Recommendations for Improving Renewal, Tenure and Promotion

at SUNY Oneonta

The Final Report of the Renewal, Tenure and Promotion Task Force 2 (RTPTF2)

Submitted by

Dr. Donna VoglerDr. William R. Proulx

Co-Chairs of the Renewal, Tenure and Promotion Task Force

June 20, 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................................................................................2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................................................3

INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................6

THE CHARGE..............................................................................................................................................6

MEMBERSHIP.............................................................................................................................................7

CAMPUS-WIDE INPUT................................................................................................................................8

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................................................................12

2

Executive Summary

The Renewal, Tenure and Promotion Task Force 2 (RTPTF2), formed in March 2014, was charged with soliciting campus-wide input and recommending ways to improve the processes of contract renewal, tenure and promotion (RTP) at SUNY Oneonta by focusing on the terminology and criteria for review, expectations for faculty at different ranks, and guidelines for improving clarity, transparency, consistency and fairness. From April 2014 to March 2016 the RTPTF2 solicited input and investigated renewal, tenure and promotion practices at SUNY Oneonta and other academic institutions and developed a set of recommendations that are listed below. The basis for each of these recommendations is outlined in the main body of this report. It must be emphasized that implementation of any changes to the RTP process must be done so as to not disadvantage anyone currently going through the process.

Dean’s Advisory Councils (DACs) and the Promotion and Tenure Committee (P&T) The College should establish terms of service and membership criteria for the DACs and the

P&T Committee and revise the membership of the P&T Committee to comprise representatives from all five Schools and the Library. A Director of Libraries Advisory Council should be created and should follow the same protocol as the other advisory councils.

The College should revise existing policies and practices that prevent DACs and the P&T Committee from having access to DAC recommendation letters from previous evaluations.

Greater coordination between the DACs and the P&T Committee is necessary and should be facilitated by some shared membership and/or joint meetings.

Each DAC and the P&T Committee should follow discipline-specific standards when evaluating a candidate’s performance (see Performance Criteria and Standards section below).

Performance Criteria and Standards

All Departments and the Library should

o Develop discipline-specific standards.

o Establish rank-specific performance expectations.

o Clarify performance expectations for all five criteria for each renewal cycle and tenure.

o Clarify performance expectations for all five criteria for promotion to Associate Professor/Associate Librarian and Professor/Librarian.

o Provide examples of the types of evidence that demonstrate effectiveness and proficiency.

o Include levels of achievement for meeting the criteria.

3

Departments and the Library should submit their discipline-specific standards to their Dean/Director for review.

Candidates should include discipline-specific standards along with their chosen weighting for scholarship and service in their dossier. The standards and chosen weighting should then be used as a reference by all individuals and committees involved in the evaluation of the candidate’s RTP materials.

The College should specify effectiveness in teaching (effectiveness in teaching and librarianship for Library faculty), scholarly ability and creative works, and effectiveness of university service as the primary criteria upon which RTP decisions will be based at SUNY Oneonta.

The College should weight teaching effectiveness and/or librarianship the same for all faculty, regardless of discipline, Department, School and/or Library.

Teaching effectiveness and/or librarianship should be given the greatest weighting in RTP decisions.

The weighting of scholarship and service should be established by each faculty member in consultation with the Department Chair/Head and Dean/Director of Libraries to best fit the nature of the faculty member’s work and meet the needs of the Department, School or Library, and College.

Faculty should maintain mastery of subject matter and demonstrate continuing growth throughout the RTP process since these are foundational for achieving proficiency in teaching, scholarship and service (see image 1.) .

The definitions for scholarship should be broadened (e.g., as detailed by Ernest Boyer ) .

Evaluation of Performance

The College should strengthen the evaluation of teaching by

o Relying more on peer observations and supervisory evaluations (e.g., Department Chair/Head) and less on student perceptions.

o Standardizing the protocol and methods for gathering student input including using one form across the institution and clarifying whether student free responses should be included in the dossier and, if so, where they should be included.

o Standardizing the protocol and methods for peer observations of teaching.

o Providing training on the evaluation and observation of teaching and on writing evaluation and observation letters for Department Chairs/Heads and other evaluators.

o Clarifying expectations for self-evaluations including establishing reasonable word or page counts for self-evaluations.

The College should consider including external peer evaluation of dossiers for tenure and promotion.

4

The College should standardize the protocol and methods for the format, content, acquisition and submission of internal and external recommendation letters.

The College should consider the adoption of a different schedule from the current 2-2-2-1 for contract renewals.

The College should standardize dossiers by

o Being more explicit about the types and amounts of materials to be included in dossiers.

o Retaining DAC letters from previous renewals in dossiers throughout the renewal and tenure process. Until the Library forms a Director of Libraries Advisory Committee, letters from the Library Personnel Committee should be included in the dossiers.

