FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Sheri Layral
312 Signers' Hall
474-7964 FYSENAT
For Audioconferencing: Bridge #: 1-877-751-8040
(Passcode: 523297)
Fairbanks: 474-8050
(Chair's Passcode: 628337)
A G E N D A
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #101
Monday, April 2, 2001
1:30 p.m. - 4:15 p.m.
Wood Center Ballroom
1:30 I Call to Order - Norm Swazo 5 Min.
A. Roll Call
B. Approval of Minutes to Meeting #100
C. Adoption of Agenda
1:35 II Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 5 Min.
A. Motions Approved:
1. Motion to approve a new integrated
B.S./M.S. degree program in Computer
Science.
2. Motion to approve the Certificate
and A.A.S. degree program in Dental
Assistant.
B. Motions Pending:
3. Motion to approve the Certificate
and A.A.S. degree program in Tribal
Management.
1:40 III A. Remarks by Chancellor M. Lind 10 Min.
B. Remarks by Provost P. Reichardt 10 Min.
C. John Craven, Master Planning 10 Min.
D. Pat Pitney, Director, Statewide Budget
& Development 10 Min.
2:20 IV Governance Reports 15 Min.
A. ASUAF -S. Banks / GSO -
B. Staff Council - S. Culbertson
C. President's Report - L. Duffy (Handout)
2:35 V. Consent Agenda
A. Resolution of Recognition for the UAF Rifle team,
submitted by Administrative Committee
(Attachment 101/1)
B. Resolution of Recognition for the UAF College Bowl
team, submitted by Administrative Committee
(Attachment 101/2)
2:35 VI New Business 30 Min.
A. Resolution of Support for the Board of Regents FY02
Operating Budget Request, submitted by Administrative
Committee (Attachment 101/3)
B. Motion to amend the Constitution dealing with
research faculty membership on Senate, submitted
by Faculty Affairs, (Attachment 101/4)
C. Motion to approve a M.A. degree program in
Administration of Justice, submitted by Graduate
Academic & Advisory Committee (Attachment 101/5)
D. Motion to approve the B.A. degree in Elementary
Education, submitted by Curricular Affairs
(Attachment 101/6)
E. Motion to amend the Appeals Policy for Academic
Decisions, submitted by Faculty Appeals & Oversight
(Attachment 101/7)
F. Motion to amend Article IV, Section 2 of the
Constitution, submitted by Administrative Committee,
***First Reading*** (Attachment 101/8)
G. Nomination of President-Elect
3:05 ***BREAK*** 10 Min
3:15 VII Public Comments/Questions 10 Min.
3:25 VIII Discussion Items 30 Min.
A. Accreditation - Dana Thomas & Ron Gatterdam
See: /provost/accreditation/draft/
1. Standard 2 - Educational Program And Its
Effectiveness
2. Standard 4 - Faculty
3:55 IX Committee Reports 15 Min.
A. Curricular Affairs - R. Illingworth (Attachment 101/9)
B. Faculty Affairs - P. McRoy (Attachment 101/10)
C. Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee - J. Gardner
(Attachment 101/11)
D. Core Review - J. Brown
E. Curriculum Review - S. Bandopadhyay
F. Developmental Studies - J. Weber (Attachment 101/12)
G. Faculty Appeals & Oversight - G. Chukwu
(Attachment 101/13)
H. Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement -
T. Robinson (Attachment 101/14)
4:10 X Members' Comments/Questions 5 Min.
4:15 XI Adjournment
ATTACHMENT 101/1
UAF FACULTY SENATE #101
APRIL 2, 2001
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITION
WHEREAS, The UAF rifle team is the only collegiate sports team in
Alaska to ever bring home a number one National Collegiate
Athletic Association title, and
WHEREAS, The Nanooks successfully defended their national
championship title for the third year in a row, and an
unprecedented fourth time in less than a decade during
competitions at Ohio State March 10, 2001.
WHEREAS, Sophomore Matt Emmons led the way winning both the air
rifle and smallbore individual national titles, and
WHEREAS, individual honors went to Emmons and teammates Melissa
Mulloy and Karl Olsson who were named first team All-Americans
in both air rifle and smallbore, and
WHEREAS, Per Sandberg was named first team for smallbore and second
team air rifle, and Grant Mecozzi was also named first team air
rifle and second team smallbore and Amber Darland was named
second team for both air rifle and smallbore, and
WHEREAS, All six of the qualifiers finished in the top ten individually and
the top four places in the smallbore.
WHEREAS, During the 2000-2001 season the team shattered the team
smallbore record and Emmons set two new individual national
records including a perfect 400/400 in the air rifle event, and
Mulloy finished out her UAF rifle career by attaining the second
highest team average after coming back from the Olympic games
last fall.
WHEREAS, Also making contributions to the season were junior John
Holz, sophomore Ginny Schlichting, and freshmen Karen Gerde.
WHEREAS, Seven UAF athletes qualified for All Academic honors and led
the team to the top rifle team grade point average in the nation,
and
WHEREAS, The success of our students is a major strength of UAF, now
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate wishes to
recognize the outstanding student athletes achievement of the
UAF Rifle Team.
ATTACHMENT 101/2
UAF FACULTY SENATE #101
APRIL 2, 2001
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITION
WHEREAS, UAF's College Bowl team thrashed four of the most powerful
administrators on campus in a warmup match in February by a
score of 370-85, and
WHEREAS, UAF's College Bowl team, composed of Tina Buxbaum, Nick
Palso, Joe Hardenbrook, David Jessup, and William Bourke recently
returned from the Association of College Unions International
Region 14 tournament where they beat prestigious competitors
to place second, and
WHEREAS, In the first round of competition UAF prevailed over the
University of Washington 245 to 130, and
WHEREAS, UAF won 160 to 60 over the University of Idaho in the final
round of the Round Robin play, and
WHEREAS, In single elimination UAF defeated Idaho State and Whitworth
College, and
WHEREAS, After going undefeated most of the day UAF lost to
Washington in best two out of three matches to finish the College
Bowl tournament in second place, now
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate wishes to
recognize the outstanding student academic achievement of the
UAF College Bowl Team.
