The information about CoB on the other thread looks like all the more reason for national AAUP to investigate--WHERE ARE THEY? We need reinforcements.

This seems in character for the Thames regime.

But can we get details?  What was sent to the Board, and when?

Robert Campbell

Hey, Mitch!! 

Always glad to see your comments. The CoEP doesn't seem to contribute much to this MB, except for your posts. You're a pretty brave person. Hang in there!

quote:

---

Originally posted by: educator
"Hey, Mitch!!  Always glad to see your comments. The CoEP doesn't seem to contribute much to this MB, except for your posts. You're a pretty brave person. Hang in there!"

---

Hey Ed. Hope all is going well for you (I know that it is!). There are actually some nifty COEP posts, some anonymous (ah, but I know who some of them are) and some not (e.g., Eric Luce; Joe Olmi). Even if people aren't posting, I can guarantee that they are reading.

  

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Pineapple Upsidedown Cake
"Was there something controversial in that post, educator? To me it seemed rather neutral and one that could be posted by anybody with fear of retaliation."

---

Nah-

Nothing real controversial in the post. Just some background information, a call for more information, and the point that at USM we tend not to look around at the good work at other universities before we design our own policies. Of interest is the fact in the Ole Miss handbook that AAUP principles are explicited cited in the post tenure review policy. I think that is a good thing. I can be much more controversial and opinionated (as my friends and enemies can attest), but it is a nice Saturday, so I'll leave the controversy to other posters today (the board is full of hot stuff today).

I think the point here is that the administration went to some trouble to get the policy off to the IHL BEFORE they let the faculty know this had been changed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Mitch
" http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/HR/HBSEC4.pdf I am not privy to the details, but my guess from talking with some FS members is that the rub lies in the exact arithmetic mean rating to be used to trigger review. I have significant concerns in general with using a mean rating for a couple of reasons (primarily, it is psychometrically unsound). Also, the notion of two years of "unsatisfactory" ratings seems to be the trigger (the FS proposal). I told some FS folks that I was uncomfortable with this notion also, but that seems to be what has been agreed upon by all (FS members--correct me if I a wrong, please). If you examine the Ole Miss 2004 policy, it seems pretty reasonable (see link)--three years of unsatisfactory work and no specific arithmetic cut-off score. Now, I am really out of the loop with 'Ole Miss' plans, and they may also be planning on using the "mean across two year" strategy also. I am as curious as the rest of your to get the details, and to find out what the IHL's thinking is on this matter. "

---

Mitch,

The way the FacSen post tenure review policy was explained to me by my faculty senator is that a post-tenure review would only be triggered if one's overall rating was deficient two years in a row.  You could do well in teaching and service and not have something published or have a research project underway and still not be penalized.  This sounds fair.  In the administration's version you could have a deficient score in one area (two years in a row? not sure of the time frame) and have the post tenure review triggered.  A post-tenure review policy needs to reflect the multiple contributions that faculty make. To trigger the review when one area is deficient seems rather draconian. I imagine it is going to be research which is the hardest for most teaching 6 courses a year to get back up and running post tenure.  In my case, I have NCATE responsibilities which are taking away from research, although I do have a research project underway.  I would have to make very difficult choices as to what to do with my time if the administration's version is the one that is passed.  The FacSen version would allow me to take more time to get published. 

Anyone can correct me if I've not understood the difference between the two versions. I'd be glad to know.

 

 

 

 

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Mitch
" ... Of interest is the fact in the Ole Miss handbook that AAUP principles are explicited cited in the post tenure review policy. I think that is a good thing. I can be much more controversial and opinionated (as my friends and enemies can attest), but it is a nice Saturday, so I'll leave the controversy to other posters today (the board is full of hot stuff today)."

---

Mitch,

I check the Ole Misss policy and found this statement:

"From the Ole Miss Tenure and Promotion Document:

Post Tenure Review

 

“Purpose, Principles and Objectives

…

5. Post-tenure review should be flexible enough to acknowledge different expectations in different disciplines and changing expectations at different stages of faculty careers.”

 

The Faculty Senate's version of P-T Rev. allows for this much more that the administrations version. 

 

 

Since the debacle last year where 20 were reported unsatisfactory to IHL, the post-tenure review document was edited to make it quite clear as to what would be considered "unsatisfactory". The Council of Chairs suggested that "unsatisfactory" be defined as getting a score of 1 (unsatisfactory) in 2 of the 3 areas that are rated (teaching, research, service) in annual evaluation. If you did that two years in a row, that would trigger post tenure review.

After a vote in Faculty Senate there was officially introduced the weighted system where all three scores were taken into account. As mentioned earlier, 80% of your score might come from your teaching or research effort, if that is what you do the most, for example. All three scores are taken into account and if you went below a certain level (I think that was 1.5) on two consecutive years, that would trigger post-tenure review.