Support

The College should establish best practices in mentoring throughout the College so mentoring is a part of every faculty member’s experience, from first-year faculty to full professors/librarians.

The College should maintain a webpage that provides a centralized, intuitive, and easy-to-navigate location for all RTP information.

The Faculty Center should support RTP by providing professional development and mentoring focused on RTP.

Monitoring

The College should establish a process for monitoring RTP policies and practices across the institution by a committee primarily composed of faculty.

5

Introduction

The first Renewal, Tenure and Promotion Task Force (RTPTF1) was a fact-finding task force that worked from March 2013 through November 2013. The task force submitted its findings to President Kleniewski, Provost Thompson, and Dr. Paul Bischoff, Presiding Officer of the College Senate, in a final report titled “An Examination of Renewal, Tenure and Promotion Policies and Procedures at the SUNY College at Oneonta and Other Institutions.” Building on the work of the RTPTF1, a second task force, the Renewal, Tenure and Promotion Task Force 2 (RTPTF2), began its work in the spring of 2014. This report provides an overview of the work of the RTPTF2 including recommendations for strengthening renewal, tenure and promotion policies and practices at SUNY Oneonta. Timeline

Phase One March 2013 – Formation of the RTPTF1. April 2013 - November 2013 – Fact-Finding work of the RTPTF1. November 2013 – Final report of the RTPTF1 submitted to President, Provost and Presiding

Officer.

Phase Two March 2014 – Formation of the RTPTF2. April 2014 - May 2015 – RTPTF2 soliciting input from groups and individuals. August 2015 – Interim report with initial recommended actions. September 2015 - March 2016 – RTPTF2 soliciting input about initial recommendations. March 2016 - May 2016 RTPTF2 prepares and submits final report to President, Provost and

Presiding Officer.

The Charge

The RTPTF2 was charged with the following

Building on the research provided by the Renewal, Tenure and Promotion Fact Finding Task Force, the Renewal, Tenure and Promotion Task Force will solicit input campus-wide and recommend two or more models of review that would improve the processes of contract renewal, tenure and promotion. Such recommendations should include

Common definitions, terminology and criteria for review. Expectations for faculty at different ranks. Guidelines for developing a process that personnel reviews are clear,

consistent, transparent and fair.

6

Membership

The membership of the RTPTF2 includes Five faculty members: one representing each of the College’s five Schools. (Tenured

Associate Professors or Professors, elected/appointed by Senate). One Library faculty member appointed by the College Senate. Three administrative representatives (Lisa Wenck, Donna Vogler and Bill Proulx from fact-

finding committee). One to two additional members if needed (e.g., balance gender, Schools).

Faculty Representatives Craig Bielert, Professor, Psychology and Anthropology Jerome Blechman, Professor, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Amie Doughty, Associate Professor, English Kjersti VanSlyke-Briggs, Professor, Secondary Education Stephen Walsh, Associate Professor, Management, Marketing and Information Systems Michelle Hendley, Librarian, Reference and Instruction

Administrative Representatives Donna Vogler, Professor, Biology (RTPTF2 Co-Chair) William Proulx, Associate Professor, Human Ecology (RTPTF2 Co-Chair) Lisa Wenck, Senior Executive Employee Services Officer Venkat Sharma, Dean, School of Natural and Mathematical Sciences

Administrative Support Deborah Wolfanger, Senior Staff Assistant, Facilities Planning Lisa Keaney, Secretary, Academic Administration

7

Campus-Wide Input

Open Forums

The RTPTF2 began meeting early in fall 2014 and met on a regular basis throughout fall 2014 and spring 2015. The RTPTF2 hosted a series of open forums during the spring 2015 semester that focused on improving transparency, clarity, equity and fairness in the renewal, tenure and promotion process at SUNY Oneonta. The open forums took place in Craven Lounge from 3:30-5:00 pm on February 3, February 24, March 17 and April 14, 2015. The forums were relevant to everyone involved in the renewal, tenure and promotion (RTP) process, including faculty seeking renewal, tenure and promotion, members of Department personnel committees, Department Chairs/Heads, Deans/Director of Libraries, P&T Committee members, and Dean's Advisory Committees. Everyone was welcome to attend.

The first open forum took place on Tuesday, February 3, 2015 and was entitled "The Priorities of the Professoriate – Reconsidering Scholarship."

“At the very heart of the current debate – the single concern around which all others pivot- is the issue of faculty time. What’s really being called into question is the reward system and the key issue is this: what activities of the professoriate are the most highly prized?”

The above quote is taken from Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate by Ernest L. Boyer (1990). In his book Boyer presents an expanded model for scholarship that is comprised of four categories

The Scholarship of Discovery.

The Scholarship of Integration.

The Scholarship of Application.