ATTACHMENT 101/3
UAF FACULTY SENATE #101
APRIL 2, 2001
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT
FOR THE BOARD OF REGENTS
FY02 OPERATING BUDGET REQUEST
WHEREAS, the Faculty Senate of the 夜色福利
provides a mechanism whereby the faculty participate in the
academic decision making of the University of Alaska system; and
WHEREAS, through committee representation the UAF faculty
participated in the selection of projects to fulfill UA initiatives at
the campus and system level, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Regents operating budget request includes
funding for those program initiatives approved by the faculty
through the shared governance process, and
WHEREAS, full funding of the Board of Regents operating budget
request last year was a great beginning toward rebuilding UAF,
and the legislature and the Governor should be applauded for their
efforts thus far, and
WHEREAS, the long term goals of the initiative process cannot be
maintained at an appropriate rate needed by the university and by
the state to restore UAF to the level of other land grant, doctoral
universities without full funding of the Board of Regents FY2002
operating budget request, now
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate thanks the
Governor for including the Board of Regents operating budget
request in his FY2002 budget request, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate urges the
Alaska State Legislature, and in particular, the Alaska State
Senate to fully fund the Board of Regents operating budget
request for FY2002.
ATTACHMENT 101/4
UAF FACULTY SENATE #101
APRIL 2, 2001
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS
MOTION
======
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Article III, Section 2 of the
UAF Faculty Senate Constitution as follows:
[[ ]] = Deletions
CAPS = Additions
ARTICLE III - Membership
Sect. 2 Voting members of the Senate must EITHER hold academic
rank [[and must be]] WITH full-time CONTINUING
APPOINTMENT AT [[permanent employees of]] the
University of Alaska FAIRBANKS OR HOLD SPECIAL
ACADEMIC RANK WITH TITLE PRECEDED BY 'RESEARCH'
OR 'TERM'.
EFFECTIVE: Upon Chancellor approval
RATIONALE: The number of research faculty on campus has
increased in recent years. Members of this faculty group
seek participation in faculty governance as well as
representation on the Faculty Senate. This change
accommodates this group of faculty.
ATTACHMENT 101/5
UAF FACULTY SENATE #101
APRIL 2, 2001
SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ACADEMIC & ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MOTION
======
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve a M.A. degree program in
Administration of Justice which includes eight new courses.
EFFECTIVE: Fall 2001 or
Upon Board of Regents' Approval
RATIONALE: See full program proposal #52-60 on file in
the Governance Office, 312 Signers? Hall.
SUBMITTED BY COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS
(Submitted by Justice)
52. NEW PROGRAM: MA, Administration of Justice - Effective Fall
2001 or upon BOR approval.
53. NEW COURSE: JUST 605 - Administration and Management of
Criminal Justice Organizations (3+0) 3 credits; offered via
Internet; offered every Fall; effective Fall 2001 or upon BOR
approval.
54. NEW COURSE: JUST 610 - Ethics in Criminal Justice Management
(3+0) 3 credits; offered via Internet; offered every Spring;
effective Fall 2001 or upon BOR approval.
55. NEW COURSE: JUST 615 - Justice Program Planning/Evaluation
and Grant Writing (3+0) 3 credits; offered via Internet; offered
every Spring; effective Fall 2001 or upon BOR approval.
56. NEW COURSE: JUST 620 - Personnel Management in Criminal
Justice (3+0) 3 credits; offered via Internet; offered Summer,
As Demand Warrants; effective Fall 2001 or upon BOR approval.
57. NEW COURSE: JUST 625 - Legal Aspect of Criminal Justice
Management (3+0) 3 credits; offered via Internet; offered
every Fall; first offered Fall 2002; effective Fall 2001 or
upon BOR approval.
58. NEW COURSE: JUST 630 - Media Relations and Public Relations
(3+0) 3 credits; offered via Internet; offered every Spring; first
offered Spring 2003; effective Fall 2001 or upon BOR approval.
59. NEW COURSE: JUST 640 - Community/Restorative Justice
(3+0) 3 credits; offered via Internet; offered Summer,
As Demand Warrants; first offered Summer 2003, effective
Fall 2001 or upon BOR approval.
60. NEW COURSE: JUST 690 - Seminar in Critical Issues and Criminal
Justice Policy (3+0) 3 credits; offered Summer, As Demand
Warrants; first offered Summer 2003, effective Fall 2001
or upon BOR approval.
Executive Summary
M.A., Administration of Justice
The Department of Justice, College of Liberal Arts, University of Alaska
Fairbanks, requests approval of a Master of Arts Degree in
Administration of Justice to be implemented in Fall Semester, 2001.
Alaska, like states throughout the United States, is faced with an
increasing demand on the services of its criminal justice system. There
is the realization that no one unit of government or public organization
can successfully address the issue of providing public safety and
response to criminal activity. To illustrate this realization, in 1995
Governor Tony Knowles directed that a group of his cabinet members
meet on a regular basis for the purpose of coordinating efforts in the
area of criminal justice planning. From this group's efforts the Final
Report of the Alaska Criminal Justice Assessment Commission was
published in May 2000. The Report contained a sweeping array of
proposals. Upon close study one commonality emerges ? a call for
creative and effective management in the administration of Alaska's
Criminal Justice System.
The M.A. Degree in Administration of Justice will bring the resources of
the University of Alaska to serve in the State's efforts. The course of
study is suitable for those personnel who are currently policy makers,
administrators, or managers in the criminal justice system. Additionally,
the Degree will be attractive to those who wish to better prepare
themselves for entry into the system or for promotion within. Of special
note, there will be a focus on the Administration of Justice in Alaska's
rural communities ? an area where the Justice Department has
established expertise and which meets a major goal of the University of
Alaska, Fairbanks. Rigorous academic standards will be maintained
through a faculty who are experienced, successful instructors having
recognized expertise and experience in their area of instructional
responsibility.
To address the criminal justice needs throughout the State, the M.A.
Degree will offer the majority of its courses through the internet, and
will compliment those courses with a one week intensive capstone
course conducted on the UAF campus. Over the past 21 years the
Justice Department has graduated an average of 25 students a year.
Many of these students have entered the justice professions as police
officers, correctional officers, probation officers, and parole officers
among a variety of other positions. Many of these past graduates are
now in mid-level management positions throughout Alaska (and in some
cases outside). Through continued communication with our graduates
alone, the Justice Department has established an interest in having a
program delivered by a distance delivery method. Surveys of Justice
professionals within the State verify this need. The Justice Department
is recognized for its pioneering efforts in using the internet to deliver
undergraduate courses. The expertise now contained in the Justice
Department will be used to develop a unique, innovative degree available
to anyone who has access to the internet.
The M.A. Degree in Administration of Justice has four major objectives:
1. Provide advanced knowledge and skills to leaders in Alaska's
criminal justice system to enhance their effectiveness as managers,
administrators, and policy makers.
2. Create a communication medium whereby criminal justice
personnel can exchange ideas within an academic setting.
