FACULTY GOVERNANCE | Back to King's College | Back to Faculty Governance | Back to Minutes List
Minutes
Faculty Council Meeting
April 30, 2008
Present: Greg Bassham (Chair), Derrick Boucher (Chair-elect), Joan Coffin (A&P Chair-elect), Kristi Concannon (C&T Chair-elect), Sheileen Corbett (At-large Rep), Dan Ghezzi (A&P Chair), Michele McGowan (Div. D Rep), Regan Lance Reitsma (Div. C Rep.), Jeremy Simington (Div. A Rep).
Guest: Ron Supkowski.
Respectfully submitted,
Greg Bassham
[Revision to Faculty Handbook, Fall 2005, pp. 87-89]
VII. SENIOR FACULTY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
The purposes of the Senior Faculty Development Program are to: (1) encourage the professional growth of senior faculty members, (2) provide College resources to assist that growth, (3) account for the use of those resources, and (4) report on the professional development of the faculty member.
The review is mandatory for all regular faculty members holding tenure or an academic appointment and for professional specialists above the assistant (clinical or technical) professor rank. Academic Affairs will notify faculty who must apply in that year’s cohort by October 15. The first plan will be prepared the year after the faculty member’s receipt of tenure or an academic appointment, or promotion to associate (clinical or technical) professor; progress will be reported annually. The cycle will repeat at six-year intervals. During the initial implementation of the program, eligibility may be limited by seniority and/or budgetary constraints.
Procedure:
The faculty member will form a Senior Review Committee (SRC) consisting of the department chair (who will chair the committee), the Dean (and MSB Director if appropriate), and one other senior faculty member of the participant’s choice. If the faculty member is the department chair or the department chair is not a senior faculty member, another senior faculty member to chair the committee will be selected by the participant in consultation with the Dean or MSB Director. If either of the senior faculty members of the SRC is unable to continue serving on the committee, he or she will be replaced by a senior faculty member selected by the participant.
The faculty member will submit to the SRC:
(a) A current curriculum vitae.
(b) The last three annual activity reports.
(c) A brief (several pages) self-evaluative report on teaching, professional development, and service. If the faculty member has been tenured or promoted within the last two years, the P/T application may simply be referenced.
(d) A professional development plan addressing questions such as: How do I fit into the College’s future, i. e. what can I contribute to the College’s mission over the next six years? How can I meet the standards for promotion or merit pay? How can I improve my teaching? What areas do I need to develop in order to do these? What resources do I need? How do I propose to use the money available? How will I be evaluated?
The plan must explain the goals, how these fit the needs of the department and College, the resources required, and the expected outcomes. It should include any proposed sabbaticals or use of the Differential Workload policy. Criteria for judging the achievement of these goals must be specified.
The proposed uses of the funds must directly advance the faculty member’s development. They may be used: (1) to provide tangible items, such as books, computers, equipment, etc. These remain the property of the College, although they are dedicated to the faculty member’s use. (2) For travel to professional gatherings or to use resources not available locally. (3) To free time for scholarly work (e.g., "buying" a course reduction or paying a research assistant). (4) For other purposes clearly serving to remove impediments to the faculty member’s professional development, providing these can be done without creating taxable income for the faculty member.
The SRC will evaluate the plan in light of the likely benefits to the students and the College. Upon SRC approval of the plan (including the proposed use of funds), the College will establish a faculty development account containing $5,000 for the faculty member’s exclusive use.
The funds will become available to the faculty member once they have received a satisfactory evaluation of their teaching effectiveness as described in the “Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness and Classroom Observations” policy found at the end of this document. The funds will be accounted for in a separate part of the faculty member’s annual report, and the faculty member will receive an annual report on the account activity and balance. The annual reports will also be submitted to the SRC.
During the third year, the SRC will meet with the faculty member to review progress and make revisions if required. At any time, the Dean, MSB Director, or SRC chair may call for a meeting to review the faculty member’s progress.
In evaluating the faculty member’s progress, the SRC shall bear in mind that interests change and unexpected opportunities occur. Thus, the plan is not a contract. However, the SRC must judge whether a sufficient level of appropriate professional development has taken place.
Satisfactory progress requires no action except a notation to that effect. If progress is deemed unsatisfactory, all disbursements will be halted as described below. Until the SRC is satisfied with the progress, any faculty development expenditures will require the explicit approval of the Vice President for Academic Affairs.
At the end of the sixth year, any remaining funds revert to the College’s general fund. The process will then repeat. Subsequent plans shall address the results of the previous plan.
Eligible faculty who do not have an approved plan, or whose performance within that plan is judged unsatisfactory, will be ineligible for any College faculty development funds. That is, no monies will be expended on behalf of that faculty member – from any College account – without explicit approval from the Vice President for Academic Affairs. In addition, the faculty member will be ineligible for sabbatical leave or application for merit pay.
Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness and Formal Classroom Observations:
Formal classroom observations/evaluations are conducted in conjunction with the Senior Faculty Development Program. The King’s College Mission Statement clearly specifies the role of teaching and offers, “Faculty members are committed to active student learning and excellent teaching as their main responsibilities.” The vitality of King’s College depends on the vitality of the faculty at all levels. Formal classroom observations/evaluations are conducted as a formative process to sustain and encourage faculty to maintain, develop, and improve teaching.
Members of the Senior Review Committee (SRC) will each make one separate classroom visit during the first semester of the review. The Dean, with the approval of all parties involved, may select a designee to perform his or her classroom observation. The faculty member should provide the SRC with any supporting materials that indicate teaching effectiveness. Such items might include syllabi, assignments, projects, student comments, etc. Prior to any classroom observation, the faculty member should briefly describe to the SRC member the topics to be covered in the lecture as well as the goals and objectives of the lecture.
Within one week after the classroom visit, the SRC member is to complete the “Faculty Evaluation Form for Class Observation” (available through the Office of Academic Affairs) and forward two copies to the faculty member. One of these copies is to be signed by the faculty member as acknowledgement of receipt and returned to the SRC chair.
All members of the SRC will meet to discuss the results of the classroom observations, the two most recent student evaluations of teaching, and all supporting materials supplied by the faculty member. The SRC, by majority vote, must reach one of the following judgments:
* Satisfactory
* Satisfactory with minor improvements
* Unsatisfactory
The SRC’s judgment is to be made known to the faculty member in a prompt manner.
If the SRC’s judgment is “Satisfactory”, the faculty member will have access to the professional development funds. If the SRC’s judgment is “Satisfactory with minor improvements”, the SRC will meet with the faculty member to discuss the recommended improvements. The SRC and the faculty member will determine a course of action for improvement. Once the SRC is satisfied that the faculty member has implemented the action plan, the faculty member will have access to the professional development funds.
If the SRC’s judgment is “Unsatisfactory”, the SRC will meet with the faculty member to discuss the deficiencies reported in the evaluations. A faculty member who disagrees with this judgment may appeal within ten days to the Vice President for Academic Affairs (VPAA). The VPAA will meet with the SRC to discuss their judgment. The VPAA (or designee) might choose to make a classroom observation. The VPAA’s judgment is to be made known to the faculty member in a prompt manner.
If the judgment of the VPAA is “Satisfactory”, the faculty member will have access to the professional development funds. If the VPAA’s judgment is “Satisfactory with minor improvements”, the SRC will meet with the faculty member to discuss the recommended improvements. The SRC and the faculty member will determine a course of action for improvement. Once the SRC is satisfied that the faculty member has implemented the action plan, the faculty member will have access to the funds. At this time, the faculty member may elect to reconstitute the SRC by replacing one or both of the senior faculty members.
If the judgment of the VPAA is “Unsatisfactory”, the faculty member may appeal within ten days to the Senior Promotion Committee (SPC). The faculty member has the right to comment to the SPC in response to the judgment and challenge the finding and correct the record. The SPC will review all relevant materials and provide its judgment within ten days. The judgment of the SPC is final.
If the judgment of the SPC is “Satisfactory”, the faculty member will have access to the funds. If the SPC’s judgment is “Satisfactory with minor improvements”, the SRC will meet with the faculty member to discuss the recommended improvements. The SRC and the faculty member will determine a course of action for improvement. Once the SRC is satisfied that the faculty member has implemented the action plan, the faculty member will have access to the funds. At this time, the faculty member may elect to reconstitute the SRC by replacing one or both of the senior faculty members.
If the judgment of the SPC is “Unsatisfactory” or the faculty member does not appeal an “Unsatisfactory” judgment by the SRC or the VPAA, the SRC and the faculty member will develop an improvement plan for the following semester. This collaborative process will establish goals, timelines, expected outcomes, and the monitoring process for the plan.
Examples of actions to improve performance might include consultation with colleagues on problem areas or reallocation of departmental assignments to facilitate improvement in teaching. The Office of Academic Affairs will provide reasonable support where available and when appropriate. During the first semester of the implementation of the improvement plan, progress will be assessed by the SRC and reported to the VPAA and SPC, if appropriate. If progress is satisfactory, the faculty member will have access to the funds. If the progress is unsatisfactory, a revised improvement plan will be developed for the following semester.
If the faculty member is unwilling or unable to perform at acceptable levels after one year under the plan, the VPAA, in consultation with the SRC, will discuss with the faculty member measures as provided in the Faculty Handbook.