|
BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
College of Education
Policy and Procedure Manual
INTRODUCTION
This manual is designed to standardize the operations of the College of Education within the policies and operating framework of Boise State University. It is intended to support rather than supplant any information provided in university documents. Where appropriate, reference will be made to the appropriate data sources.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE AND PROCESSES
Consulting and Absence from Campus Technology, Internet and Electronic Mail
ACCREDITATION AND AFFILIATION WITH NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
THE MISSION
The mission of the College of Education at Boise State University is to prepare professionals using models that incorporate integrated teaching and learning practices to ensure high levels of knowledge and skill, commitment to democratic values, and the ability to work with a diverse population. As part of the only metropolitan institution in Idaho, the College of Education provides a collegial environment that supports a wide range of research and scholarly activity intended to advance knowledge and translate knowledge into improved practice at the local, national, and international levels. The College promotes the healthy development of society through outreach, partnership, and technical assistance activities that focus on organizational renewal. It advances the healthy development of individuals through a commitment to lifelong learning, wellness, personal excellence, and respect for individuals.
THE VISION
The College of Education will be a leader in integrated teaching and learning, the advancement of knowledge through research and scholarship, and the preparation of professionals who provide exemplary educational and related services to improve the lives of individuals in a changing and complex global society.
ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE AND PROCESSES
The College of Education consists of eight academic departments: Bilingual Education, Counselor Education, Curriculum, Instruction and Foundational Studies (CIFS), Early Childhood Studies, Educational Technology, Kinesiology, Literacy, and Special Education. The college houses five centers: Center for School Improvement and Policy Studies, Center for Educational and Multicultural Opportunities, Center for Biomechanics and Orthopedic Research (co-sponsored by the College of Engineering), Center for Physical Activity and Sport, and the Idaho Center for Economic Education (co-sponsored by the College of Business and Economics). The College of Education also works cooperatively with 17 departments in the colleges of Arts and Sciences, Business and Economics, and Social Sciences and Public Affairs to prepare candidates in programs leading to professional certification of educators. Programs with national accreditation include Teacher Education (NCATE), Athletic Training (CAAHEP), and Counselor Education (CACREP).
The administrative structure of Boise State University and the responsibilities of the various administrative officers and faculty are as follows:
Office of the State Board of Education (OSBE). The control and governance of Boise State University is vested in the State Board of Education as trustees (Section 33-3102, Idaho Code). The Board members are appointed by the Governor and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction also serves as an ex-officio member.
President. The President of Boise State University is selected by the SBOE. All other administrative officers are appointed on the recommendation of the President with the approval of the Board. The President has broad authority in the management and operation of the University.
Provost. The Provost and Vice-President for Academic Affairs works within the framework of responsibility established by the President and is accountable for the orderly development and promulgation of the academic, vocational-technical, and instructional services program. The Provost is responsible for the determination of policies and procedures related to the efficient operation of the University and is responsive to all special assignments received from the Office of the President.
College of Education Dean. The Dean provides academic and administrative leadership to the college. The Dean has responsibility for the organization and operation of the college. He/she oversees curriculum development, budget planning, preparation of course schedules, formation of policies and procedures that facilitate an effective academic environment and the continued success of the teaching process. To assist with the administration of the College, the Dean has a Leadership Team consisting of the Dean, Associate Dean, department chairs, Director of Teacher Education, center directors, and Doctoral Program Coordinator. Meetings are held twice each month. Responsibilities include:
· Developing, reviewing and updating on an annual basis, in concert with departments, a strategic plan as well as short- and long-term goals that are in harmony with the assigned role and mission of the College of Education. · Advising the Dean on key issues related to the operation of the College and recommending policies and procedures that will promote and improve the College’s efficiency and effectiveness; recommending ad hoc committees to explore important issues; and, identifying items that need to be taken to the faculty for consideration and/or action; · Providing a forum for effective communication that is both vertically and horizontally oriented; serving as a vehicle through which faculty/staff can present ideas and issues for action and resolution that impact the College as well as staying informed about matters that directly affect them; · Serving as representatives and advocates for the faculty and associated programs in the College; · Providing guidance on budget matters, including the allocation and reallocation of resources; and, · Conducting formative and summative evaluations related to the college’s assigned mission and recommending changes for improvement across the College.
