PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME TASK AND FINISH GROUP
Monday 24 June 2013 at 3:30pm
Ted Wragg Room, Northcote House
Agenda
1. Membership and Terms of Reference
See attached report.
2. Timeline
See attached report.
3. Supporting documentation
•
Report VCCD/13/14 considered by the Vice-Chancellor’s Executive Group on 15 April 2013
•
Summary of VCEG discussion on 15 April 2013
•
Current
PDP
documentation
(also
available
from
www.exeter.ac.uk/staff/employment/academicroles/youteachandresearch/lecturer/professionaldevel
opmentprogrammepdp/)
•
Procedure for non-confirmation of appointment (from agreed Conditions of Employment)
•
2010/11 proposed changes to VCEG (dated January 2011 – not implemented)
•
Background to PDP and current statistics
•
Education and Scholarship Career Pathway (agreed in
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/staff/employment/academicroles/youteach/
•
UCU submission
2011)
–
see
4. Purpose of this meeting
The purpose of the first meeting is to review the strengths and weaknesses of the current PDP
scheme – both content (ie the targets themselves) and procedural.
Also in attendance for this meeting: Professor Robert van de Noort, Dean of the College of
Social Sciences and International Studies, to represent the views of College Deans.
5. Next steps
To consider whether to invite staff who have successfully completed the PDP (ie current Senior
Lecturers and Associate Professors) to submit comments on their experience of the PDP via
an online questionnaire.
Survey best practice at other Russell Group Universities.
6. Next meeting
The second meeting of the Task and Finish Group will take place on Monday 1 July at 10am in
Ted Wragg Room, Northcote House.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMEN T PROGRAMME TASK AND FINISH GROUP, 24 June 2013
MEMBERSHIP AND TERMS OF REFERENCE
Membership
Professor Stephen Rippon (Chair; Dean of Graduate Research)
Professor Andrew Thorpe (Associate Dean Research, College of Humanities)
Professor Trevor Bailey (Associate Dean Education, College of Engineering, Mathematics and
Physical Sciences)
Professor Wendy Robinson (Head of Discipline, Graduate School of Education; Associate Dean
Education (Designate), College of Social Sciences and International Studies)
Professor Jo Little (Head of Discipline, Geography, College of Life and Environmental Sciences)
Dr Dilly Fung (Head of Academic Development, Educational Enhancement)
Ailsa Mcgregor (Project Lead for Athena SWAN)
Dr Lindsay Stringfellow (ASA Representative, University of Exeter Business School)
Lisa Pacey-Wonnacott (HR coordinator; HR Business Partner, College of Social Sciences and
International Studies)
Terms of Reference
To make recommendations to the Vice-Chancellor’s Executive Group on the probation and career
development arrangements for Lecturers in the Education and Research job family through the
Professional Development Programme for new Lecturers.
The recommendations should ensure:
•
that PDP targets are appropriate to the academic standards and objectives of the University in
the developing higher education environment;
•
best practice in equality and diversity;
•
appropriate comparability across job families with other progression arrangements for staff in
academic roles; and
•
appropriate weight is given to education criteria alongside excellence in research.
The recommendations should also clearly define the responsibilities of each participant (College
Deans, Heads of Discipline, Academic Leads, PDP Lecturers, Human Resources and Deputy ViceChancellors/VCEG) and the training and administrative and professional support each of these
roles will need to undertake these responsibilities effectively.
The role of the annual Performance and Development Review in the Professional Development
Programme should also be clearly defined.
The review should also take account of best practice across the sector.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMEN T PROGRAMME TASK AND FINISH GROUP, 24 June 2013
TIMELINE
1. First meeting
Monday 24 June 2013
The purpose of the first meeting is to review the strengths and weaknesses of the current PDP
scheme – both content (ie the targets themselves) and procedural.
Professor Robert van de Noort, Dean of the College of Social Sciences and International
Studies, will attend this meeting to represent the views of College Deans.
Apologies: Professor Andrew Thorpe, Ailsa Mcgregor
2. Second meeting
Monday 1 July 2013
To develop recommendations on the appropriate targets to be included in the Professional
Development Programme at each “milestone” – ie the final targets and interim targets.
3. Third meeting
September 2013 – date to be confirmed
To develop recommendations on the procedural features of the Professional Development
Programme – including specifying roles and responsibilities – to ensure that performance and
progression is managed effectively and that concerns are identified and addressed at the
earliest opportunity.
To draft and agree final report to VCEG.
4. Submit report to VCEG in October 2013.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMEN T PROGRAMME TASK AND FINISH GROUP, 24 June 2013
SUMMARY OF VCEG DISCUSSION
The Vice-Chancellor’s Executive Group considered the Human Resources paper VCCD/13/14 at
its meeting with College Deans on 15 April 2013.
The paper proposed setting up a Task and Finish Group to review of the existing Professional
Development Programme (PDP) for newly appointed Lecturers in the Education & Research job
family, and of the progression and career development criteria of staff in this job family from grades
F to H and beyond.
VCEG agreed that there was a need for an urgent review of PDP targets. However, the Group
noted that it will be challenging to do this within the timeframe set out in the paper (ie
implementation October 2013). In particular, College Deans were concerned that individuals who
have already been recruited for the autumn will have had the current procedures outlined to them
already.
The report raised the question whether the current criteria used for assessing progress at the end
of the five years, which provides only for a “Pass/Fail” assessment, was appropriate and whether
there should be an opportunity to offer a Lecturer (E&R) post to individuals who have
demonstrated promising progress at the end of five years, but have not yet met all the criteria for
promotion to Senior Lecturer. VCEG concluded that Lectureships should not become more
substantive posts, but should remain a five-year route to Senior Lecturer.
