GOVERNANCE PROCEDURES
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH
As revised by the Department, 2002
Table of Contents
II. Officers Appointed by the Head
A. Selection and Term of Department Officers
B. Responsibilities of Associate Head
C. Responsibilities of Directors of Composition, Undergraduate Studies, Graduate Studies
D. Responsibilities of Directors of Special Programs
1. Director of the Honors Program in English
2. MFA Director
3. Director of American Studies
III. Committees
A. Elections to Standing Committees
B. Administrative Committee
C. Personnel Committee
D. Fixed Term Review Committee
E. Program Committees
1. General Procedures
2. Composition Committee
3. Undergraduate Studies Committee
4. Graduate Studies Committee
F. Advisory and Ad Hoc Committees
IV. Fixed Term Faculty
V. Department Meetings
A. General Procedures
B. Responsibilities
C. Voting
VI. Clarification and Revision of Governance Procedures
A. Policy Statements
B. Amendments to Governance Procedures
1. Deliberation
2. Ratification
C. Periodic Review
Policy Statements
I. HEAD
The selection, term, and institutional duties of the Head are determined by University policy. According to that policy, the Head is responsible for the organization of the Department; the supervision of its personnel; the direction of its academic programs; the facilitation of its scholarly and creative endeavors; and the management of its budget. The head is expected to carry out the provisions of this document.
The Department regards its Head as a colleague who presides over the orderly functioning of the community, helping it to fulfill its commitments to teaching, research, and university service with maximum effectiveness. The Department relies on the Head to represent its needs, strengths, and importance to the University administration; to serve as a liaison to other units of the University; and to guide the Department in its efforts to build and define itself for the future.
II. Officers Appointed by the Head
A. Selection and Term of Department Officers
The Associate Head and Program Directors are selected by the Head in consultation with particular committees: the Associate Head in consultation with the Administrative Committee; the Directors of Composition, Undergraduate Studies, and Graduate Studies in consultation with their respective program committees; the Director of the Honors Program in English in consultation with the Undergraduate Studies Committee; and the MFA Director in consultation with the Graduate Studies Committee and faculty teaching in the MFA program.
The Associate Head and program directors serve non-renewable terms of up to three years. Under exceptional circumstances, the Head in consultation with the relevant committees may extend the term beyond the three-year limit. An Associate Head or a Director of Composition, Undergraduate Studies, or Graduate Studies must step down for at least one year before becoming eligible for appointment to another one of these positions.
B. Responsibilities of the Associate Head
The Associate Head assumes responsibility for many of the department’s daily activities; prepares the course schedule in consultation with the Directors of Composition, Undergraduate Studies, and Graduate Studies; serves as a member of the Administrative Committee; meets with the division heads of the campus colleges; and may be empowered to represent the Head in various Department, College and University functions.
C. Responsibilities of Directors of Composition, Undergraduate Studies, and Graduate Studies
The Directors of Composition, Undergraduate Studies, and Graduate Studies manage the daily activities of their programs in consultation with elected program committees; chair the elected committees in their respective programs; assist the Associate Head in preparing course schedules; and serve as members of the Administrative Committee. The Director of Graduate Studies schedules and chairs a meeting of the Graduate Faculty at least once every semester.
D. Responsibilities of Directors of Special Programs
1. Director of the Honors Program in English
The Director of the Honors Program, in consultation with the Director of Undergraduate Studies and the Undergraduate Studies Committee, coordinates the Department’s Honors Program with the University Scholars Program; advises students enrolled in the Honors Program; and recommends to the Director of Undergraduate Studies the staffing and scheduling of honors seminars in English.
2. MFA Director
The MFA Director, in consultation with the Director of Graduate Studies and the Graduate Studies Committee, oversees the routine functions of the MFA program and organizes its special events; advises the Directors of Graduate Studies and Undergraduate Studies about the staffing of writing courses; coordinates the process of recruiting and advising students; serves as a member of the Graduate Studies Committee and the Administrative Committee; and at least once each semester schedules and chairs a meeting of faculty teaching in the MFA program.
