Educational Effectiveness Review
Exploration

Appendix D1

California State University, Fresno Retention Tenure Promotion (RTP) Survey
May, 2004

An online survey was announced to 231 probationary faculty and tenured associate professors. A reminder email was distributed only to probationary faculty members. Eighty-four faculty members responded. To maintain anonymity and because the sample size was expected to be small, no demographic data were collected and data were not analyzed by subgroups.

Quantitative results are presented in Table 1. Most respondents found the expectations for tenure to be clear (94%), appropriate (76%), and fair (80%). Two-thirds felt that they were provided with the support needed to achieve tenure. However, only about 40% were satisfied with the balance between work and personal life or with the balance among teaching, research and service, although 60% thought that the balance among roles met the needs of the department and the university.

Table 1. Responses of recently hired faculty members to questions about the RTP process.

1.  What I am expected to do to achieve tenure is clear to me.

	Frequency	Percent
Strongly Agree	37	44
Agree	42	50
Disagree	4	5
Strongly Disagree	1	1

2.  What is expected of me to achieve tenure is

	Frequency	Percent
Too high	16	19
About right	64	76
Too low	4	5

3.  Compared to what is expected of other faculty, what is expected of me to achieve tenure is fair.

	Frequency	Percent
Strongly Agree	11	13
Agree	56	67
Disagree	10	12
Strongly Disagree	7	8

4.  I am provided with the support I need to help me achieve tenure.

	Frequency	Percent
Strongly Agree	7	8
Agree	50	60
Disagree	19	23
Strongly Disagree	8	10

5.  I am satisfied with the balance between work and my personal life.

6.  I am satisfied with the balance between teaching, research, and service expected of me.

	Frequency	Percent
Strongly Agree	5	6
Agree	30	36
Disagree	34	40
Strongly Disagree	15	18

7.  I feel that the balance between teaching, research, and service expected of me meets the needs of my department.

	Frequency	Percent
Strongly Agree	9	11
Agree	41	49
Disagree	28	33
Strongly Disagree	6	7

8.  I feel that the balance between teaching, research, and service expected of me meets the needs of the university.

	Frequency	Percent
Strongly Agree	8	10
Agree	42	51
Disagree	29	35
Strongly Disagree	3	4

 

The survey included two open-ended questions (“suggestions for improvement” and “comments”) related to faculty personnel processes. Responses to these were combined and summarized below under major categories. Most are direct quotes, but a few have been shortened or otherwise modified to protect the anonymity of the respondents.

Workload and balance

Workload, especially teaching load, was the most common area of concern. More respondents were concerned about the nature than the level of research expectations. Several respondents specifically recommended more flexibility or individualization n establishing expectations for individual faculty members, with two of these expressing concern about failing to receive recognition or consideration for administrative duties. This issue is addressed by Strategic Planning Goal 10, “ Achieve a faculty workload comparable with competitive institutions nationwide that are committed to a vision to be one of the nation's premier interactive universities,“ but this goal will be difficult to achieve in the current budget climate.

• Overall
• RTP and promotion processes should be rigorous and raise performances to a higher standard.
• In general I would say that the expectations for tenure are reasonable.
• To attend to teaching, research, service, and personal life with a comparable level of dedication is highly stressful. Schedule is always tight.
• The expectation that new faculty will teach 12 WTU each semester, carry out a research program, publish, write grants, and participate in numerous committees at each level with increasing responsibility for leadership – and do it all at an exemplary level, is unrealistic…
• Although I like my teaching and service responsibilities very much, I find it difficult to find time for research.
  
• Teaching load
• The workload issue (esp. number of classes AND number of preps per semester) must be addressed, especially for those teaching nearly full-time in graduate programs.
• Not enough time for research activity. Teaching loads are very heavy.
• I think that the teaching load … is too great to meet the expectations required in research and service. Release time must be a part of the tenure track process.
• While I understand that the CSU system is intended to prioritize teaching, a 4-4 teaching load is simply unreasonable if one is expected to actually teach WELL and produce quality research. … The RTP standard of a couple of articles and 4-5 conference reports is ridiculously low in comparison to universities across the country, but is all that is possible … given the high teaching load. Perhaps a “research track” for those who are interested in producing more research while teaching fewer classes could be an option.
• The teaching load is unreasonably high, compared to other universities in the US and overseas. … It is heartbreaking to have to choose between staying current within the discipline, providing what students clearly need, and managing a reasonable level of connection to one’s family.
• … teaching a 4/4 load makes it difficult to do research.
• Fewer courses to teach so that we can have more time on research. Reduce the teaching load or the number of publications so we can have a career and a balanced life.
  