The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

Dr. Joanne Curran, Dean of Sage College of Albany, and former Associate Dean of Education at SUNY Oneonta, was invited to speak during the open forum about her experiences working at an institution that has adopted the Boyer model of scholarship. A discussion with Dr. Curran followed immediately thereafter. The RTPTF2’s second open forum took place on Tuesday, February 24, 2015. This open forum was entitled “The ABCs of RTP – Understanding the Language of Renewal, Tenure & Promotion.” Scholarly ability, service, effectiveness in teaching, continuing growth, proficient, mastery of subject matter and continuing appointment are just a few of the terms associated with the renewal, tenure and promotion processes. Forum participants spent the first hour defining the terms listed above

8

and identifying and defining other terms associated with the RTP process that they found to be particularly confusing or problematic. The last half hour of the forum was devoted to an open discussion on RTP processes. A draft of the full glossary of terms was made available at the forum for feedback.

The RTPTF2’s third open forum took place on Tuesday March 7, 2015. This open forum was entitled “Clarifying Expectations – Using Rubrics and Checklists in the RTP Process.” This open forum focused on the tools and criteria we use to assess achievement, proficiency and success in teaching, librarianship and other criteria in the RTP process.

The RTPTF2’s fourth open forum took place on Tuesday, April 14, 2015. This open forum was entitled “Creating a Climate of Mentoring at SUNY Oneonta.” Discussion at this open forum focused on the following questions as they relate to mentoring at SUNY Oneonta:

People define mentoring in many different ways. What is mentoring to you?

What are we, both within Departments and as a College, doing well?

What more should we do? Where are we lacking?

What will it take to create a climate of mentoring at SUNY Oneonta?

Meetings

The RTPTF2 also met with the following individuals and groups to discuss renewal, tenure and promotion policies and practices at SUNY Oneonta:

The College Senate Steering Committee, March 2, 2015.

The Academic Deans, March 20, 2015.

The Promotion and Tenure Committee, March 24, 2015.

Librarians, Tenured and Untenured, April 3, 2015.

The Council of Chairs, April 9, 2015.

Director of Libraries, April 10, 2015.

Untenured Librarians, April 24, 2015.

Preliminary RTPTF2 Recommendations

Based on information solicited from the four open forums and from meetings with the individuals and groups listed above the RTPTF2 developed the following set of preliminary recommendations.

Revise existing policies and practices that prevent DACs and the P&T Committee from having access to a candidate’s most recent RTP recommendations.

Ensure that the P&T Committee’s membership is comprised of representatives from all five

9

Schools and the Library.

Establish a webpage that provides a centralized, intuitive, and easy-to-navigate location for all RTP information including the standards and procedural information for Departments and the Library.

Each DAC should develop standards that make expectations for performance for RTP clear and transparent, including the performance expectations for faculty at different phases of the renewal process (e.g., first renewal versus third renewal).

If they currently do not have them, Departments, Schools, and the Library should develop discipline-specific rubrics or checklists to be used to assess achievement, proficiency and success in the RTP criteria areas.

Distribute the RTP glossary created by the RTPTF2.

Establish a coordinated system for mentoring faculty that helps create a culture of mentoring across the institution.

Complete the transition to an online submission process and system

To obtain greater faculty input on the preliminary recommendations drafted by the RTPTF2, members of the RTPTF2 attended all-faculty meetings of each of the five Schools and the Library during late fall 2015 and early spring 2016 to discuss

Establishing Discipline-Specific Standards: All Departments and the Library should develop discipline-specific standards that provide guidance and clarify the kinds of documentation and evidence specific to the discipline. This is especially true for scholarly and creative work. Attempts to designate a minimum number of publications should be strictly avoided, but each discipline should provide the candidates, the DAC and the P&T Committee with clear directives as to the value of the kinds of peer-reviewed publications or externally-acclaimed scholarly work appropriate to that area. Department criteria should be publically available, as they are in other Colleges and universities. Department-level criteria should be reviewed for consistency with School and College standards and the SUNY Board of Trustee criteria.

Specifying Teaching, Scholarship and Service: The current 3-4-5 system is an Oneonta campus-specific system where excellence in 3 of the 5 categories provided by the SUNY Board of Trustees is the accepted benchmark for achieving tenure, 4 of the 5 for promotion to Associate Professor and 5 of the 5 for promotion to Professor. The RTPTF2 is recommending an alternate system that specifies teaching, scholarship and service as the primary performance criteria for renewal, tenure and promotion similar to that used at other institutions. As an example, for tenure, candidates could demonstrate 1) excellence in teaching, 2) excellence in either scholarly achievement or service, with at least good performance in one of the other categories, and 3) at least good performance toward

10

professional growth. The level of mastery of subject matter could be established by the Department or School such that one Department may require a Ph.D., whereas another would require different academic credentials. Mastery of subject matter at tenure could be simply the terminal degree, whereas mastery at Professor could be a measure of reputation among peers.

