1 / 15

Faculty Senate RTP Update 2014

Faculty Senate RTP Update 2014. Issues Brought by FS-RTP. Issue : Extend review deadlines to meet increase in quantity of portfolios, academic calendar, and holiday breaks. Rationale : History of late review letters because of increasing quantity.

holden
Download Presentation

Faculty Senate RTP Update 2014

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Faculty Senate RTPUpdate2014

  2. Issues Brought by FS-RTP Issue: Extend review deadlines to meet increase in quantity of portfolios, academic calendar, and holiday breaks. Rationale: History of late review letters because of increasing quantity. Solution: We can push back dates to meet the June BOT meetings for the promotion, tenure, and post tenure candidates. Not years 1-5, because of AAUP guidelines regarding notice for retention contracts.

  3. Issues Brought by FS-RTP Issue: Integrating the Cat II faculty evaluations into the procedural calendar. Rationale: Timeline needs to work with multi-year contract signing. Solution: Provost will work with Deans/Chairs to establish logical timeline. We will vet through the Senate with Cat II faculty.

  4. Issues Brought by FS-RTP Issue: Can Digital Measures automate an email to faculty being evaluated when a review letter has been posted? Rationale: The process of individual emails is time consuming and there is precedence for simple automation. Solution: The Digital Measures TF is working with the vendor to see if the tool can do it.

  5. Issues Brought by FS-RTP Issue: We need a discipline-specific glossary of scholarship definitions, with matching terminology in Digital Measures. Rationale: Clarity for expectations for candidates and multiple review levels. Mis-categorization can have dire consequences. Solution: We will work with departments to compile a list, to be vetted through Senate. Glossary will probably reside in the Portfolio Preparation Handbook.

  6. Issues Brought by FS-RTP Issue: Clarification of publication/publisher impact or value within discipline. Top-tier publications need exposure. Rationale: Clarity for expectations for candidates and multiple review levels. Solution: We will explore existing impact lists from Auraria Library. The CFD may dedicate workshops to the topic.

  7. Issues Brought by FS-RTP Issue: “Accepted for Publication” language as standard for University, not just “Published”. Rationale: Clarity for expectations for candidates and multiple review levels. The language allows for the lag between acceptance and publication. Baseline for acceptance. Solution: Language already updated in Portfolio Preparation Guidelines.

  8. Issues Brought by FS-RTP Issue: Clarification of dissertation as scholarship. Rationale: Clarity for expectations for candidates and multiple review levels. [ABD condition of hire, new scholarship, derivative works, etc.] Solution: We will propose some language and vet through Senate.

  9. Issues Brought by FS-RTP Issue: Some departments use language regarding “dissenting minority” when committees evaluating faculty cannot agree. Rationale: Has created hostility within departments and committees Solution: No change—Provost prefers the option of hearing both sides of the disagreement

  10. Issues Brought by FS-RTP Issue: How do we handle “hard copies,” intangible review materials, or bad links? Rationale: Not all material evidenced in Digital Measures. All review levels have access to same material and can act on it. Solution: Materials to be present during reviews and stored in Provost’s office after review is complete.

  11. Issues Brought by FS-RTP Issue: Review levels able to change their recommendation upon receipt of new information. Not part of the original document, but came up during discussions. Rationale: All review levels have access to same material and can act on it. Solution: Senate to vet the implementation of this idea.

  12. Issues Brought by FS-RTP Issue: SRI numeric data language regarding “department norms, means, averages, etc”. Rationale: SRI numeric data and student comments used inconsistently, and sometimes over emphasized. Solution: Provost to work with the Deans in clarifying dept guidelines in this area. SRI Task Force is still working on acceptable usage of student feedback for faculty evaluation.

  13. Issues Brought by FS-RTP Issue: Some departments use language regarding “dissenting minority” when committees evaluating faculty cannot agree. Rationale: Has created hostility within departments and committees. Solution: No change – Provost prefers the option of hearing both sides of the disagreement.

  14. Issues Brought by FS-RTP Issue: Some department guidelines need more clarification. Service expectations could be more equitable – not discipline specific. Rationale: Clarity for expectations for candidates and multiple review levels. Solution: Provost’s office to work with Deans to improve clarification of guidelines.

  15. Final Notes • Collaborative discussions with the Provost’s office began after this year’s cycle was completed • Fine-tuning the existing process and technology (DM) for clarity and equity for all • Changes implemented for academic year 2015-16 (allows 1 year for proper vetting and implementation)

More Related