• Research
• I would like to see the definition of scholarly work and professional activity more truly encompass the range of things that people do that contribute to their fields – academic and applied.
• Publication requirements are excessive given our high teaching load.
• Increase the research requirement to continually hone the skills of faculty.
• Regarding the research requirement, there should be less emphasis on publications and more on student involvement in the research process.
• Change the required articles and presentations needed for tenure.
  
• Service
• The service requirement is way too high and at times I believe the service that we do do is ineffectual.
• The service/administration components of this job get in the way of research WAY too much.
• Reduction in the service requirements through restructuring committees.
• People at the beginning of their career should avoid committees and local projects in favor of establishing their scholarship.
• More attention to service in relation to other forms of scholarship.
  
• Flexibility
• Each new faculty member has his/her strengths. Play on them!
• Be more realistic. Having the exact same requirements as another faculty who has a 25% research appointment is completely unrealistic!
• All three components, research, teaching, and service should be included; however evaluation process should be flexible enough to accommodate those who excel in one area, as long as they do acceptable work in the other two.
• … Nationally it is NOT recommended that junior faculty concentrate on all three areas (service, scholarship, and teaching) at the same time. At CSUF we do and many junior faculty have incredibly high service demands. …
• More emphasis on teaching, and greater balance between university, departmental, community service, and publishing. Perhaps more choice among the latter, rather than being expected to do it all.
• Making the need for outside funding conditional on the type of research conducted. My research is rarely funded, yet obtaining outside funding is still expected of me. I believe a substitute requirement would be better (e.g., more community service) in cases where this is not relevant.
• Faculty who have other assignments and expectations should not be measured as faculty who have regular loads and no other assignments.
• People who are hired to do program administration aren’t protected enough during this process. I do work that is necessary for my department and for the university, but that doesn’t seem to get the respect of administrators. My work in program administration and in the community is a form of scholarship and should be treated as such. …

Support

Faculty members expressed the need for additional support to meet research expectations, with four specifically noting the need for travel support. A few respondents requested additional orientation into the RTP process, and several had recommendations for improving mentoring.

• Research Support
  
  • I would have liked new faculty funding money to continue in gradually reduced amounts over the six-year period. I find it a burden to keep up with membership fees, software purchases, journal subscriptions, conference registration, etc., with no chance for an increase of wages for the duration of the tenure period…
• The university is moving from predominately teaching to a greater emphasis on research. Unfortunately, the university lacks facilities and non-teaching lab space to perform good research. The transition to research needs to be supported with infrastructure to perform the work.
• More favorable environment for research including commitment of resources at the highest level and encouragement for student participation.
• There is an expectation of research with very little support or facilities necessary to complete the research.
• More support for establishing a research agenda is needed. Assigning a mentor for research and giving the mentor release time to provide support of the probationary faculty member.
• I would like to see a structured mentoring program for those who are new to research, perhaps a type of fellowship.

• Travel
• We need to provide funds for untenured people to meet with like-minded peers at conferences.
• If you’re going to require that professors travel to conferences on a regular basis, then you’d better support that travel.
• More opportunities for travel and research.
• Getting very little financial support to attend or present at professional conferences at different levels drains my personal funds.
  
