist are equivalent in rank to (full) professor.

Unless otherwise indicated, references in this Article to assistant, associate, or full professor also include other faculty and unclassified academic staff of equivalent rank, with appropriate adjustments to reflect their distinctive responsibilities.

6.2.2. Teaching. Teaching is a primary function of the University, which strives to provide an outstanding education for its students. The evaluation of teaching should be developed using multiple sources of information and evidence about teaching, with the primary evaluation coming from faculty colleagues who look directly at the intellectual aspects of teaching, while also considering the views of students and the teacher’s own observations. The evaluation of teaching includes but is not limited to the consideration of syllabi, course materials, and other information related to a faculty member’s courses; multiple peer reviews assessing teaching over several years, and all student evaluations;. ~~a c~~Candidate’s will submit ~~own~~ a statement of how teaching has developed over time, their teaching philosophy and goals; public representations of teaching; reviews of demonstrated student learning, and other accepted methods of evaluation, which may include external evaluations and systematic feedback from former students who have graduated. Candidates are encouraged to provide information on a broad range of teaching, supervising, and advising activities.

6.2.2.1. High quality teaching is serious intellectual work grounded in a deep knowledge and understanding of the field and includes the ability to convey that understanding in clear and engaging ways that enhance student learning. The conduct of classes is the central feature of teaching responsibilities at KU, but teaching also includes supervising student research and clinical activities, mentoring and advising students, and other teaching-related activities outside of the classroom.

6.2.2.2. As used in this article the term peer review of teaching refers to the process when faculty colleagues assess multiple sources of information on a candidate’s teaching, which may include course materials, student work, and in-class observations. Evaluative peer reviews are an integral part of a candidate’s review for tenure and/or promotion. Collaborative peer reviews are to be used in the ongoing development of teaching. Faculty in the unit conducting the initial review are responsible for developing specific procedures for both types of peer review. Collaborative peer reviews are to be used in the ongoing development of teaching and may be included in the promotion and tenure portfolio at the candidate’s discretion.

6.2.2.3. For the award of tenure and/or promotion to associate professor, the record must demonstrate effective teaching, as reflected in such factors as command of the subject matter, the ability to communicate effectively in the classroom, a demonstrated commitment to student learning, efforts to improve teaching skills over time, and involvement in providing advice and support for students outside the classroom.

6.2.2.43. For promotion to the rank of professor, the record must demonstrate continued effectiveness and growth as a teacher, as reflected in such factors as mastery of the subject matter, strong classroom teaching skills, an ongoing commitment to student learning, and active involvement in providing advice and support for students outside the classroom.

6.2.2.54. In the case of non-teaching faculty and unclassified academic staff, professional performance, as defined by the unit and the expectations of the discipline, may be evaluated instead of teaching. The weight given to professional performance shall be determined by the particular responsibilities of the candidate. Each administrative unit with nonteaching faculty shall establish standards of professional performance, commensurate with the standards for teaching established in these regulations, to evaluate nonteaching faculty for promotion to equivalent ranks. Throughout this Article, references to teaching and its evaluation should be understood to include professional performance and its evaluation as appropriate to the positions and responsibilities of nonteaching faculty and unclassified academic staff.

……………………………………

Section 4: Pre-Tenure Matters

6.4.1. Department, College, and School Responsibilities. As part of its procedures for promotion and tenure, each department, college or school, or other administrative unit shall incorporate a plan for mentoring faculty prior to tenure. Such plans should provide appropriate information and guidance to assist faculty members in the development of successful careers in teaching (or professional performance), scholarship, and service, and in documenting a record of their careers for purposes of the tenure process. For teaching faculty, the plans will also include the methods used to conduct collaborative and evaluative peer reviews of teaching in more than one year.

………………………………

Section 5: Initial Review

…….

6.5.3. Committee Responsibilities. The committee responsible for the initial review shall receive the form and accompanying materials from the candidate and finish compiling the record of a candidate’s teaching, scholarship, and service in accordance with the Provost’s guidelines. The committee shall follow the approved written procedures for initial review.

6.5.3.1. The committee shall provide for the solicitation of respected and established outside reviewers to assist in the evaluation of a faculty member’s scholarship. Emphasis should be placed on selecting independent and unbiased reviewers in the same or related discipline or performance area of the candidate, who hold academic rank or professional position equal to or greater than the rank for which the candidate is being considered and who have no prior close academic or personal connection with the candidate. In rare instances, a candidate’s field of expertise requires drawing from individuals with close professional connections. When soliciting external reviews of a candidate’s scholarship, the committee shall inform prospective reviewers of the extent to which the candidate will have access to the review. The committee shall provide procedures for the candidate to suggest up to six name of potential reviewers and to identify up to three names of individuals they prefer to preclude as external reviewers. The committee shall acquire no fewer than four external reviews with six being strongly preferred. No more than half of the final list of external reviewers shall be individuals suggested by the candidate. Candidates should have input into the selection of work to be sent to external reviewers. Reviewers will be asked to assess the degree to which the candidate’s body of scholarly work meets or exceeds the criteria adopted by the unit conducting the initial review as well as the standards for promotion and/or tenure in Article VI.