The Dean has the responsibility to provide leadership in the College’s planning efforts. In general, decisions will be made on the basis of group discussion, established goals, priorities and evaluation evidence.
Search and Selection of Academic Dean (see BSU Policy 5380-B)
Faculty. The faculty is organized into departments. One member of each department is appointed department chair in accordance with BSU 5370-B. The department head has administrative responsibilities to the department and reports to the dean of the college. In addition, each faculty member has the opportunity to contribute to educational policy. Educational policies are determined by the Faculty Senate as a result of recommendations from committees or individuals. The faculty constitution establishes principles of organization, authority and responsibilities of BSU faculty.
Department Chairs. In addition to teaching, scholarship and service responsibilities, Chairs function as unit academic administrative officers. They provide leadership necessary to develop a vision and mission for their department that is in harmony with the mission of the college and university. In addition, Chairs are responsible for:
· representing their Department in the established hierarchy from both a vertical and horizontal perspective; · facilitating development of policies and procedures essential to the accomplishment of their department’s role and mission, including matters pertaining to curriculum and instructional programs; · recruiting, training, and managing faculty/staff; · providing appropriate faculty, staff, and program development activities; · creating a supportive environment for faculty, staff and students; · conducting faculty/staff evaluations; · seeking, managing and accounting for resources within BSU guidelines that provide for maximum productivity; and, · establishing and maintaining appropriate records.
Selection of Department Head (see BSU Policy 5381-B)
Center Directors. Center Directors report directly to the Dean.
Administrator Evaluation. Each year the Dean is evaluated by the faculty through a standing committee that is appointed by the Provost (BSU 5385-B). The Associate Dean and Department Chairs (BSU 5386-B) will be evaluated by faculty/staff as part of their annual review.
Faculty Governance
The faculty shall provide recommendations on matters of educational policy within the limits prescribed by federal and state law, regulations of the OSBE, and policies of Boise State University. These include aspects of student life that relate directly to the educational process including the establishment of regulations concerning financial aid, academic performance, extracurricular activities, and freedom of action and expression. Furthermore, the faculty shall:
· recommend policies and procedures governing faculty appointment, tenure, and promotion. · function through its representative body, the Faculty Senate; however, the faculty shall have the rights of initiative and referendum (see BSU Constitution, Article III, Section 1). · determine policies and practices of their department/college within the limits approved by the OSBE (Article III: Powers and Authority, BSU Administrative Handbook)
Policy Determination
Major College decisions will be conducted as follows:
· Issues will be discussed in an open faculty forum; · A motion will be made to determine the outcome by “voice vote”, “secret ballot” or “roll call.” All full-time faculty members shall be allowed to participate on a “one-person, one-vote” principle. If a voice vote is approved, there must be a quorum present. ; · If a secret vote is desired, ballots shall be returned by a stipulated deadline to the dean’s office; and, · A majority vote will rule in all such cases.
After a decision is reached, it is expected that all faculty will honor the conclusion, knowing that they had an opportunity to express various points of view as part of the process.
Standing Committees. Six standing committees, each with specific assignments designed to facilitate the role and mission of the College of Education have been established. These consist of:
Curriculum Committee
The College of Education Curriculum Committee is to review course or program recommendations of the various departments. Only those approved recommendations are forwarded to the appropriate university committee i.e. undergraduate matters to the BSU Curriculum Committee and graduate matters to the BSU Graduate Council. Composition of the committee is as follows:
· a representative from each department of the College of Education; · the College representative to the BSU Curriculum Committee; · the College representative to the BSU Graduate Council; · the Associate Dean of the College of Education.
The representatives of the BSU Curriculum Committee and the BSU Graduate Council and the Associate Dean are ex-officio voting members of the committee and are eligible for election as chair.