VCEG considered that there needed to be effective processes for managing underperformance for
the PDP to work effectively. It was noted that the PDR process will be owned in future by Heads of
Discipline. One of the key aims of any new arrangements for the PDP will be to ensure that issues
are overcome by Year Five, with proper records kept during the probation period. VCEG
considered that standard forms that log meetings at certain key points would be helpful and it was
noted that Heads of Discipline will require suitable training.
VCEG considered that it would be very useful to identify best practice across the sector. This will
provide essential background information for the review so that the new arrangements are
referenced against sector leaders.
It was noted that currently there is a potentially huge shift in performance required between Years
Three and Five on winning research grants and on publications, which can be problematic.
VCEG agreed to commission the review of the E&R PDP and establish a Task and Finish Group
(with Terms of Reference and Membership as set out in the paper – with the additions noted
above) which would report by October 2013 in time for next wave of appointments (ie November,
December 2013). It was agreed that the Task and Finish Group should also include one or more
Heads of Discipline and a specialist on Athena SWAN.
VCEG noted the recommendation in the paper to review career progression in the Education and
Research job family beyond Senior Lecturer. It was agreed that post-PDP promotions need to be
reviewed urgently and that there is a perception that taking on management roles can hold back
promotion which needs to be disputed.
VCEG considered that there needed to be a better promotion system for E&S staff. At the moment,
the probationary period is only one year and there is a lack of clarity about the criteria. It was noted
that Suzanne Middleton was in the process of bringing together full data on E&S staff for
consideration by VCEG. It was noted that the PRG process next year will be interrogating the
baselines of all Colleges and Services, including the number of E&S staff in Colleges.
VCEG noted that some immediate adjustment to guidance, training and approach to PDR will be
made to address issues raised by the Britten Review, but an in depth review of PDR will be
conducted when the new HR Director is in post.
VCEG agreed that the following targets and procedures need to be reviewed (separately):
a) E&R PDP
b) E&S Probation, and
c) PDR.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMEN T PROGRAMME TASK AND FINISH GROUP, 24 June 2013
MEMBERSHIP AND TERMS OF REFERENCE
Membership
Professor Stephen Rippon (Chair; Dean of Graduate Research)
Professor Andrew Thorpe (Associate Dean Research, College of Humanities)
Professor Trevor Bailey (Associate Dean Education, College of Engineering, Mathematics and
Physical Sciences)
Professor Wendy Robinson (Head of Discipline, Graduate School of Education; Associate Dean
Education (Designate), College of Social Sciences and International Studies)
Professor Jo Little (Head of Discipline, Geography, College of Life and Environmental Sciences)
Dr Dilly Fung (Head of Academic Development, Educational Enhancement)
Ailsa Mcgregor (Project Lead for Athena SWAN)
Dr Lindsay Stringfellow (ASA Representative, University of Exeter Business School)
Lisa Pacey-Wonnacott (HR coordinator; HR Business Partner, College of Social Sciences and
International Studies)
Terms of Reference
To make recommendations to the Vice-Chancellor’s Executive Group on the probation and career
development arrangements for Lecturers in the Education and Research job family through the
Professional Development Programme for new Lecturers.
The recommendations should ensure:
•
that PDP targets are appropriate to the academic standards and objectives of the University in
the developing higher education environment;
•
best practice in equality and diversity;
•
appropriate comparability across job families with other progression arrangements for staff in
academic roles; and
•
appropriate weight is given to education criteria alongside excellence in research.
The recommendations should also clearly define the responsibilities of each participant (College
Deans, Heads of Discipline, Academic Leads, PDP Lecturers, Human Resources and Deputy ViceChancellors/VCEG) and the training and administrative and professional support each of these
roles will need to undertake these responsibilities effectively.
The role of the annual Performance and Development Review in the Professional Development
Programme should also be clearly defined.
The review should also take account of best practice across the sector.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMEN T PROGRAMME TASK AND FINISH GROUP, 24 June 2013
TIMELINE
1. First meeting
Monday 24 June 2013
The purpose of the first meeting is to review the strengths and weaknesses of the current PDP
scheme – both content (ie the targets themselves) and procedural.
Professor Robert van de Noort, Dean of the College of Social Sciences and International
Studies, will attend this meeting to represent the views of College Deans.
Apologies: Professor Andrew Thorpe, Ailsa Mcgregor
2. Second meeting
Monday 1 July 2013
To develop recommendations on the appropriate targets to be included in the Professional
Development Programme at each “milestone” – ie the final targets and interim targets.
3. Third meeting
September 2013 – date to be confirmed
To develop recommendations on the procedural features of the Professional Development
Programme – including specifying roles and responsibilities – to ensure that performance and
progression is managed effectively and that concerns are identified and addressed at the
earliest opportunity.
To draft and agree final report to VCEG.
4. Submit report to VCEG in October 2013.
UNIVERSITY OF EXETER
VCCD/13/14
VICE-CHANCELLOR’S EXECUTIVE GROUP, 15 April 2013
REVIEW OF PDP AND PROGRESSION AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT FOR THE EDUCATION
AND RESEARCH JOB FAMILY
Executive Summary
VCEG approval is sought to commission a review of the existing Professional Development
Programme (PDP) for newly appointed Lecturers in the Education & Research job family, and of
the progression and career development criteria of staff in this job family from grades F to H and
beyond.
PDP arrangements
The current PDP arrangements for newly appointed Lecturers (Education and Research) have
been in place since late 2002.The programme, which may last up to five years, provides for
lecturers to be promoted to Senior Lecturer on successful completion of the programme, which
also acts as a five year probationary period for new appointees. The programme requires lecturers
to achieve a set of research, education and administrative/management targets which they are
given on joining the University. In practice, generic targets are used depending on whether the
lecturer is from a Humanities, Social Sciences or Science-related discipline. If they are not
successful in meeting the targets, an individual could have their employment terminated. The PDP
does provide for individuals to be “fast tracked” and promoted to Senior Lecturer before they have
completed five years’ service, if they have met the targets.
