personnel issues and the department team personnel management structure
TRANSCRIPT
Personnel Issues and the Department Team
Personnel Management structure
General Education students
Lecturers
General Education Coordinator
geology majors and minors
Undergraduate Committee
graduate students
Graduate Committee
Personnel Committee Department Staff
Department Chair
“Nothing could possibly be as boring… …as reading another
Department’s Personnel Document.”
-Dallas Rhodes, 2005
The CSUF Context•Each Department commanded to create own personnel document
–governed by very general University policy–approved by University Personnel Committee
•Personnel actions are based solely on materials included by candidate in their portfolio
–no external letters/comments allowed•Geology faculty unanimous in the desire to make requirements as quantitative as possible
General Framework of “Shorty”•Categories of geology-specific evaluation criteria are specified for
Teaching, Scholarly and Creative Activities, and Service• A. Teaching
–A.1 Student Responses to Instruction–A.2 Classroom Peer-Reviews–A.3 Student Research (undergraduate required; graduate encouraged)
–A.4 Expectations regarding student achievement–A.5 Pedagogical approach and method–A.6 On-going professional development as a teacher–A.7 On-going professional development in the discipline
•Examples of each type of activity, and appropriate types of evidence, are listed for each category
–e.g. for category A.5 –innovative teaching techniques–original curricular development
Standards of Performance•Specific, typically quantitative, standards of performance in Teaching and SCA are listed for each review period
–e.g. years 2, 4, 6, and promotion to Full Professor–possible rankings are Excellent, Sufficient and Insufficient
• A. e.g. Teaching--Year 4–Excellent – Minimum requirements are: SRI score (average of class averages) exceeding 3.50; (2) classroom peer reviews must average excellent for all categories for the period; (3) supervisor for one completed student thesis proposal;(4) excellent rating in A.4; (5) one contribution from two different categories among A.5 – 7.
–Sufficient – Minimum requirements are: SRI score of 3.20 (average of class averages); (2) classroom peer reviews must average sufficient for all categories; (3) supervisor for one completed student thesis proposal; (4) sufficient rating in A.4; (5) one contribution from among A.5 – 7 during the period (fourth year).
–Insufficient – Failure to meet the criteria for Sufficient shall be deemed Insufficient.
Grid for assessing Teaching
RTP ranking Insufficient Sufficient Excellent
Scho
larly
Insufficient Insufficientsecond year termination possible; fourth year termination recommended
Insufficienttermination at end of fourth year may be
recommended
Insufficienttermination at end of fourth year may be recommended
and
A
ctivities
Sufficient Insufficienttermination at end of fourth year may be recommended
Sufficient Sufficient
Cre
ative
Excellent Insufficienttermination at end of fourth year may be recommended
Sufficient Excellent
Grid for assessing Teaching(from
andTable
SCA1)
Tenure/ early tenure Insufficient Sufficient Excellent
Insufficient Insufficientsecond year termination possible; fourth year termination recommended
Insufficienttermination at end of fourth year may be
recommended
Insufficienttermination at end of fourth year may be recommended
Se
rvice
Sufficient Insufficienttermination at end of fourth year may be recommended
Sufficient Sufficient
Excellent Insufficienttermination at end of fourth year may be recommended
Sufficient Excellent
Positives Negatives
•Probationary faculty like having specific goals
•Personnel Committee appreciates guidance
•Shorty has enhanced Department reputation with some administrators
•Some tendency towards “bean-counting”
•Quantity vs. quality issues
•Equal weight given to some activities of apparent differing significance
•Grants vs. contracts•Peer-reviewed journals
Shorty’s second-year evaluation
Who would you vote for?