3. Establish the Department of Justice, Fairbanks campus, as a
leader in usage of the Internet to deliver graduate education.
4. Establish the Department of Justice, Fairbanks campus, as a
recognized locale of expertise for administration of justice in Rural
Alaska.
ATTACHMENT 101/6
UAF FACULTY SENATE #101
APRIL 2, 2001
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS
MOTION:
======
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve a B.A. degree program in
Elementary Education which includes eight new courses.
EFFECTIVE: Fall 2001 and
Upon Board of Regents' Approval
RATIONALE: See full program proposal #123-130 on file in
the Governance Office, 312 Signers? Hall.
SUBMITTED BY SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
123. NEW DEGREE PROGRAM: BA, Elementary Education - The central
components of the degree include: subject area coursework in
designated core requirements; additional subject areas course
work important for successful teaching at an elementary level;
integrated set of education courses and fieldwork experience; a
capstone year-long school internship with a mentor teacher with
concurrent enrollment in professional coursework; 127 credits;
includes seven new courses; effective Upon BOR Approval.
124. NEW COURSE: ED 110 - Becoming a Teacher in the 21st Century
(1+0) 1 credit; offered Fall & Spring; graded Pass/Fail; first
offered Fall 2001.
125. NEW COURSE: ED 466 - Internship and Collaborative Student
Teaching (1+0+25) 3 credits; offered Fall; first offered
Fall 2002.
126. NEW COURSE: ED 467 - Portfolio Development I (1+0) 1 credit;
offered Fall; first offered Fall 2002.
127. NEW COURSE: ED 468 - Internship and Student Teaching
(1+0+40) 6 credits; offered Spring; first offered Spring 2003.
128. NEW COURSE: ED 469 - Portfolio Development II (1+0) 1 credit;
offered Spring; first offered Spring 2003.
129. NEW COURSE: EDSE 422 - Curriculum and Strategies II: High
Incidence (3+0) 3 credits; offered Fall & Spring; first offered
Spring 2002.
130. NEW COURSE: EDSE 482 - Inclusive Classrooms for All Children
(3+0) 3 credits; offered Fall & Spring; first offered Spring 2002.
Executive Summary
B.A., Elementary Education
There is a well-documented and critical need for teachers in Alaska, and
the University of Alaska system has the opportunity to respond to this
need. The Bachelor of Arts in Elementary Education is a new
undergraduate degree that will provide students on the Fairbanks
Campus and in rural remote sites with the coursework and classroom
experiences necessary to be eligible for an elementary teacher
certificate. The integrated major/minor degree requirements are
designed to prepare students to meet national and state standards for
quality teachers, and to meet standards that recognize, respect and
build upon the unique cultural, linguistic and geographic factors specific
to the Alaska context. All students will be assessed relative to NCATE
standards, the Alaska Teacher Standards, the Alaska Student Content
Standards, and the Alaska Standards for Culturally Responsive Schools.
As a public institution, and as the state?s land-, sea- and space-grant
institution, the University of Alaska has a responsibility to respond to
the interests and needs of the people of Alaska. Close working
relationships between the K-12 public education system and the state?s
higher education system are essential for the social and economic well-
being of our state.
A series of recent reports issued by The Kellogg Commission on the
Future of State Land-Grant Universities examines the need for land-
grant universities to re-assess their role relative to public school
education and local communities. In the January/February 2001 issue
of Change: The Magazine of Higher Education, the authors of the lead
article "Rethinking the Land-Grant Research University" state that:
Typically, research universities' interaction with K-12 schools has
been the province of Schools of Education. . . .A more robust,
inclusive engagement is needed today between university and K-12
faculty in order to build the kind of understanding, collaboration,
respect, and innovation that will be needed to improve K-12 student
achievement. . . . The land-grant research university will [need to]
take active steps to incorporate collegial partnerships with the K-12
system as an integral part of its missions of teaching, research and
public service. (Parker, Greenbaum & Pister, pp. 12-17)
The new undergraduate degrees for elementary teacher preparation at
each of the UA major campuses are a direct response to the stated
mission of the University of Alaska which is to "address the needs of the
North and it?s diverse peoples." There clearly is a "need" in Alaska for
teachers--and for teacher preparation programs that prepare people to
professionally and respectfully work in our unique Northern context with
Alaska?s diverse peoples--i.e., with students and families from all ethnic,
cultural and linguistic backgrounds.
In addition to supporting the Mission of the University of Alaska, the
new BA in Elementary Education at UAF directly responds to, and
supports, each of the six primary goals in the final draft of the
夜色福利 Strategic Plan. This is accomplished
through the following: (1) academic content requirements and the
necessary collaboration across several UAF academic units; (2) degree
requirements for on-going fieldwork in schools and communities; and (3)
built-in professional development for cooperating teachers and
administrators and required formal partnerships with schools and
districts in rural and urban areas.
* Be a world leader in arctic research and related graduate
education
* Provide high quality undergraduate education for traditional and
non-traditional students
* Form active collaborations with communities, organizations,
businesses and government to meet identified state, national and global
needs
* Be an educational center for Alaska Natives
* Be a model that demonstrates how gender, racial, and cultural
diversity strengthen a university and society
* Be an academic gateway to the North Pacific and the Circumpolar
North
Alaska?s comprehensive educational reform effort--i.e., the Alaska
Quality Schools Initiative--has generated an unprecedented public
interest in Alaska?s educational system. At this critical juncture in
determining educational policy in the state, the University has the
opportunity to make a long and lasting contribution to the state and to
its children. The high level of collaboration among UAA, UAF and UAS
faculty in the development of three new undergraduate teacher
education degrees, the interest and support provided by a significant
number of arts and sciences faculty members, and the prospects for
increased attention to, and support for, teacher preparation programs
are reason to believe that the University does indeed have the will to
respond to the great need to prepare teachers for our unique Alaska
contexts.
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
Undergraduate Program
MAJOR
Bachelor of Arts, Elementary Education
BA Degree
1. Complete the general university requirements. (As part of the
core curriculum requirements, complete the following:*
ANTH/SOC 100X, HIST 100X, PS 100X, MATH 107X*,
ART/MUS/THR 200X, BIOL 100X or BIOL 104X, CHEM 100X
Students who choose the language option to meet Core
Perspectives on the Human Condition requirements, can
substitute their language credits only for the ENGL/FL 200X
and Ethics Course requirements.)
