by the UFWW Contract Team
It has come to the attention of UFWW that there is some
confusion surrounding Post-Tenure Review in the contract. We’d like to clarify
the intent of the language so that the process goes as smoothly as possible.
Much of the concern involves the new language that states that a faculty member
must be “satisfactory” in all three areas of teaching, service, and
scholarship/creative activity. At the time that we agreed to this wording, the
administration’s bargaining team assured us that this change does not in
fact reflect an increase in the standards. Here’s how the evaluation process should work.
What
is different:
1. There’s a greater emphasis on departmental standards in the evaluation.
2. Faculty are now required to demonstrate at least satisfactory performance in all three areas (teaching, scholarship/creative activity, service) in order to pass the review.
This change is not an increase in the standards. It is a change in how department colleagues evaluate a faculty member’s performance. The new language recognizes that individual faculty members’ priorities evolve over time (“career life cycle” in 7.8.2). As a result, an individual is not always engaged equally in all areas. Faculty are being asked to evaluate a colleague’s discrete responsibilities (teaching, research, service) in light of the whole. Less activity than that required in department plans does not now automatically signify “unsatisfactory” performance. Here are a few different scenarios that demonstrate how this new approach works:
Faculty member A in the past few years produced scholarship that has drawn considerable attention in the field and has been invited to give many papers and submit additional scholarship. As a result, attention has been focused there rather than on service, which was cut back. In a PTR, the faculty member could be evaluated as “satisfactory” in service, in spite of activity that was less than in the department or college evaluation plans.
Faculty member B has been elected to chair a department, a major university committee, or a professional association. As a result of these service responsibilities, scholarly output has declined. That faculty member could be evaluated as “satisfactory” in scholarship.
The university already expects that probationary faculty are less engaged in service than tenured members, and some faculty approaching retirement are less engaged in scholarship than young faculty members. Neither group is necessarily “unsatisfactory” in those areas as a result of different stages of “career life cycles.”
If a senior faculty member’s career life cycle has not included any scholarship because of practices established many years ago and sustained since then, or if a senior faculty member’s scholarship has tapered off when retirement becomes imminent, they may still be deemed “satisfactory.”
What is needed is adequate justification of a faculty member’s priorities. Performance that does not meet the standard for no justifiable reason is unsatisfactory.
3. There may be some change in the types and quantity of materials required for the review, based on department and college standards, especially regarding the number of teaching evaluations.
4. In the past, if a faculty member failed the teaching portion of the review, a plan for improvement was required. Now a plan is required if any portion is unsatisfactory.
5. If the teaching portion is failed twice, the university may take steps that
could possibly lead to dismissal (See section 18 of the contract.)
2. Faculty performance is still ranked either superior, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory.
3. Departmental decision-making remains primary. (The dean cannot overturn decisions of departments and/or the college committee without significant justification.)
4. Faculty who fail the review, including those who choose not to be reviewed, sacrifice any salary increases that are labeled “general merit.” (The 10.5% raise was all general merit.)