• Orientations
  
  • Optional sessions to learn about how to meet all of the requirements in the tenure plan, especially how to balance it with a personal life. It would be helpful to hear suggestions from other tenure-track faculty who are further along in the process.
  • Make it clearer to incoming tenure-track faculty that their probationary plans must be written by mid-October.
• Clear, updated information sessions that occur the semester BEFORE the dossier is due, not three weeks into the term and three weeks before the due dates which are at the beginning or mid-term.
• Have examples of actual documents to review what a complete document looks like.
• Training meetings for first-year RTP file were very helpful. Make sure department office staff are knowledgeable about the process so they can aid newcomers and provide accurate information.
• Mentoring
• This university needs to re-evaluate the mentoring process … The mentoring process is in “word” only.
• I would suggest that the faculty mentor role be laid out more completely. In other words, their role should be clearly defined so that tenure-track faculty are receiving the ongoing interaction with the mentor that is necessary for tenure-track faculty success. The mentors should also receive some type of compensation for the assistance they provide.
• Support and meetings with not only your department but also with the college.
• More department-level consultation with the candidate going up for tenure promotion. I was well guided by my … mentors, but I missed the input of more of my colleagues.
• More opportunities to find additional mentors (outside of department) and the possibility to choose own mentor.
• Faculty assigned as mentors should make contact with the mentees, as well as the mentee initiating.
• Many other faculty in my department have been very supportive in helping me understand expectations.

Process

Student evaluations raised the most concerns about the evaluation process itself, with several respondents commenting on the reliability of student ratings. Five respondents commented on the time frame for tenure, wishing either that the time could be extended, or that early tenure could be granted to those who had met requirements of the probationary plan. Five noted difficulties in implementation of RTP processes, with some recommending training for those responsible for carrying out the evaluations. Several commented favorably on the probationary plan process, while a few were concerned that the process grants tenure to unqualified applicants.

• Student evals
• Need better procedures and objectives in peer and student evaluations including documentation of such evaluations.
• Use of student evaluations is problematic… Also it is ridiculous to require that a new faculty should “meet or exceed departmental averages” on such evaluation numbers.
• The over-reliance and, frankly, abuse of student evaluations has got to stop. These are NOT reliable or fair indications of teaching effectiveness.
• I also disagree with making student evaluations part of the tenure process. I think many of us are forced to reduce our expectations of students because if we’re too challenging, if we demand too much, our evaluations aren’t as high.
• It would be fairer to weight course evaluations by the number of students in the class.

• Timetable
• If the probationary period is six years, the review for tenure and promotion should be in the seventh year.
• What about “extensions” or some kind of special circumstances for those who choose to have a family even though they are in the tenure process?
• I am on the fast track to tenure, having been given two years service credit. At times, I find that balancing all my obligations in a shorter period is a daunting enterprise…
• A quicker timetable for those clearly meeting the goals of their probationary plans.
• Under the current system there is little or no incentive to excel… because of institutional reluctance to grant early tenure or promotion.

• Implementation of review
• The tenured faculty, the department chair, and the dean’s office needs training in the RTP process.
• Need to stress to tenured faculty the policy and procedures about RTP processes.
• ... not changing the required standards from one year to the next and from one person to the next.
• …take an honest look at the part “white racism” plays in our tenure process … for minority faculty
• The tenure process is fair and the expectations are clearly communicated to the faculty. Compared to what I have hard from colleagues at other universities, our process is much preferable.

• Probationary Plans
• The probationary plans are wonderful. More universities should use this system.
• I’m glad that the tenure process has been as clear as it has been. I appreciate that my department has been so supportive of me. I haven’t felt overwhelmed by the tenure process itself.
• I am impressed with the process
• I love the openness and the documentation of the tenure process.
• I feel having an RTP process is a great asset to both new and tenured faculty. However, I fear the process may make it to hard for a department to get rid of an underperforming faculty hire. Expectations must be made more clear in the RTP plan for the process to be fair to both the department and the tenure track hire.
• Delete the probationary plan. It does not work, and we should stop fooling ourselves by thinking otherwise. We should use the traditional model of scholarship, and stop rewarding the incompetent faculty with tenure.
• The tenure system and unionization encourage a “welfare mentality” among those who earn the most and do the least.

• Other
• The minute details of assembling the RTP file takes about 40 hours and causes the probationary faculty to feel a bit degraded.
• Adopt a plan for promotion based on the probationary plan used for tenure.
• [Clarify the relationship between the criteria for tenure and those for promotion.]
• Clearer description of what is considered “excellent and/or exceptional” work in the three areas of teaching, research, and service.
• Contact hours should be factored into all assessments and should be listed on all documents.
• There should be some consideration of actual teaching (contact) hours.
• Require and encourage whole works to be submitted so that there is not an interpretation of the work determined from a TOC or a page. 