2. Complete the following B.A. Elementary Education degree major
requirements in addition to the core curriculum:
a. Complete the following mathematics requirements:*
MATH 205--Mathematics for Elementary School Teachers I
(3 credits)
MATH 206--Mathematics for Elementary School Teachers II
(3 credits)
b. Complete GEOS 100X--Introduction to Earth Science
or GEOS 125X--Humans, Earth and the Environment (4 credits)
c. Complete the following social sciences requirements:
ANTH 242--Native Cultures of Alaska (3 credits)
GEOG 101--Introductory Geography (3 credits)
or GEOG 203--World Economic Geography (3 credits)
HIST 131-- History of the U.S. (3 credits)
HIST 461 W--History of Alaska (3 credits)
or HIST 115--Alaska, Land and Its People (3 credits)
PSY 101--Introduction to Psychology (3 credits)
PSY 245--Child Development (3 credits)
d. Complete the following humanities requirements:
1. Complete one of the following to meet the writing
course requirement:
ENGL 271--Introduction to Creative Writing--Fiction
(3 credits) or ENGL 272--Introduction to Creative
Writing--Poetry (3 credits) or ENGL 314 W, O/2--
Technical Writing (3 credits) or JRN 311W--Magazine
Article Writing (3 credits)
2. Complete one of the following to meet the literature
course requirement:
ENGL 306--Survey of American Literature: Beginnings to
the Civil War (3 credits) or ENGL 307--Survey of
American Literature: Civil War to the Present
(3 credits) or ENGL 308--Survey of British Literature:
Beowulf to the Romantic Period (3 credits) or ENGL
309--Survey of British Literature: Romantic Period
to the Present (3 credits) or complete another
literature-focus, upper division English course on
approved list (3 credits)
3. JRN 486--Media Literacy (3 credits) or JRN 308--Film
and TV Criticism (3 credits)
4. LING 101--Nature of Language (3) or LING 303 W,O--
Language Acquisition (3 credits)
e. Technology Skills ? Demonstrated competence (through School
of Education assessment) or enrollment in ED 429 Computer
Application in the Classroom (3 credits)
f. Complete the following Education Requirements (48 credits)*
1. Foundation Coursework and Field Experiences
ED 110--Becoming a Teacher in the 21st Century
(1 credit)
ED 201--Introduction to Education (3 credits)
ED 304--Literature for Children (3 credits)
ED 330--Assessment of Learning (3 credits)
ED 350--Communication in Cross-Cultural Classrooms
(3 credits) or ANS/ED 420?Alaska Native Education
(3 credits)
ED 410W--Foundations of Literacy Development
(3 credits)
EDSE 422--Curriculum and Strategies II: High Incidence
(3 credits)
EDSE 482--Inclusive Classrooms for All Children
(3 credits)
2. Capstone Experience: Professional Internship Year with
Integrated Coursework and Internship Requirements
a. First Semester of Professional Internship Year
ED 411-- Reading, Writing, Language Arts: Methods
and Curriculum Development (3 credits)
ED 412W--Integrated Social Studies and Language
Arts: Methods and Curriculum Development
(3 credits)
ED 413--Mathematics and Science: Methods and
Curriculum Development (3 credits)
ED 466 -- Internship and Collaborative Student
Teaching (3 credits)
ED 467 -- Portfolio Development I (1 credit)
b. Second Semester of Professional Internship Year
ED 310--Art, Music and Drama in Elementary
Classrooms (3 credits)
ED 327--Physical Education and Health in
Elementary Classrooms (3 credits)
ED 468 (O)--Internship and Student Teaching
(6 credits)
ED 469--Portfolio Development II (1 credit)
3. Minimum credits required (127 credits)
* Student must earn a C or better in each core communication course
and in each required mathematics and education course.
Admission Requirements ? BA, Elementary Education
Admission to the 夜色福利, as a student seeking a
BA degree in Elementary Education, provides students with the
opportunity to enroll in and complete subject area courses and a series
of education courses that provide a foundation for participation in the
final Professional Internship Year. All students, however, must submit
the materials listed below and meet admission requirements as a
prerequisite for participation in the Professional Internship Year (i.e.,
prior to enrollment in professional year courses and prior to receiving an
internship placement in a classroom). Declaring a BA in Elementary
Education as one's major does not guarantee acceptance to the
Professional Internship Year.
Internships begin in August or September on the date when teachers
return to school (this varies across districts). Since internship
placements are arranged with principals and mentor teachers in the
spring, all materials necessary for determining admission to the School
of Education must be submitted by February 15th. In order to make
valid and reliable judgments about each applicant?s knowledge, skills and
dispositions prior to approval for the year-long internship in a classroom
with elementary children, faculty in the School of Education use multiple
criteria to make admission decisions.
The following information must be provided to the Office of Certification
and Advising in the School of Education by February 15th.
1. Transcripts from all institutions attended
2. Evidence of completion of all B.A. in Elementary Education
degree courses (except for those required in the Professional Internship
Year), with a minimum of a 2.75 overall GPA, a 2.0 in each major
academic area, and a C or better in the UAF Core communication
courses and in all required education and math courses. Students with
less than a 2.75 overall GPA may be considered for conditional
admission in special circumstances
3. Alaska passing scores from the Praxis I exams in reading,
writing and math
4. Two letters of reference that address qualifications and
potential as a teacher
5. A current and complete resume/curriculum vitae
6. Completion of two one-page essays on topics determined
by the School of Education
7. Completion of the Elementary Teacher Education Academic
Analysis Form and the Life Experiences Form to provide information on
breadth and depth of prior coursework and/or documented life
experiences relative to ten Alaska Student Content Standard areas.
8. Completion of a one to two page autobiographical sketch
(appropriate for presenting to prospective principals and mentor
teachers)
9. Completion of extemporaneous writing sample
10. Evidence of technology competence at a level appropriate
for the year-long internship
11. Evidence of successful experiences in teaching and learning
situations based on evaluations from teachers or community members
who participated in applicant?s previous classroom and community
fieldwork experiences
12. Evidence of ability to work collaboratively and respectfully
in cross-cultural contexts
13. Submission of completed Alaska Student Teacher
Authorization Packet (including fingerprint cards and criminal
background check. Forms are available from the School of Education)
14. Interview, when appropriate
* Students are admitted for a specific academic year and must reapply if
they do not enroll in the year in which they were reviewed.
ATTACHMENT 101/7
UAF FACULTY SENATE #101
APRIL 2, 2001
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY APPEALS & OVERSIGHT
MOTION
======
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the Appeals Policy for
Academic Decisions as follows:
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
RATIONALE: The Department Chair is the Administrative
and Academic Officer of the department and as such
has the primary responsibility and authority for: (1)
leadership in developing high quality academic programs
which fulfill department, college/school and university
objectives; (2) leadership in the implementation of
college and university policies and programs at the
department level. The Department Chair also has the
responsibility of acting on student petitions, and
addressing student concerns as appropriate.