3. Director of American Studies
The Director of American Studies, in consultation with the Director of Undergraduate Studies and the Undergraduate Studies Committee, oversees the American Studies Program and helps to organize its special events; advises the Director of Undergraduate Studies about staffing of the American Studies courses; advises students enrolled in the Honors Program of American Studies; advises the Undergraduate Studies Director on the staffing and scheduling of American Studies courses; and solicits one faculty member from outside the department to teach a section of American Studies 402 each semester.
A. Elections to Standing Committees
Elections to standing committees are held each spring semester and conducted serially with the Administrative and Personnel Committees first, and the three Program Committees second. Faculty with standing appointments may nominate any others or themselves, subject to each committee’s conditions of membership and to the following restrictions: (1) the Associate Head, Directors of Composition, Undergraduate Studies, and Graduate Studies, and persons who hold administrative positions in other departments are ineligible for election to standing committees. (2) No faculty member may serve on both the Administrative and the Personnel Committee simultaneously. Those faculty nominated to more than one program committee must choose which one to stand for. Faculty elected to the Administrative or Personnel Committee are eligible for nomination to program committees. (3) Members of the Graduate Studies Committee are elected by and from the Graduate Faculty. (4) Faculty members with less than 50 percent of their tenure in the department are not eligible to serve on the standing committees.
The term of service to standing committees is two years, with half of the elected members stepping down each year. Elected members retiring from one committee are immediately eligible for election to another committee, but are not eligible for re-election to the same committee until the following year. Graduate student members of committees will enjoy full voting rights (except that graduate students do not contribute to deliberations concerning admission to the Ph.D. program from Penn State’s MA program).
B. Administrative Committee
The Administrative Committee is chaired by the Head and consists of the Associate Head, the Directors of Composition, Undergraduate Studies, the MFA program, and Graduate Studies, and two additional representatives—one assistant professor and either one associate or full professor—elected to two-year terms by faculty with standing appointments.
The Administrative Committee assumes responsibility for routine administrative activities; advises the Head on Department concerns and priorities; prepares major issues for consideration at faculty meetings; and in conjunction with the Personnel Committee, determines annual recruitment priorities.
C. Personnel Committee
The UP Personnel Committee consists of nine faculty—five full professors and four associate professors—who hold tenure at University Park, elected by all the UP faculty with standing appointments. In cases involving a faculty member from a non-University Park college, the non-University Park faculty whose tenure is at University Park will elect one of themselves as an extra member of the committee, for the exclusive purpose of participating in personnel decisions involving non-University Park faculty. As with University Park members, that person must be tenured and hold a rank higher than the candidate.
The Personnel Committee is responsible for all matters concerning promotion and tenure. Each spring the head consults with the newly elected Personnel Committee on candidates for promotion and tenure. The Personnel Committee also advises the Head on finalists for senior lectureships and tenure-line appointments, and, in conjunction with the Administrative Committee, determines annual recruitment priorities. The Personnel Committee will contribute two of its members to the Fixed Term Review Committee.
The Personnel Committee is convened in the spring shortly after its election; it then elects a Chair from among the full professors on the committee. The Chair conducts all meetings dealing with tenure and promotion and writes the committee’s tenure and promotion recommendations for the Dean of the College in accordance with PS-23.
D. Fixed Term Review Committee
The fixed term review committee shall consist of six members: two members of the personnel committee and two members elected from the ranks of multi-year and senior lecturers and one member each from the Composition Committee and the Undergraduate Studies Committee. It reviews reappointment and promotion of multi-year and senior lecturers and hears appeals from lecturers who have been negatively reviewed.
E. Program Committees
1. General Procedures
The Directors of Composition, Undergraduate Studies, and Graduate Studies serve as chair and meet regularly with their respective committees. Under ordinary circumstances, meetings are open to all faculty who wish to attend.
With the consent of the elected program committee, a Director may establish subcommittees that oversee specific functions of the program. The subcommittee may include non-elected members appointed by the program committee.
The consent of a majority of a program committee is required before a program director may institute changes in program procedures. Any major change in curriculum or policy must be submitted to the faculty for approval. A major change in the graduate program must be approved by the Graduate Faculty.
