Faculty Senate Meeting 12/9/05 - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Dec 7, 2005

Faculty Senate Meeting 12/9/05

Date: Dec 7, 2005

Reporter wrote:

Administration and Faculty Evaluations

After 105 years USM is still trying to get it right?

Date: Dec 7, 2005

It takes time wrote:

Reporter wrote: Administration and Faculty Evaluations

After 105 years USM is still trying to get it right?

Please translate your comment, It Takes Time. Or should I say LOCAL & SCOOP?

Date: Dec 7, 2005

LeftASAP wrote:

Please translate your comment, It Takes Time. Or should I say LOCAL & SCOOP?

What I meant, Left ASAP, is that a school that has existed for 105 years should already have a suitable and appropriate method for evaluating faculty and admistrators. Maybe one of these days we'll get it right . . . . . and apply it consistently and with an even hand.

Date: Dec 7, 2005

It takes time wrote:

LeftASAP wrote: Please translate your comment, It Takes Time. Or should I say LOCAL & SCOOP? What I meant, Left ASAP, is that a school that has existed for 105 years should already have a suitable and appropriate method for evaluating faculty and admistrators. Maybe one of these days we'll get it right . . . . . and apply it consistently and with an even hand.

O.K.! But Mississippi Normal College was established in 1910 not 1900. USM didn't come into existence until something like 1955 or so. I know the logo says 1910, but like so many other things about the university truth is subjected to good P.R.

Date: Dec 7, 2005

LeftASAP wrote:

O.K.!

I knew we were on the same side all along

Date: Dec 7, 2005

Hello all:

Dr. Stephen Judd has agreed to provide a synopsis of AAUP USM activities to date for the FS meeting (I am trying to get ready for an out of town workshop and will probably miss this FS meeting).

Best wishes,

Mitchell E. Berman, Ph.D.

AAUP USM Chapter President

Date: Dec 8, 2005

Agenda Update: Provost Grimes may not be able to attend.

Date: Dec 8, 2005

It takes time wrote:

After 105 years USM is still trying to get it right?

There has been an "Administration and Faculty Evaluations" Committee on the Faculty Senate for at least the past 25 years. Its duties are to supervise a statistically-valid evaluation document, suitable for evaluation of both faculty and administrators.

Faculty are evaluated "both above and below" -- by their department chair (above) and through Student Evaluations of Teaching (below). Therefore, since we've all heard that "university administrators are also faculty," the Faculty Senate has attempted to evaluate USM administrators (chairs, deans, provosts, vice-presidents, and the university president) by the same process.

It worked through the Lucas and Fleming administrations, but somehow in the Thames administration, the process stopped working. Another breakdown of "shared governance," including: Faculty evaluations of administrators being ignored by internal supervisors (chair, dean, and provost evaluations) and by external supervision (presidential evaluations sent to the IHL Board); Abandonment of "in-class, hard-copy" Student Evaluations of Teaching, using a tested document (the Purdue Survey) for an online evaluation, created by means not apparent to the faculty, administered poorly, and probably generating statistically-invalid results.

Questions: Why did the Thames administration abandon something that worked, that had 20+ years of results, allowing within-group and between-group time-series analysis? If the new "online evaluations" are so much better, then why is is necessary to BRIBE students to submit them (see the Internet memo on "student access to grades" being linked by their submission of the online document -- students who submit an evaluation can see their grades through STARS a couple of days before those who do not submit).

Institutional memory is another casualty of the Thames administration.