The PDP is seen to have a number of positive features for Colleges and individual academics,
including:
•
A common set of clear criteria against which to review new academics’ development and
performance;
•
An established route for promotion to Senior Lecturer for new appointees, providing a career
pathway, which many other Higher Education institutions do not have;
•
Providing an incentive for new appointees to focus strongly on research during the early years
of their career at Exeter.
Informal reviews of the current arrangements have, however, identified some challenges in respect
of the effectiveness of the PDP programme. These include:
•
The current suite of targets in the PDP has not been substantively amended for many years.
The revised Human Resources Strategy approved by Council in April 2011 also included the
target “PDP targets for Education will be revised to make them as meaningful and challenging
as those that already exist for research”. Given membership of the Russell Group, Exeter’s
Top 10 status and the changing research agenda for Exeter and the HE sector, it has been
questioned whether the targets used, particularly the research-related targets, remain
appropriate for new Lecturers. Inter alia, the current requirement is for Lecturers to achieve
two 2* and two 3* publications by the end of their five year probationary period. The question
as to whether this target is appropriate and sufficiently challenging from an institutional
perspective is raised with increasing frequency. Although there is the facility to amend the
standard targets when a new academic is appointed and joins the Professional Development
Programme, in practice, the standard suite of targets is used, varying only by broad discipline
area (Science or Humanities etc);
•
The current targets used in relation to Teaching have been criticised as too vague and
insufficiently robust. There is no reference to Employability, for example, in the suite of targets;
•
The current criteria used for assessing progress are effectively both probation and promotion
criteria. In essence, at the end of the five years, it is a “Pass/Fail” assessment that is made. It
has been questioned whether there should be an opportunity to offer a Lecturer (E&R) post to
individuals who have demonstrated some promising progress at the end of five years, but
have not yet met all the criteria for promotion to Senior Lecturer. The current arrangements
do not provide for such an opportunity. Providing such an opportunity would have drawbacks
and may encourage some tough decisions on individual academic performance to be avoided.
However, there may be value in the debate at least taking place on whether the current single
mechanism for progression is the only appropriate one;
•
The overall process is seen as a “HR process” and is not readily owned by the Colleges in
some cases. A significant number of cases have arisen where no discussion about the targets
or reviews of progress has been held in the College by the relevant Academic Lead or Head of
Department with the individual Lecturer in the first year or even two years of their appointment.
This has led to an increasing number of situations where the probationary period has been
extended or a highly flexible approach has been adopted in respect of assessing whether an
individual academic has achieved the requisite targets;
•
The circumstances in which individual Lecturers who have not met the requisite targets for
promotion to Senior Lecturer (E&R) could be transferred to Lecturer or Senior Lecturer (E&S)
are insufficiently clear and therefore the approach is not consistent.
With a new cohort of Lecturers due to commence employment with the University on the PDP in
September/October and the closing of the current REF window, it is felt that it is an appropriate
time for a thorough review and evaluation of current arrangements to be undertaken.
Progression and Career Development for staff in the Education and Research Career Family
The Task and Finish Group on Progression and Career Development through Education and
Leadership met between May and September 2011 to review the progression and career
development of staff in academic roles through their contribution to Education, Scholarship and
Leadership, with particular focus on staff in the Education and Scholarship job family.
This led to the development of a structured career path for staff in the Education and Scholarship
job family, allowing progression from grade E through to Professor, subject to satisfying defined
progression criteria 1. Staff in the Education and Scholarship job family were notified of the new
arrangements in January 2012.
In developing its recommendations for the Education and Scholarship job family, the Task and
Finish Group was asked to ensure “appropriate comparability across job families and with other
progression arrangements for staff in academic roles.” The Group made the following comments
and recommendations in its final report:
•
“The Group noted that current criteria for promotion to Associate Professor (Education and
Research) and Professor (Education and Research) make no reference to Education criteria.
While the Group recognised that staff following this career pathway will continue to be
promoted on the grounds of excellence in research, it was also considered important that the
promotion criteria should specify minimum standards for Education.”
•
“The [new] criteria [for Education and Scholarship]... are more detailed than the PDP criteria
and are spread across different headings, the language from the two documents are not
aligned. While the Group recognise that the PDP criteria should not be identical to the [new]
criteria... (since one is assessing progression on the grounds of Education and Research and
the other on the grounds of Education and Scholarship) VCEG is asked to consider expanding
the Education criteria in the PDP in the light of these recommendations.”
These recommendations were endorsed by the Vice-Chancellor’s Executive Group. It was hoped
that a second Task and Finish Group would be established in 2012 to progress a review of
progression for staff in the Education and Research job family but unfortunately this timetable
slipped. The December 2012 meeting of the Academic Staff Development Steering Group noted
the importance of this review to the University’s Education Strategy, in ensuring that all staff
engaged in teaching meet competency standards.
Academic progression is an essential element of equality and diversity. This is particularly relevant
to the Athena SWAN initiative for STEM colleges but is of course important to the whole University.
A system of academic progression which is based on transparent criteria will significantly
contribute to this, alongside the academic PDR and training of Heads of Discipline.
Recommended scope and approach to conducting a review.
VCEG is recommended to establish a Task and Finish Group to review PDP and the progression
and career development of staff in the Education and Research job family with the terms of
reference and membership set out below. It is suggested that the Group should complete its review
by the end of this academic year.
The following terms of reference are recommended:
To make recommendations to the Vice-Chancellor’s Executive Group on:
•
the Professional Development Programme for new Lecturers in the Education and Research
job family.
•
the progression and career development of staff in the Education and Research job family,
ensuring:
o best practice in equality and diversity;
o appropriate comparability across job families with other progression arrangements for staff
in academic roles; and
o appropriate weight is given to education criteria alongside excellence in research.
It is also recommended that the review group take account of the following:
1.