2. Composition Committee
In addition to the director, the Composition Committee consists of six members—two faculty with standing appointments and two fixed term lecturers who serve for two-year terms, and two teaching assistants who serve for one-year terms. All members will be elected by their respective constituencies. The Writing Center director will serve as an ex officio member.
The Composition Committee oversees programming and policy issues of the composition program. The composition staff, consisting of the Director, Associate Director, Assistant Director, Composition Assistant, and Staff Assistant, oversee the day-to-day operations of the composition program, including, but not limited to, staffing at all levels; training graduate teaching assistants; and screening candidates for fixed-term lectureships with primary teaching duties in composition.
3. Undergraduate Studies Committee
In addition to the director, the Undergraduate Studies Committee consists of seven members—four UP faculty with standing appointments and one UP Fixed Term I Lecturer, elected by their respective constituencies for two-year terms; and as ex officio members the Directors of the American Studies Program and Honors Program.
The Undergraduate Studies Committee oversees the activities of the undergraduate program, including the preliminary scheduling of courses; supervises multi-section courses and mentorships for them; directs the internship program and department contests; approves proposals for new undergraduate courses; assesses the requirements for the English major and minor; and examines the effectiveness of the undergraduate program in English as well as the Department’s role in other undergraduate programs.
4. Graduate Studies Committee
In addition to the Director and the MFA Director, the Graduate Studies Committee consists of five elected members—four members of the Graduate Faculty and one PhD or MFA student, elected by their respective constituencies elected for two-year terms. If an Associate or Assistant Director helps administer the graduate program, that person serves as a nonvoting member of the committee.
As further specified in the Graduate Studies Handbook, the Graduate Studies Committee oversees the activities of the graduate program, including recruitment and admissions; selects the recipients of teaching assistantships and nominees for fellowships and other awards; offers recommendations for teaching assistantships and fellowships; coordinates the process of advising and examining students; prepares the preliminary schedule of courses; and enhances the effectiveness of the program in preparing students for professional careers.
F. Advisory and Ad Hoc Committees
1. Standing Advisory Committees
The Head, in consultation with the Administrative Committee, may establish advisory committees composed either of faculty appointed by the Head in consultation with the Administrative Committee, or of elected faculty members.
2. Ad Hoc Committees
The Head, in consultation with the Administrative Committee, or a Major Program Director in consultation with the program committee, may appoint ad hoc committees as needed. A committee assigned to prepare a study submits its report to the officer and committee who commissioned it. One such committee is the Awards Committee, appointed by the Head.
This group of faculty contribute a great deal to the teaching, service, and advising missions of the English department at Penn State. FT-1s and FT-2s teach courses which not only prepare students to undertake more advanced work but which, when taught capably, actually induce students to take further work in English Studies. The intellectual life of the department would be appreciably altered without the work undertaken by fixed-term lecturers. Accordingly, the department has devised the following guidelines for the fair and equitable treatment of these faculty members.
A. Criteria for Appointment, Renewal, and Non-Renewal of Fixed-Term One Lecturers, Multi-year Lecturers, and Senior Lecturers
Definition of Job:
Number of courses: 7 per year or 6 plus administrative duties (a few FT’s are given additional reassigned time for advising and other administrative tasks).
Definition of administrative duties: The office of the associate head, with advice from appropriate program directors, should review the administrative assignments that are given to FT-1 faculty to insure that such assignments are distributed equitably.
Renewal process
The term “fixed term lecturer” covers a variety of ranks; appointment, renewal in rank, and promotion are determined by periodic review conducted by appropriate program directors and the office of the associate head as specified further in the policy statements under section IV.
A. General Procedures
The faculty will meet at least once a semester. In addition, special meetings will be called by the Head in response to a petition signed by at least ten faculty with voting privileges. The agenda for a regularly scheduled meeting will be arranged by the Head in consultation with the relevant administrative committee. Any faculty member may place an issue on the agenda by prior written request to the Head. All department faculty, including non-tenure-line faculty, are invited to attend faculty meetings. Faculty meetings are also open to graduate-student representatives as chosen by the English Graduate Organization. All matters of procedural dispute will be decided by reference to the latest edition of Robert’s Rules of Order.