COMMENTS

Provided by Mr. Thomas J. Ebert, Associate Vice President for Academic Personnel

1.  What I am expected to do to achieve tenure is clear to me.

94% of the respondents answered in the affirmative. In 1988, the campus adopted an optional probationary plan process which in effect developed a written understanding between the probationary faculty member and all levels of review of what would be expected for tenure. The process was made mandatory across the campus beginning Fall 1996.

As the probationary reviews focus more specifically on the accomplishments in relation to the plan, as they have done over the past few years, the last elements of ambiguity have been eliminated from the RTP process.

2.  What is expected of me to achieve tenure is (a) too high (b) about right or (c) too low.

81% of the respondents said that it was "about right" or "too low." Great care is taken by all levels of review to assure that the probationary plans are reasonable, and consistent with expectations for other probationary faculty in the same department who have been hired in the same year.

It is hard to judge on what basis 16 individuals note that their expectations are "too high." This is especially true since most probationary faculty do not see other plans and have no means to judge.

3.  Compared to what is expected of other faculty, what is expected of me to achieve tenure is fair.

80% of the respondents agreed with this statement. As noted above, great care is taken to provide clear, explicit expectations in consultation with the probationary faculty member who has input but not veto power over the content of the plan.

4.  I am provided with the support I need to help me achieve tenure.

68% of the respondents agree with this statement. Most senior faculty take their mentoring responsibilities seriously. Another factor is that there is a wide disparity between new faculty with regard to their familiarity with the demands of academic life. Our new probationary faculty can be teaching novices to post docs to experienced instructors. The level of assistance expected in the mentoring process varies widely.

5.  I am satisfied with the balance between work and my personal life.

A substantial majority (59%) answered in the negative. The demands of teaching, research and service in the CSU can be daunting. It is often very difficult even for seasoned faculty and administrators to have a happy balance between personal and professional lives.

The CSU has evolved and is, in fact, no longer a Carnegie comprehensive teaching institution. This fact is reflected in the faculty salary schedule. The CSU is now a hybrid institution where research is increasing emphasized along with involvement in the greater academic community and beyond.

6.  I am satisfied with the balance between teaching, research, and service expected of me.

58% answered in the negative. The comments from the faculty indicate that the many faculty do not believe the "balance" is right. The accompanying comments suggest that some are dissatisfied with a particular combination of teaching, research and service. The institutional goal, especially in the probationary period, is to develop faculty members who are competent in all three areas. Service is the least liked. However, the emphasis on service, especially university level service, is to force the probationary faculty to have some initiation into the broader spectrum of university life beyond the department cloister.

7.  I feel that the balance between teaching, research, and service expected of me meets the needs of my department.

While 58% stated in #7 that they personally did not like their "balance," 60% felt that the balance met the needs of their department. As the probationary faculty member is tenured and promoted, their personal balance will change to address more individual needs and preferences. The purpose of the probationary process at Fresno is to assure that a faculty member tenured here is competent in all three areas.

Tenure is a the most critical decision that the institution can make, bestowing on the individual are reasonable, though not perfect, guarantee of life-long entitlement to a position in the university. The tenure decision is also the most critical because as a tenured faculty member, the individual is empowered to make making key recommendations about the curriculum and personnel that shape the future direction of their department, college and institution.

8.  I feel that the balance between teaching, research, and service expected of me meets the needs of the university.

 The response rate was similar (61%) to the response rate to question #7. The response is similar.

 

Workload and balance

Workload, especially teaching load, was the most common area of concern. More respondents were concerned about the nature than the level of research expectations. Several respondents specifically recommended more flexibility or individualization in establishing expectations for individual faculty members, with two of these expressing concern about failing to receive recognition or consideration for administrative duties.

Comment: The teaching load is high in the CSU with most faculty teaching 12 weighted teaching units a semester. This can be either in 4 unit or 3 unit classes depending on the discipline.

In the development of the plans, departments are encouraged to individualize plans to reflect particular faculty assignments or expectations including "administrative duties" such as those involved with student teacher supervision.

 Overall

• RTP and promotion processes should be rigorous and raise performances to a higher standard.

Comment: The university agrees with this statement. Standards and expectations have risen steadily with the probationary plans.

• In general I would say that the expectations for tenure are reasonable.

Comment: Every effort is made to assure that the expectations for tenure are reasonable. New faculty are informed at the faculty orientation that the university did not hire them to fail. The probationary process is designed to be as supportive as possible.