CAPS = Additions
[[ ]] = Deletions
APPEALS POLICY FOR ACADEMIC DECISIONS
Other Than Assignment of Grades
I. Introduction
The University of Alaska is committed to the ideal of academic freedom
and so recognizes that academic decisions (i.e., non-admission to or
dismissal from any UAF program) are a faculty responsibility. Therefore,
the University administration shall not UNDUELY influence or affect the
review of academic decisions THAT ARE A FACULTY RESPONSIBILITY.
The following procedures are designed to provide a means for students
to seek review of academic decisions alleged to be arbitrary and
capricious. Before taking formal action, a student must attempt to
resolve the issue informally. A student who files a written request for
review under the following procedures shall be expected to abide by the
final disposition of the review, as provided below, and may not seek
further review of the matter under any other procedure within the
university.
II. Definitions
A. As used in the schedule for review of academic decisions, a
class day is any day of scheduled instruction, excluding
Saturday and Sunday, included on the academic calendar in
effect at the time of a review. Final examination periods are
counted as class days.
B. "Department Chair" for the purposes of this policy denotes
the administrative head of the academic unit offering the
course (e.g., head, chair or coordinator of an academic
department, or the campus director if the faculty member
is in the College of Rural Alaska).
C. The "dean/director" is the administrative head of the college
or school offering the course or program from which the
academic decision or action arises. For students at extended
campuses the director of the campus may substitute for the
dean/director of the unit offering the course or program.
D. The next regular semester is the fall or spring semester
following that in which the disputed academic decision was
made. For example, it would be the fall semester for a final
grade issued for a course completed during the previous
spring semester or summer session. The spring semester is
the next regular semester for an academic decision made
during the previous fall semester.
III. Procedures
A. A student wishing to appeal an academic decision other than
a grade assignment must first request an informal review of
the decision.
1. Notification must be received by the Provost within
15 days from the first day of instruction of the
semester in which the decision takes effect.
2. There may be extenuating circumstances when the
deadlines cannot be met due to illness, mail disruption,
or other situations over which the student may have no
control. In such a case, upon request from the student,
the Provost, after review of supporting documentation
provided by the student, may adjust the deadlines
accordingly. An extension of the deadline will be limited
to one semester but every effort should be made to
complete the appeal process within the current
semester.
3. The Provost will request the appropriate department
chair [[or dean]] to conduct an informal review of the
decision. [[and a determination of whether]] THE
DEPARTMENT CHAIR WILL DETERMINE WHETHER the
original decision should be overturned or changed in
any way. [[This review shall take no more than ten
(10) days.]] THE DEPARTMENT CHAIR WILL SUBMIT
HIS/HER RECOMMENDATION TO THE PROVOST THROUGH
THE DEAN/DIRECTOR WITHIN 10 DAYS. IN THE EVENT
THAT THE DEPARTMENT CHAIR IS DIRECTLY INVOLVED,
THE PROVOST CAN ASK THE DEAN/DIRECTOR TO
CONDUCT AN INFORMAL REVIEW AND SUBMIT HIS/HER
RECOMMENDATIONS DIRECTLY TO HIM.
4. The Provost will consult with the student on the
department chair?S [[/dean's]] recommendation. If the
student does not find that recommendation acceptable,
he/she may request the Provost to conduct a formal
review.
B. The formal review will be conducted as follows.
1. This FORMAL review is initiated by the student through a
signed, written request to the Provost.
a. The student's request for FORMAL review may
be submitted using university forms specifically
designed for this purpose and available from the
Office of the Provost.
b. By submitting a request for a review, the student
acknowledges that no additional mechanisms exist
within the university for the FORMAL review of the
decision, and that the university's administration
INCLUDING THE COLLEGE DEAN/DIRECTOR can not
influence or affect the outcome of the FORMAL
review.
c. The request for a formal review must be received
no later than 10 days after the student has
learned the outcome of the informal review (IIIA4).
d. The request must detail the basis for the
allegation that the decision was made on a basis
other than sound professional judgment based
upon standard academic policies, procedures and
practices.
2. The Provost will appoint a 5 member review committee
composed of the following:
a. One tenure-track faculty member from the
academic unit in which the decision was made.
b. Two tenure-track faculty members from within
the college or school but outside of the unit in
which the decision was made. If available, one of
these two members will be selected from the
members of the UAF Faculty Appeals and
Oversight Committee.
c. One tenure track faculty member from outside
the college or school in which the decision was
made. If available, this member is to be selected
from the members of the UAF Faculty Appeals
and Oversight Committee.
d. The fifth member to be appointed by the Provost
will be a non-voting student representative.
e. The campus judicial officer or his/her designee
shall serve as a nonvoting facilitator for appeals
hearings. This individual shall serve in an advisory
role to help preserve consistent hearing protocol
and records.
f. The department chair of the program in which the
decision was made will act as the program's
monitor of all proceedings.
3. The committee must schedule a mutually agreeable
date, time and location for the appeal hearing within
10 working days of receipt of the student's formal
request.
a. During this and subsequent meetings, all parties
involved shall protect the confidentiality of the
matter according to the provisions of the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and
any other applicable federal, state or university
policies.
b. Throughout the proceedings, the committee will
encourage a mutually agreeable resolution.
c. The mandatory first item of business at this
meeting is for the committee to rule on the
validity of the student's request. Grounds for
dismissal of the request for review are:
1) THE STUDENT HAS NOT PROVIDED
SUFFICIENT REASON IN SUPPORT OF THE
ALLEGATION THAT THE ACADEMIC DECISION
WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.
[[1]] 2) This is not the first properly prepared
request for appeal.
[[2]] 3) The request was not made within the
policy deadlines.
d. In the event that the committee votes to dismiss
the request, a written notice of dismissal must be
forwarded to the student, instructor, department
[[head]] CHAIR [[and]], dean/DIRECTOR AND
PROVOST within five days of the decision, and will
state clearly the reasoning for the dismissal of
the request.
4. Acceptance for consideration of the student's request
will result in the following:
a. A request for, and receipt of, a formal WRITTEN
response from the program DEPARTMENT CHAIR
to the student's allegation.
b. A second meeting scheduled to meet within 10
days of the decision to review the request.
1) The student and THE DEPARTMENT CHAIR
OR a representative of the program will be
invited to attend the meeting.