B. Responsibilities
The responsibilities of the assembled faculty include deliberation and decision on substantive changes in curriculum or policy proposed by individual committees; deliberation on proposed amendments to the Governance Procedures or Policy Statements; discussion of future faculty recruitment; and discussion of any issue which the faculty deems appropriate for consideration.
C. Voting
Voting at meetings is restricted to faculty with standing appointments and to Fixed Term 1 Lecturers who have been in full-time positions in the department for three or more years. In all matters other than proposed amendments to the Governance Procedures, which must be ratified by mail ballot, the faculty attending the meeting will decide whether to proceed directly to a vote or to conduct a vote by mail ballot. All proposals other than amendments to the Governance Procedures require a simple voting majority of faculty members in attendance. Voting is restricted to faculty with standing appointments of at least 50 percent in this department.
VI. Clarification and Revision of Governance Procedures
A. Amendments to Policy Statements
Any faculty member or committee may propose an amendment to the Department of English Policy Statements, which clarify or elaborate the Governance Procedures or address issues not covered by the Governance Procedures. The proposal should be sent to the Head, who will pass it on to the Administrative Committee. The Administrative Committee will prepare a policy statement for ratification at a faculty meeting.
B. Amendments to Governance Procedures
1. Deliberation.
Any faculty member with a standing appointment or any standing committee may propose an amendment to the Governance Procedures. The proposal should be sent to the Head, who will pass it on to the Administrative Committee. The Administrative Committee will prepare the proposed amendment for discussion at a meeting of the faculty. If after discussion and possible revision the proposed amendment receives the approval of a simple majority of those present at the faculty meeting, it will then go to a mail ballot.
2. Ratification.
Amendments to the Governance Procedures must be approved by mail ballot by a simple majority of all faculty with standing appointments and Fixed Term 1 Lecturers who have been in full-time positions in the department for three or more years.
C. Periodic Review
The Governance Procedures and Policy Statements will be reviewed at least once every five years by an ad hoc committee elected by members of the Department.
<<top>>
POLICY STATEMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH
Revised September 1984
Revised Sections on Promotion and Tenure September 1995
Revised May 1997
Revised 2002
Table of Contents
I. Undergraduate Course Requests, Assignment, and Approval
II. Graduate Course Requests, Assignment, and Approval
III. Criteria for Tenure and Promotion
IV. Criteria for Renewal and Promotion for Fixed-Term Faculty
V. Search Procedures for Hiring New Faculty
VI. Teaching Evaluations
VII. Variable Teaching Load
VIII. Policy on Graders
IX. Minutes and Archives
I. Undergraduate Course Requests, Assignment, and Approva
All tenure-line and fixed-term faculty members will submit their requests for general undergraduate courses via forms annually distributed by the office of the Associate Head. Requests for honors and special topics seminars will also be made in this same manner.
The course requests forms will be considered by the appropriate program committees, which receive an allotment of courses for each academic year. The committees work out course rotation term by term and develop staffing recommendations to go to the Associate Head. Program committees and the Associate Head may make use of advice from area groups, for example the Renaissance group or the American literature group, which meet annually to discuss who should teach the courses in their area in the coming one or two years.
In terms of creative writing courses, the MFA Director will be consulted when the 200-level writing classes are assigned to anyone other than tenure-line or FT-faculty.
In making staffing recommendations the program committees are strongly urged to consider the good of their courses and the students in them above all else.
The Head has final say over the staffing and scheduling of courses.
II. Graduate Course Requests, Assignment, and Approval
All graduate faculty members will submit their requests for graduate courses via forms annually distributed by the Graduate Studies Director. Faculty should make their requests after consulting with members of their respective area groups. Coordinators of these area groups will be designated by the Graduate Studies Director at the beginning of each new course assignment period. In order to consider courses that may not fit under a particular area group, the Graduate Studies Director will organize a meeting for faculty interested in making such proposals.
In assigning courses, the Graduate Studies Director and the Graduate Studies Committee will consider evidence of scholarly or professional interest.
The Head has final say over the staffing and scheduling of graduate courses.
III. Criteria for Tenure and Promotion
Procedures in tenure and promotion cases are mandated by HR-23, its interpretive guidelines, and the separate guidelines issued by the College of the Liberal Arts. The selection and constitution of the English Department Personnel Committee, which makes recommendations on tenure and promotion, are governed by the English Department’s Governance Procedures in accordance with University and College policies.