Promotion and Tenure Committee
The College of Education Promotion and Tenure Committee is to represent the interests of the faculty of the College in promotion and tenure decisions; review faculty applications for promotion and tenure and make recommendations to the Dean; facilitate fairness, equity and consistency across the College in promotion and tenure decisions; and, review non-tenured faculty during their third year at BSU to provide informed judgments about the adequacy of their progress toward tenure (Appendix D). The committee, consisting of seven faculty members, will be appointed by the dean no later than October 1 of each year. Each department should attempt to select candidates in each of four categories and submit them to the dean by September 15. The categories will include representatives that are untenured, tenured, hold the rank of full professor and a student. The final selection will consist of approximately two thirds of the faculty being tenured, one third untenured, and at least two holding the rank of Professor. The student will be picked by the appropriate student government officer from a list compiled by the dean from names submitted by the department chairpersons. Tenured faculty will serve staggered three (3) year terms and non-tenured one (1) year. The student will serve for one (1) year. No faculty or student will be allowed to serve consecutive terms. The departmental affiliations of the members shall be approximately proportional to the relative sizes of the departments in the College. The Dean will convene the first meeting and define the charge for the committee. All votes of the committee shall be by secret ballot. It is the responsibility of faculty members who wish to be considered for promotion and/or tenure and their department to provide all materials to the chair of the committee no later than October 15.
Salary Equity Committee
The Salary Equity Committee has the responsibility for making recommendations to the Dean regarding faculty salary distribution when discretionary funds become available. The committee shall consist of an elected representative from each department and the Associate Dean. See Faculty Salary Guidelines for more details on the process.
Teacher Education Coordinating Council (TECC)
The Teacher Education Coordinating Council is appointed by the Provost with the charge of coordinating teacher education across the University. The Council serves as an advisory committee to develop and recommend to the Dean of the College of Education policies regarding teacher education programs; coordinate regular program reviews and reports; monitor changing regulations and accreditation standards and making recommendations for program revisions to accommodate those requirements; review proposed major program changes; promote collaboration across departments and programs to increase the quality of teacher education programs; foster coherence in programs which prepare teachers; and, oversee program improvement activities in response to accreditation recommendations. The Teacher Education Coordinating Council coordinates teacher education across the University. The Council develops and recommends policy to the Dean of the College of Education concerning professional preparation programs. Responsibilities of the Council are to: The Council is appointed by the Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs and includes representatives from the College of Arts and Sciences (3), College of Social Sciences and Public Affairs (2), College of Education (6), and professional educators (2). The Deans nominate the representatives from their respective colleges to the Provost no later than April 1 of each year. The professional educators will be nominated by the Dean of the College of Education. Council members will be appointed for three-year terms, staggered to ensure continuity. The council is chaired by the Director of Teacher Education.
Graduate Program Coordinators Council (GPCC)
The GPCC provides governance for graduate programs in the College of Education. Duties include coordination and implementation of all graduate programs; generating and/or recommending major policy changes and procedures to the graduate faculty; serving as an advisory board to the programs coordinators and Associate Dean concerning graduate program issues; serving as curriculum committee for graduate programs; screening and admitting doctoral students; advertising and coordinating recruitment of all teacher education graduate assistants; and serving as the appeal board for graduate student appeals except for those matters related to initial teaching certification which will be assumed by the Professional Standards Committee. The committee will be composed of the graduate program coordinators of each graduate program in the College of Education and the Associate Dean.
Technology Committee
The Technology committee has the duty to make recommendations to the Dean regarding issues of compatibility, curriculum integration, resource utilization, support system needs, and evaluation. The committee shall consist of representatives from each department and the College of Education Technology Coordinator.
The major protection of academic freedom in American universities is tenure. If individuals have successfully completed the tenure process, indicating competence as teachers and scholars, they are guaranteed a position as long as they remain competent or do not commit some major act of misconduct. A possible exception to this would be if the SBOE were to declare a condition of “financial exigency” which includes the termination of programs or parts of programs. If tenure is called into question, the faculty member is assured due process. In most tenure laws, the burden of proof for incompetence or ethical violations is placed on those bringing the charges. Employers may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his/her constitutionally protected interests, especially, his/her interest in freedom of speech. Since scholarship cannot flourish in an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust, the approach to classroom instruction is left to the discretion of the instructor. This does not mean that instructors are at liberty to conduct their classes without regard to the needs of the academic unit as desired departmental outcomes should guide individual course requirements. In preparing to teach a course, individual syllabus must clearly define learning objectives and include a statement of means used to evaluate student achievement of desired results. Agreement on learning objectives is critical for multiple-section courses; however, the approach to reaching those objectives may vary by instructor.
Conflict is best resolved at the lowest level possible. If someone approaches the Dean with concerns about departmental matters the department chair will be invited to join the conversation. If the matter involves another specific faculty member, that individual will be asked to join the discussion unless all parties are in the same department. In that case the department chair will be asked to handle the matter. If the faculty members are from different departments in the College, the Dean will convene a meeting that includes all concerned parties. Faculty are reminded that after exhausting College of Education internal guidelines they have recourse to the Faculty Grievance Committee as described in BSU policy 5375-b.
