Personnel Issues and the Department Team Personnel Management structure.

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?