Broadening Scholarship and Valuing Service: Scholarship needs to be broadened to incorporate scholarly activities beyond traditional research to include the scholarship of integration, the scholarship of application and the scholarship of teaching. Many institutions have incorporated aspects of the Boyer model that include scholarship of discovery, integration, application and teaching/learning. The College needs to value service more in the renewal, tenure and promotion process considering the emphasis being placed on service-learning and engaging the community through service.

Establishing Expectations for Ranks: For example, new faculty members would be expected to demonstrate “effectiveness in teaching” (“effectiveness in teaching and librarianship” in the case of Library faculty) when applying for initial contract renewal and show “progress toward” developing their scholarship, service, and continued growth. By contrast, those seeking promotion to Associate Professor/Associate Librarian or Professor/Librarian would demonstrate achievement of external reputation and/or campus leadership in addition to sustained excellence in teaching.

Revising the Membership of the P&T: Ensure the Promotion and Tenure Committee’s membership is comprised of representatives from all five Schools and the Library.

Reviewing of Recommendation Letters from Previous Reviews: Letters from previous reviews, including the DAC letters, should be accessible to the DACs and P&T Committee at tenure review. The DACs and the P&T Committee need to work together to ensure that the candidate receives guidance from the DAC that is relevant to building a file for tenure review. Letters from the Library’s Personnel Committee from previous renewals should be accessible to the personnel committee and the P&T Committee at tenure review.

Establishing a Culture of Mentoring: Departments, Schools, the Library, and the Faculty Center should carry out the mentoring of new faculty. Mentoring should not be restricted to untenured faculty alone, but should include all faculty and be broadened to cover all aspects of teaching, scholarship, service and professional development. Furthermore, mentors should receive training. Service as a mentor should be recognized and credited as part of that mentor’s own contributions toward College service, and advising and mentoring students beyond curriculum issues should also be counted toward service rather than teaching.

During the meetings with Schools and the Library the RTPTF2 was made aware of the following areas of the RTP process that faculty felt needed to be addressed including

Stopping the tenure clock.

11

Prior credit toward tenure.

Evaluating teaching performance.

The size of the dossier.

The timing of the distribution of instructions and guidelines for Faculty Activity Reports.

The solicitation and submission of the letters for a candidate’s dossier.

Final Recommendations

Building on the findings of the RTPTF1 and on the input obtained from individuals and groups across campus, the RTPTF2 recommends the following for improving clarity, transparency, consistency and fairness in the RTP process at SUNY Oneonta.

Dean’s Advisory Committees and the Promotion and Tenure Committee

Currently, there is no standard institution-wide protocol for membership of the DACs. Consequently, there exists variation in qualifications for serving on DACs, the size of DACs, the way in which members are appointed, and the terms of service. For example, in the past Department Chairs did not serve on DACs, but this is no longer the situation. Also, Schools differ with regard to the number of tenured faculty who can serve on the School’s DAC.

The P&T Committee serves as an “all-College” review board for tenure and promotion. The present make-up of the P&T Committee does not reflect the College’s present administrative structure because there is no Library representative on the P&T Committee. The Provost appoints P&T Committee members but criteria for membership and terms of service are not clear. Also, although the membership of the P&T Committee is not withheld, it is not readily available or accessible.

Also, the DACs and the P&T Committee are accountable to different administrators. As a result, there has not been any collaboration or communication between the DACs and the P&T Committee, with each working in isolation from the other. DACs have existed primarily as renewal committees while the P&T Committee has focused on promotion and tenure. The only unifying element between the DACs and the P&T Committee is the guidance on promotion and tenure decisions set out by the SUNY Board of Trustees.

Finally, the Library does not have the equivalent of a DAC, and the P&T Committee does not review the dossiers of Librarians.

Based on these findings the RTPTF2 recommends

The College establishes terms of service and membership criteria for the DACs and the P&T Committee, and revises the membership of the P&T Committee to comprise representatives

12

from all five Schools and the Library. A Director of Libraries Advisory Council be created and follow the same protocol as the other advisory committees.

The College revises existing policies and practices that prevents DACs and the P&T Committee from having access to DAC recommendation letters from previous evaluations.

The College increases coordination between the DACs and the P&T Committee facilitated by some shared membership and/or joint meetings.

The College requires that each DAC, the Library Director’s Advisory Council, and the P&T Committee follow discipline-specific standards when evaluating a candidate’s performance.

Performance Criteria and Standards

Currently, the College does not specify effectiveness in teaching (effectiveness in teaching and librarianship for Library faculty), scholarly ability, and effectiveness of university service as the primary criteria upon which RTP decisions are based at SUNY Oneonta. Although, the College does make it clear that teaching is the primary criterion, the weighting of teaching versus scholarship and service is not specified.

Furthermore, there is no requirement for departments to provide clear discipline-specific standards for RTP. In spring 2015, at the request of the RTPTF2, the Deans and the Director of Libraries were asked to collect and submit the criteria for RTP from their Department Chairs. An analysis of the information collected revealed that discipline-specific standards varied widely across departments, which is to be expected. However, the level of transparency and clarity also varied significantly. Some departments provide clear and transparent discipline-specific standards while other departments do not.