This is a trigger that falls somewhere between the fast ones and slow ones at other universities. At Ole Miss the trigger comes if you get 3 unstatisfactory reviews in a 6-year period. At MUW you have to get 3 bad reviews within 4 consecutive years for the trigger to take place. At other schools it is possible for some high ranking person in the administration to simply say, "We need to review that person" and it takes place, apparently.

Every single one of these methods is infinitely better than the non-trigger method used at some schools, where everyone is evaluated at certain intervals, say every 6 years. It is like going through tenure all over again - putting together dossiers, etc. Horrible, time wasting process.

The president doesn't like having trigger set low. Of that there is no doubt.

Several other schools say that 2 consecutive "unsatisfactory" evaluations will trigger PTR, but I think we are the only ones to go to great lengths to define what "unsatisfactory" means.

As to the rumour that IHL already has an edited document, that remains to be seen. Don't be so sure until the new school week begins.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Arnold
"The problem in my dept. was the chair gave the rankings. When he liked you, you got high rankings. When he didn 't or you disagreed with some ridiculous idea he had, your rankings dropped. What is to prevent him from being out to get you? I know some depts. have committees, but mine didn't."

---

Arnold, isn't each department at USM still required to vote on governance options (e.g., authority vested solely with department chair, or with an elected committee, or with something or other?) I always thought it to be a strange and unorthodox system, but I do recall that at one time it was the system.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Arnold
" Yes. I'm not sure why my dept. wouldn't choose another alternative. I'd speculate, but my commentary wouldn't be either pleasant or useful."

---

That type of governance system sure puts politics smack dab in the middle of imporant personnel decisions. It also ensures an "uneveness" in the various personnel decision procedures used across campus. Do you know how and when such a bizarre system began?

PTR,

The non-trigger method we use at Clemson isn't too bad.

Every tenured faculty member gets post-tenure review each six years (the clock is reset with a promotion to Full Professor, because obviously that mean's that the faculty member's performance is meeting expectations).

The post-tenure process was deliberately designed not to replicate going up for tenure.   The post-tenure review committees in each department are ad hoc committees of three, and they typically write a one or two paragraph letter (there are only two evaluations in post-tenure review: Satisfactory and Unsatisfactory).  If you are up for post-tenure review you do have to turn in a notebook with a bunch of stuff in it--but after that the resemblance to the tenure process drops off sharply.  Department chairs, deans, and the provost don't want to spend a lot of time on post-tenure review either.

Robert Campbell

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"PTR, The non-trigger method we use at Clemson isn't too bad. Every tenured faculty member gets post-tenure review each six years (the clock is reset with a promotion to Full Professor, because obviously that mean's that the faculty member's performance is meeting expectations). The post-tenure process was deliberately designed not to replicate going up for tenure.   The post-tenure review committees in each department are ad hoc committees of three, and they typically write a one or two paragraph letter (there are only two evaluations in post-tenure review: Satisfactory and Unsatisfactory).  If you are up for post-tenure review you do have to turn in a notebook with a bunch of stuff in it--but after that the resemblance to the tenure process drops off sharply.  Department chairs, deans, and the provost don't want to spend a lot of time on post-tenure review either. Robert Campbell"

Robert:

This sounds like a sane and fair process at Clemson-summative and developmental across six years by a personnel authority committee, and everyone needs to go through it. As I said in a previous post, the "trigger" method to identify a "case" is psychometrically unsound, even if based on weighted ratings and some mean cutoff. Cut scores are affected by base rates of the construct of interest, which I bet vary across campus. Its validity has not established using reasonable outcome criteria. It's a worse selection process than admitting grad students via GRE scores alone, or not hiring someone based on their MMPI profile alone. If it ever came to pass that someone was canned based on a non-empirically derived or supported selection formula, whether the FS or admin's, that process would be difficult to defend. Although on face I can see why the FS and admin thinks a set formula is an improvement over your and Ole Miss's process, as a social scientist who has done test development, I find that this is all a bit scary. I don't believe that many people will see my concern here, but please believe me when I say that  this can be a big problem down the road.  

quote:

---

Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"mitch and robert--i like the 6-year time span better as well. as faculty become more senior, and that's really where post-tenure review is supposed to be meaningful, their projects take longer, they have other obligations, and the like. a two-year cycle is too much of a "what have you done for me lately." "

---

Yes, the cycle really is very concerning. But the notion that there is a hard numerical cutoff that will be used to select only some individuals for review is fraught with problems and my greater concern (my post above). Clemson's approach is far saner and more defensible. If one of the current plans is implemented, someone better be on top of this and collect solid outcome data from the population of interest (the entire faculty), and re-adjust the formula based on data as necessary. But even that is a problem, because of faculty attrition, presumed low base rates of "cases," and other factors (it is a study that I wouldn't be keen on designing or implementing or interpreting). I hope that some FS and admin folks read these posts--the quibble shouldn't be over the exact formula to use to select, but the use of a process that is psychometrically flawed and therefore inherently unfair. I don't think either the central admin or FS or AAUP see this problem.