Dean Kathleen Skerrett called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. in the Tyler Haynes Commons, Room 305.
Dean Skerrett moved directly into an open discussion of the revisions of the Merit Review Process for faculty.
Dean Skerrett discussed three areas that she sees as central as we all look at the revision of our current system of merit and annual reviews of faculty. (1) Tenure (exists to protect academic freedom and the free pursuit of truth and exposition in scholarship and teaching in the community of scholars); (2) Time (required of individual faculty, department chairs, and the Dean’s office for annual reviews and merit decisions); (3) Transparency (need to clarify “who, what, why” for the new procedures and create a rubric for “written evaluations”, not just using numbers, that all can readily understand and easily locate when questions arise).
Dean Skerrett spoke to some of the issues relating in the existing practice of using “too many numbers,” in the evaluation process. The Dean suggested that written evaluations from department chairs might be preferable? And limit the department chairs’ written comments to a 1,000 words? The Dean discussed - how will teaching and advising, community service, and scholarship be weighted in the revised processes for faculty evaluation and merit review?
Dean Skerrett and Assistant Dean, Malcolm Hill, then presented a slide showing the “draft” categories and definitions being proposed for faculty evaluation and merit ratings. Dean Skerrett indicated that the slide is illustrative of some of the ideas that she and the Associate Deans had been reviewing.
Dean Skerrett went on to discuss the role of the department chairs in writing the summary reports for each faculty member. These written reports will be forwarded to the Dean’s office. Faculty members will be evaluated as “exceptional, excellent, good, adequate, and inadequate” with a five-point scale. The overall scores are determined in the course of the merit review process by the Dean. But the individual faculty scores will not be a part of the annual appointment letter. Dean Skerrett indicated that she is willing to share the information with any individual faculty who asks for their score.
Dean Skerrett then opened the floor for questions. These included requesting further guidance and feedback for the chairs related to the role of advising and mentoring in the evaluation process? Dean Skerrett indicated that she felt that advising was a major component of “teaching and advising,” and that mentoring has a separate and distinctive role as part of teaching. Do faculty dossiers need to be sent every year to the Dean’s office in the new process? Dean Skerrett suggested that she felt full dossiers are not needed every year by the Dean’s office for tenured faculty members. Dean Skerrett then discussed one proposal being considered in the revision for a triennial schedule o of reviews for tenured faculty. This would entail an in depth review in year A and short reviews in years B and C.
Others suggested that it might be best to have each department decide as a whole whether or not to accept the triennial review process for their tenured faculty members. There were some questions related to the “weight of scholarship” as part of the triennial review process? What role does “sustained accomplishment” over time with tenured faculty play in this new triennial process? What do these new revisions of the existing merit review process do to improve the value of the whole process for each tenured faculty member? Are these revisions qualitative for the whole process? What other institutions similar to UR are using a triennial review process for their tenured faculty? Several faculty expressed their appreciation to the Dean for developing a triennial review process to replace the current system.
Dean Skerrett reported that the University is pursuing a study for bench-marking salaries.
The Dean closed the meeting by saying that she plans to have a more complete draft of the new merit policies and procedures available for the next faculty meeting which will be on Thursday, April 19th at 4 p.m. in the Carole Weinstein International Center Commons.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:21 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Gwin
Secretary
Dean Skerrett moved directly into an open discussion of the revisions of the Merit Review Process for faculty.
Dean Skerrett discussed three areas that she sees as central as we all look at the revision of our current system of merit and annual reviews of faculty. (1) Tenure (exists to protect academic freedom and the free pursuit of truth and exposition in scholarship and teaching in the community of scholars); (2) Time (required of individual faculty, department chairs, and the Dean’s office for annual reviews and merit decisions); (3) Transparency (need to clarify “who, what, why” for the new procedures and create a rubric for “written evaluations”, not just using numbers, that all can readily understand and easily locate when questions arise).
Dean Skerrett spoke to some of the issues relating in the existing practice of using “too many numbers,” in the evaluation process. The Dean suggested that written evaluations from department chairs might be preferable? And limit the department chairs’ written comments to a 1,000 words? The Dean discussed - how will teaching and advising, community service, and scholarship be weighted in the revised processes for faculty evaluation and merit review?
Dean Skerrett and Assistant Dean, Malcolm Hill, then presented a slide showing the “draft” categories and definitions being proposed for faculty evaluation and merit ratings. Dean Skerrett indicated that the slide is illustrative of some of the ideas that she and the Associate Deans had been reviewing.
Dean Skerrett went on to discuss the role of the department chairs in writing the summary reports for each faculty member. These written reports will be forwarded to the Dean’s office. Faculty members will be evaluated as “exceptional, excellent, good, adequate, and inadequate” with a five-point scale. The overall scores are determined in the course of the merit review process by the Dean. But the individual faculty scores will not be a part of the annual appointment letter. Dean Skerrett indicated that she is willing to share the information with any individual faculty who asks for their score.
Dean Skerrett then opened the floor for questions. These included requesting further guidance and feedback for the chairs related to the role of advising and mentoring in the evaluation process? Dean Skerrett indicated that she felt that advising was a major component of “teaching and advising,” and that mentoring has a separate and distinctive role as part of teaching. Do faculty dossiers need to be sent every year to the Dean’s office in the new process? Dean Skerrett suggested that she felt full dossiers are not needed every year by the Dean’s office for tenured faculty members. Dean Skerrett then discussed one proposal being considered in the revision for a triennial schedule o of reviews for tenured faculty. This would entail an in depth review in year A and short reviews in years B and C.
Others suggested that it might be best to have each department decide as a whole whether or not to accept the triennial review process for their tenured faculty members. There were some questions related to the “weight of scholarship” as part of the triennial review process? What role does “sustained accomplishment” over time with tenured faculty play in this new triennial process? What do these new revisions of the existing merit review process do to improve the value of the whole process for each tenured faculty member? Are these revisions qualitative for the whole process? What other institutions similar to UR are using a triennial review process for their tenured faculty? Several faculty expressed their appreciation to the Dean for developing a triennial review process to replace the current system.
Dean Skerrett reported that the University is pursuing a study for bench-marking salaries.
The Dean closed the meeting by saying that she plans to have a more complete draft of the new merit policies and procedures available for the next faculty meeting which will be on Thursday, April 19th at 4 p.m. in the Carole Weinstein International Center Commons.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:21 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Gwin
Secretary
No comments:
Post a Comment