Specify Teaching, Scholarship and Service

The SUNY Board of Trustees Policies describes five criteria for evaluation under Article XII EVALUATION AND PROMOTION OF ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES under Title A. Evaluation of Academic Employees:

The evaluations conducted pursuant to this Title may be considered by the chief administrative officer of a College and the College administrative officer in making decisions or recommendations with respect to continuing appointments, renewal of term appointments, promotions, discretionary adjustments to basic annual salary and for any other purpose where an academic employee’s performance may be a relevant consideration.

The SUNY Board of Trustees document then lists these five criteria:

Mastery of subject matter.

Effectiveness in teaching or effectiveness in teaching and librarianship.

13

Scholarly ability.

Effectiveness of University service.

Continuing growth.

These five criteria are repeated under Title B Promotion, and modifications of these criteria are included in Title C for professional employees. The College Handbook states in the Continuing Appointment or Promotion section:

“Decisions dependent on continuing appointment and promotion are based on the following five criteria (Policies of the Board of Trustees, Article XII). For continuing appointment the candidate must be proficient in three, for promotion to Associate, the candidate must be proficient in four, and for promotion to Professor, must be proficient in all five. Note: In the case of continuing appointment or promotion to Associate Professor, one of the areas of proficiency must be effectiveness in teaching.”

Although the College Handbook specifies that a candidate must be proficient in three of the criteria for tenure, four for promotion to Associate, and five to Professor (the 3-4-5 system) it does not list the five criteria or provide any specifics about how to demonstrate proficiency for any of the criteria. This lack of specificity makes expectations for contract renewal unclear. Several years ago the Library voted against using the 3-4-5 system for tenure and promotion, choosing instead to use all five criteria at all levels of review with the greatest emphasis on teaching and librarianship.

SUNY’s Power of SUNY strategic plan includes SUNY and the Vibrant Community as one of its pillars and SUNY Oneonta’s own Strategic Plan 2015: Scholarship, Service, Strength includes as one of its goals to “Promote Inquiry, Service, and Scholarship” with an objective to “Expand community engagement and service in the curriculum.” Consequently, there is an increased expectancy that faculty will possess a strong record of service to their Department, School/Library, College, profession and community. However, it is unclear to faculty the weight that is given to service in RTP decisions, the value and importance ascribed to different forms of service, and how much service is expected. It is clear that after teaching, the time available to faculty to conduct scholarly or creative works and service is limited. The more scholarship a faculty member conducts, the less service they are able to do and vice-versa.

The SUNY Board of Trustees Policies state that evaluations for RTP “may consider, but shall not be limited to consideration of” the five criteria listed, thereby giving the College flexibility in establishing the weighting and specificity of the criteria that best fit the institution and its mission. Working within the scope of the criteria established by SUNY Board of Trustees Policies for Evaluation and Promotion of Academic Employees, the College should establish a system that provides greater flexibility for individual faculty and their Departments and that improves clarity and consistency.

Based on these findings the RTPTF2 recommends

14

The College specify that effectiveness in teaching (effectiveness in teaching and librarianship for Library faculty), scholarly ability, and effectiveness of university Service are the primary criteria upon which RTP decisions will be based at SUNY Oneonta. Mastery of subject matter and continuing growth are necessary for achieving effectiveness and proficiency in teaching, scholarship and service and as a result faculty would be expected to demonstrate continuing growth and sustained mastery of subject matter, along with teaching, scholarship and service.

The College establish a system by which the weighting of teaching effectiveness (effectiveness in teaching or librarianship for Library faculty) is the same for all faculty, regardless of discipline, Department or School and that teaching effectiveness be given the greatest weighting in RTP decisions. Effectiveness in teaching and librarianship should be weighted the same for all Library faculty, regardless of Department, and effectiveness in teaching and librarianship should be given the greatest weighting in RTP decisions.

The weighting of the scholarship and service be established by each faculty member in consultation with his/her Department Chair and Dean to best fit the nature of the faculty member’s work and meet the needs of the Department, School and College. In the case of the Library, the weighting should be established by each Library faculty member in consultation with his/her Departmental supervisor and Director of Libraries to best fit the nature of the librarian’s work and the needs of the Library. The weighting should be established with the understanding that no criterion can have a weight less than 10%. Furthermore, the weighting of scholarship and service can be adjusted based on changes in the faculty member’s work and as opportunities for scholarship and service present themselves.

The above recommendation is illustrated below in Image 1. Each column in Image 1 represents a variation of the distribution of the weighting for scholarship and service. Mastery of subject matter, initially demonstrated by acquisition of the appropriate advanced degree, is at the base of each column indicating that it is the foundation upon which proficiency in the other three are realized. The weighting of teaching is the same for each column and teaching carries the most weight of the criteria reflecting the College’s primary focus on teaching. The other two columns are intended to communicate that faculty members are expected to provide evidence of continuing growth and sustained mastery of subject matter to achieve proficiency in teaching, scholarship and service.