• To attend to teaching, research, service, and personal life with a comparable level of dedication is highly stressful. Schedule is always tight.
• The expectation that new faculty will teach 12 WTU each semester, carry out a research program, publish, write grants, and participate in numerous committees at each level with increasing responsibility for leadership – and do it all at an exemplary level, is unrealistic…
• Although I like my teaching and service responsibilities very much, I find it difficult to find time for research.

Comment: These comments reflect the responses in Item #7. The expectations are demanding but most faculty are able to meet them because the university does not demand "exemplary" only competent.

Teaching load

• The workload issue (esp. number of classes AND number of preps per semester) must be addressed, especially for those teaching nearly full-time in graduate programs.
• Not enough time for research activity. Teaching loads are very heavy.
• I think that the teaching load … is too great to meet the expectations required in research and service. Release time must be a part of the tenure track process.
• While I understand that the CSU system is intended to prioritize teaching, a 4-4 teaching load is simply unreasonable if one is expected to actually teach WELL and produce quality research. … The RTP standard of a couple of articles and 4-5 conference reports is ridiculously low in comparison to universities across the country, but is all that is possible … given the high teaching load. Perhaps a “research track” for those who are interested in producing more research while teaching fewer classes could be an option.
• The teaching load is unreasonably high, compared to other universities in the US and overseas. … It is heartbreaking to have to choose between staying current within the discipline, providing what students clearly need, and managing a reasonable level of connection to one’s family.
• … teaching a 4/4 load makes it difficult to do research.
• Fewer courses to teach so that we can have more time on research. Reduce the teaching load or the number of publications so we can have a career and a balanced life.

Comment: The teaching load is heavy. New probationary faculty members are normally given release from one class each semester during their initial year to establish a research program. Probationary faculty are eligible to "buy out" part of their teaching assignment with grant money.

Research

• I would like to see the definition of scholarly work and professional activity more truly encompass the range of things that people do that contribute to their fields – academic and applied.
• Publication requirements are excessive given our high teaching load.
• Increase the research requirement to continually hone the skills of faculty.
• Regarding the research requirement, there should be less emphasis on publications and more on student involvement in the research process.
• Change the required articles and presentations needed for tenure.

Comment: The university has incorporated the Boyer Model into its RTP policies to more fully recognize the diversity of professional contributions. The new policy takes effect Fall 2004.

Many faculty already involve their students not only in the research "process" but also in actually supporting student research output in the form of papers and publications. Such involvement by faculty members is routinely recognized by the Provost and others in the RTP process.

The publication standard is reasonable.

 

Service

• The service requirement is way too high and at times I believe the service that we do do is ineffectual.
• The service/administration components of this job get in the way of research WAY too much.
• Reduction in the service requirements through restructuring committees.
• People at the beginning of their career should avoid committees and local projects in favor of establishing their scholarship.
• More attention to service in relation to other forms of scholarship.

Comment: Service requirement is not burdensome.The institutional goal in requiring service, especially at the university level, is to introduce the new faculty member to how the university operates and to broaden their perspectives and contacts beyond the confines of the department. In recent years, the payoff to the university is a greater interest among the younger faculty to become involved and initiate interdisciplinary projects whether they benefit themselves professionally or the students than what has been the norm for the institution.

 

Flexibility

• Each new faculty member has his/her strengths. Play on them!
• Be more realistic. Having the exact same requirements as another faculty who has a 25% research appointment is completely unrealistic!
• All three components, research, teaching, and service should be included; however evaluation process should be flexible enough to accommodate those who excel in one area, as long as they do acceptable work in the other two.
• … Nationally it is NOT recommended that junior faculty concentrate on all three areas (service, scholarship, and teaching) at the same time. At CSUF we do and many junior faculty have incredibly high service demands. …
• More emphasis on teaching, and greater balance between university, departmental, community service, and publishing. Perhaps more choice among the latter, rather than being expected to do it all.
• Making the need for outside funding conditional on the type of research conducted. My research is rarely funded, yet obtaining outside funding is still expected of me. I believe a substitute requirement would be better (e.g., more community service) in cases where this is not relevant.
• Faculty who have other assignments and expectations should not be measured as faculty who have regular loads and no other assignments
• People who are hired to do program administration aren’t protected enough during this process. I do work that is necessary for my department and for the university, but that doesn’t seem to get the respect of administrators. My work in program administration and in the community is a form of scholarship and should be treated as such. …

Comment: The university is flexible in its evaluation of faculty. There have been numerous incidents where a university level peer committee would not be flexible and look at the actual work assignments in assessing performance. In such circumstances, the Provost has stepped in and reversed the recommendation in favor of the faculty member. The campus RTP policies also address the need of evaluators to be flexible when assessing faculty performance.