HR-23 states that “Since general statements of principles will be broad and inclusive, each academic unit may develop its own specific expectations and standards as the operational basis for tenure and promotion recommendations.” This statement of the English Department’s criteria and expectations is guided by the College statement that “The overarching goal, guiding all policy decisions in the College, is our collective desire to become one of the best liberal arts colleges in the nation. To achieve this goal, the scholarly accomplishments of faculty members—including research, teaching, and other scholarly services to the academic community and society—must serve to enhance our reputation as a distinguished college.”
Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor
In keeping with the normal practice of major universities, tenure and promotion to associate professor will be considered together under a single set of criteria. Only under very exceptional circumstances will the department recommend tenure without promotion, or vice versa.
The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
The English Department takes pains to insure high quality teaching at every level from freshmen to PhD students. A recommendation for tenure and promotion to associate professor requires successful teaching as evidenced by peer and student evaluations. The particular forms and frequency of evaluation are mandated by department, college, and university policies.
The Scholarship of Research and Creative Accomplishments
A recommendation for tenure and promotion will depend on the candidate’s presenting consistent evidence of accomplishment in research, criticism, creative writing (including creative nonfiction), or a combination of them. In making its judgment, the Personnel Committee will emphasize quality and significance to the candidate’s field of published or forthcoming material, with the proviso that sufficient quantity is necessary both to permit a reliable judgment and to assure continued commitment. The department has come to expect that for tenure and promotion to associate professor at University Park the research record will normally include an accepted or published (not simply contracted) book that makes a contribution to its field, although there may be cases where the nature of the candidate’s research or writing allows a significant body of published material to be an acceptable substitute for book publication. The Committee’s judgment of the quality and importance of the candidate’s written work will be assisted by such indicators as the assessments of outside referees, awards, and (if available) published reviews.
English is a diverse field, and the department encompasses many subdisciplines. No single hierarchy of journals or presses is practicable. While the quality and significance of published work are more important than its outlet, the department strongly encourages its members to publish in selective outlets that are highly regarded within (and preferably beyond) their subdisciplines.
Candidates are also expected to have sustained records of scholarship as the University defines it—that is, activities such as papers presented at national professional meetings, speaking engagements and readings in significant forums, the development of new courses, service in professional organizations or on editorial boards, and comparable evidence of sustained professional growth. At the same time, untenured faculty members are discouraged from pursuing such activities to the point where they interfere with establishing a distinguished publication record.
Service and the Scholarship of Service to the University, Society, and the Profession
All faculty members are expected to contribute to the intellectual life, the smooth running, and, as appropriate, the governance of the department. Assistant professors should be protected from having to invest too much time in service, lest it interfere with teaching and publishing.
“Service” encompasses a wide variety of intellectual labor, from participation in departmental and university committees, to local and state community work, to service on national and international disciplinary committees. Although no faculty member is expected to engage at all or even many of these levels, faculty are encouraged to identify particular areas of service for which they feel most qualified and most compelled. Ideally, faculty will be able to integrate teaching and research with service in a manner that enriches all three components. In accordance with university statutes, all forms of outreach service will be recognized in which a faculty member serves as a representative of the university and utilizes his or her professional expertise. For further elucidation of Service, see the University guidelines contained in HR23.
Promotion to Professor
Candidates recommended for promotion to professor will have records that indicate significant continued accomplishment in most or all of the three HR-23 areas listed above. Such candidates will, in accordance with College expectations, have achieved national or international reputations within their fields. Judgments of reputation will be based on the publication of an impressive body—usually including a second book in at least the proof stage of publication—of distinguished work that has importance for the candidate’s field, and on such evidence as published reviews, citations in the work of others, national grants and fellowships, honors and awards, invitations to speak, assignments to review books or manuscripts, editorships of journals, international publications, and the testimony of outside referees.