15

Broaden Scholarship

The RTPTF1 reported that faculty at SUNY Oneonta are given only vague information on performance expectations for RTP, even during the hiring process. The RTPTF1 report notes that Deans stressed the categories of teaching, scholarship and service with emphasis on teaching, specifying that sufficient activity and performance is expected in all three areas for tenure. The RTPTF1 also reported that during new faculty orientation sessions the SUNY Board of Trustees Policies are discussed and interpreted in the context of teaching, scholarship and service. Also the RTPTF1 report notes that scholarship is discussed in the context of discipline-specific guidelines, with new faculty being told that they should consult with their Department Chair about the specifics. While teaching is given first priority, the RTPTF1 report also recognizes the increasing importance of scholarship in RTP decisions at SUNY Oneonta without any clarity or consistency about performance expectations for scholarship.

Based on these findings the RTPTF2 recommends

The traditional expectations for scholarship be expanded beyond the traditional idea that scholarly activity solely means the presentation and publication of original research at professional venues such as conferences, workshops and seminars to include the following four variations proposed by Ernest Boyer

o The Scholarship of Discovery pertains to traditional original research activities.

o The Scholarship of Integration involves synergies of activities between disparate scholarly disciplines. Boyer explains that this form of scholarship “underscores the need

16

for scholars who give meaning to isolated facts and data, putting them into perspective.” 1

o The Scholarship of Application (also known as Scholarly Service) involves using one’s knowledge and expertise for solving problems for the College and/or community (local, regional, national and international) as well as new discoveries acquired during such application. Based on the Scholarship of Application, the College’s guidelines for performing scholarship would be broadened to include service performed by faculty using their knowledge and expertise to serve the institution and the broader community.

o The Scholarship of Teaching encompasses the systematic study of teaching and learning, including dissemination of one’s findings and discoveries in order to advance teaching by providing the opportunity for others to review and apply the findings.

It is very important to note that the same standards for evaluating Scholarship of Discovery apply equally to the other three categories of scholarship. It is also important to note that traditional service is not considered scholarship. Boyer emphasizes that “a sharp distinction must be drawn between citizenship activities and projects that related to scholarship itself.” 2

Establish Discipline-Specific Standards

As stated earlier in this report, currently there is no requirement for Departments to provide clear and transparent discipline-specific standards for RTP. Consequently, the level of clarity and transparency regarding the standards for RTP varies significantly by department. Another concern of faculty being evaluated for RTP is that individuals with little or no expertise in the discipline are evaluating their performance.

Based on these findings the RTPTF2 recommends

All departments including the Library (and disciplines within Departments) establish clear and transparent performance standards that delineate the expectations for each of the five criteria for RTP.

Performance standards be reviewed by the School/Library in which the discipline/department resides.

Each department’s criteria be available on the Provost’s Renewal, Tenure and Promotion website, similar to the way in which other institutions have made RTP guidelines public (see http://www.hamilton.edu/dof/tenure-and-promotion-guidelines).

1 Ernest L. Boyer. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Page 18.2Ernest L. Boyer. (1990) Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Page 22.

17

Each discipline’s/department’s criteria include

o Expectations for performance for all five criteria for each renewal cycle and tenure

o Expectations for performance for all five criteria for promotion to Associate Professor/Associate Librarian, and Professor/Librarian.

o Numerous examples of the types of evidence expected to demonstrate effectiveness and proficiency

All individuals and committees involved in evaluating the performance of candidates undergoing review for RTP use the candidate’s discipline-specific standards as a reference to evaluate the candidate’s performance.

Establish Rank-Specific Performance Expectations

Currently, rank-specific performance expectations are inconsistent at SUNY Oneonta. For example, some departments expect new faculty to be involved in service and student advising from the very beginning of their careers, while other Departments allow new faculty to initially focus on their teaching and increase their involvement in service and advisement at a specified later time. Additionally, rank-specific performance expectations are not clear and transparent. Establishing clear and consistent rank-specific performance expectations across Schools/Library and Departments would strengthen the RTP system at SUNY Oneonta by bringing clarity, consistency and transparency to the process.

Based on these findings the RTPTF2 recommends

In connection with discipline-specific standards, and in consultation with their Dean, departments establish rank-specific performance expectations for renewal, tenure and promotion. The Library also establish rank-specific performance expectations in consultation with the Director of Libraries and the Provost. For instance, within the categories of service and scholarship the following distinctions could be made by a department, depending on the way in which the faculty member weighs service and scholarship (see Image 1):

o First renewal (0-2 years): Establish plans for service and a scholarship or creative works program. Begin implementation of plans.

o Second renewal (2-4 years): Display progress in service and scholarship or creative works as established by discipline-specific standards.

o Third renewal: Continued progress in service and scholarship or creative works program as established by discipline-specific standards.

o Tenure: Demonstration of achieving the criteria established by discipline-specific standards.