2.
PDP for Education and Research
a)
PDP was introduced in 2002/3 and, after 10 years, a review of its purpose and efficacy is
appropriate.
b)
In that period, there have been several reviews of the research criteria in the PDP in
particular taking account of the changing requirements of the RAE and REF.
c)
There have also been some concerns about the application of the PDP in Colleges –
particularly the communication of research targets and feedback on performance, which in
turn have led to concerns about whether termination of employment would be fair in these
cases.
d)
At present, the PDP provides either for progression or dismissal – there is no provision for
a Lecturer to remain on grade F if they meet the criteria for a Lecturer but fall short of the
criteria for Senior Lecturer. Is this a position the University wishes to maintain?
Career Progression
a)
Progression from Grade F to Grade G (Lecturer to Senior Lecturer): the Professional
Development Programme provides for automatic progression within a 5 year development
period, subject to satisfying – on a “balanced scorecard” - both the “interim” and “final”
progression criteria, which includes achieving Fellowship status of the Higher Education
Academy either through PCAP or ASPIRE. The Academic Staff Development Steering
Group questioned whether a Lecturer would be permitted to progress if they had met or
exceeded the other criteria but failed to achieve Fellowship status.
b)
Progression from Grade G to Grade H (Senior Lecturer to Associate Professor): the
criteria for promotion to Associate Professor on the grounds of research 2 were agreed in
2006. As the previous Task and Finish Group noted, these criteria make no reference to
Education.
c)
Progression from Grade H (Associate Professor) to Professor: the published criteria for
promotion to Personal Chair (Education and Research) refer only to "outstanding
distinction in their subject and who carry a substantial measure of academic
responsibility” 3.
Review group membership and reporting arrangements
1
The membership should comprise:
•
Dean, to chair
•
Associate Dean (Education)
•
Associate Dean (Research)
(representation from College Executives should include both HASS and STEM)
•
Representative(s) of Human Resources, to coordinate
•
Representative(s) of Education Enhancement
•
ASA representative
•
Representation from the 2011 Task and Finish Group on Progression and Career
Development for Education and Scholarship
2
There would be value in including Heads of Discipline – one from HASS colleges and one
from STEM colleges – but, while these will have been identified by the time the proposed
Task and Finish Group begins its work, they will not formally take up this role until August
2013. Despite this, VCEG may wish to nominate one or two Heads of Discipline
(Designate) to participate in the Task and Finish Group.
3
With respect to the proposed term of reference “comparability across job families with other
progression arrangements for staff in academic roles”, it should be noted that the
progression arrangements for staff in the Research job family have not been reviewed
since the new grading scheme was introduced a the end of 2006. After completion of this
review for the Education and Research job families, it is recommended that a review of the
progression arrangements for the Research job family be commissioned. VCEG agreed
that the changes introduced for the Education and Scholarship job family be reviewed after
two years, so Human Resources will review the changes introduced in January 2012 with
College Executives at the end of the 2013/14 University year.
4
The review group would be required to consult with all Colleges, ASA, the trade unions and
the Equality and Diversity Group in respect of the current arrangements.
5
Proposals for developing or changing the existing arrangements for PDP would be
presented to VCEG as a priority so that agreed proposals would then be implemented for
new Lecturers embarking on the PDP in Autumn 2013.The remainder of the review should
be completed by October 2013.
Andrew Johnson
Human Resources
April 2013
1
2
3
The new career pathway can be viewed at
www.exeter.ac.uk/staff/employment/academicroles/youteach/alect/careerpathway/
www.exeter.ac.uk/staff/employment/academicroles/youteachandresearch/associateprofessor/gradingprogression/
www.exeter.ac.uk/staff/employment/academicroles/youteachandresearch/associateprofessor/gradingprogression/
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMEN T PROGRAMME TASK AND FINISH GROUP, 24 June 2013
SUMMARY OF VCEG DISCUSSION
The Vice-Chancellor’s Executive Group considered the Human Resources paper VCCD/13/14 at
its meeting with College Deans on 15 April 2013.
The paper proposed setting up a Task and Finish Group to review of the existing Professional
Development Programme (PDP) for newly appointed Lecturers in the Education & Research job
family, and of the progression and career development criteria of staff in this job family from grades
F to H and beyond.
VCEG agreed that there was a need for an urgent review of PDP targets. However, the Group
noted that it will be challenging to do this within the timeframe set out in the paper (ie
implementation October 2013). In particular, College Deans were concerned that individuals who
have already been recruited for the autumn will have had the current procedures outlined to them
already.
The report raised the question whether the current criteria used for assessing progress at the end
of the five years, which provides only for a “Pass/Fail” assessment, was appropriate and whether
there should be an opportunity to offer a Lecturer (E&R) post to individuals who have
demonstrated promising progress at the end of five years, but have not yet met all the criteria for
promotion to Senior Lecturer. VCEG concluded that Lectureships should not become more
substantive posts, but should remain a five-year route to Senior Lecturer.
VCEG considered that there needed to be effective processes for managing underperformance for
the PDP to work effectively. It was noted that the PDR process will be owned in future by Heads of
Discipline. One of the key aims of any new arrangements for the PDP will be to ensure that issues
are overcome by Year Five, with proper records kept during the probation period. VCEG
considered that standard forms that log meetings at certain key points would be helpful and it was
noted that Heads of Discipline will require suitable training.
VCEG considered that it would be very useful to identify best practice across the sector. This will
provide essential background information for the review so that the new arrangements are
referenced against sector leaders.
It was noted that currently there is a potentially huge shift in performance required between Years
Three and Five on winning research grants and on publications, which can be problematic.
VCEG agreed to commission the review of the E&R PDP and establish a Task and Finish Group
(with Terms of Reference and Membership as set out in the paper – with the additions noted
above) which would report by October 2013 in time for next wave of appointments (ie November,
December 2013). It was agreed that the Task and Finish Group should also include one or more
Heads of Discipline and a specialist on Athena SWAN.