Differences by Location
In applying the above criteria, the department understands that, according to HR-23, expectations will differ in the light of the differing missions of locations other than University Park. In cases where a campus college faculty member has opted to declare University Park as his or her tenure home, the department will therefore be governed in its recommendations by the campus college criteria statement (where applicable) and by the following statement in the College’s Promotion and Tenure guidelines: “In general, for those engaged in resident instruction at University Park, a heavy weight is given to research when evaluating candidates for promotion and tenure…For those in the campus colleges, teaching, scholarship, and service are weighted more heavily than for UP faculty. Nonetheless, a positive tenure recommendation for any faculty member in Liberal Arts, no matter where his or her location, will only be made if a sustained record of quality research and effective teaching is demonstrated."
April 2000 (September 2002)
IV. Criteria for Renewal and Promotion of FT Faculty
Because the department draws its FT faculty from disparate sources, exceptions to these general rules will be unavoidable. Nevertheless, the department should try to insure the greatest degree of fairness and equity possible in all its appointments of FT faculty.
Reviews of all multi-year and senior lecturers will be conducted by the Fixed-Term Review Committee, which will be composed of two members elected by and from the ranks of the multi-year and senior lecturers, and two members of the Personnel Committee.
The term FT1 covers the following ranks: fixed-term one lecturers, multi-year lecturers, and senior lecturers. Under ordinary circumstances, FT1 faculty will have completed a Ph.D. or MFA and compiled satisfactory teaching evaluations. After three years, an FT1 lecturer may apply for the position of multi-year; after an additional three years, a multi-year lecturer may apply for appointment to senior lecturer. All appointments are determined by availability of position, evidence of teaching effectiveness, and quality of other professional activities. All determinations of “satisfactory performance” and “teaching effectiveness” are to be made by the Associate Head in conjunction with appropriate program directors, and in accordance with the guidelines specified below.
FT1 Lecturer
The Department will make every attempt to offer to all its own PhDs who meet the criteria for appointment an FT1 position for one year, renewable for up to three years. The Department does so in order to serve its PhDs in a depressed job market; however, the Department does not guarantee FT1 placement upon completion of the degree, nor will it offer employment beyond the three-year period. MFAs may also qualify for such positions.
Multi-Year Lecturer
Applicants for multi-year contracts must have served for three years in FT1 rank and have compiled evidence of superior teaching effectiveness. Multi-year faculty will be reviewed by appropriate program directors as well as by the Fixed-Term Review Committee and by the Office of the Associate Head.
Senior Lecturer
Applicants for senior lecturer must have served for three years in multi-year rank and have compiled a record of exceptional teaching effectiveness; secondarily, professional activity and service may also be considered. Senior lecturers will be reviewed by appropriate program directors as well as by the Fixed-Term Review Committee and by the Office of the Associate Head.
Evaluation of Performance
All assessments of FT faculty will adopt substantive and comprehensive criteria for measuring teaching effectiveness. While SRTEs are obviously important to any evaluation of effective teaching, they cannot and should not be the only criterion by which faculty quality is measured. Reviews of FT faculty should also take into account narrative assessments of teaching, compiled not only from students but also from peer evaluation and faculty self-assessment. Reviewers should consider syllabi and other teaching materials provided by FT faculty, as well as the totality of the faculty member’s teaching record in rank—including, but not limited to, intellectual breadth of courses, curricular level of courses, and course development and innovation. For appointments to senior lecturer, all assessments of multi-year faculty will take into account any professional activity and/or service the candidate has compiled, including but not limited to publication and research, committee service, and program development.
All reviews of multi-year and senior lecturers will be conducted after the receipt of the fall SRTEs in the third year of appointment.
Leave of absence
All multi-year and senior lecturers may apply for unpaid leaves of absence without loss of rank.
Nonrenewal and demotion in rank
In the event of an unsatisfactory review, FT faculty members may be recommended for non-renewal or demotion in rank, contingent on a one-year probationary period in rank to begin in the fall after the review. All such assessments must take into consideration the totality of the faculty member’s teaching record in rank, and must include a letter to the faculty member from the Fixed Term Review Committee detailing the rationale for the non-renewal or demotion and specifying how the faculty member might improve his or her performance during the probationary year.
In the event of a second unsatisfactory review (after the fall teaching evaluations are available) during the probationary year, FT faculty members may appeal the review by requesting the Head for an additional review to be conducted by the Personnel Committee. The Head is not obligated to grant such requests but is expected to give them all due consideration, with regard to insuring the greatest degree of equity and fairness in FT employment.