2) The meeting will be closed to outside
participation, and neither the student nor
THE instructor OR DEPARTMENT CHAIR may
be accompanied by an advocate or
representative. Other matters of format
will be announced in advance.
3) The proceedings will be tape recorded and
the tapes will be stored with the campus
Judicial Officer.
4) The meeting must be informal, non-
confrontational and fact-finding, where
both the student and instructor OR
DEPARTMENT CHAIR may provide additional
relevant and useful information and can
provide clarification of facts for materials
previously submitted.
5. The final decision of the committee will be made in
private by a majority vote.
a. Actions which the committee can take if it
accepts the student's allegation may include, but
are not limited to, the following:
1) direct the program INSTRUCTOR OR
DEPARTMENT CHAIR to reconsider the
decision,
2) provide a final alternative decision.
b. The academic decision review committee
proceedings will result in the preparation of
written findings and conclusions.
c. A formal, written report of the decision must
be forwarded to the student, INSTRUCTOR,
program/department chair, dean and Provost
within five days of the meeting. The Provost
shall then be responsible for communicating
the decision to other relevant offices (e.g.,
Admissions, Registrar).
d. The decision of the committee is final.
C. The entire process must be completed by the end of the
semester in which the decision first took effect.
4/01
ATTACHMENT 101/8
UAF FACULTY SENATE #101
APRIL 2, 2001
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE
***First Reading***
MOTION
======
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Article IV, Section 2, of the
Constitution as follows:
[[ ]] deletions
CAPS additions
ARTICLE IV - Officer
Sec. 2 The President and President-Elect shall be elected
[[from and]] by the [[voting]] ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES
of the Senate for one-year terms. ELIGIBLE NOMINEES
FOR THE OFFICES OF PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT-ELECT
SHALL BE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND/OR CHAIRS
OF STANDING AND PERMANENT COMMITTEES OF THE
SENATE.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
RATIONALE: Members of the Senate Administrative
Committee include chairs of the Senate?s Standing and
Permanent Committees. The Senate Administrative
Committee performs those functions which are executive
in setting the agenda of the Senate. Since the Chairs of
the Permanent Committees are involved in this executive
function of the Senate, they have the experience qualifying
them for the offices of President and President-Elect.
The Permanent Committee Chairs should therefore have
the opportunity to serve as officers of the Senate.
ATTACHMENT 101/9
UAF FACULTY SENATE #101
APRIL 2, 2001
Curricular Affairs Committee Meeting Report, Ron Illingworth, Chair
The Curricular Affairs committee held audioconferenced meetings on
March 7th and 21st. Our next committee meetings are scheduled for
11 and 25 April, 2001 from 1145-100pm.
All meetings are audioconferenced as well as face to face as several
members of the committee are from outside Fairbanks.
The committee discussed the results of the three open forums on
distance education. The first forum dealt with policies which impact
distance education, the second dealt with curricular concerns and
issues, and the third forum concentrated on student issues. Over 50
people and 7 audioconference sites have joined in the dialogue.
Materials from the discussion may be viewed at http://www.dist-
ed.uaf.edu/distancelearning/forum.html. Issues which develop from this
dialogue will be brought to the committee for resolution. We request
that issues and proposals regarding distance education currently being
discussed at the SAC and Faculty Alliance be presented to UAF faculty
and to the Faculty Senate for their consideration and input prior to their
implementation.
The School of Education presented their new degree proposal for a new
BA in Elementary Education. The committee reviewed the documents,
listened to the presentation, and subsequently voted to approve the
proposal and to forward it to the Faculty Senate for approval. The new
BA degree program in Elementary Education includes eight new courses.
ATTACHMENT 101/10
UAF FACULTY SENATE #101
APRIL 2, 2001
FACULTY AFFAIRS MEETING REPORT - P. McRoy, Chair
Date: 21 March 2001
Committee Members Present: M. Box, B. Mortensen, C.P. McRoy (chair)
R. Smith and L. Duffy
Old Business:
1. Research Faculty Membership
A discussion occurred about the motion read at the February Senate
meeting concerning membership of research faculty on the senate. The
question of the appropriate entry level is the only issue that is
unresolved. The committee feels that some indication of commitment
to the institution is essential, i.e. something more holding a research
position for one year. The committee requests the Administrative
Committee to consider this.
2. University Budget Review
A discussion of the budget process at UAF raised the following
questions for the administration that could be used to initiate
participation of the Faculty Senate in fiscal planning:
What is the basis for the division of state funds between units?
What is the formula for determining teaching costs?
What is the formula for determining development costs?
Where does the budget process start?
3. Research misconduct
An ad hoc subcommittee was formed last semester to consider the
compliance of UAF with the revised policy on research misconduct
issued by the US Public Health Service, Office of Research (also see
http:www.ostp.gov/html/misconduct.html). The committee
membership includes P. McRoy (chair) N. Swazo, L. Duffy, P. Reichardt,
T. DeLaca and M. Neumayr. Because of the potential for union issues M.
Hostina and M. Jennings are also participants. At the second meeting in
late February, the committee decided to approach the leadership of the
other MAU's for participation since the issue involves changes in
Regent?s policy and regulation for all of UA.
New Business
1. Faculty opinion sought by the Legislature
A discussion was held of the recent comments in email messages and
the Fairbanks newspaper concerning public opinions from university
faculty on President Hamilton's budget. We noted that past policy at
UA has been not to solicit individual comments from faculty members
concerning the university budget. The Faculty Affairs Committee
directed Senate President Duffy to invite President Hamilton to the next
senate meeting to present his plan and a resolution that could be
endorsed by the senate.
2. Off Road Policy
The committee reviewed the proposed Off Road Policy. All considered
the policy too restrictive and asked President Duffy to request a
revision.
ATTACHMENT 101/11
UAF FACULTY SENATE #101
APRIL 2, 2001
Graduate Advisory and Academic Committee - Jim Gardner, Chair
GAAC met March 19, 2001. Attending were John Gimbel, Harikumar
Sankaran, Brenda Konar, Hajo Eicken, Gayle Gregory, Elke Richmond, Joe
Kan, Tamara Lincoln, George Minassian, and Jim Gardner. Guests were
Dave Blurton, Bob Perkins, and Charles Mayer.
During the March 19 meeting, GAAC continued their discussion of the
proposed M.A. in Administration of Justice with Dave Blurton. The
committee then voted 4 to 1 to recommend acceptance of the proposal
by the Full Senate under the conditions that a change be made to the
procedure of administering the comprehensive examination. We also
conditionally support the proposal only if it is given full resource support
as requested. The other business items were that the committee began
to discuss the proposed Ph.D. in Engineering with several Engineering
faculty.