Faculty on an academic year or “nine month” appointment shall report for duty one week before the first day of classes in each fall term and serve through Commencement in the spring. Each is expected to be on duty until all assignments have been completed including the submission of grades to the Registrar’s office. Faculty members are entitled to all legal University holidays as well as the period between the end of the first academic term and the first working day for the spring semester. University, College and Departmental activities are scheduled during the week prior to the beginning of the fall and spring semesters at which all faculty are expected to attend.
Faculty shall keep a minimum of five regular office hours per week for the benefit of students and others desiring to conduct business. These hours are to be posted on their office door.
Consulting/Absence from Campus
Boise State University policy states that “faculty consulting is a matter of negotiation and agreement between the employee, his/her department chair and the Dean of the College” (BSU 5365-B). When considering consulting opportunities, faculty must understand that their first priority is to meet their full-time teaching, service and scholarship responsibilities and/or expectations. Once these activities have been negotiated and approved by the department chair and the dean, it is essential that faculty complete the essential paperwork required by the institution. This includes appropriate travel forms if faculty members are to be absent from scheduled duties during the contract period (BSU 5359-B). Even if a faculty or staff member is being paid to attend or is paying his/her own way, travel requests must still go through routine channels for approval (BSU 6900-C)
Technology, the Internet and Electronic Mail
Statewide policies on computer, the Internet and electronic mail usage shall be observed by all state employees. The following uses are acceptable and encouraged: · Communications and information exchanges directly relating to the mission, charter and work tasks of the state agency; · Announcements of state laws, procedures, hearings, policies, services or activities; · Use for advisory, standards, research, analysis and professional society or development activities related to the user’s state governmental duties;
· Use in applying for or administering grants or contracts for state government research programs; and · Occasional personal use of electronic mail in lieu of telephonic communication. · All other uses not enumerated in points 1-5 are prohibited.
For penalties associated with violations refer to Executive Order # 98-05.
Each department shall maintain an official personnel file for each of their employees. An employee may examine their own record during regular office hours. The following procedures shall be adhered to:
· Documents which relate to job performance may be entered into faculty personnel files with appropriate notice to the faculty member(s). The affected faculty members have an opportunity to respond and/or appeal utilizing university policy. · Each employee may attach a concise statement in response to any item in his/her file. · Upon written request and payment of the cost of photocopying, an employee may obtain copies of any materials in their open file. · Materials cannot be copied without prior approval, except that, if the employee is a faculty member, the immediate supervisor may make copies for the purposes of annual evaluation and for tenure and performance review. Personnel can add to or update their file at any time prior to the review; however, should the faculty member choose not to do so, the review body can make a decision based on the available information.
FACULTY WORKLOAD POLICY Approved by faculty vote 11/9/2007
I.
DEFINITIONS
II. BASIC
PRINCIPLES
III. GENERAL
DISTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS
The sum of the work-load variables must equal 20 units. The example shows the work load for a faculty member who is assigned 18 units of teaching (60% of effort), 6 units of scholarship (20% of effort), and 6 units of service (20% of effort), for a total of 30 units over the academic year (100% of effort). Colleges and departments may place restrictions on the range of values allowed for any of the work-load variables x, y, and z, as long as the sum of x, y, and z remains equal to 20 units.
New Faculty Distribution Requirements New faculty, defined as first year in the professoriate, will be required to meet the 30 work-load units per academic year. However, these units may be distributed differently with fewer units in teaching (i.e., to six units per semester) to enable these new faculty members to devote more work-load units to scholarship endeavors.
IV. WORK-LOAD VALUE OF TEACHING, SERVICE AND SCHOLARSHIP ACTIVITIES A. Total Work Load: The work load for an individual faculty member may vary from the fall to the spring semester of an academic year, but must always total 30 units for the academic year.
B. Lecture Courses: A lecture course is an established on-campus course that consists entirely of class meetings devoted to the presentation and discussion of course content and student assignments. The work-load value (units) assigned to an undergraduate lecture course is normally identical to the number of course credits. An optional adjustment (increase or decrease in units) may be used by a department to take into account additional factors that significantly impact effort (such as large enrollment, help from graduate teaching assistants, service learning, hybrid courses, teaching courses off of the main campus, teaching outside area of emphasis, or large number of course preparations). Distance education courses are addressed in Section IV, D.