VCEG noted the recommendation in the paper to review career progression in the Education and
Research job family beyond Senior Lecturer. It was agreed that post-PDP promotions need to be
reviewed urgently and that there is a perception that taking on management roles can hold back
promotion which needs to be disputed.
VCEG considered that there needed to be a better promotion system for E&S staff. At the moment,
the probationary period is only one year and there is a lack of clarity about the criteria. It was noted
that Suzanne Middleton was in the process of bringing together full data on E&S staff for
consideration by VCEG. It was noted that the PRG process next year will be interrogating the
baselines of all Colleges and Services, including the number of E&S staff in Colleges.
VCEG noted that some immediate adjustment to guidance, training and approach to PDR will be
made to address issues raised by the Britten Review, but an in depth review of PDR will be
conducted when the new HR Director is in post.
VCEG agreed that the following targets and procedures need to be reviewed (separately):
a) E&R PDP
b) E&S Probation, and
c) PDR.
APPENDIX D1
PROCEDURE FOR NON-CONFIRMATION AND DISMISSAL WITHIN THE PROBATIONARY
PROCEDURE (FORSTAFF IN THE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH JOB FAMILY)
1
No later than the expiry of the period of probation, the College Dean will submit a written
report to the appropriate Deputy Vice Chancellor. At least one week prior to submitting the
report to the Deputy Vice Chancellor, the College Dean will send a copy to the member of
staff. The member of staff may submit their own written comments to the Deputy Vice
Chancellor, via their College Dean.
2
Upon receipt of the written submissions, the Deputy Vice Chancellor may confirm the
appointment and the Director of Human Resources will confirm this in writing. The Deputy
Vice Chancellor may also ask for further written evidence from the College and/or member
of staff prior to making a decision. Any further evidence requested and submitted will be
copied to the College Dean and member of staff.
3
Alternatively, the Deputy Vice Chancellor may refer the decision to a panel chaired by a
Deputy Vice Chancellor; the other members of the panel will be drawn from current College
Deans and Directors of Research and current and former Deputy Vice Chancellors and
Deans. The member of staff will be given a minimum of 14 days’ notification of the date of
the meeting and warned that their on-going employment is at risk. The member of staff
may be accompanied by a trade union representative or fellow worker. The College Dean
and the member of staff may submit further written evidence. All papers will be circulated
at least 7 days prior to the date of the meeting. The panel will hear evidence from the
College Dean and may call other witnesses to attend. The panel may be advised by a
representative of the Director of Human Resources.
4
The panel may confirm the appointment or agree that the appointment should not be
confirmed. In the latter instance, the Director of Human Resources will write to the member
of staff within 7 days of the meeting to advise of the decision and to give notice of
dismissal. This letter will also advise of the right of appeal and the procedure to be followed
to make an appeal. The member of staff may exercise their right of appeal by writing to the
Director of Human Resources within 14 days of the date of the notification.
5
The appeal will be considered by a panel who have not previously been involved in the
decision, comprising a Deputy Vice Chancellor, a lay member of Council and a member of
Senate. The member of staff will be given a minimum of 14 days’ notification of the date of
the meeting. The member of staff may be accompanied by a trade union representative or
fellow worker; the University’s case may be presented by a representative of the Director of
Human Resources or the University’s solicitor. The University and the member of staff may
submit further written evidence. All papers will be circulated at least 7 days prior to the date
of the meeting. The appeal panel will follow the University’s standard appeal procedure at
the hearing and the decision of the appeal panel will be final.
6
The University reserves the right to invoke this procedure at any time during the period of
probation where concerns about the member of staff’s performance, competence,
attendance or conduct which may lead to a decision that the requirements for confirmation
of appointment have not been met.
University of Exeter Conditions of Employment – June 2008
19
Professional Development Programme Framework (revised January 11)
Research and Scholarship
Science and Engineering
By the end of year
3
Social Science, Humanities and Business
To have submitted at least two grant applications
assessed by the Associate Dean for Research (ADR)
To have earned as Principal Investigator at
and/or the funding body as internationally competitive.
least one major peer-reviewed grant award at a
These should normally be as Principal Investigator,
level agreed by the Associate Dean for
although they may be as Co-Investigator if the ADR
Research (ADR).
assesses your contribution to have been of particular
significance.
As Principal/Corresponding Author to have
published (or had accepted) at least two peer
reviewed journal articles assessed by the
research output monitoring process to be of at
least 2* quality.
By the end of year To have a sustainable research programme
5
having won further grant income at a disciplinespecific level consistent with College targets.
Consideration will also be given to contributions
as co-investigator to large collaborative
research awards. Evidence should also be
presented that competitive grant applications
are being submitted on a regular basis in order
to sustain an active research programme.
As Principal Author to have published (or had accepted) at
least two peer reviewed journal articles assessed by the
research output monitoring process to be of at least 2*
quality. Alternatively, submission of a book manuscript to a
publisher approved by the ADR.
To have a sustainably funded research programme having
obtained research funding to a discipline-specific value,
agreed by the ADR, that is consistent with current College
targets. Evidence should also be presented that competitive
grant applications are being submitted on a regular basis in
order to sustain an active research programme, or that an
equivalent contribution has been made to the College to
provide funds to support research activity (the normal
expectation is that staff will have submitted four
internationally competitive grant applications, of which at
To have published (or had accepted) 4 items of
least two must have been as Principal Investigator, during the
sufficient quality for inclusion in the REF with a
probation period).
GPA of at least 2.5*.
To have published (or had accepted) 4 items (or equivalent)
Supervise a minimum of one PhD student as
of sufficient quality for inclusion in the REF with a GPA of at
principal supervisor and a minimum of one PhD
least 2.5*.
student as co-supervisor
Supervise or Co-Supervise at least one PhD student.