No other business was discussed and the committee adjourned to
wonder at the return of winter.
ATTACHMENT 101/12
UAF FACULTY SENATE #101
APRIL 2, 2001
MINUTES of The Developmental Studies Committee
March 1, 2001, Chancellor's Conference Room
Attending: Committee members: Patty Baldwin, John Bruder, Rich Carr,
Jerah Chadwick, John Creed, Marty Getz, Cindy Hardy, Ron Illingworth,
Wanda Martin, Joe Mason, Greg Owens, Jane Weber
Guests: Provost Paul Reichardt, Chancellor Marshall Lind, Executive Dean
Ralph Gabrielli, Dean of Students Carla Kirts, Fred Dyen, Marjie
Illingworth.
This meeting was requested by Chancellor Lind and Provost Reichardt
preliminary to our March 5 meeting with UA President Hamilton to
discuss the developmental needs of UA scholars.
The committee and guests discussed the following topics:
The history of Developmental Studies on the UAF campuses and
nationwide. Ron reported that Developmental Studies emerged as a
result of the GI Bill庐, which the UA scholars program is modeled after.
Others reported that, on the UAF campuses, Developmental math and
English were once taught in the academic departments--using a modular
approach in math--and later became part of the former community
colleges. Other programs that once addressed Developmental students
included the Student Services Support Program and the Cross-cultural
Communication program. Currently, programs such as Project College
and Career and the Emerging Scholars program in Bethel address the
needs of segments of the Developmental student population.
The needs of rural and returning students. Joe and Patty both stressed
that rural students often lack role models who value education. This
makes it more difficult for them, at any level of preparation, to make
the adjustment to higher education. All students need advising--this is
particularly a problem for rural students who may be taking class by
distance delivery and not have access to an advisor. We currently have
Compass testing and Asset testing for placement, but this in
unenforceable. The Early Warning Alert Program is generating data that
may give us guidelines on how to identify and intervene with students in
academic trouble. Student Services is establishing a presence in the
freshman dorms through the EDGE program, and hopes to have more in
place through an SSSP grant.
Suggestions for future discussion and action:
Using Banner flags to identify students who need Developmental studies
as a prerequisite. This would show up on the class rolls, but would allow
faculty to recommend that a student move to a Developmental class if
needed. This would require scheduling classes at different levels in one
block of time so that students can move from one section to another
without disrupting their schedules. This is being done to some extent
now.
Developing more links to Student Services programs in the dorms. We
are doing some of this now, but with minimal student response. This
concept could be extended to the rural campuses, also.
Continuing to track student success through Banner, EWAPS, and
Compass.
Pursuing the Student Learning Center initiatives drawn up for the FY03
cycle.
GI Bill庐 is a registered trademark of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). More information about education benefits offered by VA is available at the official U.S. government Web site at https://www.benefits.va.gov/gibill.
----------------------------------
MINUTES of The Developmental Studies Committee
March 5, 2001, Chancellor's Conference Room
Attending: Committee members: Nancy Ayagarak, Patty Baldwin, John
Bruder, Rich Carr, John Creed, Marty Getz, Cindy Hardy, Ron Illingworth,
Wanda Martin, Joe Mason, Greg Owens, Lisa Thomas, Jane Weber
Guests: President Mark Hamilton, Chancellor Marshall Lind, TVC Director
Jake Poole, Fred Dyen, Marjie Illingworth.
The committee requested this meeting with UA President Hamilton to
discuss the developmental needs of UA scholars and how our programs
could best serve this student population. Members of the committee
presented a profile of developmental students as a whole, focussing
particularly on those UA scholars who come to us underprepared. We
discussed special programs currently in place, such as Project College
and Career at TVC and the Emerging Scholars Program in Bethel and
programs in early stages which may help us gather information and
develop new models, such as the Early Warning Alert Program. The
primary issue for UA Scholars who enter at developmental levels is that
they have farther to go than better-prepared students and may be
dealing with issues outside the academic. Consequently, these students
will take longer to complete their college degrees than the traditional
four years funded by their scholarship.
President Hamilton challenged the committee to think of ways to
address the problem of these scholars and other underprepared
students that might be effective at the pre-college level. Specifically,
he asked us to consider whether the high school qualifying exam could
be used to generate predictive scores. Below what level might a high
school graduate need developmental courses, and could dual-enrollment
courses be generated that would help these students before they enter
the UA system? Further, he challenged us to develop ideas or initiatives
that could be used to generate a "culture of education" in rural areas,
such as University faculty or staff "mentoring" a class of students as
they progress from the elementary level to high school and prepare for
college-level studies.
We will be addressing the President's challenges in upcoming meetings.
ATTACHMENT 101/13
UAF FACULTY SENATE #101
APRIL 2, 2001
Report of the fifth meeting of the Faculty Appeals and Oversight
Committee (3/20/01)
PRESENT: Godwin A. Chukwu, SME; Victoria Joan Moessner, CLA; Brian
Himelbloom, SFOS/FITC; Ed Husted, CRA
ABSENT: Mitch Roth, CSEM; Madeline Schatz, CLA; Kristy Long,
CRA/ACE; Dennis Schall, SOED; Rick Steiner, SFOS-MAP; Oscar Kawagley,
SOED; George Khazanov, CSEM
OLD BUSSINESS:
Minutes of the Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee meeting of
1/19/01 were read.
NEW BUSINESS:
Election of the committee's co-chair for the 2001/2002 academic year
was postponed until newly elected members take their seats in the
committee in Fall 2001.
Dr. Ken Barrick (Chair, Dept. of Geography in SALRM) was invited by the
committee chair to brief the committee on his concerns based on a
recent incident regarding "Appeals Policy for Academic Decisions".
He made it clear that his concern would rather serve as a case study for
the future and not to appeal his dean?s decision on the related matter.
The committee, after being briefed by Dr. Barrick, agreed to review the
current "Appeals Policy for Academic Decisions" in line with the Role(s)
of the Department Chairs. The committee proposed an amendment to
the current Appeals Policy for Academic Decisions. The proposed
amendment was circulated to all committee members for review and
comments.
ATTACHMENT 101/14
UAF FACULTY SENATE #101
APRIL 2, 2001
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY DEVELOPMENT, ASSESSMENT & IMPROVEMENT
Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement Committee Meeting
Report
The Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement committee held
it's meeting on February 13, 2001 as an audio-conference from 11:30 -
12:30 in the Chancellor?s conference room in Signers. Those present:
J. Collins, B. Cooper, R. Dupras, D. McLean-Nelson, J. Morrison, R. Norris-
Tull, E. T. Robinson, A. Rybkin. Absent: B. Butcher, L. Curda, And C.