Support

Faculty members expressed the need for additional support to meet research expectations, with four specifically noting the need for travel support. A few respondents requested additional orientation into the RTP process, and several had recommendations for improving mentoring.

Research Support

• I would have liked new faculty funding money to continue in gradually reduced amounts over the six-year period. I find it a burden to keep up with membership fees, software purchases, journal subscriptions, conference registration, etc., with no chance for an increase of wages for the duration of the tenure period…
• The university is moving from predominately teaching to a greater emphasis on research. Unfortunately, the university lacks facilities and non-teaching lab space to perform good research. The transition to research needs to be supported with infrastructure to perform the work.
• More favorable environment for research including commitment of resources at the highest level and encouragement for student participation.
• There is an expectation of research with very little support or facilities necessary to complete the research.
• More support for establishing a research agenda is needed. Assigning a mentor for research and giving the mentor release time to provide support of the probationary faculty member.
• I would like to see a structured mentoring program for those who are new to research, perhaps a type of fellowship.

Comment: Inadequate support for a variety of purposes is a vexing problem in the CSU which is marginally funded by the state. However, the University Grants and Research Office provides a variety of support for faculty wishing to enter the grants and contracts business. The support from the office has lead to faculty grants and contracts totaling nearly fifty million dollars in the last year. There are workshops plus individual mentoring from an excellent staff.

Faculty often "buy out" one or more classes to do grant work. Most deans provide regular support to faculty who are working on grant projects. In addition, grant funding often pays for many needed items.

Travel

• We need to provide funds for untenured people to meet with like-minded peers at conferences.
• If you’re going to require that professors travel to conferences on a regular basis, then you’d better support that travel.
• More opportunities for travel and research.
• Getting very little financial support to attend or present at professional conferences at different levels drains my personal funds.

Comment: Availability of travel money varies widely from college to college. In addition to department funding, most deans have foundation or endowment funds which can go to support professional activities. Funding priorities are given to individuals who are presenting a paper.

 

Orientations

• Optional sessions to learn about how to meet all of the requirements in the tenure plan, especially how to balance it with a personal life. It would be helpful to hear suggestions from other tenure-track faculty who are further along in the process.

Comment: These discussions occur at the mandatory New Faculty Orientation. One year, the university brought in faculty hired the previous year to have lunch with new hires to facilitate such a dialogue. Unfortunately, the strategy apparently didn't work.

• Make it clearer to incoming tenure-track faculty that their probationary plans must be written by mid-October

Comment: As part of the packet for the new faculty orientation, a personnel calendar is provided with those dates. The calendar, a copy of the Policy on Probationary Plans and Faculty Mentoring and related documents are distributed. The AVP for Academic Personnel also reviews the policy and calendar with the new faculty.

• Clear, updated information sessions that occur the semester BEFORE the dossier is due, not three weeks into the term and three weeks before the due dates which are at the beginning or mid-term.

Comment: The file and its organization are briefly discussed at the New Faculty Orientation. Orientations are held in mid-September after faculty have had an opportunity to "settle in" with their classes. Spring orientation sessions have had little or no attendance.

• Have examples of actual documents to review what a complete document looks like.

Comment: In the past, the campus provided a model RTP file in every department but the costs of duplication became prohibitive. Academic Personnel Services provides a web page at http://www.csufresno.edu/aps/forms/rtp_forms.html with guidance on putting an RTP file together. This Fall, APS will be providing an electronic sample file.

• Training meetings for first-year RTP file were very helpful. Make sure department office staff are knowledgeable about the process so they can aid newcomers and provide accurate information.

Comment: This is an excellent suggestion Academic Personnel Services will follow up on with so many changes in departmental staff occurring this summer.

