Appendix 11: THE ROLE OF THE DEPARTMENT AND DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSON IN MENTORING TENURE-TRACK FACULTY MEMBERS

Action: In April, 2003, FPC recommended a change in Faculty Handbook Language to clarify and enhance the role of departments and department chairpersons in faculty personnel matters.

Rationale: As part of the review this year by FPC of our processes and standards, the role of the department and department chairperson arose several times as a key to improving our process. FPC thinks that departments, led by the department chair, should play a greater role in the faculty personnel process, especially regarding the mentoring and evaluation of non-tenured faculty. Our current practice is very uneven, with some departments providing strong leadership for their non-tenured colleagues, some adopting the role of advocate, and some taking a more laissez faire attitude, believing that it is the non-tenured faculty member’s obligation to chart his or her way toward the tenure decision. Such a set of approaches leads to questions about the consistency of tenure decisions, and places an immense burden on FPC. As noted in “Good practice in Tenure Evaluation: Advice for Tenured Faculty, Department Chairs, and Academic Administrators” (the joint publication by AAUP, ACE and UE): “The department bears the major responsibility for ensuring that a tenure candidate receives appropriate ongoing counseling during the probationary period.” (p. 10).

In our review of faculty personnel issues, FPC also recognized that the probationary period for a tenure candidate is developmental, that is, that over time our non-tenured colleagues add competence in the four areas we evaluate, and that it makes good sense to focus attention at various stages in that developmental process on different activities. Although the following sequence will not hold in all cases, the experience of FPC suggests that new non-tenured colleagues should focus their attention first and foremost on developing and teaching the courses for which they will be responsible. In most cases, Whittier College faculty teach several courses each year, but often rotate other classes on a two-year schedule. That being the case, the energies of non-tenured colleagues during their first two or three years ought to be spent getting their courses in order, so that in the remaining years of the probationary period they can use student course evaluations and other feedback to improve their teaching effectiveness. As tenure candidates become more comfortable with their teaching, they should also begin formulating a scholarly plan that will both meet the needs and expectations of the candidate, department, and college, but also result in demonstrable results by the time of tenure decision. In terms of advising and college service, it also is advisable for non-tenured faculty to start modestly, taking on greater responsibilities as they become more accomplished and effective teachers and scholars, so that by the time of the tenure decision, colleagues in the department and the College will be able to see them as fully contributing members of the College community. Based on our long experience, FPC thinks it is the highly unusual faculty member who can excel each and every year in all four areas. On the other hand, we think it quite reasonable to expect that Whittier College faculty members will, over a period of years, be able to demonstrate effectiveness and results in each of the areas we evaluate faculty performance. Recognizing that becoming an effective faculty member is a developmental process, and using that insight to guide tenure candidates, is an important role of the department and the department chairperson.

FPC also recognizes that departments are not of the same size or demographic composition, that some departments have members with more or less administrative experience, ability, or predisposition to serve as department chair, that our current policy of expecting department chairs to take on ever-increasing amounts of administrative work without released time is burdensome, and that all of these taken together might cause complications in consistently implementing the new policies. Nonetheless, we think that it is important to set high expectations for ourselves, and to do everything we can to realize them.

Finally, FPC recognizes that departments must work with the faculty personnel committee in defining expectations for tenure-track candidates. Thus, a two-way communication must occur between FPC and each tenure-track candidate’s department via the departmental letter submitted for each candidate’s PEGP submission and the review notes that FPC provides for untenured candidates after reviewing the PEGP.

With the proposed change in review of tenure-track faculty to a two-, four-, and six-year schedule, the role of departments and department chairs would be the following:

First-year Tenure Track Faculty

Usually, first-year faculty are counseled to work on their teaching, to develop adequate evaluation tools, and to begin mastering their course material. Department members should sit in on non-tenured faculty members’ classes and give them feedback, both orally and written, about their teaching effectiveness and areas they should work on improving.

For first-year tenure-track faculty, department chairs are responsible for recommending to the Dean of Faculty, no later than February 15 of the first year, whether or not the College should reappoint the faculty member to a second year contract. A letter communicating that recommendation should indicate the process and materials the department chair used in formulating that recommendation.

Assuming a recommendation to re-appoint for a second year, department chairs should meet with the first year non-tenured faculty member during their second semester to convey that recommendation, to discuss candidly their teaching experience in the first semester, and to begin formulating a plan for ensuring teaching effectiveness. The second semester of the first year also is a good time for the faculty member and the department to begin developing a plan for their new colleague’s scholarship, college and community service, and advising. Departmental expectations in all of these areas should be clearly stated.


Second-year Tenure Track Faculty

Well before the October 15 due date, the department chair should discuss with the non-tenured faculty member the development of the PEGP, reviewing with the non-tenured member their own self-assessment of their first year, and reviewing the plan for their development that is being formulated. Non-tenured faculty should be informed that departmental expectations will be communicated to FPC in the letter accompanying their first PEGP. Department chairs should ensure that the tenure candidate prepare a draft PEGP with sufficient time before the October 15 due date—at least one week, preferably more--for the tenured members of the department to review the draft and the supporting materials so that revisions can be made if necessary, and so the department chair can draft a letter that all tenured members of the department will sign.