18

o Promotion to Associate Professor/Associate Librarian: Beyond the achievements necessary for tenure, promotion to Associate requires evidence of increased responsibilities and peer recognition in the areas of service, scholarship or creative works.

o Promotion to Professor/Librarian: Beyond the achievements necessary for promotion to Associate Professor, promotion to full Professor requires evidence of increased responsibilities and/or external recognition in the areas of service, scholarship or creative works.

The College standardize expectations for service and advising across the institution for new faculty.

The College publish rank-specific performance expectations for each discipline/department/school and the Library on the Provost’s Renewal, Tenure and Promotion website.

Evaluation

Evaluation of Teaching

Evaluation of a faculty member’s performance is the most critical element of the RTP process. Consequently, the quality of the information provided to evaluator’s largely dictates their conclusions about how a faculty member is performing and their recommendations for renewal, tenure and promotion.

When the RTPTF2 sought input from faculty members about the evaluation of their teaching, many faculty felt strongly that student evaluations are given more weight and consideration in RTP decisions than is appropriate. Although most faculty agree that student input should be taken into account, they emphasize that it is only one factor among many that needs to be weighed and considered. Their position is that students do not possess the qualifications to extensively evaluate quality of instruction, resulting in qualitative input that often is not useful for the evaluation of teaching effectiveness (e.g., “she is my favorite”). Rather, faculty believe that the effective evaluation of teaching requires observations of teaching and evaluations of the other numerous aspects of teaching, with each needing to be weighted and evaluated by qualified individuals who possess the knowledge, skill and experience to appropriately and meaningfully evaluate teaching effectiveness.

Another issue is that the College currently uses two different forms to gather student input on teaching effectiveness. The School of Economics and Business has its own form, while the other four Schools use the Student Perception of Instruction form. The use of two forms raises questions

19

of consistency and fairness, particularly since the validity of the quantitative input obtained from the Student Perception of Instruction form has been questioned by many.

Peer observations are another important element for the evaluation of teaching effectiveness. Unlike students, faculty possess the knowledge and experience to evaluate a peer’s teaching and provide constructive feedback to the candidate and valuable insights for those reviewing a candidate’s dossier. Yet, input from peers is limited in that peer observations only provide feedback about a single lecture and do not capture the work of an entire semester. Also, peer observations frequently do not include a review of all elements of the course, such as syllabus, exams, quizzes, and other assignments, and the effective use of technology, including course management tools.

Self-evaluation is yet another important part of the renewal, tenure and promotion process. Obviously, self-evaluations need to be well written, error free and grammatically correct but many faculty do not self-advocate effectively. Also, writing successful and well-crafted self-evaluations may be more challenging for faculty for whom English is not their first language. Also, self-evaluations vary significantly in length with some being 1-2 pages while others are substantially longer.

Based on these findings the RTPTF2 recommends

The College standardize the protocol and methods for gathering student input about teaching effectiveness including the use of one form across the institution for gathering student input.

The College standardize the protocol and methods for peer observations of teaching.

The College clarify expectations for self-evaluation of teaching including the number of words or pages for self-evaluations.

Recommendation Letters

The RTPTF1 reported that there was significant variation and inconsistency with regard to the policies and procedures for internal and external letters for the dossier. Currently, candidates for contract renewal, tenure or promotion approach individuals from the College or from other institutions, asking them to provide letters of reference or recommendation, which are then placed into the review file by candidates. These letters may be provided by anyone of the candidate’s choice, as no instructions make it clear if referees should meet certain criteria or not. There was strong support across the College for strengthening the existing system.

Based on these findings the RTPTF2 recommends

20

The delineation of College-wide criteria and instructions for both internal and external recommendation letters that

o Establish minimum qualifications for those providing letters and a process for requesting and submitting letters.

o Are controlled by the Department Chair/Head, Dean/Director of Libraries, Chair of the Personnel Committee (as appropriate) and not the candidate.

o Have candidates provide a sufficient list of external referees to be contacted by the Department Chair, Dean or Director of Libraries, or Chair of the Personnel Committee or (as appropriate) and not the candidate.

o Standardize the formatting of reference letters.

o For any unsolicited letters it be made very clear what the candidate’s relationship to the letter writer is, and the period of time that the letter is addressing.

o Are consistent with exemplary letters that are provided for reference along with workshops on writing letters of evaluation.

Letters from previous renewals be included in subsequent renewal and tenure dossiers. Until the Library forms a Director of Libraries Advisory Committee, letters from the Library Personnel Committee be included in the dossiers.