Mentoring

• This university needs to re-evaluate the mentoring process … The mentoring process is in “word” only.
• I would suggest that the faculty mentor role be laid out more completely. In other words, their role should be clearly defined so that tenure-track faculty are receiving the ongoing interaction with the mentor that is necessary for tenure-track faculty success. The mentors should also receive some type of compensation for the assistance they provide.
• Support and meetings with not only your department but also with the college.
• More department-level consultation with the candidate going up for tenure promotion. I was well guided by my … mentors, but I missed the input of more of my colleagues.
• More opportunities to find additional mentors (outside of department) and the possibility to choose own mentor.
• Faculty assigned as mentors should make contact with the mentees, as well as the mentee initiating.
• Many other faculty in my department have been very supportive in helping me understand expectations.

Comment: Campus-wide, it appears that the mentoring process is working. Two years ago, the Academic Senate reviewed the mentoring process and recommended a major revision of the probationary plan process including a detailed list of responsibilities for the mentor. How the mentor-mentee relationship operates, how well it operates, and how successful it becomes is dependent in large part by the personalities of the individuals involved. That is something that no policy could ever regulate.

There is provision in the process for changing mentors and no prohibition regarding adding additional or informal mentors.

Many deans hold regular meetings with probationary faculty either as a group and/or individually to assess the progress of the probationary faculty member(s) and their needs.

Process

Student evaluations raised the most concerns about the evaluation process itself, with several respondents commenting on the reliability of student ratings. Five respondents commented on the time frame for tenure, wishing either that the time could be extended, or that early tenure could be granted to those who had met requirements of the probationary plan. Five noted difficulties in implementation of RTP processes, with some recommending training for those responsible for carrying out the evaluations. Several commented favorably on the probationary plan process, while a few were concerned that the process grants tenure to unqualified applicants.

 Student evals

• Need better procedures and objectives in peer and student evaluations including documentation of such evaluations.
• Use of student evaluations is problematic… Also it is ridiculous to require that a new faculty should “meet or exceed departmental averages” on such evaluation numbers.
• The over-reliance and, frankly, abuse of student evaluations has got to stop. These are NOT reliable or fair indications of teaching effectiveness.
• I also disagree with making student evaluations part of the tenure process. I think many of us are forced to reduce our expectations of students because if we’re too challenging, if we demand too much, our evaluations aren’t as high.
• It would be fairer to weight course evaluations by the number of students in the class.

Comment: Trustee regulations as reflected in Article 15 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement make student evaluations an integral part of the tenure and promotion process. There is some concerns about the statistical reliability of student evaluations. Some colleges are addressing their student evaluation forms.

Most faculty members have no problem to "meet or exceed departmental averages." Likewise, many faculty members are able to have high, consistent standards and still have very good student evaluations.

Timetable

• If the probationary period is six years, the review for tenure and promotion should be in the seventh year.

Comment: The probationary period is established by the Unit 3 Collective Bargaining Agreement which reflects the traditional national standard, endorsed by the AAUP, that the decision regarding tenure should come at the end of six years. This is the standard the CSU adopted at its formation in 1961.

• What about “extensions” or some kind of special circumstances for those who choose to have a family even though they are in the tenure process?

Comment: Accommodations may be made for an extended maternity leave including FMLA leaves, unpaid personal leaves, etc. It has been the experience of this office that most female faculty members do not want to "stop the clock" but rather want to continue the probationary clock and this office has found ways to do it.

• I am on the fast track to tenure, having been given two years service credit. At times, I find that balancing all my obligations in a shorter period is a daunting enterprise.

Comment: Service credit is requested at the time of appointment by the faculty member. The deans have become reluctant to grant it and warn faculty of the potential hazards of having it granted. Under CSU policy, service credit, once granted, cannot be rescinded.

• A quicker timetable for those clearly meeting the goals of their probationary plans.
• Under the current system there is little or no incentive to excel… because of institutional reluctance to grant early tenure or promotion.

Comment: The campus RTP policies have provisions for the granting of early tenure and early promotion. These provisions are clear and are even more explicit in the new RTP policies. Early tenure and early promotion are only granted to faculty members who excel in all three areas in comparison to the individuals who are going up for normal tenure and/or promotion.

Many probationary faculty members believe that the mere completion of the probationary plan is sufficient for early tenure and promotion. The university viewpoint is that the probationary plan provides minimum expectations.

