“The quality of the university depends ultimately on the quality of its faculty
the quality of its faculty” (UNC Report on Tenure and (UNC Report on Tenure and Teaching, 1993)
Why look at the RTP process? p
y
 Basic RTP process is over 20 years old
 Last RTP revision initiated in 2002 (Ad Hoc Committee)
 UNCW has evolved in last 10 years
 Higher ranking on various lists
 More doctorate, masters, and graduate certificate programs
 Percentage of graduate students to total enrollment has increased:  1995: 4.6%
 2001: 7.6%
 2010: 10.1%
 New administrative structures (College of Health and Human Services)
 UNCW list of Peer Universities have changed somewhat
 Survey of faculty indicated areas of concern (written comments S
f f
lt i di t d f ( itt t most helpful, major concerns were clarity of process and criteria)
 Members of RTP committees over years have expressed areas of concern (conflicting or ambiguous language, quality of letters, etc.)
Likely process for RTP Revision
 Presentation to Faculty Senate (5/3/2011)
 Referral to standing/ad hoc committees for comment
 Charge to a standing/ad hoc committee to form recommendations into motions for Faculty Senate
 Based on Faculty Senate vote, committee “write” B d F l S
i
“ i ” appropriate language for Faculty Handbook.
 Language for Faculty Handbook voted upon by Faculty Senate
 Various administrative approvals
pp
Primary Interests and Concerns
 Increase clarity regarding expectations and process for RTP decisions
 Increase faculty influence in RTP decisions
I
f
l i fl
i RTP d i i
 Increase input from “in‐discipline” faculty
 Improve existing UNCW RTP system, rather than I
i i UNCW RTP h h replace it completely  Build on improvement made in 2002 RTP revision process
 Make consistent with UNCW Peer and Aspirant Universities
Committee Research
 Review faculty survey results
 Examine UNCW peer and aspirant universities
 Examine non‐flagship universities that ranked high in 2008 (Archibald, R., & Feldman, D. (2008). Graduation rates and accountability: Regressions p
g
49,
)
versus production frontiers. Research in Higher Education. 49, 80‐100.)
 Many members are past or present members of UNCW RTP Committee
 Committee Members: Professors Berkeley, Chang, Evers, Felix, Galbraith, Ogle, Pollard, Swafford, Wray
Recommendation 1
Committee has found that various departments are not consistently following the guidelines currently set in the Faculty Handbook.
the Faculty Handbook
 If out of compliance, departments must revise their guidelines to be consistent with the Faculty Handbook’s criteria and process for RTP.  Deans are responsible for verifying each department’s p
y g
p
compliance.
R
d i 2
Recommendation 2
Some departments at UNCW have formal departmental documents for RTP while other departments do not have a d
f RTP hil h d
d h formal departmental RTP documents
 Each department must develop a RTP document that d t il it i f RTP i th t d
details criteria for RTP in that department.
t
t
 Consistent with UNCW and UNC RTP standards
 Reflects each department’s individual discipline(s)
 Reflects faculty excellence with respect to the current fl
f
l
ll
h
h
strategic goals of the university.
 Reflects “comprehensive university”
 Document must be approved by department faculty and D
b d b d
f
l d Dean  Document must go through periodic assessment and possible revision
Recommendation 3
 Revise Faculty Handbook sections on RTP criteria to reflect UNCW’s current status/ranking as a “Larger Program Masters College and University” (
Program Masters College and University
(Carnegie Classification) institution
 UNCW language states the “teaching effectiveness is the primary criterion for the granting of tenure” p
y
g
g
((FH. II.A.).
)

Define “primary” and “teaching effectiveness”
 Re‐examine section on “Scholarship and Professional Development” (FH. II. B.) 
Provide better definition of scholarship and professional d b
d f
f h l h
d
f
l
development, and how these categories relate to RTP, or consider eliminating section. UNC Policy and mission consistently refers to only three areas, instruction, research, and public service. Recommendation 4
Current policy gives departments the option of requiring peer review for RTP
 External Peer Review must be required for promotion E
l P R i b i d f i to full professor
Recommendation 5 Currently department chairs’ letters for RTP only require recording of senior faculty vote
 Chairs letter must provide:
 Vote of the faculty
 Summary of the senior faculty members’ discussion and their salient points regarding the candidate’s application for RTP.
 At least 5 business days prior to forwarding the application to the Dean, the department chair must notify the senior faculty of the chair’s recommendation and provide a copy of the chair’s letter to the senior faculty
chair
s letter to the senior faculty.  If the senior faculty disagree with chair’s summary of the senior members discussion, then the senior members have the right to take their concern to the Dean
g
Recommendation 6
Currently faculty annual evaluations are not required in RTP packets
 Faculty annual evaluations must be included in the F l l l i
b i l d d i h RTP packets.
Recommendation 7
Currently Faculty Handbook does not have a specific section that clearly outlines roles and responsibilities of RTP participants  A specific section of the Faculty Handbook must outline the roles and responsibilities of participants at each level of the RTP process. These participants include the department’s senior faculty, department chair, dean, the university‐wide RTP committee, provost, and chancellor. Recommendation 8 Currently UNCW only has a university‐wide RTP committee
 The committee recommends that the Faculty Senate Th i
d h h F l S
debate whether UNCW institute College/School based RTP committees in addition to the University wide RTP committees in addition to the University‐wide RTP committee, including delineating the specific functions and responsibilities of the College/School committee compared to the University‐wide committee.