The Dossier

It is essential that the evidence-supporting RTP decisions be submitted and presented clearly and as required. However, input obtained from various constituents revealed concerns and confusion about the size and presentation of the dossier resulting in a lack of consistency in the size and composition of dossiers. As a result, the ability of reviewers to evaluate dossiers consistently and fairly is compromised.

Based on the above findings the RTPTF2 recommends

Being more explicit about which materials are of greatest use to the DACs and the P&T Committee and the amount of materials needed to avoid inclusion of unneeded materials and repetitive or lengthy written work (e.g. multiple copies of course syllabi from the same course).

Limiting syllabi and other representative materials to one for each type of course taught, not repeated ones from multiple sections of the same course. If needed, the electronic submission system could include an optional appendix for such material.

21

Including discipline-specific standards for all individuals and committees to use as a reference in the evaluation of the candidate’s RTP materials.

Including DAC letters from previous renewals in subsequent renewal and tenure dossiers. Until the Library forms a Director of Libraries Advisory Committee, letters from the Library Personnel Committee be included in the dossiers.

Support

Mentoring

The RTPTF1 report highlights the increasingly important role that formal and informal mentoring are playing in the recruitment, retention and development of faculty. Informal mentoring is a cooperative relationship between faculty that occurs naturally and voluntarily with no oversight or formal structure or evaluation and can be the most valuable form of mentoring. However, it is the most variable with regards to the faculty who benefit from it. Formal mentoring, on the other hand, introduces greater consistency and works to ensure that mentoring is a fully open and inclusive process.3

Informal and formal mentoring both exist at SUNY Oneonta but many of the factors that support a culture of mentoring and influence the effectiveness of mentoring are either nonexistent, lacking or not well established. There is great variability with regard to the quality and the degree of mentoring within Departments and Schools.

Based on these findings the RTPTF2 recommends

That the College establish a culture of mentoring by addressing factors that are known to influence the effectiveness of mentoring4 including

o The involvement of institutional leaders (President, Provost, Deans/Director of Libraries and Chairs/Heads).

o The value and level of recognition given to mentoring (annual reports, merit and promotion, awards).

o The availability of mentoring resources (checklists, online materials and information, training activities and resources).

o The comprehensive nature of mentoring (one-on-one, workshops, committees, etc.).

The Faculty Center

3 Faculty Mentoring at the University of Minnesota. President’s Emerging Leaders Program. http://www.academic.umn.edu/provost/faculty/pdf/PELMentorReport.pdf

4 University of Albany Mentoring Best Practices: A Handbook. http://www.albany.edu/academics/mentoring.best.practices.chapter1.shtml

22

In the Application for Establishing a Faculty Center the Committee on Instruction proposed that the new Faculty Center play a role in mentoring faculty through contract renewal, tenure and promotion with the recommendation that the Faculty Center remain free of the processes and responsibilities of evaluating faculty performance and that faculty participation in any services provided by the Faculty Center be voluntary.

Based on the Committee on Instruction’s proposed role for the Faculty Center in mentoring faculty going through renewal, tenure and promotion processes, the RTPTF2 recommends that the Faculty Center play a key role in mentoring candidates and evaluators by providing information and training focused on such things as

RTP policies and practices.

RTP dates and timelines.

The dossier.

Evaluating teaching effectiveness.

Self-evaluations.

Letter writing.

Electronic submission of materials.

Website

Although the College’s website contains information about renewal, tenure and promotion, it is incomplete and decentralized, and some of it is out of date. The lack of an easy-to-access, centralized, and up-to-date source makes it very difficult to find information on renewal, tenure and promotion at SUNY Oneonta and introduces a significant amount of variation and uncertainty into the process. Those involved in renewal, tenure and promotion processes at SUNY Oneonta consistently mentioned this as an issue that significantly impacts clarity, transparency and consistency.

Based on this finding, the RTPTF2 recommends that the College upgrade the current webpage to provide a centralized, intuitive, and easy-to-navigate location for all RTP information including

Standards and procedural information for academic Departments and the Library.

Policies and information on applying for prior service credit, suspending the tenure clock, including when it is appropriate and the impact that suspending the tenure clock will have on the RTP process.

Time-in-rank requirements for promotion.

Policies and procedures for the administration of student evaluations.

DAC and P&T memberships and membership protocol.

23

Information about the electronic submission of RTP materials.

Monitoring

Currently, no individual or group is charged with monitoring renewal, tenure and promotion policies and practices for clarity, transparency, consistency and fairness. Without monitoring it is very likely that RTP policies and practices will become increasingly unclear, inconsistent and out of date. The RTPTF2 recommends that the College establish a representative College committee separate from the DACs and the P&T composed primarily of faculty and charged with

Monitoring RTP policies and practices across the institution. Ensuring that discipline-specific standards are reviewed and updated regularly by

Departments/Library. Ensuring that the RTP information on the College website remains accurate and up to date. Ensuring that all aspects of renewal, tenure and promotion at SUNY Oneonta remain clear,

transparent, consistent and fair.

24