SEIs

Members of Tenure and Promotion Committees must understand the expected standards and then determine from the evidence in the dossier whether the candidate has met these standards. Standards for SEI scores could be considered in terms of a range: the department average is not an appropriate standard. The MRFA Faculty Evaluation Committee developed a series of recommendations on interpreting SEI data last year. These recommendations were overwhelmingly endorsed by the membership in an online vote. The UTPC will strike a committee to review and make recommendations on the evaluation of teaching this year.

 


Notes from Meetings

 

Q: Are SEIs used to assess departments? We have been wondering whether we should include them in our department report.

A: OIAP reports the average for the department and the FT and PT faculty averages. There are no grounds for using department averages to compare departments because differences among disciplines are documented in the literature. Include the averages in your report if you think they would be useful information for the reader.

Issue: I have a concern about comparisons to the average being used in tenure evaluations.

A: The members of Tenure and Promotion Committees must understand the expected standards and then determine from the evidence in the dossier whether the candidate has met these standards. I think of the standard for SEI scores in terms of a range. The average is not an appropriate standard. The MRFA Faculty Evaluation Committee developed a series of recommendations on interpreting SEI data last year. These recommendations were overwhelmingly endorsed by the membership in an online vote. Partially as a result of this, the UTPC will strike a committee to review and make recommendations on the evaluation of teaching this year. As well, Robin Fisher and I are arranging a meeting with the TPC chairs. Scott Murray and I will prepare a draft list of topics to discuss and the fact that everybody can’t be above average will be on the list.

Issue: I have discovered a 20-page document on administrative procedures for SEIs prepared by the Office of Institutional Analysis and Planning and dated 2011. Some of it seems to be policy, rather than procedures.

A: We reconfigured our Second Vice-President position into a Vice-President, Policy because we are concerned about policies that affect the terms and conditions of our employment. It would be inappropriate for OIAP to be setting such policy.

The document is available at http://oiap.mtroyal.ca/sei/index.php Parts of the document seem to be policy and do not appear anywhere else. As well, the document refers to outdated Faculty Tenure Committee guidelines and neglects to mention that Article 4.9.6 of the CA now requires PT faculty be evaluated every semester.

Q: It should not be necessary for the Chair to do a classroom evaluation every year. Why couldn’t the process be more like that for PT, where the Chair or designate conducts a peer evaluation every 3 years?

      A: Currently, this is a UTPC tenure process issue because, although PT evaluation is in the CA, the tenure-track evaluation process is not.

 

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system

Syndicate

Syndicate content