Education
Confirmation of probation requires that staff will have had teaching commitments consistent with College workload models, and that
minimum standards and expectations have been achieved (e.g. assessed work returned within University guideline limits). In addition, staff
will have met the following targets (which map on to the Higher Education Academy Professional Standards Framework headings.
Demonstrates a positive commitment to student learning
By Year 3, Assumed the role of Personal Tutor (or equivalent pastoral role) to at least the minimum College standards.
By Year 3, Received good student feedback, in accordance with College benchmarks, with evidence of excellence in some if not all areas.
By Year 5, Sustained good student feedback.
Demonstrates engagement with and responsiveness to Peer Review, Evaluation and Feedback
By Year 3, received good peer evaluation of teaching and related activity
By Year 5, demonstrated external impact of teaching related activity (e.g. as external examiner, speaker at national education conferences
or external teaching development funding)
Demonstrates commitment to and engagement in Teaching, Learning and Curriculum Development
By Year 3, Developed learning and assessment materials, including technology enhanced materials, to an excellent standard
By Year 5, Made a demonstrable contribution to pedagogical practice at subject or college level, including academic processes of
programme design and review
By Year 5, Engaged with Quality Assurance and Enhancement processes and (where appropriate) external accreditation processes
Education
Demonstrates integration of Teaching, Scholarship and Research
By Year 3, use of own research and scholarship in teaching and student learning
By Year 5, evidenced integration of own and others’ research in teaching and student learning
Demonstrates personal commitment to academic and professional development
By Year 3, Gained at least Fellowship status of the Higher Education Academy
By Year 5, Demonstrated evidence of own professional development related to the student learning experience and/or institutional policies
and initiatives, consistent with HEA Professional Standards (e.g. through relevant positions of responsibility, attending and delivering
courses and workshops)
Demonstrates Academic Leadership and Management
By Year 3, Successfully undertaken module leader/convenor role (or equivalent level of responsibility)
By Year 3, evidenced significant contribution to one of the key education metrics (e.g. Student Employability) as prioritised by Academic
Lead/Associate Dean of Education
By Year 5, evidenced contribution to University and College strategies relevant to Education (including international student experience and
student recruitment)
Impact & Internationalisation
By the end of year Presentation of at least two pieces of work at an international conference where poster or paper submission is subject
3
to peer review, or to have received invitations to present research work.
To have taken part in at least one public engagement related to your research at local or national level.
To provide evidence of specific activities that support the University's Internationalisation Strategy, either through
partnership engagement, promoting study abroad objectives and/or international recruitment, participation in the
International Exeter Summer school or similar in conjunction with the International Office.
By the end of year To have taken part in at least two further public engagements related to your work. Where possible, be able to
5
evidence the relationship between your research and the impact this has had in the public domain.
To engage with a collaborative research partnership with an International Academic Institution recognised as being of
high quality and in the strategic interests of the University.
Invited/Offered presentation of at least two additional pieces of work developed at the University of Exeter at an
academic conference of international standing.
Other Significant Contributions to the University
By the end of year To perform effectively in a range of leadership/ management duties as defined by the College.
5
Where there are opportunities for this activity in the particular unit, to act as a mentor for research fellows/junior
colleagues having undertaken appropriate training for this role.
Name:
………………………………………………….
College:
………………………………………………….
*I confirm that I wish to remain on my existing PDP targets and can confirm the discipline-specific
value of the research targets remain as specified below:
Agreed 3 year research targets:
Agreed 5 year research targets:
*I wish to transfer to the revised PDP targets. I have discussed this decision and the targets with
my Academic Lead. I understand that there will be no change to the 3 and 5 year PDP target
dates and that consideration will be given to work already completed. I can confirm the disciplinespecific value of the research targets are agreed as specified below:
Agreed 3 year research targets:
Agreed 5 year research targets:
Signed: ……………………………………………….
Date: ………………………
(Employee)
Signed: ……………………………………………….
Date: ………………………
(Academic Lead)
Signed: ……………………………………………….
Date: ………………………
(Dean Of College)
* Please indicate which option you wish then return the fully signed form to your HR Business
Partner
Name:
………………………………………………….
College:
………………………………………………….
*I confirm that I have discussed my PDP targets with my academic lead and the disciplinespecific value of the research targets are agreed as specified below:
Agreed 3 year research targets:
Agreed 5 year research targets:
Signed: ……………………………………………….
Date: ………………………
(Employee)
Signed: ……………………………………………….
Date: ………………………
(Academic Lead)
Signed: ……………………………………………….
Date: ………………………
(Dean Of College)
* Please indicate which option you wish then return the fully signed form to your HR Business
Partner
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMEN T PROGRAMME TASK AND FINISH GROUP, 24 June 2013
BACKGROUND TO PDP AND CURRENT STATISTICS
1
The Professional Development Programme was introduced in 2002/3 as part of the new HR
Strategy which the University agreed under HEFCE’s Rewarding and Developing Staff
initiative.
2
Prior to this, staff appointed as Lecturers served a three year period of probation. (There
was a shorter period of probation for Lecturers employed on fixed term contracts.)
Probation reports were assessed by the Academic Staff Committee (later the HR
Committee) which met once each term. This arrangement was not considered effective. It
was not unusual for Lecturers to have their period of probation extended after the third year
because the Committee considered that they had not met the required standard but there
was insufficient evidence that performance had been managed effectively which would
justify a dismissal at that stage.
3
The conditions of employment stated that “Recommendations to committees for
confirmation of appointment will be required to address all the appropriate criteria listed.
ACADEMIC STAFF
(a) satisfactorily engaged in the teaching of prescribed courses and the tutorial and supervisory
work assigned to him/her;
(b) satisfactorily engaged in research towards the advancement of his/her subject which will
normally be in the form of published work;
(c) satisfactorily carried out such examination duties as have been required of him/her together
with a fair share of administrative duties;
(d) shown promise by his/her work and enterprise of continuing to develop as a university teacher
and scholar.”