Implementation of review

• The tenured faculty, the department chair, and the dean’s office needs training in the RTP process.
• Need to stress to tenured faculty the policy and procedures about RTP processes.

Comment: Academic Personnel Services will look closely at this suggestion and how it can be implemented.

• ... not changing the required standards from one year to the next and from one person to the next.

Comment: Between 1995 and 2004, there was no change in the Policy on Retention and Tenure.

The probationary plans in each department evolve each year with perhaps tighter standards for the newer faculty members. But once the probationary plan is adopted for a faculty member their required standards are in place for the duration of their probationary period even if the campus policy is revised.

• …take an honest look at the part “white racism” plays in our tenure process … for minority faculty

Comment: The university evaluates individuals according to their probationary plan and objective criteria and evidence, and not race. Of the three probationary faculty members given early tenure and promotion, one was a Chicana faculty member.

The last three Provosts, who make the final RTP decision, have all been Hispanic.

• The tenure process is fair and the expectations are clearly communicated to the faculty. Compared to what I have hard from colleagues at other universities, our process is much preferable.

Comment: This comment is heard often from probationary faculty.

Probationary Plans

• The probationary plans are wonderful. More universities should use this system.
• I’m glad that the tenure process has been as clear as it has been. I appreciate that my department has been so supportive of me. I haven’t felt overwhelmed by the tenure process itself.
• I am impressed with the process
• I love the openness and the documentation of the tenure process.

Comment: The university agrees, it is a clear, open process even if it is tedious.

• I feel having an RTP process is a great asset to both new and tenured faculty. However, I fear the process may make it to hard for a department to get rid of an underperforming faculty hire. Expectations must be made more clear in the RTP plan for the process to be fair to both the department and the tenure track hire.

Comment: "Underperforming" faculty is hard to judge. The statistics show that faculty members who are not fitting in with the institution or are unlikely to measure up to the standards and expectations of their plans most often leave before the end of the tenure process.

• Delete the probationary plan. It does not work, and we should stop fooling ourselves by thinking otherwise. We should use the traditional model of scholarship, and stop rewarding the incompetent faculty with tenure.
• The tenure system and unionization encourage a “welfare mentality” among those who earn the most and do the least.

Comment: Neither the probationary plan process or collective bargaining have brought mediocrity or a "welfare mentality" to the tenure system. The probationary plan has brought clarity, fairness and better due process for all concerned. The faculty hires over the past decade have significantly improved the overall quality and direction of the institution.

Other

• The minute details of assembling the RTP file takes about 40 hours and causes the probationary faculty to feel a bit degraded.

Comment: An open file system does sometimes require "minute details of assembling the RTP File" so that reviewers have some ease of going through the files. But the alternative would be a closed system which nationwide has proven to be unfair, inconsistent, and harmful to the due process rights of both the faculty member and the institution.

• Adopt a plan for promotion based on the probationary plan used for tenure.

Comment: The Personnel Committee of the Academic Senate has proposed such a plan that was rejected by the Academic Senate. The Personnel Committee plans to make another attempt at passing through an optional policy this coming academic year.

• [Clarify the relationship between the criteria for tenure and those for promotion.]

Comment: The general expectation is that upon receiving tenure a probationary Assistant Professor will also be promoted to Associate. This has been the general practice of the campus for the three and a half decades of my experience on the campus.

• Clearer description of what is considered “excellent and/or exceptional” work in the three areas of teaching, research, and service.

Comment: This concern should be addressed with the advent of the revised RTP policies that will go into effect in Fall 2004.

• Contact hours should be factored into all assessments and should be listed on all documents.
• There should be some consideration of actual teaching (contact) hours.

Comment: The university will ask the Personnel Committee of the Academic Senate to consider this request.

• Require and encourage whole works to be submitted so that there is not an interpretation of the work determined from a TOC or a page.

Comment: So that RTP files remain at a manageable size, whole works are not encouraged to be submitted. Faculty are encouraged, and may soon be required, to provide whole works in the dean's office for review by the department and college peer review committees and the dean. Also the files could be available from the dean's office should the university peer review committee or the Provost wish to review them in detail.

In summary, I believe that the RTP process is working very well at California State University Fresno.

 

Close Window