<<top>>
V. Search Procedures for New Faculty
In the spring of each year the faculty shall gather in a faculty meeting to recommend to the Head a list of fields in which hiring requests should be made to the Dean. On the basis of the spring meeting and on consultation with the Administrative Committee and the Personnel Committee, the Head will present the Dean with a list of hiring priorities.
After the Dean authorizes a position, the Head in consultation with the Administrative Committee, the Personnel Committee, and faculty in the relevant field (or fields) will draft a job advertisement and assume ultimate responsibility for all business related to the search.
Search Committees are appointed by the Head in consultation with the Administrative Committee. They should be composed primarily of faculty from the relevant field, but should include at least one member from outside the field. In addition, one PhD or MFA student should be appointed as a non-voting member to each Search Committee constituted during the year. (The student placed on the Search Committee should normally be working in a field closely allied with the field in which the position has been advertised.) The Search Committee is responsible for reviewing dossiers, obtaining written work, and presenting to the Head a list of finalists for interviews. If candidates are to be interviewed at the MLA convention, provision should be made for a substantial portion of the Search Committee to attend. If candidates are to be interviewed at University Park, the Head in consultation with the Search Committee is responsible for making all arrangements, which will normally include interviews with the Personnel Committee and other pertinent committees, a talk to the Department, and informal meetings with faculty and students.
After the campus visits of all candidates for a position, the Head will chair a faculty meeting, at which the Search Committee will formally recommend which candidate(s) should be hired, and the faculty will discuss the candidates and make a recommendation to the Head.
Occasions may arise when special opportunities require the abridgement of normal search procedures. In these instances the Head should remain in close consultation with the various committees ordinarily involved in search procedures and schedule at least one open meeting of the faculty.
So that all those present, including the Head, can have a clear picture of the majority opinion of the meeting, faculty meetings at the beginning and end of the hiring process should include straw votes. It would also often be useful if, at the end of the discussion, the Head summarized his or her sense of the meeting, and invited modifications of that summary if any present have read the discussion differently.
All faculty should be solicited for written responses, which will be sent to the chair of the search committee. The chair of the search committee is responsible for integrating these responses and forwarding them to the head.
Though the department will as expressed in the search process cannot be binding on the Head, the department expects the Head to give serious consideration to the majority opinion.
<<top>>
The Senate adopted the following legislation regarding the evaluation of teaching effectiveness on February 2, 1982.
Text of Legislation
The following legislation, passed by the University faculty Senate on Feb. 2, modifies section III of PS-23, dealing with the evaluation of teaching effectiveness.
In evaluating a candidate for promotion or tenure, the department committee should seek the views of senior members of the candidate’s academic unit. In many cases, evaluations by expert peers in other institutions may provide essential helpful information.
(1) Evaluation of teaching effectiveness for purposes of promotion and tenure shall include both peer and student input.
(2) The methods of evaluation to be used within a unit, as well as the manner in which the results are presented in the dossier, shall be selected by the faculty of that unit.
(3) In the case of the College, “unit” is defined to mean the department or similar academic entity; for the University Libraries, “unit” is defined as the University Libraries.
(4) It is the responsibility of the unit to provide clear documented evidence of a candidate’s teaching effectiveness, including both peer and student evaluation.
(5) The evaluation procedure specified by each unit must be approved by the appropriate dean; whatever procedure a unit chooses to use must be designed by or selected by the faculty of that unit for evaluating teaching effectiveness for purposes of promotion and tenure.
(6) The process must be managed so that the candidate is not in a position to influence the student responses or the interpretation of the survey results.
(7) Such surveys shall belong to the unit which administers them and shall be summarized and interpreted as part of the promotion and tenure documentation. Such surveys shall not be used by the unit for any other purposes without the express permission of the candidate.
Department Policy on Teaching Evaluations
Feedback from students is an important means of assessing both our courses and our teaching staff. The English Department requires all courses be assessed each semester, using a standard evaluation form, the Student Rating of Teaching Effectiveness (SRTE).