C. Clinical Courses: A clinical course is a course taught in a clinic, K-12 classroom, office, courtroom, field camp, or similar setting, with an emphasis on the practice of professional skills under the supervision of a university-authorized preceptor. The work-load value (units) assigned to an undergraduate or graduate clinical course is determined by each department subject to constraints imposed by the policies of the department and college. If a specialized accrediting body places limits on the teaching of clinical courses in a particular program, then these limits must be respected by college and department work-load policies.
Effort in the teacher education programs within the College of Education is defined by two factors: the amount of time spent in the field and the number of students supervised. Amount of time should be limited to 20% of faculty effort (i.e., three workload units). An optional adjustment (increase or decrease in units) may be used by a department to take into account additional factors that significantly impact effort (such as work in professional development schools, initial establishment of partner relationships, multiple sites, individual students who require additional supervision, etc.).
Guidelines for assigning workload units to clinical supervision are based on FTE generated by student credit hours. For example a typical three credit undergraduate course with an enrollment of 30 students produces 6 FTE. Therefore, one FTE equates to 0.5 workload units. The following table serves as a guide to determining workload values for clinical supervision in teacher education programs.
For example, a faculty member in the Department of Curriculum, Instruction, and Foundational Studies is assigned to supervise 4 student teachers and 3 secondary block II interns.
For programs outside of teacher education, the department will follow the university policy and create a table that clearly communicates the basis for assigning workload units to faculty members.
D. Other Courses: The university offers a large number of undergraduate and graduate courses that are not easily classified as lecture or clinical courses, such as independent study, foreign study, practicum or internship, conference or workshop, seminar, readings and conference, directed research, courses taught by distance methods, laboratory courses, and courses that include a laboratory (or similar requirement) that is not assigned separate credit. The work-load value (units) assigned to each of these types of courses is determined by each department subject to constraints imposed by the policies of the department and college.
In the College of Education, a field experience, practicum, or internship that stands alone or is included in a lecture course may merit credit in a faculty member's workload if that faculty member is engaged in grading/evaluating fieldwork, fieldwork placement, conducting seminars, or similar tasks.
E. Graduate Culminating Activities: Effort expended by a faculty member on graduate culminating activities (e.g., comprehensive examination, seminar, thesis, project, dissertation) is included as part of the teaching work load, but only to the extent that the culminating activities are represented by registered academic credits. The work-load value (units) assigned to a graduate culminating activity is determined by each department subject to constraints imposed by the policies of the department and college.
The following table serves as a guide for assigning workload units for culminating activities:
F. Departmental Administrative Assignments: The work load represented by departmental administrative assignments (e.g., chair, director, coordinator) during the academic year is included in the service work load. The work-load value (units) assigned to an administrative assignment is determined by each department subject to constraints imposed by the policies of the department and college.
Chair assignment workload allocation shall be a minimum of 12 workload units in service per academic year. Coordinators and directors of programs and centers and offices (e.g., graduate coordinator, athletic training education program director, etc.) workload units are defined and negotiated with the chair of the department and/or the dean of the college.
G. General Student Advising: The work load represented by general student advising that is not associated with a particular course or graduate culminating activity is included in the service work load. The work-load value (units) assigned to an administrative assignment is determined by each department subject to constraints imposed by the policies of the department and college.
Anyone receiving credit for general student advising in the College of Education is expected to be available, be knowledgeable of programs, and provide accurate information. Faculty members will be acknowledged in workload units for a percentage of effort devoted to advising. For example, faculty members who spend 20% of their time advising over the course of the year will be allocated 6 workload units for that work.
H. Scholarship: Faculty must have work load units allocated that enable them to meet the expectations of the University, College, and Department for tenure, promotion, and five-year review (refer to relevant guidelines).
V. DEVELOPMENT
OF WORK-LOAD POLICIES AND PROCEDURES WITHIN THE COLLEGES AND DEPARTMENTS A. Each college and department is responsible for developing and maintaining written work-load policies and procedures that have been approved by the college dean. There must be consistency within the hierarchy of policies and procedures; that is, the department policies and procedures must be consistent with the college policies and procedures, and the college policies and procedures must be consistent with this (university) policy.
