Upload
andrew-tranter
View
213
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
New Five-Year Review New Five-Year Review PolicyPolicy
Carole GoldbergVice Chancellor, Academic Personnel
Fall QuarterOctober 18, 2013
Process for DevelopmentProcess for DevelopmentResearch into other UC Policies
◦Ours very informal, vague◦Davis, Riverside, UCSF more structured
Consultation with Academic Senate ◦CAP◦CODEO◦FECs◦Executive Board
2
Why Now?Why Now?Department Chairs unsure about existing
policy
Changing conditions on campus◦More students◦Altered environment for research
funding, publication
Desire for greater campus support for advancement
3
Authoritative SourcesAuthoritative SourcesUC’s Academic Personnel Manual (APM)
◦ http://www.apo.ucla.edu/policies◦ APM 200-0: “Every faculty member shall be
reviewed at least every five years. The Chancellor, with the advice of the Academic Senate, shall determine the level and type of review and shall develop appropriate implementing procedures.”
UCLA CALL, Appendix 12◦ https://www.apo.ucla.edu/policies/the-call/append
ices-1/appendix-12-five-year-reviews◦ Explains purposes, series subject to review,
timing, process, outcomes◦ Effective for reviews this year, effective 7/1/14
4
Purposes for Five-Year Purposes for Five-Year ReviewsReviewsIdentify faculty who have been
inappropriately overlooked for advancement
Identify impediments so faculty members and university can develop strategies for advancement
Ensure equitable distribution of university responsibilities
5
Who is Subject to Review?Who is Subject to Review?Everyone in a teaching series at Associate
or Full◦ Ladder◦ In-Residence◦ Adjunct◦ Lecturer SOE◦ HS Clinical◦ Clin X
Everyone in Professional Research Series (APM 310-17d)
6
When is the Review?When is the Review?Spring of year that marks five years of no
review for rank or step
A negative review starts a new five-year period
Leave time will count absent permission from Vice Chancellor
Pathways agreement may include deferral of Five-Year Review
7
What are the Basic Changes?What are the Basic Changes?Greater detail and guidance
◦ Candidate’s responsibilities◦ Faculty input◦ Responsibilities of Department Chair
Specified outcomes◦ Satisfactory with advancement◦ Satisfactory without advancement◦ Unsatisfactory
Where appropriate, clearer expectations and plan for improved performance to achieve advancement
8
9
What is the Process?What is the Process? Varied to suit differently placed appointees
Advance request from Chair to submit material for a dossier◦ Review is mandatory◦ Department must use available materials if none submitted
Faculty input according to department policies/bylaws
10
What is the Process? (cont.)What is the Process? (cont.) Chair develops departmental
recommendation
Faculty member can review, augment, respond to the Chair’s letter
Dean also provides recommendation, and forwards dossier to Vice Chancellor
Vice Chancellor makes final decision, and may seek guidance from CAP
What Happens if Review is “Unsatisfactory”?What Happens if Review is “Unsatisfactory”?
Chairs will provide an Action Plano Reviewed and approved by Vice Chancelloro Specifies performance expectations in aspect(s) of performance that don’t
satisfy criteria applicable to current stepo Establishes timetable for improvement over next five years
Potential elements of an Action Plano Strategies to improve teachingo Revision of responsibilitieso Exploration and support for new lines of researcho Possible change in serieso Mentoring (e.g., new Emericorps Mentoring Program)
Faculty member submits annual progress report
Consulting with faculty, Chair provides written Annual Evaluation of progress for dossier
11
What if Plan Expectations are not Met?What if Plan Expectations are not Met?
Chair submits Annual Evaluation to Vice Chancellor, who may seek advice of CAP
Chair will recommend further steps consistent with the APM
12