Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Guilford standards for promotion and tenure

History of Guilford's discussions about faculty reviews
New proposed review processes

  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

Guilford standards for promotion and tenure

  1. 1. GUILFORD STANDARDS FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE A BRIEF HISTORY AND UPCOMING PROPOSALS
  2. 2. 2005- 06 2006- 07 2007- 08 2008- 09 2009- 10 2010- 11 2011- 12 2012- TIMELINE Spring 2006 • Controversial tenure decision prompts call for review
  3. 3. 2005- 06 2006- 07 2007- 08 2008- 09 2009- 10 2010- 11 2011- 12 2012- TIMELINE Spring 2007-Fall 2008 • Faculty Evaluation Process (FEP) committee established to review tenure and promotion
  4. 4. 2005- 06 2006- 07 2007- 08 2008- 09 2009- 10 2010- 11 2011- 12 2012- TIMELINE November 2008 • FEP recommendations submitted • Change in review schedule to 3rd and 6th year reviews • Change in descriptions of four areas for review • Use Boyer model for scholarly growth • Link promotion to associate professor and tenure
  5. 5. 2005- 06 2006- 07 2007- 08 2008- 09 2009- 10 2010- 11 2011- 12 2012- TIMELINE Spring 2009-Spring 2012 • FAC phase: • FAC reviews FEP proposals. FAC does not agree with all of them. • Clerk’s and FAC sponsor faculty forums. • FAC crafts new proposals, some of which are based on FEP’s work, and some of which are not.
  6. 6. 2005- 06 2006- 07 2007- 08 2008- 09 2009- 10 2010- 11 2011- 12 2012- TIMELINE January 2011 • Faculty approve criteria for teaching excellence • Teaching Excellence (Section 2.341)
  7. 7. 2005- 06 2006- 07 2007- 08 2008- 09 2009- 10 2010- 11 2011- 12 2012- TIMELINE February 2011 • Academic Affairs committee of the Board approves revised Teaching Excellence standards.
  8. 8. 2005- 06 2006- 07 2007- 08 2008- 09 2009- 10 2010- 11 2011- 12 2012- TIMELINE November 2012 • Faculty approve several sets of new review criteria: • Advising (Section 2.343) • Service (Section 2.344) • Growth as a Scholar or Creative Artist (2.342)
  9. 9. 2005- 06 2006- 07 2007- 08 2008- 09 2009- 10 2010- 11 2011- 12 2012- TIMELINE March 2013 • Faculty approve language covering promotion to associate and full professor ranks • Discussion is difficult, but leads to approval with edits
  10. 10. 2005- 06 2006- 07 2007- 08 2008- 09 2009- 10 2010- 11 2011- 12 2012- TIMELINE June 2013 • Trustee Academic Affairs committee reviews new approved standards for Advising, Service, and Growth as a Scholar and also standards for promotion. None are approved.
  11. 11. 2005- 06 2006- 07 2007- 08 2008- 09 2009- 10 2010- 11 2011- 12 2012- TIMELINE February 2014 • Faculty look again at review criteria for Growth as a Scholar or Creative Artist and approve a revised document.
  12. 12. 2005- 06 2006- 07 2007- 08 2008- 09 2009- 10 2010- 11 2011- 12 2012- TIMELINE February 2014 • Trustee Academic Affairs committee reviews revised proposals in executive session. Their published minutes do not include details of this discussion. They communicate to the Clerk that no proposals will be brought to the full trustees for approval.
  13. 13. 2005- 06 2006- 07 2007- 08 2008- 09 2009- 10 2010- 11 2011- 12 2012- TIMELINE April 2014 • Faculty approve changes to several handbook sections dealing with review procedures, mostly to streamline and organize, but with a few changes to process recommended by FEP. These do not require Board approval and are implemented immediately.
  14. 14. 2005- 06 2006- 07 2007- 08 2008- 09 2009- 10 2010- 11 2011- 12 2012- TIMELINE August 2014 • Clerk (Dave) contacts chair of Academic Affairs and asks about progress. The response indicates that the Trustees on AA have had difficulty agreeing on standards, and they have elected to table the discussions until after college leadership transitions are complete.
  15. 15. 2005- 06 2006- 07 2007- 08 2008- 09 2009- 10 2010- 11 2011- 12 2012- TIMELINE 2014-15 • No further progress is made on these issues. Academic Affairs does not discuss them (and in some trustee meeting sessions does not meet).
  16. 16. 2005- 06 2006- 07 2007- 08 2008- 09 2009- 10 2010- 11 2011- 12 2012- TIMELINE 2015-16 • FAC and Beth Rushing take up revisions to the review process. They go back to FEP work and to the approved documents, attempting a broader revision rather than merely implementing already approved documents.
  17. 17. 2005- 06 2006- 07 2007- 08 2008- 09 2009- 10 2010- 11 2011- 12 2012- TIMELINE February 2016 • Dave and Beth meet with Academic Affairs (under new leadership) and discuss the possibility of new proposals. Prospects for approval of new policies appear more promising.
  18. 18. 2005- 06 2006- 07 2007- 08 2008- 09 2009- 10 2010- 11 2011- 12 2012- TIMELINE March-April 2016 • Revised handbook language drafted, shared with faculty.
  19. 19. ELEMENTS OF NEW PROPOSALS • Review schedule shifts from 2nd/4th/6th year to 3rd/6th, with less formal developmental reviews conducted by Faculty Development in other years (2nd, 4th, 5th). Similar to FEP recommendations. • First post-tenure review (in 10th year) focuses on readiness for promotion to full and is conducted by FAC. • Reviews for tenure and promotion to associate are linked by default, although reviewers can recommend tenure without promotion. Similar to FEP Recommendations. • Faculty choose when to stand for promotion rather than having to be nominated by others. Previously approved.
  20. 20. ELEMENTS OF NEW PROPOSALS • Review Criteria: • Teaching section unchanged (was largely the FEP recommendation) • “Growth as a scholar or creative artist” changed to “Scholarship and Creative Activity” and incorporates FEP model (discovery, application, integration, teaching) • Advising section changed to FEP description • Service section changed to FEP description • Criteria for promotion to associate and full changed to FEP recommendations

×