A second important form of assessment for teaching is peer evaluation. While all faculty are encouraged to invite colleagues to sit in on and comment on their classes, formal peer evaluations are required of faculty eligible for tenure or promotion.
The following policies outline the English Department’s policies and procedures for collecting evaluations.
Student Rating of Teaching Effectiveness
Sufficient copies of the SRTE forms will be supplied to faculty members during the last two weeks of the semester. The faculty member is free to choose the class period in which to administer the evaluation. Whenever possible, at least two-thirds of the students enrolled in the class should be present on the day that the evaluation is administered.
The faculty member who is being evaluated may not be present during the administration or collection of the SRTE form. The recommended procedure is to give the instruction sheet and the blank forms to a colleague or student and leave the room. The colleague or student will then hand out the forms, collect them when they are completed, and return them to the department staff. To ensure that the forms are returned safely, the faculty member should complete both the top and bottom portions of the evaluation cover sheet (see attached) that identifies which student will return the forms. The faculty member keeps the bottom portion; the student must obtain a staff member’s signature on the top portion of the form when handing in the packet of completed forms.
Peer Teaching Evaluation
1. Frequency of evaluations. All faculty are encouraged to arrange periodically for peer evaluation of their teaching. Those anticipating being reviewed for tenure or promotion are required to arrange for one peer evaluation each year to be included in their files.
2. Choosing an evaluator. Faculty should consult with the department head about the choice of a peer evaluator and ask the head to set up the evaluation. Faculty members may also wish to ask colleagues to visit their classes in order to give constructive advice on an informal basis with the understanding that no letter is to be filed.
3. For the evaluator: The following guidelines should be followed in evaluating a peer’s teaching:
Before attending class:
(a) Discuss the goals of the course with the instructor.
(b) Ask for a copy of the complete syllabus and other class materials.
(c) If a particular class session is agreed on prior to the visit, find out how that session fits into goals of the course; otherwise, discuss the context with the instructor afterwards.
Writing a report:
(a) Comment both on content and presentation.
(b) Relate the conduct of the class to the goals of the course.
(c) Comment on overall class responses.
(d) Remember that the more detailed a teaching report is, the more convincing it is.
(e) Remember that a report that overstates virtues and wholly omits defects is not likely to be given as much weight as one that is clearly objective.
(f) Submit a copy of the report to the department head. Provide some form of commentary to the instructor; it is up to the evaluator whether or not to provide a copy of the report itself to the instructor. Faculty under review for tenure have other opportunities to review their files.
Other Information Relating to Teaching Effectiveness
Faculty under review for tenure or promotion should be prepared to supply the Personnel Committee with other evidence of their teaching methods: syllabi, copies of written assignments, exams, descriptions of active learning and/or technology initiatives, and whatever else seems useful.
Faculty active in research or writing leading to publication should normally expect to receive an assignment of four courses per year. Faculty who are professionally inactive should expect to be assigned five or more courses per year; faculty assigned five sections per annum have additional weight assigned to their teaching evaluations in the determination of salary increments. People who are exceptionally active can receive a lower assignment at the discretion of the Head; untenured faculty should teach no more than four courses. Such decisions are made either during annual faculty review or during periodic university-level review. Faculty members assigned a higher teaching load than four courses per year as a result of such decisions may appeal to the Personnel Committee, whose report will go directly to the Dean. The report of the Personnel Committee is nonbonding but may provide a vehicle for further deliberations among the Dean, the Head, and the candidate.
<<top>>
Requests for graders will be assigned priority on the basis of the following criteria: (a) size of the sections (ordinarily 60 will be the minimum for consideration); (b) number and nature of the assignments in the course; (c) demands of the faculty member’s other courses; (d) the faculty member’s research activity or service responsibilities; and (e) availability of potential graders.
<<top>>
Detailed minutes shall be kept at faculty meetings, program committees, and Administrative Committee meetings, for distribution to all department members. These minutes should summarize the discussions as well as decisions reached, wherever possible substituting such phrases as “one member argued” for the actual names of participants. A complete set of minutes, along with committee reports and other documents circulated as part of the meetings, should be kept in an archive readily accessible to department members. For legal reasons the Personnel Committee may not keep minutes.