B. At a minimum, the policies and procedures developed by a department must require the following: (1) uniform application to all faculty members of the department; (2) for each faculty member, joint development (by the faculty member and department chair) of an annual written work-load description that is approved by the department chair and college dean prior to the start of the academic year; (3) linkage of the annual work-load description to the annual faculty evaluation; and (4) definition of a mechanism for implementing work-load modifications during the academic year as the need arises.
C. If the workloads of individual faculty members and/or collective faculty within a department/unit exceed the 30 unit per faculty member limit set by this policy, the appropriate chair, dean, or provost will re-examine workload assignments and bring them into conformity with this policy. If necessity demands that faculty workload exceeds the 30 unit limit, faculty members will receive additional compensation.
VI. WORK-LOAD
ASSIGNMENT IN THE CASE OF A SALARY BUYOUT
VII. EXCEPTIONS
FACULTY EVALUATION POLICY
College of Education
Purpose
This policy is designed to address three purposes. First, it establishes College of Education policies for the annual evaluations of all faculty members. Second, it provides faculty members, department chairs, promotion and tenure committees, and the dean of the college with guidance in decisions regarding faculty development, faculty evaluation, salary determination, and promotion and/or tenure. Third, it facilitates consistency in evaluation procedures across all departments. These guidelines are companion to the College of Education Promotion and Tenure Policy and Procedures, the College of Education Faculty Workload Policy, and university policy 5310-B Annual Faculty Performance Evaluation.
Faculty Evaluation
Every tenure track faculty member in the college is to be evaluated annually. The faculty evaluation process should be initiated by the individual faculty member early in the spring semester through a written self-evaluation that provides evidence of contributions in teaching, scholarly activity and service during the preceding calendar year. Faculty roles and expectations should be established annually and documented individually at the departmental level. The department chair will consider the faculty member’s self-evaluation and negotiated role within the department, as well as other information relevant to faculty performance, to prepare the annual faculty evaluation in compliance with BSU Policy 5310-B.
Faculty members are expected to build on their strengths and contribute constructively to the welfare of the college. Given the complexity of programs in the college, differentiated faculty loads, limited resources, and the diversity of interests and talents among the faculty members, each evaluation of a faculty member must be individualized. The specific criteria used in faculty evaluation should be tailored to personal talents as well as to campus, community, and professional needs. Contributions in teaching, scholarship, and service should be shaped by both the needs of the institution and the talents and interests of the individual.
The specific role that the individual has negotiated and/or been assigned within the department, the college, and the institution must be considered in evaluation. These negotiated roles shall inform the annual evaluation process, and should be incorporated in promotion and tenure determinations.
To standardize the review of faculty evaluations across departments within the College of Education, all faculty will be evaluated annually in the three areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. An overall summary of the faculty member’s contributions in each area should based on the four-point scale described below. Each department should determine the specific expected levels of contribution in each area. In addition, a single overall concluding summary evaluation of the faculty member synthesizing the contributions in each of the three areas should be based on the same four-point scale (With Distinction, Exceeds Expectations, Meets Expectations, Needs Improvement).
The Four Level Scale Departmental interpretations of the performance levels described below should reflect differences among various disciplines and provide for multiple ways to achieve at each level.
Teaching.
Scholarly Activity.
Service
Teaching, Scholarly Activity, and Service
Teaching. Teaching is a critical role for
faculty members, especially in the College of Education. Faculty
members should provide evidence of sustained instructional effectiveness
and a commitment to effective teaching. Examples of acceptable evidence
of this include, but are not limited to, those delineated in the College
of Education Promotion and Tenure Policy and Procedures. Scholarly Activity. Faculty members are expected to demonstrate a systematic and sustained level of achievement through scholarly, creative, or research activities. This work includes a critical review process and/or professional recognition by scholars in the field. Examples of acceptable scholarly activity include, but are not limited to, those delineated in COE Promotion and Tenure Policy and Procedures.
Service. Service includes intellectual work based on the individual faculty member’s field of expertise that results in professional contributions of substance to the department, college, and/or university; to the profession; and to the community. Examples of acceptable service include, but are not limited to, those delineated in the College of Education Promotion and Tenure Policy and Procedures.
Course and Faculty Evaluation
Every department in the College of Education shall standardize its course evaluation forms as follows.