4
Additionally, there was an annual promotion process for progression from Lecturer to
Senior Lecturer conducted by the Academic Staff Committee, with funding for
approximately 30 promotions each year.
5
Under the 2002 HR Strategy (which also introduced higher starting salaries for new
Lecturers),
Junior Lecturers joining the University... will be recruited to point 9 on the academic pay scale and
will be placed on a development programme (a new form of probationary contract) leading to
confirmation of appointment after 5 years. The University will not use the Lecturer A to B
“Progression Bar” for staff appointed on the new probationary contract. Instead, provided satisfactory
progress is being made towards the agreement of objectives, an additional increment will be
awarded after three years in post and a further additional increment on confirmation of appointment
after five years. This will mean that five years after appointment, junior lecturers who have achieved
their agreed objectives will be paid at point 16 on the academic pay scale (cf current expectation of
reaching point 12 in the same period). This combination of measures is intended to reduce turnover
amongst junior academic staff in the period leading up to the next RAE, to ensure that young
academic staff joining the institution are regularly reviewed against objective criteria and are properly
rewarded for their achievements, and to ensure that potential performance problems are identified as
early as possible and are dealt with appropriately. In short, these measures represent a key element
of the strategy to build a “high-performance-high-reward” culture.
6
When the new grading structure was introduced in 2006 as part of the implementation of
the national Framework Agreement at Exeter, the PDP was changed so that staff
automatically progressed to the new grade G and received the title of “Senior Lecturer” on
completion of the PDP.
7
The number of Lecturers on the PDP increased rapidly after its initial introduction in 2002/3,
dropped as the initial cohort progressed to Senior Lecturer and since increased again in
line with the University’s pre-REF recruitment.
•
•
•
•
November 2004: 82
June 2005: 97
November 2006 (ie when the new grading scheme was introduced): 153
October 2007: 193
•
•
•
•
•
•
July 2008: 167
July 2009: 139
July 2010: 150
July 2011: 170
July 2012: 167
June 2013: 196
8
Table 1 shows the current profile of PDP Lectures by College/Discipline and by gender.
9
The PDP targets were reviewed in 2006 and there was a further review in 2010 but this was
never completed.
10
VCEG have indicated that the Task and Finish Group should identify best practice across
the sector to ensure that the revised arrangements are competitive against sector leaders.
HR Directors of Russell Group universities have been requested to provide information
about their probation arrangements for new Lecturers and the outcome of this survey will
be reported to a future meeting of the Group.
Andrew Johnson
Human Resources
June 2013
Table 1: PDP Lecturers at June 2013 by College, Discipline and Gender
Female
College of Engineering, Mathematics & Physical Sciences
College of Humanities
College of Life & Environmental Sciences
College of Social Sciences & International Studies
University of Exeter Business School
University of Exeter Medical School
Male
Total
College Total
Camborne School of Mines
1
3
4
Computing
0
2
2
Engineering
0
7
7
Mathematics
1
9
10
Physics
3
8
11
Radiography
1
0
1
Classics and Ancient History
1
2
3
Drama
3
3
6
Modern Languages
3
0
3
English
9
8
17
History
35
7
6
13
Biosciences
42
10
9
19
Geography
6
5
11
Psychology
2
1
3
Sport and Health Sciences
3
5
8
Graduate School of Education
9
3
12
Institute of Arabic & Islamic Studies
4
2
6
Politics
3
6
9
Sociology, Philosophy & Anthropology
5
2
7
Strategy & Security Institute
1
0
1
The Law School
5
4
9
Accounting
2
5
7
Centre for Finance & Investment (XFI)
1
2
3
Economics
3
4
7
Management
2
3
5
Organisation Studies
3
1
4
26
3
5
8
8
91
105
196
196
41
44
To: Professor Steve Rippon
Chair, Professional Development Programme Review Task and Finish Group
Cc: Andrew Johnson, HR
June 2013
Dear Professor Rippon,
The University and College Union (UCU) at Exeter welcomes the opportunity to
comment on the PDP system. We understand that the Professional Development
Programme Task and Finish Group will examine the strengths and weaknesses of the
PDP system for E&R staff, targets, and processes. We note that the Terms of Reference
do not explicitly invite the Group to consider the overall model of probation and
professional development for academics, so our recommendations are (with one
exception) framed within this constraint of improvement rather than reform. We do,
however, urge a more thorough reconsideration, and will be happy to elaborate if invited.
Ensuring the PDP system is fit for purpose is of vital importance in maintaining high
standards of teaching and research, providing a respectful and nurturing environment for
staff, and enhancing the overall standing of the university.
The review of the PDP system is long overdue. The 2012 Staff Survey T&S Group
Report (pg. 11) identified significant concerns in commenting:
Some junior academic staff on the 5-year probation programme (PDP) (longer
than at other universities) report finding the process very stressful, particularly
when the completion of the probationary period is not managed well, or if it
involves unclear and inconsistent target criteria. This can leave staff feeling
isolated and uncertain about their future. Some expressed the view that the
institution is fundamentally exploitative of younger staff members.
Based on the experiences of members, the UCU at Exeter has expressed concerns about
the PDP system for a number of years. Those worries have extended beyond the final
Year 5 outcomes for individual staff’s probation. Deficiencies with the past and the
current versions of the PDP have negatively affected staff morale and well being,
academic cultures, and the overall university workplace environment.
In addition, there is extensive anecdotal evidence that uncertainty about the application
of the PDP, combined with the 5-year probationary period, led a significant number of
new staff to leave Exeter before the end of their probation, even though they were highquality staff who would not, in practice, have had any problem in achieving the targets.