Price. Invited guest in attendance is Hild Peters of the Provost's office.
The meeting was convened by chair Robinson. Following introductions,
the minutes of the last meeting (1/23/2000) were accepted as
presented.
Chair Robinson introduced Hild Peters of the Provost's office. Hild
Peters is in charge of the administration of the student assessments.
Various aspects of the administration of the assessment instruments
and instruments themselves were discuss. The University of
Washington forms and trial efforts were mentioned and other
considerations were discussed. Assessment needs to be continually
reviewed. Ms. Peters was congratulated on her professional work in the
administration of the assessments and thanked for her efforts. This
committee and Ms. Peters will need to keep communication lines open
and we look forward to a good cooperative effort in this regard. It was
also noted that Joy Morrison and Hild are working on a code of conduct
and faculty handbook that will later need to be reviewed by this
committee.
The Tuesday meeting time at 11:30 ? 12:30 was reconfirmed for our
committee gatherings.
The results of the Fairbanks contingent's attendance at the American
Association of Higher Education (AAHE) conference were discussed.
The Fairbanks group consisted of team leader; our own committee
members Dean Jim Collins and Joy Morrison, Faculty Senate President
elect Norm Swazo, Carol Gold, faculty liaison Richard Hacker, Paul Layer,
and Dave Veasey. Carol Gold had provided written comments that were
distributed with the meeting's agenda and are attached herewith. A
very involved discussion followed and the aspects of post-tenure review
and other implications were presented. As reported by Carol Gold the
preliminary conclusions "support the contention that formative reviews
are more effective, more productive, result in more
change/development and have more faculty support." The emphasis is
not to tie the review to compensation. Dean Collins made a strong
argument that there needs to be a linkage and the reestablishment of
merit pay. The UAF contingent felt that UAF was at par or better than other
participants.
Carol Gold in her comments suggested "that a faculty committee be
established, with representatives from both United Academics (since
this is clearly a bargaining issue) and the Faculty Senate, and that this
committee take some time to survey the field--what is being done, what
seems to work, what doesn?t, etc.--and write procedures which we could
use. (Frankly, I?m not sure if this should be a UAF committee or a
systemwide committee. Arguments can be made for both.) I am more
than willing to participate in, or even chair, such a committee. A motion
was made, seconded and passed to establish an Ad Hoc committee to
evaluate post-tenure review. Expansion of discussion on this will
considered at our next meeting.
Joy Morrison reported on faculty development activities including a
luncheon, new faculty activities and asked for suggestions to help
attendance at all functions. The Canadian Summer Institute and other
activities were noted. The two big up and coming events were
discussed:
* The PBS program and live satellite presentation in the Library
media classroom on February 22, 9:30-11:00 on "Effective Teaching
and Learning Centers" should provide for excellent faculty interaction.
* The Bob Lucas grant writing and scholarly writing workshops are
progressing as planned after Spring break on March 20 and 21.
It was decided that it would be most appropriate to have our next
meeting after these two events had been presented. Our next meeting
time was set as Tuesday, March 27, 2001.
The committee adjourned. Respectively submitted, E. Tom Robinson
Attached: Comments from Carol Gold
---------------------------
Thoughts occasioned by attendance at AAHE conference on
"Faculty Roles & Rewards," Tampa, FL, Jan.-Feb. 2001.
Carol Gold
February 12, 2001
Post-tenure review is a relatively new phenomenon. Academic
institutions are still in the throes of developing and testing processes,
thus results to date must be seen as very preliminary. Nonetheless, two
forms of post-tenure review are emerging--formative and summative.
Based on everything I heard at the conference, formative reviews work
much better than summative ones. (The only exception I heard was the
University of California system, but they have had such a process in
place for the last eighty years and even they admit it involves excessive
faculty time.) With very few exceptions, post-tenure review is being
implemented due either to an external mandate, or to fear of an
external mandate.
Christine Licata and Joseph Morreale reported on the AAHE Pathways
project on post-tenure review. Their preliminary conclusions (available
from AAHE as "Policies, Practice and Precautions") support the
contention that formative reviews are more effective, more productive,
result in more change/development and have more faculty support. The
effectiveness of the process is influenced by:
* the source of the mandate for post-tenure review (those which
come out of the faculty work best)
* the degree of faculty involvement in the development of the
process (the more faculty involvement, the more faculty accept the
process)
* the strength of the "developmental" intent (those processes
seen as developmental work better than those seen as "rewarding")
* the roles of peers (more involvement works best)
* the extent of involvement by the chair and dean (faculty
preferred processes with chair and dean involvement)
* meaningful feedback
* availability of resources (this is critical--there need to be
resources to back up developmental plans)
* possible range of outcomes
* the extent to which the post-tenure review process is integrated
into the existing evaluation continuum
Some things seem clear to me:
we need good chair and dean mentoring of all faculty. (For this, I
believe we need some workshops on being a good chair. AAHE has such
a workshop. I believe it would be worthwhile bringing this to UAF.)
the entire development/review process needs to be backed up
with significant resources. (If a person is identified as having a problem
with teaching lower level courses, for instance, there needs to be mini-
grants available to send the person for training. If someone is
experiencing a "writing block" with research, we need to be able to do
something for the person. Some institutions also have mini-grants
available for faculty who have outstanding evaluations as well.)
In response to those who view post-tenure review as a summative
process, tied in with merit pay and with the ultimate response of the
revocation of tenure, several institutions commented that they believed
that on-going help was more effective in changing attitudes and
correcting/stopping problems. It was also pointed out in several
sessions I attended (including one on "the new tenure") that it is
already possible under existing AAUP guidelines for tenure to remove
faculty who are not performing their jobs. Negative post-tenure reviews
are not necessary for the revocation of tenure.
The UA system has put itself firmly in the "formative" mold. Based on
what I heard, faculty involvement in developing the process is crucial to
its acceptance and effectiveness. Therefore, I would like to suggest
that a faculty committee be established, with representatives from both
United Academics (since this is clearly a bargaining issue) and the
Faculty Senate, and that this committee take some time to survey the
field--what is being done, what seems to work, what doesn't, etc.--and
write procedures which we could use. (Frankly, I'm not sure if this
should be a UAF committee or a systemwide committee. Arguments
can be made for both.) I am more than willing to participate in, or even
chair, such a committee.
UA