1. The course evaluation form should be titled Course and Faculty Evaluation Form. 2. The last item on the Course and Faculty Evaluation Form should be consistent for every department within the College of Education. That item should be as follows.
Overall, the professor of this course merits a rating of
5 (Excellent) 4 (Good) 3 (Acceptable) 2 (Needs Improvement) 1 (Unacceptable)
3. Additional Course and Faculty Evaluation Form components, including additional five-point Likert scale items as well as any narrative items, should be developed specific to and consistent with each department’s unique needs.
Faculty Evaluation Format for Reporting Evidence: Although the specifics for reporting acceptable evidence for performance evaluation may vary within and among departments, the general reporting format shall address the three broader areas of faculty responsibility. Hence faculty members shall provide evidence of acceptable performance in the following sequence: teaching effectiveness, scholarly activity, service, and supporting evidence that may not be accounted for elsewhere. Based on the evidence available, faculty members will be evaluated by their respective department chair as “performance significantly exceeds expectations,” “performance exceeds expectations,” “performance meets expectations,” or “performance needs improvement” (each department is responsible for determining the criteria for each of the areas of teaching, scholarship and service).
When faculty submit their annual self-evaluations, they indicate the percent they wish allocated for each of the areas of teaching, scholarship and service for the next evaluation period. This should clearly reflect the individual’s role in the department and must be approved by the department chair. The final annual evaluation of a faculty member is then determined by the following method where:
The percent allocated for each of the three areas of responsibility is used as a basis for the annual evaluation. For example, if a faculty member’s responsibilities are determined as 50% teaching, 30% scholarship, and 20% service (% must total 100) and evaluated as a 3 for teaching, 2 for scholarship, and 2 for service the final evaluation would be tabulated as:
Teaching: 3 x .50 (% negotiated for teaching) = 1.5 Scholarship: 2 x .30 (% negotiated for scholarship) = .6 Service: 2 x .20 (% negotiated for service) = .4 Total = 2.5
where: 3 = performance significantly exceeds expectations 2 = performance exceeds expectations 1 = performance meets expectations 0 = performance needs improvement
In the case cited above, the individual would be rated between “performance significantly exceeds expectations” and “performance exceeds expectations.” For pay purposes the individual would receive an across the board increase for satisfactory performance plus a specified dollar amount for performance above the rating of 1.0 if additional funds are available. The latter would be determined by the dollars available after all deserving faculty are awarded an across the board increase. By calculating the difference between a faculty member’s rating and 1.0, which would be the minimum level established for receiving across the board increases for satisfactory performance, the point total from all faculty receiving ratings above 1.0 is then divided into the remaining pool of money to determine the value for each point above that rating. For example, if 1 point is worth $500, then someone with a 2.5 rating would receive 1.5 x $500 or $750 in addition to the across the board increase.
Timeline for Performance Evaluation:
-February 1 Faculty member submits complete written evidence to department chair -March 15 Prior to this date the department chair will schedule a meeting with each faculty member to discuss the member’s annual report of activities and the chair’s written evaluation of such activities. If the faculty member does not agree with the chair’s evaluation, he/she has the prerogative to write an addendum. The finalized document shall be signed by the faculty member and department chair and placed in the official personnel file of the faculty member. -April 1 Chair sends copy of the finalized document to the faculty member and dean. The dean shall forward the evaluation to the Provost and Executive Vice-President.
POLICY AND PROCEDURES
College of Education
Purpose
This policy is designed to systematize the College of Education’s promotion and tenure procedures, and supplements the College of Education Faculty Evaluation Guidelines policy. These promotion and tenure guidelines interpret and clarify university policies for promotion (BSU 5330-B) and tenure (BSU 5340-B) specific to the role and mission of the College of Education.
Preamble
Tenure and promotion in the College of Education is the natural consequence of faculty members contributing productive and valued work for the good of the university, profession, and community. Faculty members are held to high standards in teaching, scholarly activity and service. The three areas are connected in integral ways by a broad, encompassing vision of the nature of intellectual work. The scholar is one who steps back from his/her investigations, looks for connections, builds bridges between theory and practice, and communicates his/her knowledge effectively to students and to the larger community. Knowledge may be acquired through research, through synthesis, through practice, and through teaching (Boyer, 1990).