The first departmental letter to FPC is an important document because it both evaluates and communicates expectations to the candidate. Departments should clearly articulate their expectations of the tenure candidate, thereby communicating those expectations both to the candidate and to FPC. In this letter, the department should provide a rationale for those expectations. This letter also should contain an evaluation of the candidate’s developmental plan for the probationary period, as well as an evaluation of the candidate’s first-year performance and the process used to formulate that evaluation. Since this letter to FPC should be shared with the candidate, the tone should be one of helpful candor. This letter also will contain the department’s recommendation regarding whether or not the department recommends the retention of the tenure track faculty member.

Third-year Tenure Track Faculty

Although a submission to FPC does not occur during the third probationary year, the department and department chair still have responsibilities to mentor and evaluate the tenure track faculty member. Classroom visits (and reports of those observations) are still in order, as are scheduled meetings with faculty member to review progress in teaching effectiveness, scholarly projects, service commitments, and advising. The department chair should pay special attention to areas that remain in need of improvement and be sure to inform the faculty member in writing of the departmental evaluation.

Fourth-year Tenure Track Faculty [assumes submission to FPC to be around Feb 1]

The fourth-year evaluation is especially important, and the department chair should ensure that it is conducted thoroughly; it should be considered a test-run for tenure consideration. The tenure-track faculty member has the responsibility for preparing a PEGP and full documentation for submission to FPC by October 15, and both should be made available to the department chair (and other tenured members of the department) for review by October 1. The department should evaluate the tenure track faculty member, note areas in need of improvement, and inform FPC in writing of its evaluation of the faculty member’s performance. The fourth-year review is the time to determine the likelihood that a tenure track faculty member will be positioned to make a strong case for tenure, and if that does not look likely, to recommend non-retention of the faculty member. The department chair should share the FPC letter with the faculty member, or and convey orally the substance of the letter and the recommendation.

Fifth-year Tenure Track Faculty

The main responsibility of the department chair at this time is to ensure that the tenure candidate is addressing whatever areas were in need of improvement, paying special attention to the candidate’s need to provide evidence of scholarship. The tenured members of the department should meet with the candidate in the spring semester to discuss the development of the sixth-year PEGP and the kinds and extent of materials needed to support the case for tenure. The chair should advise the candidate to begin developing a list of students and colleagues to ask for letters (the request for the letters comes from the Dean of Faculty), and to plan to allocate time during the summer to prepare the PEGP.

Sixth-year Tenure-Track Faculty

Since the sixth year is the tenure-decision year, departments and department chairs need to ensure that all College policies and processes are conscientiously followed. While it remains the tenure-track faculty member's responsibility to present the strongest possible case for tenure, the department chair should take the opportunity of the fifth-year review and letter to discuss candidly any issues raised previously by the department or FPC that have yet to be satisfactorily addressed. The department chair should suggest to the tenure-track faculty member that time during the summer might usefully be spent drafting a PEGP and sharing it with department chair before the start of classes in the fall of the sixth year. The department chair should ensure that the tenure-track faculty member submits lists of students and colleagues to the Dean's office early in September to ensure that letters arrive by October 15, and that the student advisory council is convened and that that letter is sent to the Dean's office by October 15.

The tenure-track faculty member has the responsibility for preparing a PEGP and full documentation for submission to FPC by October 15. The PEGP and all supplementary materials should be made available to the department chair, and other tenured members of the department, for review by October 1. The department should evaluate the tenure track faculty member and inform FPC in writing of its assessment of the faculty member’s performance in the four areas of evaluation. This letter must be shared with the tenure candidate prior to the department chair submitting it to FPC on October 15.

With the proposed change in review of tenure-track faculty to a two-, four-, and six- year schedule, the role of FPC in interfacing with the departments will be as follows:

FPC will review the departmental expectations articulated in the first departmental letter in the context of the college-wide standards for tenure. FPC will respond to the department and the candidate at the candidate’s first feedback session. The feedback will include helpful candor in assessing both the departmental expectations and the departmental expectations and the candidate’s performance in meeting those expectations up to that time. It is the role of the department chair (or another tenured representative present at the feedback session) to help interpret FPC’s feedback to the candidate. If there is some discrepancy between FPC and the department on the appropriate expectations for the tenure-track candidate, then FPC will need to meet with the tenured members of the department to reach a common understanding. If it becomes obvious to FPC that a department is failing to adequately mentor a tenure-track candidate through the personnel process, then FPC will notify the department chair and the candidate that a tenured member outside the department will be assigned as a mentor for the candidate. In cases where there are no tenured faculty members in a department, FPC will work with the Dean of Faculty to associate a tenure-track candidate with another department for personnel purposes.