We presume that the university has been monitoring this impact through its staff-leaver
surveys, but we have not seen any information. Given the very high costs to the
university of recruiting new staff to replace such leavers, this would be a very important
impact of the PDP scheme which should be central to any review.
Assessment
With this in mind, the UCU at Exeter offers the following comments about the current
PDP system:
1
1. Confusing Evaluation Procedures: A central problem with the current system relates
to the procedures for evaluating whether staff have reached the specified stream
targets. The relevant background for this point is the review of the former PDP
provisions that took place in 2010/11. At the time, new criteria were forwarded
by management that required staff to meet a large number of specific targets.
This represented a shift away from the “balanced scorecard” approach to
evaluating performance. In response to concerns raised by the UCU and others,
management agreed to maintain a “balanced scorecard” approach. Frequent
references to it are made to within PDP discussions today. And yet, the
employment information for staff makes no reference to this scorecard
approach 1 – and certainly provides no details that would help staff understand
how it might work. Instead the formal guidance to staff indicates standards for
minimum requirements. As a result of this disjuncture between formal guidance
and general practice, both senior staff within disciplines and junior who are in
PDP face basic uncertainties in knowing what ‘meeting the targets’ means.
2. Obscured Discretion: In this situation, the UCU understands College Deans and
DVCs exercise considerable discretion about when, how, and if a scorecard
approach is used. In some cases, for instance, senior staff have been told they
can only put others up for early promotion if “all the boxes have been ticked”
whereas the “balanced scorecard” comes in at five years. This has not been the
practice on other occasions. Then there is the additional complication of what
happens if the PDP targets are not met within the allotted time period. Again
the procedures and expectations for this are unclear and, on the basis of previous
experiences of the UCU, subject to varied treatment guided by indiscernible
rationales.
3. Unclear and Unrealistic Targets: Many of the current listed targets need revision.
The target that received most sustained criticism from academic staff is one
indicating that at the fifth year those on PDP should have secured research
funding at a level consistent with their College’s FTE income target. This is
neither realistic nor equitable. For many reasons and across varied disciplines,
the pool of money available to junior scholars is shrinking and funding agencies
have made it clear that, while all funded research will be of top quality, not all top
quality research will receive funding -- there is simply not enough money for that.
This target also places an exceptional burden on junior staff, one that exceeds
what is expected from senior staff.
Reflecting the discretionary manner in which criteria are evaluated, UCU
experience suggests that it is only on some occasions that the target for income is
treated as a requirement. When this is done it diminishes the regard given to
other forms of contribution to the university – whether that relates to
publications or teaching. Whether or not this is done, uncertainty about that
standing of this target leaves many probationary staff fearful that their contracts
will not be renewed after five years. We have recommended below that a research
At
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/staff/employment/academicroles/youteachandresearch/lecturer/professionalde
velopmentprogrammepdp/
1
2
income target should be replaced with a target based on the quality and quantity
of grant submissions made.
Other targets need revision as well. It is unclear what ‘Take part in requisite
design, review and QA processes’ means in practice. Apparently this includes
undertaking PCAP/ASPIRE training, though this is not obvious from the
wording. Likewise the target ‘Make a significant contribution to outreach
activities at a level consistent with the College's Business Plan targets’ also makes
unclear expectations.
Recommendations
Based on this assessment of the deficiencies with the current approach, the UCU
recommends the following:
1. Staff across Colleges should be able to complete their PDP on a “balanced scorecard”
basis. This policy should be formally stated and basic parameters and expectations
should be described. Those parameters should include utilising a scorecard approach
throughout the 5 year period – in other words, staff should be able to complete the PDP
early on this basis.
2. The UCU recognises that when operating with such a “balanced scorecard” approach
PDP decisions cannot be reduced to a box ticking exercise. What is therefore imperative
is to ensure robust and responsive process of discussion between PDP staff, senior
discipline academic staff, and College level management. To adopt a phrase used by the
outgoing Registrar, there should be ‘no surprises’ at the end of the PDP process. At
minimum, PDP individuals should receive yearly updates (more frequently if needed)
regarding their progression. Heads of Disciplines and College Deans should provide
written feedback about what target areas need improvement and outline general
expectations about what kind of activities would be needed for staff to progress; where
staff performance is entirely in line with PDP completion, this should be stated explicitly,
so that staff receive the required reassurance. What, if any, role (now mentoring-only)
ALs should play in informing performance should be clear.
3. The university management should provide clarification about the processes for
handling staff with deficiencies in their overall PDP performance. In particular, this
should address the situation of those appointed to the E&R family whose PDP process
reveals weaknesses in research but strong performance in education. How might such
individuals be offered transfer to an E&S contract?
4. New members of staff should have a clear idea of what probation as a process entails
when they sign their contract. They should also have a sense of the process and possible
outcomes in the case they are judged not to have met the targets. To date, many staff
have expended much energy and time seeking clarification about their individual
situation, too often without success. It is the responsibility of management to ensure
junior staff have a reasonable understanding of the expectations for performance, not the
responsibility of junior staff to make sense of unclear targets and confused procedures.
5. The five year probation at Exeter is noticeably longer than that at other comparable
universities. Three years should be sufficient time to assess the performance of junior
staff as part of what we would suggest be retitled as a 'Progression Period'. Post that
period, management can enact 'capability' procedures against non-performing members
of staff.
6. Staff should be evaluated on the basis of their submitted grants, not on the grounds on
whether they actually receive funding. In other words, the grounds should be academic
3
quality (as is the case with publications). Otherwise, in light of current likely future
funding provisions, probation will be tantamount to a lottery. Now that all grant
applications have to be rigorously peer-reviewed and approved by Directors of Research
before submission, the University already has the necessary information to identify
whether staff have made submissions of appropriate quality and quantity.
We look forward to commenting on further work of the T&F Group. Please let us
know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Prof Brian Rappert,
on behalf of UCU Exeter
4