When a faculty member seeks promotion and/or tenure, college administrators and the College of Education Promotion and Tenure Committee should consider the complexity of programs in the college, differentiated teaching loads, limited resources, and the diversity of interests and abilities among the faculty members in reaching recommendations concerning that candidate. Faculty members should build on their strengths as they develop professional agendas. The recommendations of college administrators and the college’s Promotion and Tenure Committee on candidates should acknowledge both the candidate’s personal talents as well as the needs of the university, profession, and community.
The following guidelines describe a process that, when fairly and consistently administered, holds faculty members accountable and rewards them for their professional contributions.
1. Purposes of the College of Education Promotion and Tenure Committee
1.1 To represent the interests of the faculty of the college in promotion and tenure recommendations.
1.2 To review faculty applications for promotion and tenure and make subsequent recommendations to the dean of the college.
1.3 To facilitate fairness, equity and consistency across the college in promotion and tenure decisions.
1.4 To review each non-tenured faculty member during the third year of full employment at the university, and provide the faculty member with informed judgment and guidance concerning progress toward tenure.
1.5 To conduct a thorough review of this policy every five years (or as needed).
2. Structure and Procedures of the College of Education Promotion and Tenure Committee
2.1 By September 15 of each year, each department should select from its ranks potential members for the College of Education Promotion and Tenure Committee. Whenever possible, departments should seek potential committee members who represent each of three categories: (a) faculty members who are non-tenured, (b) faculty members who are tenured, and (c) faculty members holding the rank of Professor. The names of these department nominees are submitted to the dean, who will then appoint a College of Education Promotion and Tenure Committee from the names submitted no later than October 1. The final composition of this committee should consist of approximately two thirds of the faculty members being tenured and one third non-tenured, with at least two committee members holding the rank of Professor.
2.2 The departmental affiliations of the members shall be approximately proportional to the relative sizes of the departments in the college. There should be at least one committee member from each department. When a department has twelve or more faculty members, that department should have two representatives.
2.3 Tenured faculty members should serve staggered three (3) year terms. Non-tenured faculty members should serve one (1) year. No faculty member should serve consecutive terms.
2.4 The dean should request the name of a student representative for the college committee from the Associated Students of Boise State University. This student member will serve a one (1) year term.
2.5 The dean should convene the first meeting of the committee and define its charge.
2.6 The College of Education Promotion and Tenure Committee should base its recommendation about a candidate on a variety of sources of information. These should include the following.
2.6.1 The candidate’s Promotion and Tenure Portfolio (as described below).
2.6.2 The written report of the department Promotion and Tenure Committee (or its equivalent). (This department level report is to be submitted directly to the College of Education Promotion and Tenure Committee and added to the candidate’s portfolio.)
2.6.3 The written recommendation for tenure and/or promotion from the department chair. (This department level report is to be submitted directly to the College Promotion and Tenure Committee and added to the portfolio).
2.6.4 The external review results.
2.7 No additional materials may be added to a candidate’s portfolio without the consent of the candidate.
2.8 All votes of the College of Education Promotion and Tenure Committee shall be by secret ballot. The specific vote count will be recorded by the committee chair, and supplemented by a written rationale for the committee’s recommendation.
2.9 The College of Education Promotion and Tenure Committee will prepare and submit a letter to the dean noting the committee vote and rationale. This letter will accompany the candidate’s portfolio to the dean.
3. Criteria for Recommendations
3.1 The recommendations of the College of Education Promotion and Tenure Committee must be based on the professional judgment of the committee members regarding the significance and achievement of the candidate’s contributions in teaching, scholarly activity, and service. To be recommended for tenure and/or to be promoted, each faculty member is expected to demonstrate contributions of substance in each area. Contributions in each area are shaped by both the needs of the institution and the talents and interests of the faculty member. Therefore, the tenure and/or promotion recommendations of the committee should incorporate consideration of the annual role(s) that the individual has negotiated and/or been assigned within the department, the college, and the institution. To this end, candidates should provide documentation of annually negotiated departmental roles for the time under review in the Promotion and Tenure portfolio. (see College of Education Work Load Policy).
3.2 Tenure. The outcomes of tenure decisions substantially impact the long term quality of the college and university. Tenure recommendations are based on both the candidate’s past performance in teaching, scholarly activity, and service, as well as on an assessment of the candidate’s potential for continued excellence and contribution in these areas. Successful candidates for tenure will provide evidence of an established record of success as an excellent teacher, an |