6.5.3.2. The committee shall provide for the solicitation of peer reviews for the evaluation of teaching and student learning. Evaluative peer reviews of teaching must occur in at least two years.

6.5.3.3. The committee and the candidate shall verify that the required components of the form have been completed, that all necessary documents have been compiled, and that the record has been organized in the proper format.

B. There is a lack of clarity in Article VI on what constitutes a candidate’s “body of scholarly work” to be evaluated for promotion and/or tenure. There needs to be consistency across the University in the parameters units use to define “the body of scholarly work,” while, at the same time, sensitivity to differences among disciplines. There seems to be consensus that the scholarly product developed for the terminal degree should not be part of the body of scholarly work to be evaluated. Units conducting initial reviews need to have criteria to determine if a scholarly product is sufficiently different or advanced from the product developed for the terminal degree and whether it can be considered independent scholarship. (The current blue form includes the following language: “Provide a detailed evaluation of the candidate’s work that addresses evidence of: … A program of work beyond that completed for the terminal degree, for a previous promotion, or prior to appointment at the University of Kansas, as applicable …” Should the following proposed amendments fail to pass the Faculty Senate, the SPPT Committee recommends striking this language from the blue form).

The following amendments are proposed to deal with this issue

6.3.3. Procedures for Review. Each department, college or school, or other administrative unit with responsibility for promotion and tenure review, as well as the University Committee on Promotion and Tenure (UCPT), shall adopt by vote of eligible faculty written procedures for the conduct of review. While written procedures may vary considerably in accord with the particular needs of the department, college or school, or other administrative unit, all procedures must conform to the principles and requirements of this article, including its provisions concerning standards, confidentiality, candidate access and participation, and conflicts of interest.

6.3.3.1. The procedures adopted by a department, college or school, or administrative unit shall establish a committee or committees (which may be a committee of all faculty holding the necessary rank) to evaluate candidates for award of tenure or promotion in rank.

6.3.3.2. The procedures adopted by the unit responsible for conducting the initial review shall establish parameters that define which scholarly products are to be included in the body of scholarly work to be evaluated in the review for promotion and/or tenure. In no case shall the body of scholarly work include the product or products developed for the candidate’s terminal degree. If applicable, the unit shall develop a definition of independent scholarship as well as criteria to determine whether scholarly works are sufficiently beyond that completed for the terminal degree.

6.3.3.3. In cases when untenured or tenured faculty members are hired after serving at another academic institution, including those who completed post-doctoral fellowships, the treatment of scholarly products developed at the other institution and the resulting body of scholarly work to be evaluated at the University of Kansas shall be established through negotiation at the time of the hire. Unless previously negotiated, the emphasis of the evaluation shall be on scholarly products developed after appointment at the University of Kansas.

6.3.3.4. The written procedures of UCPT shall govern its deliberations, including such matters as the submission of additional information to UCPT as provided in this Article and the recusal of UCPT members based on conflict of interest.

6.3.3.5. No students or untenured faculty members, except unclassified academic staff with rank equivalent to or higher than associate professor, shall serve on any promotion and tenure committee or vote on any recommendation concerning promotion and tenure. Student and broad collegial input is important in the initial review. When this input is sought and considered, it must be done in a way that protects the confidentiality of students and junior faculty.

C. Due to the fact that a candidate’s position description is critical to his/her review, new hires should be given a copy in their first semester just like other required materials. If a position description changes prior to a review, a copy must be provided to the candidate.

The following amendments are proposed to deal with this issue

Section 2 – Promotion and Tenure Standards

6.2.1.1. The University strives for a consistent standard of quality against which the performance of all faculty members is measured. Nonetheless, the nature of faculty activities varies across the University and a faculty member’s record must be evaluated in light of his or her particular responsibilities and the expectations of the discipline. Teaching and scholarship should normally be given primary consideration, but the particular weight to be accorded each component of a faculty member’s activities depends upon the responsibilities of the faculty member. In the case of non-teaching faculty and unclassified academic staff, comparable professional responsibilities, as defined by their department or program and the standards of their disciplines, may be evaluated instead of teaching. A statement of the particular responsibilities and expectations of a faculty member as well as the particular weight accorded each component of a faculty member’s activities shall be provided to the faculty member before the end of the first semester following appointment. Each unit within which a faculty member holds an appointment shall provide revised statements as circumstances change.